Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Added White Americans under the same logic for including "Palestinians"

The reference is here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Where are the Arameans?

The Aramean people are the indigenous people of Syria/Lebanon (Aram) and Mesopotamia (Aram Naharaim, Paddan-Aram, Tur-Abdin).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.195.23.227 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2010‎ (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The intended purpose of this listing is to provide a survey and overview of various distinct peoples, communities and societies who may be referred to as an indigenous people, even if some other terminology may be in more common use (for example, Native American).

Not every ethnic group article or stub will warrant inclusion in this listing. The term indigenous peoples has a distinct meaning as per the main indigenous peoples article, which is more specific than the general sense of "a people or group considered native to, or originating from, a given place".

The following are criteria suggested as guidelines for determining whether any particular people or group ought to be listed here. These criteria are put forward as an attempt to forestall any need for POV-based inclusion (or exclusion), particularly in cases where the claim to identity as an indigenous people may be contentious, inconsistent or unclear.

• an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either:
  1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or
  2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or
  3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or
  4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

That source should naturally be cited on the relevant page (and perhaps here on the listing, also). Where there is (independent) contention about identifying any particular group as an indigenous people, the contention should be noted in the relevant article along with the cited reference(s) in which this contention appears. See Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some further discussion. --cjllw | TALK 04:16, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

Somalis

I recently took the time to weed out all Somali clans out of the list but i have an objection to the inclusion of the Somali people to this list. In my view we somalis are not an indigenous people. Indigenous people are defined in the main article as “a politically underprivileged group, who share a similar ethnic identity different to the nation in power, and who have been an ethnic entity in the locality before the present ruling nation took over power” (Greller, 1997). Somalis do not fit this description, we have our own country in which we are the overwhelming majority. That is why i took the Somali people of this list.Emperorgrey 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Aymara/Quechua

However much I fear stepping into this discussion I think that it is a bit amusing that the Aymara (and for that matter the Quechua...and the various Kichwa speakers if you want to separate them out) have not made it onto the list or discussion in some form. However much I think this whole discussion is incredibility silly (to the degree that I am completing a PhD on it...which I should be working on now), it surprises me that the group that Bolivia's "first indigenous president" belongs to is not on the list. Indeed the UN Declaration of the rights of Indigenous People party took place in Bolivia at the archaeological site of Tiwanaku with Rigoberta Menchu (who gets to be indigenous according to this list) in attendance along with President Morales. Perhaps this absence stems from the completely laughable and contradictory criteria that an indigenous person must belong to an oppressed minority group within a modern state. Bolivia's indigenous majority and indigenous president, on those terms, makes everyone not indigenous any more. Does self identification win against political and cultural majority? Because indigenous Bolivians sure THINK that they are indigenous and have been feeling pretty good about that lately. According to this list, that probably doesn't matter...unless you are from Tonga.

I am curious: were the Aymara de-listed after Morales was voted in? Politics, politics.

Anyhow, I am loath to debate this so do your research and change what you will. I think lists like this wrongly simplify the fluid nature of cultural identity and allow non-indigenous people to use the concept of indigenousness for their own purposes. Heck I have a phd thesis on Bolivian indigenous archaeology to write. Radiotik (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References for the Inclusion of Palestinians

I've added Palestinians and cited a number of sources for their inclusion. I'll list each sources under the relevant criterion below but before I do I want to address the matter of WP:RS. The guideline says, in part: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I make no claims, pro or con, about the general reliability of the sources I cite for criteria 1, 2, and 4 but I do assert the sources are reliable for the specific context for which I cite them here. Regarding criterion 3, the two sources I cite are books published by well-established, mainstream academic publishers. I cannot say for certain that the books in question have been subjected to "peer review" but I am confident they have been subjected to professional in-house editorial review. Also, the criteria for inclusion are "suggested as guidelines," they are not rigid requirements. I submit that Israel/Palestine and the Encyclopedia of Diasporas satisfy WP:RS and criterion 3.

• Criterion 1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or

United Nations (30 June 1978). The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 5 April 2011.

• Criterion 2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or

Minority Rights Group International (1997). World Directory of Minorities. London, UK: Minority Rights Group International. ISBN 978-18-73194-36-2.

According to their web site, MRGI has "consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights".

• Criterion 3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7.

Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (2005). Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Vol. 2 Diaspora Communities. New York, NY: Springer. ISBN 978-03-06483-21-9. OCLC 315151735.

Alan Dowty's scholarly credentials are discussed in his Wikipedia bio. The Embers and Skoggard don't yet have Wikipedia bios but they are cited numerous times as sources in Wikipedia.

• Criterion 4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

The Local Preparatory Committee of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (Undated). Statement submitted to: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Haifa, Israel: Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Retrieved 6 April 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (June 2006). The Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel: Status, Opportunities and Challenges for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace (PDF). Haifa, Israel: Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel. Retrieved 6 April 2011.

DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a longstanding consensus at Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2#Request_for_Comment:_Palestinian_indigeneity and Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2#Proposal_for_inclusion that there is no consensus to add "Palestinians" to the list, for the reasons listed above. Please don't re-add it without gaining consensus to do so. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion: Dispute with Plot Spoiler

On 5 April 2011, I added Palestinians to the List of Indigenous Peoples of Southwest Asia. Plot Spoiler, six hours later, reverted that and several intermediate edits. On 6 April, I restored the deleted texts and added additional sources. I also left the following message on Plot Spoiler's Talk Page: "... before you again revert my addition of Palestinians to the List of indigenous peoples please explain on the talk page what criteria you feel Palestinans do not meet for inclusion." I also explained on this Talk Page how the references I provided satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of Palestinians. Nevertheless, Plot Spoiler reverted my edits without discussing them on any Talk Page. Plot Spoiler's edit summary simply says, "per longstanding talk page consensus".

I have reviewed this Talk Page and its archives. It's not clear to me that there was any consensus to exclude Palestinians from the list when this was last discussed in 2007. In any case, to quote WP:CCC: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding."

As an alternative to an edit war I will be requesting a Third Opinion. DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed due to the lack of sufficient discussion about the dispute. As stated at the Third Opinion project, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." You are to be commended for taking this matter to dispute resolution rather than prolonging the conflict. If you still feel that you need dispute resolution for this matter, you might want to consider taking it to the content noticeboard or doing a request for comments. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Criteria has been met

I believe the new sources provided meet the criteria outlined and indicate that an entry for Palestinians on this page is appropriate. I should disclose that I tried a number of times to include an entry for Palestinians but voluntarily desisted after the difficulty I met with in trying to do so. The input of longtime editors to this page on this issue, which was given in the past, would be appreciated now. In the last discussion with some of you before giving up, I sensed that some felt the burden of proof may have in fact been met, but there was hesistance because of the edit-warring that tended to take place when Palestinians were listed, and that there was a desire for more unequivocal proof. Could we hear from you all again now in light of the new material provided? Tiamut^talk 19:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To Plot Spoiler: Concerning Consensus

As I wrote above, I have reviewed this Talk Page and its archives. It's not clear to me that there was any consensus to exclude Palestinians from the list when this was last discussed in 2007. Also, here is a longer excerpt from WP:CCC (emphasis added):

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2011

Palestinians are included yet the indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish population is not?

Why are Palestinians included and the Old Yishuv ignored? DionysosElysees (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)talk

Removed lie

I have removed a lie inserted by a self-identified Palestinian Arab from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgandz (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You did not remove any lies, you removed sourced facts and added unsourced text instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I removed sourced lies. How can Arabs be indigenous if Jews lived in Palestine before them? Have you never heard of the Kingdom of Israel? As you can see from that page, there were multiple kingdoms of Israel before Arabs invaded the region. Even if Palestinian Arabs somehow are indigenous, which is logically infeasible, how can Jews not be indigenous? Tgandz (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources show Palestinian are indigenous: Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7. "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.", Peled, Yoav (2007), "Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime", Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8 (2): 603–628, "Israel is the effective sovereign in the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and it has incorporated the indigenous Palestinian population of this area into its control system in two different ways: some as second-class citizens of Israel, but most as subjects devoid of rights living under military rule." The text you added is unsourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered my question: How can Arabs be indigenous to Palestine if Jews lived there before them? Tgandz (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have showed two reliable sources that show that Palestinians are the indigenous people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that the first Kingdom of Israel (1020–931 B.C.), Northern Kingdom of Israel (931–722 B.C.), the Kingdom of Judah (931–586 B.C.), the Hasmonean/Maccabee religious Jewish religious kingdom (140–37 B.C.), the region of Judea, and the Roman province of Judaea never existed? Interesting how Arabs can several centuries later invade Judea in the seventh century A.D. and somehow become indigenous.

Here are the origins for the name of the so-called "Palestinians": H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 334: "In an effort to wipe out all memory of the bond between the Jews and the land, Hadrian changed the name of the province from Iudaea to Syria-Palestina, a name that became common in non-Jewish literature."

This describes how the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs invaded from Mecca and elsewhere in the Arabian peninsula and conquered Judea from the Byzantines (Greek Romans), who in turn had conquered the land from the Jews: Gil, Moshe; Ethel Broido (1997). A History of Palestine. Cambridge University Press, pp. 634–1099. ISBN 978-0-521-59984-9.

Clearly, the references cited by the Arabs on this page are inaccurate and not reliable. If indigenous peoples are the first known inhabitants of a land, then "Palestinian" Arabs are clearly not indigenous to Israel, unless the authors of the cited works are applying to "indigenous" a completely different and non-standard meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgandz (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People source doesn't contradict that Palestinians are indigenous as the Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7 source says: "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.". Your Gil, Moshe; Ethel Broido (1997). A History of Palestine source, is not a quote, but your own commentary about it, so cant comment on it, bring quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"descendants of all the indigenous people"? That means they themselves are not indigenous. If I have some Indian blood in me, that doesn't make me a Native American. Is it so crazy to leave politics off a reference article like this?

We don't list people like Syrians or Jordanians. Mentioning Palestinians is done for politics. Mentioning Bedouins of the Negev is another loaded addition. They aren't really different from other Bedouins, but some people want to hammer in a point that there were Arabs living in present-day Israel.

Duh

No need to mention Jews or Palestinians. The whole Middle East is a bunch of colonial maps hammered out by the French and British. Indigenousness in that region is swampy. Nobody knows what a Babylonian was, or a Canaanite or a Phoenician. Bedouins, sure they're indigenous. Marsh-dwellers... um, ok. But no controversial statements masquerading as scholarly fact.

Adding four references to something, I think, is an admission of guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess. The inclusion of Palestinians and making sure to mention that indigenous Jews are "Pre-Zionist" reeks of politics. Why are Palestinians included...are Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. not indigenous to their regions? Jews are, whether it's politically convenient or not, a Semitic people and also indigenous to the Levant, specifically Israel/Palestine. Why not take out Jews AND Palestinians, since the issue is so hotly contested? 76.99.54.147 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Indigenous peoples by geographic regions into List of indigenous peoples ScottSteiner ✍ 08:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

It is proposed that Indigenous peoples by geographic regions be merged into List of indigenous peoples to eliminate unnecessary duplication of content and significant overlap with the topic of another page. Also, List of indigenous peoples seems more complete and is already organized geographically. DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - good idea per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
• Support Did not even know there was another article. After reading it, its clear that it is best incorporated here. A lot of work perhaps, but it should be done. Tiamut^talk 06:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support to avoid confusion for readers and writers. Quigley (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, same topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Han Chinese as Indigenous?

I am a Pribumi of Indonesia, I can fully understand if my ethnicity is included in this indigenous article, since we were colonized for centuries and have no great empires, but Han Chinese? They are not colonized and have great empires in the past. Please be objective while including ethnicity to be indigenous one. Thank you! 114.59.2.251 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have removed that perverting information. Thank you for your awareness toward that. Calvin Lourdes He ^discussion 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Han Chinese are obviously indigenous to China, since they were the first ones there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmholds (talk • contribs) 07:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and removed (again) Jews - and Han Chinese was already removed ...would be best if people would read the definition of Indigenous pls.Moxy (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(banned user's dictionary def removed - banned users don't get to see their comments visible here per WP:DENY)

Some issues are too complex for a simple dictionary definition to cover it.©Geni 13:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To our disruptive editor please read the following if you have the ability to see the book - that in no way describes Jews as indigenous people. Moxy (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Abraham Malamat; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (1976). A history of the Jewish people. Harvard University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780674397316.

Full-protected

Due to excessive sock puppetry, I have full-protected the article. Users who wish to request an edit will need to use the {{Request edit}} template on this talk page to do so. Sorry, folks, –MuZemike 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this might have to be indefinite.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I echo MuZemike as well. --Bsadowski1 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

Could someone please fix the formatting of the Bahraini people section under List of indigenous peoples#Southwest Asia? It looks like the bolding has not been closed properly. Prioryman (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar...

So — white people are indigenous nowhere? From a different planet? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We just don't know where exactly they're indigenous to, simply put. But I'm not an expert on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012

I request that the following portion of this article be removed from the Southwest Asia subsection of indigenous peoples: "Palestinians – The predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking people inhabiting Israel and the territories nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority." It is historically inaccurate to define Palestinian Arabs as being an indigenous people. While Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, they are not indigenous to the Levant, where Israel, Lebanon, and Syria are located. The advent of Islam in the 7th century CE resulted in the Arab expansion out of Arabia and into the Levant, Mesopotamia, North Africa, and other parts of South and Southwest Asia. Equating Palestinian Arab identity to that of ancient Canaanites or ancient Egyptians (as opposed to modern Arab Egyptians) is not based on fact but rather a political agenda. Please remove the quoted portion above to preserve the accuracy and integrity of this article on indigenous peoples. Thank you. Senator86 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Shouldn't the Old Yishuv be listed as an indigenous people of South-West Asia though?

DionysosElysees (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited support the inclusion of Palestinians here. Can you explain why those sources should be disregarded in favor of your unsourced opinions? please read WP:V before responding. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the definition of Indigenous peoples can be elusive. The United Nations has never adopted a single definition, and generally recommends self-definition. The most commonly used analysis is the 1982 report of U.N. Special Rapporteur, José Martínez Cobo, which specifies that:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system."

The "non-dominant" aspect has been a subject of much discussion. However (at least according to the U.N.), the general rule of thumb has been self-definition. In other words, especially in consideration of the worldwide incentive of colonial/settler cultures to dismiss or deny indigenous identity of the peoples inhabiting the regions of their settlement, it is very important to allow indigenous peoples to define themselves, as long as the very basic elements of understanding agreed upon by collective worldwide indigenous understanding exist. The description on the IFLA site may also be of use. I hope this helps! Mahalo, --Laualoha 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: There appears to be a lack of consensus for this change. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to know a little bit more about which of the sources citing Palestinians that actually apply one of the International definitions and are not just applying the commonsensical sense of "indigenous" as "endogenous". The 1978 UN reference does not apply the contemporary concept of indigeneity that should be the basis for this list - because that concept wasn't developed at that point. I am somewhat skeptical that all of the other sources support the definition under the international definition as well. Also which organizations of indigenous peoples have representation of Palestinians? Which works about the concept of indigenous peoples include Palestinians as such? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• The Dowty quote quite obviously uses the commonsensical definition and not the international one. The local preparatory committe statement only supports the claim that they want to claim rights as indigenous. (South African Boers have done the same thing) The Peled source also uses the commonsensical definition. The Mossawa advocacy site is not a reliable source and also only amounts to a claim of indigeneity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• The minority rights group today distinguishes between "minorities" and "indigenous" peoples - it is not clear what they consider to be the status of palestinians. It is not useful to take the evidence of the inclusion of palestinians in the 1997 volume as evidence of inclusion as such today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I must admit that I don't know if Palestinians are commonly included in international political definitions of indigenous peoples,and I am willing to learn - but I am reluctant to accept their inclusion on the kind of dubious evidence that has been amassed here. Especially because including them is clearly controversial for a number of reasons, and therefore should be supported by really watertight interpretations of good sources employing the standard definition. And secondly because if we widen the criteria to include also populations that qualify as indigenous under the commonsense definition of "first known inhabitant" then we will have huge problems managing the list and basically all nationalists will be competing to insert their favorite nations. We had this problem with Georgians at the main article for Talk: Indigenous peoples a few weeks ago, and we can foresee the same kinds of problem with populations from Afrikaaners to Han Chinese (and the problems when people start removing recognized Indigenous peoples with historic migration histories will be even worse). So basically I ask this - either demonstrate that Palestinians are generally considered to fall under the definitions of Indigenous peoples in international law (with better sources than the ones used now), or please remove them from the list. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maunus. Please see this source [1]. Does this address your concerns? Tiamut^talk 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also [2] . Note too that an Indigenous Youth Delegation from North America visited Palestine to meet indigenous youth there as reported here, though this is not an RS. Tiamut^talk 07:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really no. It is not clear from either of those sources that it is the international definition that is being employed. The source mentions "indigenous palestinians" - that can mean either the commonsensical definition (indigenous to palestine) or even suggests that not all palestinians are indigenous (just like we couldn't use a mention of "Indigenous Canadians" to)include "Canadians" in the list. The best source would be one that clearly discusses palestinians in relation to definitions of indigeneity - I realize that is a high bar that we wouldn't be able to meet for all indigenous peoples, but I think that the fact that Palestinians are obviously more controversial to include than many other groups justifies setting a higher requirement for sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiamut has brought some important links. They should be reviewed. They show that it is common for politically-motivated nationalist groups to claim to be indigenous. They claim it is a natural fact that they grew out of the land, in the way that an extreme pro-lifer claims that orgasms are signs of new life.

The UN is involved in this game. The "who's on first" game. There is a pervasive conflict called the I-P Conflict. Picking a side is in violation of WP:undue weight. The Israelites being forced out by the Romans (a definitively Imperial power) would make them indigenous. But mentioning the Old Yishuv on this list, as has been mentioned in this thread and before, would show WP:Balance, but it is better to leave off the parties of conflicts in areas of demographic ambiguity like Palestine. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a political game - it is a question of using a definition that is manageable and sticking to it. The international definition of "indigenous" is not about "who was first" - and that is the exact reason that we are using that definition, because that question is meaningless also outside of the Middle East. If any sources refer to Old Yishuv as "an indigenous people" within the definitions of any of the international organizations that work with that concept (not just UN, but ILO, world Bank and several NGOs) then we will include them also. No such sources have been presented so far. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To return to the issue of the Palestinian indigenousness, there are four sources currently employed. None represent a clear UN concensus, nor an academic or International Community definition. This is enough RS to make a statement like, "Palestinians claim indigenous rights" appropriate in WP's voice. But to include the Palestinians unqualified, is to use WP's neutral voice to advocate for the P side of the I-P Conflict. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Iranic peoples in list

(this is not comprehensive but its a start) Kurd (Sorani, Kurmanji, Gorani, Laks, and Zaza) Lur Gilaki Mazandarani Tat Judeo-Tat Talysh Azeri Baloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.199.232 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Internal Contridiction in Article

I'm having trouble making an edit request, so I'mposting this in the regular format, instead. Based on the articles own definition of "indigenous People", Palestinians should not be Included! "....peoples who inhabit a geographic region, with which they have the earliest known historical connection." Many other people have historical connections too their present territory. Something , either in the Article's definition, or in the inclusion of the above-mentioned people needs too change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.134.11 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bedouin vs Tribal Arab

The Southwest Asia section has "Tribal Arabs," which links to Tribes of Arabia, a different thing. This should be changed to Bedouin and include mention of the Negev and other areas. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are the Palestinians on here?

On the first objection earlier up made to the "Palestinians" being on the list a pro-"Palestinian" activist editor claims that "Palestinians" allegedly are descendant from all the indigenous peoples of that land mixed with the invading Arabs who settled the land. According to that logic White Americans should be listed as indigenous to North America because some where around 1/3 have Native American ancestry. The "Palestinians" should be deleted as well for the very existence of the Old Yishuv completely proves the "Palestinian" indigenous myth a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to push this aggressive attack on Palestinians, you will be reported for incivility. Many editors have tried to warn you over the last couple of days, but you appear not to be listening.Oncenawhile (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This not attack an editor put his view about notion of "Palestinian" people.For example former Israeli Arab MK Azmi Bishara [3] said there are no such such nation and many Pan Arabist support it actually--Shrike (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no attack. I'm clearly pointing a campaign to create a fictitious history. Why aren't Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emiritis, etc. listed as indigenous peoples? There is clearly an overly pro-"Palestinian" bias that is going to the point of creating a completely false history. Notice how I added the Old Yishuv NOT Israelis as an indigenous people? I think the fact that you're dedicated to trolling articles as to cover up numerous massacres consolidating in a genocide is something far worse that should be investigated.

DionysosElysees (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are white people not native to anywhere?

Face it. Norwegians are native to Norway. Albanians are native to Albania. Greeks are native to Greece. Etc. Why is saying this so taboo? 71.212.230.89 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Being native to a place and being an indigenous people are two different things. Please read the inclusion criteria and the article on indigenous peoples. Everyone is native to somewhere - that is why we don't have a list of Native groups. Not everyone is a member of an indigenous people. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not Irish people

Irish people are the indigenous people of Northern Ireland (UK) as well as The Republic of Ireland. They were present pre-colonisation. In NI they are also surrounded by a dominant colonising culture. Can somebody please explain the dubious methods of inclusion that seem to exclude them (and indeed some others I can think of)(Stpaul (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)).

If you read the discussions above and the inclusion criteria of the list I think you will find the answer to your question.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussions and can see no reason for non inclusion of Irish people. I will include them unless there are objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read them again. The Irish, like all other ethnic groups who have their own nation state, do not fall under the international definition of indigenous peoples. It could be argued that they are an indigenous group in Northern Ireland, but I have never seen that claim being made. You would have to support the inclusion with a very good source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hebrews/Israelites be on here?

Forgive me, I'm new at this. But I think the various Jewish groups from the diaspora who have been shown to have substantial genetic ties to the Levant (i.e. European and Middle Eastern Jews) should be included under this. I really don't care for the politics surrounding this issue.

Edit: Actually never mind, this distinction between "native" and "indigenous" is confusing the hell out of me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildoer187 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I had to remove those additions because they were unsourced, and because they applied the commonsense definition of "indigenous" which for reasons stated in the FAQ is not the one we use here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are Kurds and "Bahrainis" listed but not other Iranic peoples?

Kurds do not even have a direct lineage on their language, which is a mix of Parthian dialects infused with other languages.

where as the Persians can trace modern Persian directly to the Old Persian spoken by Cyrus.

why are they not indigenous, but Kurds, Bahrainis and even Palestinians are ?

what a joke this website is, laughable.

--99.231.215.49 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the definition of "indigenous people" which has nothing to do with lineage. Iranian Persian is the majority culture of Iran and is therefore not an indigenous people even though they are native to that territory. Also your theory of Kurdish as a mixed langauge is laughable - come back when you have basic knowledge of linguistics, history and culture.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please expand the definition of indigenous peoples

the idea that Han Chinese/Japanese/Korean people, ethnic Scandinavians, Russians, etc etc, are not indigenous is incredibly offensive.

I understand that this article is working under a very limited (and in my view ignorant) definition of the word indigenous and I propose that it change in order to include majority groups that are indigenous.

--Savakk (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The definition is the result of an RfC a couple of months ago that can be seen in the archive. You will have to file another RfC, preferably with some new arguments. That you're offended by the standard definition used by internaitonal organizations isn't a valid argument. Note that the issue is that there is a difference between "an indigenous people" and "a people that is indigenous to some place" (which is all peoples) - it makes no sense to have a list of the latter because it would just be a list of all ethnic groups. All ethnic groups are indigenous to somewhere, but they are not all indigenous peoples. Ignorant is who ignorant does. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove fictional people

Please remove the fictitious "Palestinian people" from this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.65.46.71 (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Revised References for the Inclusion of Palestinians

I've added Palestinians and cited a number of sources for their inclusion. I'll list each sources under the relevant criterion below but before I do I want to address the matter of WP:RS. The guideline says, in part: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I make no claims, pro or con, about the general reliability of the sources I cite for criteria 1, 2, and 4 but I do assert the sources are reliable for the specific context for which I cite them here. Regarding criterion 3, the two sources I cite are books published by well-established, mainstream academic publishers. I cannot say for certain that the books in question have been subjected to "peer review" but I am confident they have been subjected to professional in-house editorial review. Also, the criteria for inclusion are "suggested as guidelines," they are not rigid requirements. I submit that Israel/Palestine and the Encyclopedia of Diasporas satisfy WP:RS and criterion 3.

• Criterion 1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or

United Nations (30 June 1978), The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I, New York: United Nations, retrieved 5 April 2011

• Criterion 2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or

Minority Rights Group International (1997), World Directory of Minorities, London, UK: Minority Rights Group International, ISBN 978-18-73194-36-2

According to their web site, MRGI has "consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights".

• Criterion 3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

Farsoun, Samih K. (2005), "Palestinian Diasporas", in Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (eds.), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, vol. 2, New York, NY: Springer, ISBN 978-03-06483-21-9, OCLC 315151735, The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.

Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 4 (2): 491–539

Peled, Yoav (2007), "Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8 (2): 603–628, Israel is the effective sovereign in the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and it has incorporated the indigenous Palestinian population of this area into its control system in two different ways: some as second-class citizens of Israel, but most as subjects devoid of rights living under military rule.

Alan Dowty's scholarly credentials are discussed in his Wikipedia bio. The Embers and Skoggard don't yet have Wikipedia bios but they are cited numerous times as sources in Wikipedia. The two journal articles are both peer-reviewed and from Theoretical Inquiries in Law.

• Criterion 4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

The Local Preparatory Committee of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (Undated), Statement submitted to: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Haifa, Israel: Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Palestinians are also an indigenous group entitled to the recognition of their historical claims and the receipt of compensation, as outlined in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (June 2006), The Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel: Status, Opportunities and Challenges for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace (PDF), Haifa, Israel: Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Consisting of those who remained and were internally displaced during the creation of the state and their descendents, Palestinian Arab citizens are an indigenous population to Israel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2011

Edit semi-protected

Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Do it yourself. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor problem

It seems that everything under the South West Asia category has disappeared and I can't bring it back. If there's anybody here who is more proficient with the coding and could fix it, that would be great. However, in order to avoid an edit war, please leave everything in the South West Asia category as it currently stands. Under the parameters of the UN definition of indigenous peoples, Jews and Druze should be included.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Show a source that Jews fall under the UN definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fixing the page and adding 'Jews', as per EvilDoer's Request, to avoid further 'edit-wars'.

SSIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaleakalAri (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I completely understand the need for two more categories, but it will do for now.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's for the same reason that multiple Arab-Speaking groups are listed under there. There are many different kinds of Jews. ari (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not ad any unsourced peoples into the article. I just removed to newly added both unsourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced now.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources are valid. They are genetic studies that show that jewish people originated in the Levant, not that they fall under any of the contemporary international definitions of indigenous peoples. For a statement to be "sourced" the source has to actually support the claim.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish diaspora

Addition of Jewish diaspora - not sure the WP:SYNTHESIS of genetic information says anything about them being indigenous - In fact this should be clear by its title "Jewish diaspora".Moxy (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. And if it did it would not be the definition of indigeneity this list uses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics do prove that they have roots in the Middle East. So in that sense, they are indigenous. However, that definition apparently doesn't apply here.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to replace "Old Yishuv" with just "Jews"

I think this would make more sense because the majority of Jewish groups throughout the diaspora are, in fact, part of the Old Yishuv, but scattered throughout the world. How do you file a request for change?69.248.98.23 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Many Jews are not indigenous people in southwest Asia, but are really foreign to the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That would only apply to Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, and recent converts. Every other Jewish group has been shown to have origins in South West Asia.69.248.98.23 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, many Jews are from Europe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And those Jews largely trace their origins to the Levant, as shown by genetic studies, historical, and linguistic evidence.

Here's my proposal for the change. Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.69.248.98.23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so. Many Jews are foreign in the Levant and therefor they as a whole group can not be claimed to be indigenous in southwest Asia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Only Ethiopian, Indian, and converted Jews have no links to the Levant, although even the first two are debated. The rest are very much indigenous. Is there anyone else here I can talk to?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Jews "are foreign to Levant" is POV. Scientific studies carried out by world leading genetic institutions, (I have posted few as reference), have confirmed the common and Middle Eastern genetic origin of all major Jewish groups.--Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Inclusion of any Jewish group will require a source demonstrating that they are considered an indigenous people under international legislation. All people are "indigenous" to somehwere, that is not what this list includes. Jews have their own nation state and members of the diaspora are not generally classified as indigenous peoples where they live, so inclusion will require very good sources showing the applicability of the international definition. Genetic studies and status as foreign in the levant are irrelevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Proposal to exclude Jews and Palestinians

I sugges we exclude Jews and Palestinians since this is a hotly contested and politicized question that is not obvious and which depends entirely on the authority asked. Including one and excluding the other will be an eternal source of political discussion on the talk page, and inclusion of neither group is currently supported by any high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions. We could include a note in the introduction explaining this decision and using it as an example of why being indigenous is not a matter of objective fact, but of socio-political circumstances.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think this would be the third time we have gone over this in the past year.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Support - We would have to remove 90 percent of the page if we used this definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That does not follow since this proposal has no effect on other groups. The inclusion criteria are already given and any group that does not explicitly have sourcing supporting the inclusion under the definition can and should be removed. This proposal is only regarding jews and palestinians and is about whether these two groups should be included on general principle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that if we apply this definition across the board, then the majority of the groups included do not really belong on this page. So then what are we left with?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing the inclusion criteria here. They are already established by a broad consensus, if you want to challenge those file another RfC such as the one previouslyheld this year at Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Here we are discussing whether to foreclose any further editwards regarding the includability of Jews and palestinians specifically. Also it is not a problem to restrict the article to only cover those groups that specifically meet the criteria, that is an advantage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave it for now. It's not worth getting into an argument over. However, I am curious as to why Bahrani people are included, since they have a state of their own (Bahrain).Evildoer187 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure - I have read criticisms of the "indigenous peoples" concept as applied to all of Asia, where continuous migrations and displacements have made such claims murky and endlessly disputable. The only clear-cut application of this concept might be to the Americas, or possibly to Africa vis-à-vis white people. But then again, the idea behind apartheid Bantustans was that the Bantu-speaking people were ultimately not indigenous to South Africa, so you even see a politicization of indigeniety there. Also, Indonesia disputes allegations from New Guinea separatist groups that, say, Sundanese people are less indigenous to the island than Dani people are. Tibetan-Bhutanese argue that they are indigenous and so have the right to force their dress on and deny citizenship to "illegal immigrant" Nepalese-Bhutanese, who marshal history and law to make their own counterclaims of indigenousness. Since indigenity has been the basis of the ideology of Malay supremacy, it has been disputed by local Chinese and Indians; this too around the world where the status has implications for land redistribution and secessionist movements. So this British National Party-type behavior ("we were here first; get out, foreigner scum") happens all over the world, and the "FAQ item" which asserts that Europeans are disqualified is suspect.

I anticipate that Maunus will respond by saying that none of my above doubts are relevant, since we are talking about certain "high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions". In that case, Maunus should produce exactly which sources he is talking about. Does this page rely primarily on one or two authoritative sources? The presence of that group in the preponderance of reliable sources? A lack of disputability of the claim in outside sources as well? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should exclude both Jews and Palestinians in order to stop endless disputes, but I am suspicious of the idea that "indigenous peoples" is an objective concept that is only or primarily politicized in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shrigley (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not making the claim that the palestinian/jewish case is exceptional except in the degree to which it attracts controversy. Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations. If we want to have a list of indigenous peoples we must have criteria for inclusion that are well defined and sourceable. I personally think the best solution would be to not have such a list because it makes indigeneity look like something that has objective existence, but since many people here love lists I dont think that is a viable solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. If we apply such a narrow definition to indigeneity, it would be an arduous task proving that even half of the groups currently listed should stay. This is why I suggest using the Dictionary.com definition of indigenous: "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to )". Under these parameters, obviously Jews and Palestinians should be included. Also, it would be naive to expect this to stop the disputes, because Palestinians and Jews/Israelis will just attach themselves to Bedouins and Samaritans, respectively.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That definition is nonsensical since all peoples are indigenous to somewhere. It would just be a list of ethnic groups then. Or it would lead to nonsensical conclusions such as calling Cherokee non-indigenous becausde they were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, etc.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree its hard to define as seen at =Tony Simpson; Forest Peoples Programme. Indigenous heritage and self-determination: the cultural and intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. IWGIA. p. 22. ISBN 978-87-984110-3-1.. But that seen no one calls Jews indigenous peoples not even within there community. However - Palestinians have declared they are indigenous - its just not recognized by the international community -Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8.. So thus should not be included. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an objective source, to be honest. Simply because someone refers to themselves indigenous doesn't make it so. Furthermore, many Jewish diaspora people and especially Israelis have in fact considered themselves indigenous. And this is with justice, as cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence has repeatedly shown that Palestinians and Jews are in fact very closely related. Either way, neither are recognized internationally as indigenous peoples, nor do they fit the UN definition of indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Moxy's point was exactly that only Palestinians themselves and their political allies claim status as indigenous, whereas Jews generally do not even claim the status. except in the literal (non-political) sense. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, because the same can be said of Jews and their political allies. I can provide examples if you'd like, but I'd probably end up flooding the talk page if I did. Besides, do you really think they would have put their state in Israel if they didn't believe they had any ties there?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep mixing up the definitions and contradicting yourself, they claim to be indigenous to Israel but they do not claim to fall under the international legal definition of an "indigenous people".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You got it!! they have not "applied" for indigenous recognition - And correct again - they do claim to be the first of the nomadic peoples of the area to culturies the land of Canaan (a point of contention).Moxy (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that Jews have made all of the same claims Palestinians have. As far as I know, neither Palestinians or Jews have made recourse to the international definition of indigenous people to support their claims, for obvious reasons. In most cases, claims of indigeneity are usually employed as a weapon to convince the other side that they have no moral right to be there and that they should leave. But since you accused me of mixing up definitions and contradicting myself, I'll make myself as clear as possible.

The internationally recognized definition of indigenous Nobody from either group (to my knowledge) has made any explicit claim that they are indigenous under this definition. Under this definition, neither can claim indigeneity (Jews also claim Canaanite descent).

The "we're indigenous because we say so" definition of indigenous Both groups have claimed this, in one way or another.

The common sense/dictionary definition of indigenous Ditto. Under this definition, both claims are justified.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If that is your point then your point is wrong. Jews have not claimed status as indigenous people under the UN convention of indigenous peoples rights. Palestinians have. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof for that. In any case, Palestinians are no more indigenous than Jews are.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Moxy posted the source that shows that Palestinians have claimed to fall under the international definition above. Your personal opinion on the matter is not really of any weight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to be rude. Second, it's rather ironic that this petition for excluding Jews and Palestinians was meant to curb the dispute, when in reality it just revived it.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, especially since none of those who actually post here bother to read either the inclusion criteria or the wording of the RfC.I am regretting I filed it, but thats too late now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

And before I forget. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-sham-postcolonial-argument-against-israel/ Like I said, Jews have made the same claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You specifically said that Jews haven't made such a claim. And the blog you provide does not say that they have, but that they could.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I said "to my knowledge". That article came up after a quick Google search. He may not have lobbied for their inclusion, but he did still make the claim.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There is of course a qualitative difference between a Jewish person making a claim on a blog and a Palestinian political body filing for recognition with the UN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Have they succeeded?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Jews and Palestinians should be removed UNLESS there are sources which label one or the other as indigenous under the use of the term in this and the other article. I note that very few of the entries are backed up in this way; however, as these two groups are likely to be the subject of further disagreements in this article, it would be worthwhile to declare that there is no consensus to add them to the article, unless and until that consensus changes (whereas there may be consensus about other groups, even if the sources are lacking). I'd be very opposed though at a declaration that a permanent consensus has been reached about their inclusion which pretends to bind future discussions. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep Jews From what I know it's genetically proven that the Jews came from the midddle east (at least that's what I read about Ashkenazi Jews), and historically we know that the place where they lived and had a kingdom was Israeli (see Kingdom of Israel, so I think the Jews do belong here. If you write "jews indigenous" you will find quite a lot of references.

About Palestinians, from what I know they are not an ethnic group, they are a nationality, which is a different thing. The Arabs living in Israel were not called Palestinians until Britain came into Israel and called the place Palestine (a name originally used by the Romans after some old nation which used to live in Israel simply to piss off the Jews after the revolt).

In fact, the whole reason why the Arabic countries are not one state is colonialists who created countries and gave it old romantic names like Egypt (name after the Egyptians, today an opressed minority called Copts), Syria (after another opressed minority called Assyrians), Jordan (after the river of Jordan)... During the Caliphate times they were all one country.

Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians... those are not ethnicities but nationalities. The ethnicity is Arabs. The origin of the Arabs was in Saudi Arabia (which makes it hard to describe them as indigenous in Israel), from where the Caliphate spread and reached as far as North Africa in the west and Iraq in the east. The Arabs who came to those lands mixed with the local populations. I read a book by Winston Churchill when he was talking about the big immigrations of Arabs from Iraq, Syria and Egypt into Israel, the question is, how many of the Arabs in the area are from those immigrants? When exactly did the Arabs come to Israel? I'm sure it was not before the Jews were expelled by the Romans from Israel. Those things are important when talking about such stuff! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"Keep Jews" is not an option untill someone shows conclusive evidence that they fall under the criteria of the list which noone has been able to do so far. 1. You are wrong about the proposed distinction about ethnicity and nationality - there is no such distinction apart from the one that makes an ethnic group a nationality when it constitutes its own nation state 2. if such a disctinction existed it wouldn't be relevant for this list which is about indigenous peoples. 3. your reason to vote keep for jews is invalid given the current inclusion cirteria fort the list which is not about being original inhabitants of a place, but about being an Indigenous people under international legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ʍaunus, and there aren't any arguments or references to evidence in this comment which is relevant to the question. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment (and provisory Oppose. This is a fuzzy area and no easy solution is available. Denying both Jews and Palestinians 'indigeneity' rests on the dubious principle that, since this is politically contested territory, claims by either party cancel each other out. Because Jewish self-representations do not think in terms of indigeneity, but of reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors, we are, pari passu not to use the word of Palestinians, who have no such self-representation. The logic is, if a definition does not apply to the Jews, then it mustn't apply to the other population of Palestine. That means we are striving for balance by reciprocal exclusion from the topic area in obeisance to political sensitivities, rather than simply looking at the concepts.

Putting it in terms of "reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors" is stretching it, because that is, in fact, where the Jewish diaspora (or Jewish nationhood, at least) originated. I fail to see how Palestinians are "more indigenous" than Jews, or vice versa.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We know the facts are that the diaspora is central to most of Jewish history, that it took place extraterritorial to Palestine. We have substantial bodies of evidence that there is a substantial continuity in the population now called Palestinian, which however has no ethnic or national identity. Of the Palestinians, we admit to the page Bedouin, who form a significant if distinct ethnos, and those who are not Israeli come under under Palestinian identity. We admit Samaritans who are part of the Biblical Jewish world, yet have Palestinian identity. I.e., the text as it stands is saying some Palestinians are indigenous people, as long as they have a sub-identity which separates them from the civic or national identity of a de facto state, or national administration (PNA).

I don't personally agree with the idea that indigeneity has an expiration date, that if you've been away from your historical homeland for long enough, you're no longer indigenous. Afrikaners for instance have been in Africa for centuries now, but nobody in their right mind considers them indigenous to Africa. I would also argue that Palestinians don't have a sub-identity any more than Jews/Israelis do. Further, I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say that Samaritans have a Palestinian identity, because as far as I know, they do not.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the Tibetans, who are as autochthonous and indigenous as the Basques, are missing from the page. Is this because of a political veto, or because no international legislation recognizes their obvious qualifications for such a definition. It is not, I believe, as subjective a definition as Maunus is arguing there. If indigeneity rests on international recognition, then a whole fresh can of worms is opened. That is as subjective a criterion as self-definition, because it rests on the throw-weight of major political powers in the appropriate international bodies. I'd prefer to live with the problem, rather than sweep it under the carpet.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

All above sounds reasonable to me .... just need a ref saying Jews are indigenous - not our place to guess at definitions - all we can do is regurgitate what is out there in reliable sources.Moxy (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean, we must think in parallel terms, on the premise: If Jews, then Palestinians. If not Jews, then neither Palestinians (and vice versa). That will never work. There are two ways out of this. Maunus's proposal to elide both (the despair option), or a two line neutral thumbnail summary of both claims. Palestinian indigeneity and its claims withub Israel's Arabic minority are surveyed in Amal Jamal's recent book Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel:The Politics of Indigeneity, Taylor & Francis, 2011. No comparable book is available for the Jews, because the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population made aliyah, which excludes indigeneity. The generic Jewish claim is a particular one, based on an identity related to cuiltural and ethnic ME roots.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but could you please clarify how making aliyah = non-indigenous? And how does writing a book make claims of indigeneity stronger?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If we need a compromise, that difference and the two claims could be clarified in two short sentences, preferably with a source for each. This is, I am suggesting, a diplomatic solution. I don't believe indigeneity applies to the Jews generically, and I think it does apply to the paleo-Christian community, the paleo-Arabic/fellahin communities and the Jewish Musta'arabim for instance, which hung on as religious minorities, conserving a distinct identity over thousands of years. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Palestinians should be included, if Jews are not. Neither group is more qualified for inclusion than the other. In fact, Palestinian claims of indigeneity are predicated on the idea that Jews are a foreign/colonial presence, with no real roots in Israel/Palestine (which is obviously not true, but still propagated nonetheless). Conversely, Jews claim indigeneity on the basis that they are a diaspora population initially stemming from the indigenous Israelites/Canaanites, and who in turn predate any Arab presence in the region (even though Palestinian and Jewish genetic similarity is largely a result of shared Canaanite/Hebrew roots). Include one and not the other, and it's just open season for more bickering and agitprop, which we all agree is something we would like to prevent.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems odd that Assyrians and Kurds are allowed to stay, since neither category is even sourced at all. We know with about as much certainty that the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians have roots in the Middle East going back thousands of years. The only real reason I can think of for excluding them would be that they have their own nations with their own majorities (Israel and Palestine, respectively), which is absurd criteria if you ask me. However, Kurds have their own Kurdish majority nation as well, but are still included. Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One last thing. To those who are against using a less narrow definition of indigenous on the grounds that it would simply lead to a list of ethnic groups....isn't that what this page already is? Just take a good look at the article and you'll see what I mean. Besides, not every ethnic group would be included in the final list anyway, since Afrikaners, non-Amerindian Americans, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, etc are clearly not indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the article has no sources to show that any of the groups are indigenous under the definition which is supposed to be used. Unless this can be fixed, the article should be deleted or merged with a list of ethnic groups. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support. The criteria for inclusion in this article have been previously defined and agreed upon by consensus. This definition appears in the lead section of the article Indigenous peoples and should also be included in the lead of this article. In this lengthy exchange no-one has presented a reliable source that indicates that either of these groups meet this definition of indigeneity. They should be removed. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See the section below. I'm petitioning to use a more literal definition, because the current one is confusing and neither useful or accurate.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, hardly any of the groups listed are sourced at all. So it makes no sense to exclude Jews, Palestinians, or anyone else on these grounds.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That does not follow. It is not a valid argument to say that because some entries are unsourced all unsourced entries should be tolerated. Policy is that contested material must be sourced or excluded. If you feel that there are unsourced entires that do not meet the criteria then you should remove them. Both Jewish and Palestinian inclusion has been frequently and vociferously contested and thus requires, not just a sourced but a source of the highest weight and quality possible (following the extraordinary claims policy). Other unsourced entries have not so far been contested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One would need exceptionally good sources to assert that it is an exceptional claim to assert that the Palestinian population was not indigenous to Israel/Palestine, in the sense that they are the lineal heirs overwhelmingly of the demographic majority in that country at the time of the imposition of the League of Nations Mandate. The League of Nations mandate, assigned Palestine a Class A mandate, meaning legally that they were regarded as having reached ‘a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. A line of polemic owning much to Joan Peters ' notorious book From Time Immemorial did make the extraordinary claim that the Palestinians were not 'indigenous'. No one takes it seriously. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If that is so then it is highly surprising that no one up untill this point has been able to provide any source that has been generally accepted to show the indigenous status of Palestinians in such a way as to preclude further disputes. (The reason is of course is that not everyone accepts the mandate of league of nations as being the cut-off point before which status as 'indigenous' (in the ordinary sense) is ascertained)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That is phrased in such a way that it precludes any acceptable argument. generally accepted . .in such a way as to preclude further disputes. That condition subordinates RS to an impossible demand. It is impossible to 'preclude further disputes' on any issue regarding ethnicity and especially anything touching on the I/P area because everything is utterly politicized. Give a source, where the obvious (as above) is stated (see the succession of quotations in the lead of Palestinian people, which were bitterly challenged for a long time), and you will get persistent challenges. But wikipedia is supposed to rely on RS.

'Even the United Nations partition plan of November 1947 recognized the Palestinians as a people not only entitled to self-determination but also to genuine recognition as indigenous inhabitants of the land.Amal Jamal Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel Taylor & Francis 2011 pp.48-49

Main indigenous and minority groups: indigenous Palestinians 3.9 million (89%), Christians (most of whom are Palestinians) 200,000 (4.5%), Jews 500,000 (11.4%), Jewish settlers (a subset of Jews) 364,000 (8.2%), Samaritans 400 (.009%)World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine : Overview.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is extremely difficult to find any scholarly support for the view that the Palestinians are not 'indigenous' to Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, what I said is that noone has provided sources that have been considered to be sufficient to establish that palestinians are generally considered to be an indigenous people. There is nothing unreasonable in this. According to the UN all nations are entitled to selfdetermination, not just indigenous groups so the 1947 declaration has no bearings , since the contempoorary concept of an indigenous group did not exist at that point.

On the other hand IWGIA, one of the largest and most well established indigenous rights groups, quite explicitly do not treat "palestinians" as an indigenous group in their treatment of indigenous groups ion Israel and Palestine.[4][5][6][7]. I am in fact not aware of any major indigenous rights group that accepts Palestinians as an indigenous group. Book treatments of indigenous peoples also tend to not include them. And quite frankly I think the reason they don't would quite likely lead to the concept it self being delegitimized entirely in international politics, and the struggles of actual indigenous peoples who share a number of political concerns that are very different from those of the Palestinians would be eclipsed by the Israel/Palestine conflicts to the detriment of the causes of these peoples (exactly as it is happening on this page, in which quibbling over the world's favorite political conflict is overshadowing those peoples who have suffered graver injustices than both Jews and Palestinians for a much longer time). Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you tried to keep dismissive ejaculations like "nonsense" out of our exchange. I have no idea contextually what you specifically intend to dismiss by that.

Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations.

Almost true. There are two forms of representation in these contexts. One is self-representation, the other, recognition of that representation by the prevailing national or political power, or by some supranational body. To say that the former must negotiate its self-representation with the latter before it can gain conceptual legitimacy is dubious.

I have absolutely no problem with your definition to which we are referred, where one reads:-

The other specialized meaning used by international organizations like UNESCO, ILO, WTO, IWGIA and by disciplines such as sociology and anthropology is about ethnic minorities within nation states of another dominant (often colonial)ethnicity

As I understand it, you have dropped the second part, and zeroed in on the first part referring to the definitions as given in international political bodies and institutions, definitions that are subject to the pressures of international politics. You freely allow that Palestinians may tend not to be included because their inclusion might delegitimize the quest of other indigenous groups for recognition of their rights. Well, we are talking of a concept, and if the criterion for inclusion in a concept is political, then you are right. I don't think that way, and I don't believe sociologists or anthropologists do either. There, analytical adequacy to a given or set definition, whatever the political fall-out, determines the case. There is a substantial literature on indigeneity in the Palestinian definition of themselves as 'an ethnic minority within a nation state of another dominant ethnicity.' It is a commonplace of the academic literature on the subject.

it is important to note that the idea of the indigenous group as a key component in analyzing the politics of Palestinians in Israel is not a new trend, as it is a core component of the basic assumptions of the many previous works.' See As’ad Ghanem 'The Victory of Discourse vs. the Retreat of Politics,'in The Middle East Journal,Volume 66, Number 2, Spring 2012 pp. 361-368, p.364 (which contains an extensive bibliography on the issue)

I provided what you requested, i.e., the data from the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, which includes the Palestinians. You don't answer but simply state that the IWGIA only classifies, among the Palestinian population, their Bedouin clans as indigenous, like the Jahalin tribe which is now being relocated to dwell on the Abu Dis rubbish dump. According to IWGIA, Israel refuses to recognize the Negev Bedouin as indigenous, but IWGIA does, despite that. Yet IWGIA Indigenous peoples in Tibet at the same time includes Tibetans. The Tibetan experience is perfectly parallel to that of the Palestinians. So that august body's taxonomy exhibits an idiosyncratic randomness that reflects political fears rather than analytical cogency, and I see no reason why your preference for political authorization over academic analysis is persuasive. To the contrary, where political pushing messes conceptual clarity, I retreat to scholarship, where of course politics plays some part, but peer review tends to spot it on sight, and adjust our categories to fit definitions and evidence, wherever they lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If we are to use scholarship, in place of politics, as the basis for inclusion, then we would have to include Jews too, which you seemed to argue against in one of your comments above. Analytically speaking, Palestinians are no more or less indigenous than Jews/Israelis (except foreign, non-Jewish migrant workers from China and whatnot). Palestinians do not predate the Jews in any meaningful way.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and "Avoid personal attacks": Maunus has breached these rules more than enough times over the course of the past few days. Mind your manners. I will take the appropriate action necessary if you do not your attitude in here does not improve.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani - are you just making it up as you go? World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples does mention Palestinians, but only as a MINORITY, not as indigenous. They are listed FOUR TIMES, but

• here] as a minority in Syria
• here as a minority in Lebanon
• here as a minority in Israel that shares this status with the Negev Bedouins
• here as a minority in Jordan

On the other hand Tibetans are NOT just like Palestinians, having had their own Tibetan Empire about the time of the Islamic conquests. I don't recall there ever having been a Filistin Empire. Tibetans were ruled by proxy from China, and eventually re-occupied by the Communist Chinese. If the situation was similar for the Filistin, they would have been re-occupied by the Turkish Republic c.1930s has the British Empire collapsed completely during the Great Depression, or in the 1940s had Germany been victorious in the Second World War.Crock81 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Crock81, those are good references, which would tend to support the case for including the Palestinians. Being a minority is usually a characteristic found in the prevailing definitions of indigenous peoples, though not a prerequisite.

I have to admit to not being well-versed in the history of the ME, but aren't the Jews and Arabs basically derived from a group of people having essentially the same genetic pool? That in turn renders genetics data of secondary importance to the historical disposition.

Furthermore, isn't the region referred to as the land of Canaan referred to as such because there were a number of comparatively small kingdoms and other polities, including your preferred referent of "Filistin", and that over the course of history those small kingdoms and polities were subjugated by empires or simply conquered and ceased to exist?--Ubikwit (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Not quite. While Palestinians are certainly a minority in every country except their own (although some would find this questionable considering they are themselves Arab-Muslim in a region that is predominantly Arab-Muslim), the same is true for Jews, who can legitimately be considered a minority in the context of the greater Middle East. So to include Palestinians, it follows that we would have to include Jews as well. Personally speaking, I think nationhood is irrelevant since the Kurds are included and they also have a country.

And in terms of etymology, the meaning of Canaan is still uncertain. Some have argued that it means "lowlands" in contrast to "highlands". Others have postulated that it means "Land of Purple".Evildoer187 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit This is a list of Indigenous peoples not minorities, so the 'references' do not apply. Being a minority refugee population has no bearing on their indigenous identity.

Genetics do not come into the identification of indigenousness.

Filistin is a term that appears only in Arabic, and is extant only from the Islamic conquest of the 7th century CE, therefore separated from the city-states of the Plishtimby well over a millennium without any record of continuity of the demographic. No one suggests that the original Plishtim were in any way associated with the Arabs.

Canaan was initially known from the story of Abraham's life in the Torah, and their later defeat by the Israelites.Crock81 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring everything else (which I've argued in the section below), I have to agree with Maunus here. Palestinians do not fit the international definition any more than Jews do.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That would mean something if you had any other evidence than your personal opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the definition: "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of". So as far as that definition goes, Jews and Palestinians are in the same boat. They both inhabited the area prior to colonization (you can check the Wiki articles on them if you want proof), and yet neither are ethnic or cultural minorities in their respective territories/nations. Given everything you've stated above, you know this, but insist on being combative for no apparent reason.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you have wasted enough of my time with your blather at this point. Get sources to support your views or stop wasting our time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I hardly think that "Jews" qualify as an indigenous group of SW Asia. The overwhelming majority of Jews in 'Eretz Israel' (itself a tendentious title)immigrated there (or are descended from those who did so)in the 1930s to 1980s. The majority of Arabs in 'Palestine' (itself a tendentious title) immigrated there (or are descended from those who did so) in the 1920s to 1940s. The first Zionists of the late 19th century found an almost desolate land. By the same token - why would Palestinians NOT be listed as indigenous to SW Asia. Because they are Arabs, therefore indigenous only to the Arabian peninsula. There is no "Palestinian" (or "Iraqi", or "Syrian" etc) nation in its own right. It takes more than just reaction to an enemy to form a nation. Clearly, they are descended of those who have lived there for centuries - and as the region has been inhabited since the Neolithic era, and Palestinians have a certain ancestry in these peoples - they are certainly indigenous to the region. Impossible. The region has undergone so many ethnic swaps (the Assyrians had this as a central policy). Eretz Israel has racist implications - it means 'the land of Israel' and includes (if not precisely defined) land well beyond the borders of the present state. Palestine has racist implications - it means the Jews alone among the nations are not allowed to have a state of their own, and that the single Jewish state in the world must be given up to a nation (the Arab nation) that already has 22 states. The term is used by those who would have an Israeli state on lands not regarded by any world body as integral to the state of Israel as defined before the '67 war. That is to say, by varying definitions, an Israel including Egypt's Sinai, parts of Jordan, southern Lebanon - and as some would have it, up to the Euphrates River. It is anything but a neutral term and has no place in this listing. 'Free Palestine' is code for 'Kill the Jews'. Anti-Zionism, the portrayal of Jews as thieves, is modern justification for murdering them. It is the new Nazism.

Last edited at 13:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)