Wikipedia

Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 4

< Talk:List of Indigenous peoples
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Evildoer187 in topic Israelis and Palestinian
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

RfC: Counter proposal in favor of including Jews and Palestinians, and applying a different definition of "indigenous"

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

I propose that we use a less narrow and more literal definition of indigenous for this article. The current one is nonsensical because it rests on the idea that indigeneity evaporates once an ethnic group achieves a nation state and majority status. I mean would you argue that a Persian or a Malay who has lived in their respective territories since the beginning is not indigenous just because they have a flag and international recognition? Of course not, but that's what this article seems to convey. My suggestion is to include all of the original peoples of a given continent or sub-continent. I also don't agree that this would simply result in "redundancy" or a repeat of the "Ethnic groups" list, as it would still exclude all post-colonial groups like the Afrikaners, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, non-Amerindian Americans, Cajuns, and so on.

Under the definition I just proposed, obviously Jews and Palestinians would have to be included, as both ethnic groups/nationalities stemmed from, and are a continuation of, the original inhabitants of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea as I think the common meaning of indigenous will be what readers will tend to understand, and not understand that it's being used in a special sense. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
What sources would you base inclusion on? Since most sources that deal with "indigenous peoples" use the internaitonal legal definition. Also see this RfC from 10 months ago Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Those arguments will have to be addressed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So the definition is one which is used by international organizations. That's only a good definition if sources can be found which can label groups as indigenous or otherwise based upon this definition. At the moment, this article is very poorly sourced, so it's not surprising that readers don't understand how the term is meant and why some groups are listed and others (e.g. Jews, Palestinians) are not. True, most of the entries have not been contested, but if more of them were backed up, it would be more apparent what the criteria for inclusion were. Otherwise, this issue will keep on coming up, with discussions which are completely irrelevant to the main question: can sources be provided to show that this group has been categorized as indigenous by relevant international organizations. So until such sources can be found, I think it would be better to merge this article with a list of ethnic groups or the indigenous peoples article. But there is definitely a problem with editors continually challenging the scope of this and the other article, and I'm not completely sure how to stop this. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that can be used as sources for status as indigenous peoples under the international definition. There is in fact a very large body of academic literature on the subject. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So source them then. Otherwise, it will continue to confuse people and attract the kind of bickering we've seen an endless amount of on this page and others pertaining to it. I get that this is politically contested territory, but we have to look at facts here.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no reason or motivation to do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I just gave you reasons. You argued that sources exist which can be applied to the indigenous peoples currently listed. So why not just do it, and end the debate? Your attitude here is not particularly helpful.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Likewise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Evidently, you could also add 'evasiveness' to that.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, I don't work for you, I don't have to do anything at all here unless I choose to. If you want to challenge particular entries add a "citation needed" tag and I'll decide whether to source it or remove it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You will decide? As far as I can tell, you do not own this page, nor are you any more of an authority here than myself. Please get off your high horse.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are being obtuse. Yes, I will decide what I do with my time - I do not take orders or advice from you. And frankly I don't think I will spend more time talking to you, either since you are incapable of making a rational argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so." You'd be wise to take your own advice here. I have addressed all of the points made on this page as clearly and pragmatically as humanly possible. Since you've made it abundantly clear that you don't agree, I will simply wait for someone else to chime in.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I will edit the article in the manner that I have envisioned, and see what everyone thinks.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is commenting here anymore, so what now?Evildoer187 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing. For the record, I concur with Maunus's remarks. You have not made a case for your proposal, so it's in dead water.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. This section itself IS my case. It's not my fault that not enough people agreed with me.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I might need some help, as I'm only proficient with what I am (South West Asian).Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointless to keep talking if no reference is provided.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice added under Southwest Asia

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

It reads as follows: "Note: Even though Palestinians and the various groups of the Jewish diaspora are indigenous in the literal sense of the word, neither group falls under the scope of the international definition of "indigenous peoples"." It is meant as an explanation as to why neither Jews or Palestinians are included as indigenous South West Asian peoples (although it seems that someone else went to the liberty of including Israelites and Arabians anyway), and thus put a stop to the confusion, outrage, and edit warring that said exclusion has lead to in the past.

Although both the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians undeniably have roots in the Levant, neither group is indigenous under the parameters of the UN definition, as both groups already have their own ethnic majority state. Please do not attempt to argue otherwise, because it's a dead horse and it's probably best that we do not go down that path again.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(a)Your edit violates WP:NOR. (b) It flies in the face of the ongoing argument on the talk page (c) and since this is under discussion, you are not allowed to assert as given in the article, what is still considered dubious on the talk page. Read the rules.
Where is your source for the edit summary that 'Palestinians are not indigenous under international law.
Where is your source for the statement that 'Palestinians already have their own ethnic majority state'?Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A. Nothing in my edit constitutes original research. It may not be sourced, but it's by no means original. B. In what way? C. Fair enough. D. Read the definition at the top of the page. Palestinians do not apply. E. It was just recognized a few days ago. Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people. Evildoer187 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In short you can't supply the information I requested, and blather as a substitution. 'Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people' is a meaningless, (and unsourced) opinion. I am interested in sources, not your opinion.
I am not trying to push the Palestinian agenda. I don't, as opposed to some here, edit in a point of view under challenge. I note that there can be a source-backed claim for the Palestinians as 'indigenous', but none, as far as I can see, for the Jewish population of Israel, which is a nation predominantly of settler immigrants. The only productive difference here is between Maunus and myself. He takes the narrow reading of indigenous per international organizations that deal with the question, I take a larger one, because the concepts is notoriously labile, and results from political interests (the UN distinction urges some groups to define themselves as 'indigenous' in order to acquire international legislative protection. All bureaucratic definitions are however fuzzy. See Will Kymlicka, 'The internationalization of minority rights,' in Sujit Choudhry (ed)Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration Or Accommodation?, Oxford University Press, 2008 pp.111-140, esp pp.120ff.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm going to ask that you refrain from WP:INSULTS and debate respectfully.

Second, you clearly did not read the definition: "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". This is the definition we are using here, and so long as the Palestinians have an internationally recognized state, they are not an indigenous people under international law. It's the same reason Persians, Turks, Jews, and Syrians are not included.

DEFINITION The definition used here "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" can't be right because that would make Thais for example non-indigenous to their own country! This definition also assumes that indigenous populations will never regain their lands, but the ongoing indigenous conflicts world-wide and success of some suggest this not to be the case.
There is also the issue with the List of extinct peoples, i.e. those populations which were either destroyed or assimilated by the new arrivals which then re-settled the forcibly vacated lands. The process of conquest repeated many thousands of times around the globe over several thousand years of archaeologically recorded history, and there is no option than to accept the claims of the conquerors as being indigenous settlers, settlement being the best proof of possession. The question is who can substantiate the claim of settlement and which of the conquerors can enforce their claim. The last to claim the lands under question as occupied territories were the Royal Jordan Army after ceasing it from the British Administration following its post-Mandate withdrawal. Israel, in

Third, Jews are an ethnic group with roots in the Levant that go back thousands of years. It is true that they are also non-indigenous under the UN definition, seeing as they have a state now, but your insinuation that modern Jews do not have origins in, or historical ties to, the Levant is flat out wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

To make an inference from a definition on the page, and using that inference, to edit in new material, is WP:OR. We go by sources,not by editors' personal deductions. Your thinking is so totally irrational, and therefore it's pointless to reply. On the one hand, Palestinians (those in Israel?) have an internationally recognized state and therefore are not indigenous (part of that 'state' is under military occupation and has no borders, one of the keynote definitions of a state). On the other hand Jews have a state in Israel, and are at the same time 'indigenous' (and are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state, Israel, that they are a apart of!!!!!!!!'). With that aliceinwonderland logic, I doubt you could fight your way out of a paper bag. Try it elsewhere, not on wikipedia. You are editing for a POV. Since you refuse to provide sources for the inclusion of Jews that fits the above definition 'indigenous to a territory prior to be incorporated into a nation state etc', you are, by logic, obliged to remove any material that goes in the face of that definition, including that by your new ally, crock. You revert my edits, and not his. He maintains the Jews are indigenous, you maintain the Palestinians are not. Ergo, POV-pushing, without sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say Jews were indigenous under international law. I merely asserted that Palestinians weren't either. Please don't put words in my mouth. Under the literal definition that I proposed earlier (i.e. the dictionary definition), I surmised that Jews and Palestinians could (and frankly should) be considered indigenous. As for Crock, I initially deleted his additions (as his first source seemed Biblical in nature, although he maintains it isn't), but I wanted to give him a chance to defend himself, and his sources, in here first. I have not deleted any of your edits, but merely reverted your deletions of my own.

In addition to the assumptions you've just made about me on here, I also discovered this little nugget on your talk page: "In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above"

This is an outrageous (not to mention offensive) accusation, as well as one that is not in line with the assume good faith rule we have here. Just for your information (although I'm sure you'll say I'm lying), I am opposed to the settlement project in the West Bank, and I support the Palestinians aspirations of nationhood. None of this is particularly incompatible with acknowledgement of the fact that Jews have firm roots in the region.

You seem to be getting very emotional over this, which is completely unnecessary. I really do not want to have to report you. However, I will not hesitate in doing so if you leave me no other choice.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, sir, your aggressive attitude here tells me that you are the one who is POV pushing. It's pretty well known by this point that the historically revisionist "Jews are just foreigners" argument is merely a rhetorical device meant to discredit Israel's right to exist. Nobody who has done any serious research on Jewish origins can claim with a straight face that Jews are not an aboriginal/pre-colonial population of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TLDR Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're too stubborn to read and absorb what I'm saying, then that's not my fault.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I take it there still is no references - thus it should still not be added. Just need a ref...not guess work.Moxy (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some misconception here.
In the first place the Biblical citations I gave are not references to my edits, but point to where the sub-group divisions in Israelite religious rituals originate.
I have provided two sources, one by an academic non-Jewish author, which confirm that within the indigenous culture "Jewish" does not exist, and is an imposed diasporic identity, and which was never used within the culture regardless of the location of the community.
Secondly, the United Nations is not the sole determinant of the indigenous status of the population. Even the Wikipedia article provides for two other international organisations.
However, the recognition of "Jewish" claims to the British Mandate of Palestine by the Balfour Declaration, and later the UN Special Committee on Palestine (1947) that confirmed this, by default assure confirmation of the claim, including that the state which was created, was named State of Israel, and not the "State of the Jews".
I note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?Evildoer187 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Never the less, I am happy to discuss the ways in which you think Israelites do not conform to definitions of indigenousness, UN or otherwise.Crock8 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I posted numerous genetic studies stating that all major Jewish group have common Middle Eastern origin. As the nativity is genetically related and as there is clear genetic factual evidence that all Jewish groups are originating from Middle East (as it is directly written in Hammer and al, originating from ancient Israelites as it is wrriten in Behar and al I will revert any removal of this facts as they are sourced with the names of leading population genetic experts---Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Unjustified reversion of edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Nishidani, I just had a look at your most recent revert, and your edit summary was "Revert POV pushing and WP:OR violations for which there is no consensus on the talk page, nor support in sources"
I'd like to note that my editing: a) lacked any expression of my point of view, b) does not contain any original research, c) was never previously discussed, so d) could never have gained consensus a prori, and e) included no less than four sources all of which conform to Wikipedia standards.
I would therefore suggest that all you did was "good faith" vandalism.
Please desist from further such 'participation'.Crock8 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in self-interested assertions, i.e. pontificating, but in relevant sources on topic. a prori is a priori. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are very interested since it is you who made the revert, the utterly misleading edit summary, and had been an edit warrior and disrupting editing of the list article. I suggest you look up what a priori means. I have read the talk page before editing. I put it to you that you have a political agenda that won't let any cultural sensitivities stand in the way, which makes you abusive of identity of Arabs and Jews alike, so long as you can have your way here, keeping the subject "controversial" Crock8 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of indigenousness

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is a quote from a recent work on the subject which I think takes a better approach to the issue than Sanders.

This notion of 'cultural security and continuity' is a central aspect of Indi- genous peoples' relationship with their territories. As summarized by members of the former Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)5: the land is the basis for the creation stories, for religion, spirituality, art and culture. It is also the basis for the relationship between people and with earlier and future generations. The loss of land, or damage to land, can cause immense hardship to Indigenous people.

(ATSIC 1997: 5)

The recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does recognize Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights. Article 25 of the UN Declaration affirms that: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Hence, based on Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights, the UN Declaration recognizes the cultural inter-generational approach to land rights. The holistic nature of Indigenous peoples' attachment to land is also reflected in the different legal attempts to define who Indigenous peoples are. While there are no agreed international legal definitions on who Indigenous peoples are, the different existing definitions agree on the specific territorial attachment of Indigenous peoples to their lands.

William Logan, Máiréad Nic Craith, Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in Theory and Practice, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p.33

It seems to me the list needs to be based on the establishment of existing or claimed land rights of the various entities in the list or those not in the list, but which ought to be included. Crock8 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis of references

Latest comment: 12 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

So I see that dispite the talks above this is still being added. The references do not say a thing about them being indigenous. Can anyone provided a source that says the people are indigenous and not just as synthesis of what the books says. At this point I belive we need a thrid party involved before blocks for disruptive editing are handed out.Moxy (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Moxy that you hadn't actually read the sources because they explicitly say exactly that! Crock8 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
To quote Russell "More recently, scholars have emphasized the local archaeological data from Israel, which show clear continuity between Late Bronze Age "Canaanite" forms and Iron Age "Israelite" ones. These data suggest that Israel was indigenous." Crock8 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
OOOOOOoo i see - that quote is from a different page then is quoted in the ref... Stephen C. Russell (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Walter de Gruyter. p. 197. - page 279 is the index of the book. As for the other ref "Spielvogel" is it in volume 2 or what ISBN # - because again I think its the wrong page ...as page 27 is about women Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Cengage Learning. p. 27. Lets fix these so the next person does not make the same mistake as I did thinking they were BS refs. Do we have any source that say indigenous under the current terminology? As can be seen by the recent revert - the type of source is being questioned. Moxy (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have and will continue to remove all material that attempts to insert a thesis that has no basis on the RS literature on indigenous peoples. The several attempts to do this with 'Israelites' (ancient tribe) to make modern Jews 'indigenous' to Palestine is a blatant case of non-sourceable wp.editorializing or theorizing or wp.synth. It's a thesis with no support. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
He provided sources that meet all of the criteria for this article, and the sources he provided (in addition to common sense) all say that Israelites and their descendents (i.e. Jews) are indigenous to Western Asia.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Either study policy or keep off the page. I can have excellent sources on astronomy for a geology page, but it's the wrong page for that RS, such excellent RS are irrelevant to the topic. No sources have been given in his essay for the theory that the Israelites are 'indigenous' in the sense given here. No reference on indigenous peoples includes them. This is a list, not a place to make an argument as crock is doing. It's wildly WP:OR. Crock is publishin g his own short essay on wikipedia, and that's not allowed.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just copy and paste this argument between Crock8 and yourself from the formers page, and post it here. This is so none of us have to repeat ourselves.

"== List of indigenous people - Israelites ==

(Moved after deletion by Nishidani from his talkpage) − I'm not sure why you reverted my edit last week, as you left no explanation.

− However, I noticed that I had made a mistake in any case, so I had placed it back in the corrected form.

− I might note, reading the extensive discussion in the talk page, that it seems Wikipedia editors involved lack cultural awareness enough to edit this article since you have been discussing the wrong subject!

− Please discuss before taking any further action. Crock8 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

I gave an explanation: 'reverted crock'. Crock may be your handle, but the word, among other meanings, signifies 'nonsense'. I reverted a crock of crap, which you have now restored with this edit.

−

You are rude as well as ill-informed and tending towards being misleading. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

  • Arabians – a Semitic people who live in a tribal societies and maintaining ancient tribal affiliation, customs and culture. Found in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Israel (Negev),[1] Sinai (Egypt), Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (Beka'a valley), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

−

− It's all a motherlode of crap because:-

−

  • (1) Replacing Bedouins with Arabians consists in eliding a specific tribal group with an extensive page about it, by an indefinite term linked to an ostensible synonyn, on a new page that has no content other than a brief lead saying Arabians is the general term for a people sometimes called Bedouin. The page has no references save one, to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Arabia, which talks of ethnic Arabs. Thus the Arabians are 'ethnic Arabs', but you don't even link to Arabs. The POV strategy is obvious.

−

The article is a list of indigenous peoples. Had you looked at the Arabs article, you will have seen that it, like the Arab people deal with the entirety of the global Arab populations. Arab tribes doesn't help much either. I would suggest, if you are so unhappy, to propose a merger of the four articles in whatever way please you, but Arabians, despite the obvious shortcomings of the article, suits the purpose of the list best. The use of Arab when referring to Bedouins is appropriate, while the reverse it seems is not, within the culture. Perhaps you can expand the Arabians article to a better standard? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

  • (2) Israelites. You haven't apparently even clicked on the link. The article is about 'indigenous peoples'. You have introduced a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term to smuggle in the POV that the Jews are indigenous to Palestine, which the talk page is undecided about, and thus are acting objectively on behalf of User:Evildoer187, to push this POV.

−

"a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term"? Israelites appears to be the correct plural adjective form in English of a member of any given ethnic group with a known place of origin, in this case Israel. Israeli, is not the correct grammatical adjective that would be Israelian, but Israelite is still a correct, though more archaic usage form. The people of Israel, Kingdom of Israel, and Israel as individual and community identity seem to have been fairly well established in history, Western and Easter, and supported by archaeology and linguistics among others. You may think its a 'myth', but its a fairly consistent 'myth' that the "Jews" preserved for over 2,000 years given the Greeks and Romans certainly believed it. But then, other cultures have myths also, right? So why don't you bring this up in other Wikipedia articles. If you are going to start debunking cultural myths, you may as well do a thorough job. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

  • (3)Israelites, in biblical lore, are an historic congeries of peoples, ancestral to the Jews, and neither in prehistory nor today an indigenous population. They are registered in ancient records in Egypt, the Sinai, in Syria and many other places, where biblical lore sets them. In the Biblical account they are nomadic tribes who invade Palestine and wrest it from the indigenous Canaanites. Secondly, the page lists contemporary peoples who are listed as 'indigenous' minorities. It does not list ancient peoples who may have been indigenous to a country. Thirdly, you provided no source saying these Israelites are listed as a (contemporary) indigenous people. There are no such sources.

−

Within the culture, the record (Torah) shows that the progenitor of Israelites, Abraham, purchased land in the Canaan. Lore to you, but cultural property to others. I think you are trespassing! It also details that he settled in the land, engaging in planted agriculture. That Israelites were nomadic is a theory. However, I would be happy if you enlightened me as to where in the Torah it says the Israelites were 'nomadic'. A subsequent invasion was in fact God-directed, so not really a subject to modern ethical analysis.

−

There are many contemporary indigenous people that are not minorities. In fact the largest indigenous people are the [Han Chinese|Han]] who are the majority in the Peoples Republic of China.

−

All indigenous peoples are 'ancient' by definition since most non-indigenous populations date only to early medieval (European) period, for example the Franks reaching the Pyrennes in the early 6th c. by displacing and assimilating the Gaulic Celts, or the Arabs (from 7th c.). The "Jews" however are fairly unique in that they have claimed a place of origin from the ancient times which comes with perhaps the best ancient identification of individual tribal lands and borders in existence.

−

Do you know what you are talking about in seeking a source for a "(contemporary) indigenous people"? If they are not 'contemporary', they are extinct! There are many such ethnic groups, and if you agree with the Nazis, Israelites also would have been "non-contemporary" along with Levites and Kohens. It seems to me that no sources are required to establish this fact. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

  • For these and many other obvious reasons, your edit was a 'crock', and will be reverted, I hope by neutral third parties who can see that your behaviour constitutes an intrusive attempt to tagteam and get round the objections on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

My avatar in Wikipedia is crock8, so I like to play with words just like you Glen, Glen West is it? However, it does not give you the right to sling personal abuse by converting my avatar to something entirely unsavoury.

−

As for tagteaming, cute try, but I had never heard of Evildoer187 until I started editing this list. I think this would be obvious from the edits.

−

Nor am I 'getting around' the objections raised in the talk page. Its just that the subject of the objections was wrong in the first place, as I informed when I began editing. Its called re-framing the question. I note that you make your entry there citing Tibetans and Basques, who are in fact Bodpa[ites] and Euskal[ites]. I therefore quoted John Trudell for your benefit. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

  • You are with this second edit further trying to game the process. The citation from Scharfstein reflects a religious POV, and happens to be controversial, not a statement of fact. The distinction between the ostensible self-defining ethnonym Israelites, and the putative foreign ethnonym, imposed on the Israelites by outsiders ignores the fact that the Hasmonean state used as its official term 'Judeans' to self-define, and used ḥever hayehudim on its coinage. Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus use 'Israelites' for the Biblical era, and 'Ioudaioi' increasingly for for the post-biblical era, and their contemporary fellow Jews. and they are in this 'self-identifying'.

−

Of course Schaferstein is reflecting a religious point of view...its a book about religious rituals in Judaism!!! Doh! However, he doesn't seem to be the User:Schaferstein participating in the editing of this article. In what way is it controversial and not a fact?

−

The Hasmoneans were out to restore independence of Judea! What else would they put on the coins?! This did not overnight cause the Levites and Kohens to become 'Yehudim' from the date of minting!

−

You want to get into the analysis of why User:PhiloofAlexandria and User:Josephus switch between these terms? Are you saying that either of them made a difference to the self-identification of the millions of non-Levites and non-Kohens in their times? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

−

−

In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above:

−

'An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon.'

−

Actually, I reflect a plethora of maps way before any record of 'Palestinians' emerged in the 20th century which show Israelite tribal lands. Judea happens to be a reference to the tribe of Judah, and Samaria was the claimed capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That you' read political overtones into the editing only says something about you. Most "Jews" appear to have a fairly good case of claiming for their land rights that geographic toponym from which the "Jew" is derived, but which only became "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" in 1950. So to be utterly consistent, those that live there are Gharbiyyalites, and I may well question their indigenousness. Instead perhaps you can find some sources of the Filistin indigenousness claims and claims of land rights in the Ottoman and earlier records? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

Modern Israel does not refer to Judea or Samaria (the West Bank) which is where the Jewish people of high antiquity were concentrated. In leaving that obvious fact out, you are openly insinuating that Modern Israel includes the West Bank. I.e. you are pushing the settler POV of Eretz Israel.

−

The "West Bank" is not a recognised geographic toponym. The "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" was created only to distinguish the 30 deputies in the Jordanian Parliament from the "al-Ḍiffah al-Sharqiyyal", or "The East Bank" deputies. Since the west bank of the Jordan is not a useful geographic identifier of an area (being limited to a linear feature), I used more common and familiar identifiers. Is it my fault that the king of Jordan had no other Arabic name for his newly annexed territory? So what exactly do 'settlers' have to do with my editing? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

− −

Why do serious editors have to keep AGFing this continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia by prevaricating blowins, who make their usual dozen edits in other articles and then zoom in on the only area that interests them as POV warriors?Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

−

Since apparently you think my editing is "continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia", I will not give you the benefit of "AGF".

−

You accusations is striking though, as I have not edited so frequently in Wikipedia as you had, nor for so long, and this is my first dispute, which is more it seems than you can say.

−

I'm curious why you think that this "area" is the only one that interests me? Admittedly it is an area of interest, and it was only when I was wronged in a conversation, and informed that Wikipedia does not list "Jews" as indigenous that I was forced to wade through the "incremental thrashing of POV bullshit" in the talk pages before editing. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but facts are facts. Most "Jews" that care anything about their cultural practices know if they are Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)"

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nishadani, As I said above the population genetics fully support the common Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups, as "originating from ancient Israelites" (Behar and al 2010) Any attempt to censor well established genetic facts, supported by numerous scholarly material will be reverted by myself.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with genetics. This page lists people recognized by RS on indigenous peoples as indigenous peoples. If none of you can come up with a source for that, then refrain from messing up the page with this absurd POV pushingNishidani (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Until you can provide credible evidence that his sources are not RS (i.e. reliable sources), then the article stays as it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

-

Nishidani, you are clearly POV pushing. It is common knowledge that the Jews, as an ethno-religious group, have their roots, both culturally and genetically in the MidEast, more specifically in Israel-Palestine. Jews have had an uninterrupted presence in the region (as Mizrahim especially), regardless of waxing and waning in their population. This is clear to everyone involved in this absurd back and forth, except you. Further, to accuse others of pushing their POV while a very significant portion of your contributions to wikipedia center around the Israel-Palestine debate, working from a solely Palestinian and Arab Nationalist POV, is disingenuous, unintentional trolling at best. Most involved in the discussion regarding this issue, have been fine with including both Jews (or Israelites) and Palestinians (or Arabs) as indigenous to both Israel-Palestine and the greater Middle East, the fact that you are only concerned with removing references to Jews (or Israelites) as indigenous, belies your clear bias.User:HaleakalAri (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the page. There is a very specific definition of indigenous people. There are organizations that discuss, list and determine who qualifies. No one has shown that 'Israelites' figure in these lists. Crock invented an argument, that is not grounded in any relevant source on indigeneity. I'm not interested in your various opinion. I am waiting for someone to come up with a strong academic source that says that the modern Israelis and Jews are indigenous to Israel/Palestine in the face of what history tells of the formation of that state's demography, and in the face of the standard meanings of the word 'indigenous'.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No there is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[1] [2]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[3] --Tritomex (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bachmann (2007, pp. 420–424)

WP:OR

Latest comment: 12 years ago44 comments9 people in discussion

Apart from bad writing, this is an essay constructed to make out that Jews are an indigenous people in the sense 'indigenous' is defined in the literature on that subject. There has been zero efforts to show they fit the definition.

  • Indigenous people regards native peoples of the modern world. No ancient indigenes are listed.
  • The Israelites were an ancient group in the ancient world
  • To get round this, the author says that the real name of all modern Jews is 'Israelite', hence they are identical to the indigenous population of the Middle East. All names like 'Jews'/'Sephardi'/'Ashkenazi' have been imposed on the Jews by foreigners. No proof, required for the general proposition (challenged in RS I mentioned on my page), exists for the idea that in each of these several populations the outsiders imposed the respective designations.
  • No academic evidence has been given to show that the Israelites/Jews are regarded as 'indigenous' to the Middle East as opposed to hailing in part from the Middle East.
  • The genetic evidence has no validity for indigeneity.

Israelite indigenousness is to the Eastern Mediterranean (Near East) is widely accepted in the academia, and is confirmed by a variety of data from multiple disciplines.

None of the modern indigenous lists include the Israelites. You cannot engage in 'original research' in order to smuggle in an idea unattested in the relevant literature. None of the RS above bears on the question of indigeneity. It's a personal construct with no foundations in RS. I shouldn'teven be required to argue this, the abuse being so patent. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

- The idea is clearly expressed in a variety of relevant academic texts. That section is thoroughly sourced and you are simply melting over the fact that you're the only one who is taking serious issue with it. It is not at all a personal construct. Further, the study referenced on Samaritan genetic relations to various Jewish groups also supports the genetic link, and quite relevantly, the Samaritans not only consider themselves to be Israelites, but are recognized by a wide variety of reliable sources as indigenous to Israel-Palestine. The same can be said for Jews (and especially the Mizrahi variant). Lastly, your claim that genetics have nothing to do with indigeneity is patently false. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Nishidani you violated 1RR, which could lead to block from further editing. More so, you have violated this rule 2 times. If you further continue with edit warring regarding this issue I will have to report you. The question of nativity is solely genetic question and if you did not read population genetic studies, please avoid commenting. Behar specifically states " Jewish genetic origin is consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from the ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"-
I've warned him repeatedly over the past week about the rules he's broken, which just resulted in him deleting the warnings. I am considering reporting him, but I have not decided yet.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies. Tritomex reverted me before I could self-revert. This doesn't resolve anything of course. No one has produced any RS that Jews/Israelis are 'indigenous' to Israel/Palestine. In fact it defies all uses of the word, and all official cites dealing with indigeneity.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes we have. Numerous reliable sources that you are either ignoring or choose to disregard because you disagree with them. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Provide the source that defines Israel's population as 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • FOR NISHIDANI - you seem to have a problem. Your problem is that you have no respect for culture. Anyone's culture. I appreciate that Wikipedia does not accept the "Bible" as a reliable reference source, but the TaNa"Kh happens to be a number of cultural property texts, cultural property, that define the Israelites as a culture. Aside from this important fact, which can not be disputed, it also provides one of the few sources of knowledge about the Eastern Mediterranean indigenous milieu over a period of over a thousand years for which there is only scant support from other sources. If not for the Torah, almost nothing would be known about the very early processes of regional tribal relationships and interactions. One of the very VERY interesting things about the Israelite text is that it clearly states the progenitor of the Israelites came to the region from elsewhere, bought land for a ritual burial, and took land that was apparently undisputed to commence settled agriculture. During all this, including a temporary departure of the descendants due to harsh environmental factors, there wasn't any dispute to the Israelite claim to the land. The Canaanite tribe details given in the Torah are the best detail records of the regional culture available, and no one would dispute the Canaanites were indigenous to the region, which makes Israelites their contemporaries.
  • Israelite is not a reference to an ancient 'biblical' population, but is the reference to an ethno-religious group that has an extensive cultural practice spanning over 2,500 years of referring to themselves in this collective term Yisrael, which best translated to English as Israelites. "Jews" is about as accurate a term to apply to these people as calling all Europeans 'ferenji' (from French) in Arabic, or for that matter Europeans calling all Arabic speakers 'Arabs', though within the culture tribal identities have community, society and even international implications.
  • Ethno-religious means that the culture determines individual's membership in the community by mechanisms other than blood relationships. Genetics research is therefore fairly useless in identifying who is an Israelite, though more so where Kohens are concerned. Wikipedia 'doesn't have a say in cultural practices of any one culture on this planet. It simply records the facts.
  • Clearly you don't like these particular facts. You seek for example some mythical "definition of indigenousness" although none exists. Wikipedia for example questions the claim by the Kelts that they are indigenous to Europe, but include Crimean Karaites who were not recognised as being of Semitic descent only by the Nazis. I think there is something seriously wrong with this list article. Crock8 220.238.42.127 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
They are right in front of you.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, for an outsider, could you give me a quote or two? For contemmporary Israelites of course. And hopefully something that matches with the way the lead describes the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Quotes from population genetics experts
  1. Behar and al 2011 [4]

An illustrative example at K58 (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Note 3) is the pattern of membership of Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi), north African (Moroccan), Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) and Yemenite Jewish communities in the light-green and lightblue genetic components, which is similar to that observed for Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, suggesting a shared regional origin of these Jewish communities. This inference is consistent with historical records describing the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World.Our conclusion favoring common ancestry over recent admixture is further supported by the fact that our sample contains individuals that are known not to be admixed in the most recent one or two generations."


"Our PCA, ADMIXTURE and ASD analyses, which are based on genome-wide data from a large sample of Jewish communities, their non-Jewish host populations, and novel samples from the Middle East, are concordant in revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant"

  1. Hammer and al 2001

"The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."

  1. Atzmon and al 2010

"Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to European and Middle Eastern Groups In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry."

  1. Nebel and all 2001

[5] Nebel and al 2001 "Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000). Of those Palestinian chromosomes, approximately one-third formed a group of very closely related haplotypes that were only rarely found in Jews. Altogether, the findings indicated a remarkable degree of genetic continuity in both Jews and Arabs, despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews. " "

  1. Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA by Tony Nick Frudaki

[6]

  1. Campbel and al 2012 [7]

"Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations...These findings demonstrated that the most differentiated of the North African Jewish populations was Djerban. The smallest FST was between Greek and Turkish Sephardic Jews (FST = 0.0024), who were close, in turn, to Italian, Algerian, Moroccan, and Ashkenazi Jews. The second smallest FST observed was between Algerian and Moroccan Jews (FST = 0.0027). As a point of reference, the average pairwise FST between Jews and non-Jews (excluding African and Asian reference populations) was 0.019. Thus, North African Jews were identifiable as a third major group along with Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews, albeit with a higher degree of relatedness to European Jews

Of course there are many additional material as well--Tritomex (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Question - are you implying (inferring) that the genetic data says they are indigenous because I dont see that term used anywhere. In fact its states clearly they are decedent of a Middle Eastern ancestral population that is related to others in the area. Moxy (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I dont know why you are not seeing obvious facts-all this genetic studies clearly confirm " shared Middle Eastern origin of Jews" This is a quote-and beyond any reasonable question. Originating from Middle East, being native to Middle East or indigenous to Middle East are exactly the same terms.Of course I did not copy/pasted whole studies, yet this are terms usually used--Tritomex (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The data does not imply what your assuming at all - your guess that they mean Native or indigenous - infact your quote above proves this "shared" this means from the people before them for more info on this topic see Genetic studies on Jews (note how old the y-DNA types are).Moxy (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Tritomex of course the Ashkenazi population has ME genetic markers, so do Italy's Tuscans. On how many pages do you have to hammer at the obvious? This has nothing to do with the concept of indigeneity which the page defines as

"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".[

How do Israelites fit that definition? I.e. how were 'Israelites' the indigenous population of Canaan, then incorporated into a nation-state, presumably the The United Monarchy of Israel, who then remained 'politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are (present tense) a apart of.' How are, again, the Jews or Israelis the indigenous population of a nation-state (Mandatory Palestine or Israel as the case may be) who were incorporated into Israel, and remain separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state of Israel, which is a Jewish state? I mean, really, this is utter garbage.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Moxy I am very much familiar with the article to which I was one of main contributor. The word "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" is directly taken from Hammer and explains that all major Jewish groups have shared and common Middle Eastern origin. If you insist I can find you 20 identical quotes, from another studies, yet you can do it for yourself by simply reading those genetic studies. If your allusions have to do something with racial purity, genetically there is no a single ethnic group on planet without genetic admixture from outside.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok this is good turn of events - as a geneticist I take it your fully aware that Jews are not used in studies of indigenous populations at all. So why would you assume that "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" means indigenous? Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona does not make this indigenous claim - its you assuming that "shared and common" means indigenous in someway - pls see THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE - As a someone who also writes articles like Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas I am concern with interpretations over stating what is actually said.Moxy (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[8] [9]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[http://www.thefreedictionary.com

We could work on the definition - but will have to pass on any definition by a dictionary - would be best to use proper ref like Wilhelm Kirch (24 July 2008). Encyclopedia of Public Health: Volume 1: A - H Volume 2: I - Z. Springer. p. 741. ISBN 978-1-4020-5613-0..00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Moxy I am medical doctor, pediatric geneticist. The person named Ellen Levy-Coffman is charlatan. She never carried out any genetic study among Jewish people, nor she ever participated at any, she is not geneticist, her article is self-published website, and full of major errors which no one familiar with population genetics would made. You have some 20 genetic studies carried out by world leading geneticists like Hammer, Behar, Shen, Semino, Atzmon, Harry Ostrrer, Thomas, Campbell, Kopelman, Nebla and others to name some of the most important names. To quote Hammaer "Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." Read our article mtDNA studies carried out by Behar and autosomal DNA studies. All this studies confirm the Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups and what is "shared" is their common origin. Off course as all peoples, Jewish people also underwent admixture, however their Middle Eastern origin is scientifically undeniable. Considering the term "indigenous people" geneticist use usually other wording,(geographic place+origin) and as this term ("indigenous people") is not defined through universal definition, we can see why. Today I will be absent, tomorrow I will be back.--Tritomex (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes very good point, Wilhelm Kirch book seems very good as a source for the definition. I will work on lead from tomorrow--Tritomex (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The error here is, the page has a definition which excludes the inclusion of material you favour. Hence you procede to change the definition in order to make it compatible with your proposed edit. That fails all basic methodology.
Your second problem is is you are mixing a selection of stray remarks in genetic papers written by geneticists with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship concerning the origins of Jewish male populations as often as not, with a concept of indigeneity that has nothing to do with genetics, and the result is WP:OR. You may or may not be a geneticist, but you show no understanding of historical method, nor of what the phrase ‘the paternal gene pools’ implies. The male gene pool shows ME origins, the female gene pool is far more heterogeneous (Genetic studies on Jews). It is totally arbitrary to make conclusions from one of several data. If someone is of mixed Irish and Japanese descent, (s)he could claim Irish, while ignoring the other side, or claim Japanese descent, while passing over in silence the Celtic factor. People are profoundly irrational when their identity, which is a cultural construct, is mentioned. Logic says mixed descent implies mixed origins, not one origin, and this is the case in all of the genetic papers you marshall. The point was well point by Halkin recently:-

'And who is we? Each of us has had many thousands of forebears, and each of those had many thousands in turn. The traces of millions of human beings are in our minds, our hair, our eyes and noses, our inner organs, the shape of our toes, our trillions of cells. By pure chance, two of these trillions are passed on unchanged and can be given labels like R-M117. Instructive as they are, we needn’t make too much of them.' Hillel Halkin Jews and Their DNA at Commentary, September 2008

In Jewish law, descent is by the matrilineal line, not the patriarchal line. This is in conflict with the geneticists who casually assert that the ME descent evidence is proven from the paternal gene pools. There is a fundamental conflict between identity as a religious concept, and identity as a genetic concept. The selective use of sources to prove a theory is not proper to Wikipedia, which must simply survey the state of opinion. There is no source for your repeated use of the concept of consensus on any of these questions. As with Ashkenazi Jews a very large body of historical, linguistic and cultural work has arrived at no consensus, despite you insistent defense of passages which assert that. That page looks irretrievable now because of the confusion caused by loose use of genetic papers that appear to assert what the relevant scholarhip (Jacobs, Wexler and many others) say is a theoretically unresolved question. My position has consistently been to survey the variety of theories on this issue, never to take sides, as you and evildoer are consistently doing. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Taking sides? I offered to include both groups. You haven't. If anyone here has a bias, it's probably you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have included neither, but shown that in the indigeneity literature, there is support for the Palestinians as indigenous, but no mention of the Jews. Therefore these edits are anomalous. I certainly am not going to introduce the Palestinian material, though it might squeak through. I oppose any attempts to finangle the evidence in order to argue that the Jewish population of Israel is 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a straight up lie. I saw your argument with Maunus, you did lobby to get Palestinians included and not Jews. Both are equally qualified for being considered indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And yet again - how a culture identifies itself has nothing to do with the genetic data that can be gathered on it. In Judaism in particular the maternal identifier prevails, and inclusivity is a part of the legal lore of Judaism, with both the Christian and Islamic religions borrowing the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah. Many Israelites are virtually indistinguishable from their diasporic host populations, for example the Yemenite community, so what are you going to do, institute a DNA test for the test on who is a "Jew"? That would be telling the state of Israel how to identify its demographic, which is way more of a responsibility than the job of an encyclopaedia. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
'the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah.' What's that got to do with the price of fish? This is not a forum for discussing Judaism. It addresses a specific question: are the Israelites of the Ist millenium BCE to be included, uniquely, in a list that deals exclusively with contemporary indigenous peoples. The anomaly of this position is blindingly obvious, as is the POV pushing behind it.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The definition of indigenous we use here does not say anything about "contemporary" or "ancient" peoples, so your argument isn't valid.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani Although you have showed that you are totally unfamiliar with population genetics you keep commenting on this issue, even making certain claims and mixing religious law with the science-To claim that some of the most notable scientists and population geneticists are " with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship" is not just WP:OR it is unbelievable that you entitled yourself to such remarks, maybe because you see yourself as " up-to-date historian and linguistic scholar"

For your knowledge, although I cant spent here my time explaining you the basis of population genetics ,the Middle Easter origin of Jewish groups is both paternal and maternal. Humans have 44 autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosome X or Y. 23 chromosomes are inherited from mother, 23 from father. Autosomal genetic studies confirmed the Middle Eastern orgin of all Jewish groups. The same is truth for Y chromosome. Concerning X chr. Behar and most of recent studies confirmed also the Middle Eastern origin for at least 40% of Jewish females.--Tritomex (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The question of indigenous status does not directly relate to genetics. It relates to whether a group of people inhabiting a defined territory have been subjected to oppression by a superior entity constituting a nation state and marginalized in their own territory.
That's odd, because I could have sworn this also applied to Jews in relation to the Romans. So I guess the Jews just forfeited their homeland to the Romans willingly?
The Palestinians clearly fit the description, whereas the Jews were themselves usurpers of territories of the Canaanites, which in turn is irrelevant as they were groups contesting the territory and of cultural parity. That is ancient history, and has nothing to do with this article. In fact, as I have stated below, the Jews were newcomers to the territory in question which has a history of many thousands of years before Jews came into existence. The Canaanites, like the Israelites, are groups that exist only in the distant past in history.
Ubitwik, this is some of the most mind-numbing and self-defeating logic I've ever read in my life. So Jews were usurpers of the Canaanites, so what does that make the Arab tribes from whom Palestinian Arabs descend culturally and genetically, whereas the Jews, Samaritans, Druze, and others who lived there much earlier don't? It is true that they also have Canaanite/Hebrew ancestry (hence their closeness to the Jews), and this is why they are indigenous along with the Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Genetics holds no sway over the fundamentally anachronistic thrust of the arguments being made by those in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis/Israelites" on this list.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Genetics is one of the chief components of indigeneity, along with culture, and historical connection. It seems that you just wish to ignore it because it's inconvenient.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What is your source for that claim about genetics? You make a lot of assertions and provide no sources to support them. I consider it to be a waste of my time to have to repeatedly ask you for sources.
See the criteria in the UN document Defining "Indigenous Peoples". As the document in question can only be viewed by downloading it, a quick word for word copy of the criteria should suffice.
"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;
b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
f) Other relevant factors."
I would also recommend doing a quick Google search of UN Indigenous Definition. TL;DR version: Genetics, culture, and historical connection are all there. Jews fit the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You've also added "culture" and "historical connection" without sources defining the relationship or supporting your claim, whereas I have already provided several sources relating to historical connection as well as the modern historical context. The has been much discussion in relation to "contemporary status" on this Talk page, and the concensus would appear to be that we are not talking about ancient history, no matter where anyone chooses to arbitrarily start.
There is nothing, anywhere, in international law, or in the definition at the top of this page, that excludes indigenous groups on the grounds that their connection is "ancient". In fact, it does the opposite.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you examine the UNPFII page on thematic issues, for example.
I've already posted the link to this UN document once, but I'll do it again here, with emphasis on the modern historical context, for your consideration. I would imagine there will be aspects that you could try to appropriate and apply to modern day Jews, but note that the discussion addresses colonization and the USA, Canada, etc., not the Assyrian or Roman empires of ancient times. And the indigenous peoples of those countries were not driven into a diaspora, just segregated, etc.

State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, p.1

For centuries, since the time of their colonization, conquest or occupation, indigenous peoples have documented histories of resistance, interface or cooperation with states, thus demonstrating their conviction and determination to survive with their distinct sovereign identities. Indeed, indigenous peoples were often recognized as sovereign peoples by states, as witnessed by the hundreds of treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and the governments of the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others.

--Ubikwit (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I see nothing that denotes "indigeneity starts here, at this point in time" or "ancient peoples or tribes excluded", either explicitly or implicitly, in any document pertaining to indigeneity, including the one you just linked to.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence is the definition stated in the lead, and the definition includes the term "national state", which refers to a modern construct, i.e., the nation state. This is not about ancient history, but the current state of affairs between peoples and the polities in which they live. It is not about when it starts, but that it has a start and continuity; most of the people in question are the only people known to have inhabited the lands in which they are recognized as being indigenous. They were primitive peoples that were "discovered", as it were.
Wrong. Nation states have existed since antiquity. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, to name a few. Until you show me a clause that explicitly or implicitly states "ancient peoples need not apply", then there's little reason to take your mental acrobatics seriously. As I have demonstrated earlier (see UN document "Defining Indigenous People", Section 2, which I have quoted above), Jews fit the criteria for indigeneity, as do the Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In the case of the Israelites, that was not the case; in fact, they took over the land of a group of peers with whom they were forbidden to intermarry. Furthermore, with regard to continuity, only 4% of the population of Palestine was Jews in the mid 19th century, for example, even though there was nothing preventing them from living there. They were a diaspora people, not indigenous to anywhere. Contrast that with the Ainu of Japan, for example.

"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"

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
There is a consensus based on archaeological findings that Jews/Israelites stemmed from a Canaanite source population. There weren't any invading Babylonian hordes that subjugated the native Canaanites and established a kingdom. Those who established the Kingdom of Israel were Canaanites, basically. You keep ignoring that point, and I don't know why. I never said anything about Jews being excluded from living in Ottoman Palestine (Roman Palestine is a different story), although they did at one point institute strict policies against letting non-Sephardic Jews live in the area, if I recall correctly.
Regarding your quote, neither Jews or Palestinians fit that criteria as both have nation-states now. The only difference is that one is occupied by the other.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Ubikwit Biblical narratives and other religious texts are not RS, for Wikipedia. There is almost unanimous agreement among historians and geneticists that ancient Israelites developed as a people from what we use to call Canaanites, through social and religious revolution and without the well known biblical stories about the exodus from Egypt or the conquest of Canaan.Please familiarize yourself with this issues.--Tritomex (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
'Tritomex,while Wikipedia may not recognise religious texts as reliable sources, because the Torah is a central source of identity of the Yisrael, to deny it means to they identity to the cultural heritage and entire of the entire ethnicity. This is NOT within the providence of an encyclopaedia. It is the culture's own choice what it regards as a 'reliable source' of it's own practice, given the source was from God. You may be an atheist, but denying the use of the text to this culture IMPOSES ATHEISM, which is actually a denial of human rights according to the UN universal charter. Based on this I will seek to take administrative action against you and any other editor that takes the same line of 'argument' in disrupting editing Crock81 (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Tritomex, I'm familiar with the version of the origin of the Jews from the Canaanaites, or the so-called "friendly infiltration" version, as I believe someone has put it. But that simply leads to the conclusion that the Jews and Palestinians, whom I believe are also said to be derived from the Canaanites and share genetics characteristics, both arose from the same population base and are separated now on the basis of religion and history. That history encompasses the Jews going into diaspora while the Palestinians remained in Palestine continuously during the approximately 1800 years or more after the destruction by the Romans to the return of significant numbers of so-called Zionist Jews starting from the mid 19th century.
"So-called"? What are you trying to suggest here? That the Jews who made aliyah from the 19th century on were fake? Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The Jews accomplished that with the help of the British empire, which had adopted the notion of British Israelism, as it had proved a doctrine useful in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries, etc. It is by and large a historical fact that the British helped the Israelis colonize Palestine, and then relinquished their mandate, effectively abandoning the Palestinians before an international consensus could be reached as to what was to become of the territory in terms of it administration and existence as a polity. According to that interpretation, Zionists were colonists, basically, backed by an empire that was sympathetic to their religion and hostile to the religion of the Palestinians.
You really need to check your facts. Britain was not sympathetic to the Jewish people. Rather, they were at war with the Ottoman Empire and believed the "international Jewry" would be a great asset to them.
"Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context." http://books.google.com/books?id=y0tJgT37PIQC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20balfour%20declaration&hl=sv&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
You also neglect to mention that the British back-pedaled on their promise to the Jews, a result of Arab uprisings, and for years blocked Jewish immigration into British Mandate of Palestine, arguably when Jews needed it most (see: White Paper of 1939). I could go on, but I'll stop there for the time being.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, the continuous inhabitants of Palestine were marginalized on their own land, and all of the core factors of the definitions of indigenous apply to the Palestinians, while only a couple apply to the Jews, whereas a number of the defining traits of an oppressor of an indigenous people apply to the modern state of Israel.
Show me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Because all of the criteria I've seen, and posted in various places on this talk page, show that Jews are an indigenous people.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In terms of genetics, it would seem to be obvious that admixture among Jews returning from diaspora would make them less ethnically homogeneous than the Palestinians. The Jews returning from the diaspora did so from diverse locations and cultures. I believe that someone cited genetics data stating that only 40% of Jewish women have the corresponding DNA markers. Genetics does not seem to be of primary importance in this debate.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Palestinians are definitely not homogenous. They have substantial ancestry from Arab, European, and Sub-Saharan African sources. And yes, genetics are of significant importance according to the UN document on defining indigenous peoples.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ubikwit Wikipedia can not be used as political battle ground and for taking sides in certain political conflicts in this way. If you belive that "Israelis colonize Palestine in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries" you should avoid editing Wikipedia because this kind of unbalanced ideological POVs,personal political attitudes are not allowed in Wikipedia. To claim that "Zionists were colonists," and similar unbalanced POVs which are insults against an entire nations, is something that you can do in political organizations (if you live in democracy) bit not in unbalanced objective sites like Wikipedia is. Btw I would say the same if someone would deny the right of Palestinians to exist, or call them as a nation -colonizers.--Tritomex (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The common term 'Jews' usually used to identify the peoples is an imposed identity, and not one used within the culture, but had been assigned by Roman colonisers referencing the Kingdom of Judea. Culturally, "In Orthodox and most Conservative synagogues, the first aliyah goes to a kohen, a person who is descended from the priestly family of Aaron, the brother of Moses. The second aliyah is assigned to a levi, a descendant of the priestly tribe of Levi. The next five aliyot are reserved for Israelites, who are the majority of the Jews." Scharfstein, Sol, Torah and the five books of Moses, KTAV Publishing House, 2008, p.26; Espín, Orlando O., Nickoloff, James B., An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies, Liturgical Press, 2007, p.35; The source of the division of the peoples into three groups is Torah-based. See Shemot 28:1-4, Bemidbar 1:47-53, 3:5-13, and 8:5-26
  2. ^ Israelite indigenousness is to the Eastern Mediterranean (Near East) is widely accepted in the academia, and is confirmed by a variety of data from multiple disciplines. Russell, S. C., Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals, ProQuest, 2008, p.279; Spielvogel, J. J., Western Civilization: A Brief History, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 7th ed., 2010, p.27
  3. ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full.pdf+html
  4. ^ http://bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Behar2010.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/
  6. ^ http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf
  7. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/

Israelis and Palestinian

Latest comment: 12 years ago35 comments4 people in discussion
Note copied from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#

There is currently an edit-war here about the inclusion of Israelis and to a lesser extent Palestinian people. There have been a few references provided (see below) - however some editors believe they do not qualify as proper references under the current inclusion criteria for the page as defined in the lead AND/OR that the conclusions inferred by the genetic and biblical references are original research. Looking for outside input on the situation that has lead to an ongoing edit war.Moxy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, at no time did I edit anything to do with the Palestinian people, so that would be no extent.
Biblical references were NOT provided, and I said so again in talk, yet this was ignored.
NO references dealing with genetic research were provided, so 'some editors' invented this...a sort of edit-OR.
Its a rather one sided edit war because I had not been reverting anyone's editing, given no one had actually edited anything other than myself!
So exactly what would you call your comment? <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Please be aware that there are other people involved and the comments above we not specifically directed towards you. As seen in the conversations above we are talking about genetics and some biblical references have been introduced during this topic of conversation.Moxy (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No Moxy, until I edited (added content) to the relevant section it had been frozen through pointless discussion. The 'biblical references' you speak of were used by myself, but not as refrences but rather pointers to source of the cultural practice in the relevant text of the Torah, the core texts of the Isralites. No other 'people' were involved until I was summarily reverted with little explanation or summary, so I had to put all that in for a certain single user. Please kindly stop "flaming the fire" where there wasn't even a 'smoke' <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear that the assertion of Israelis or even Israelites as indigenous people is anachronistic and incorrect.
The Israelites either emerged from within the population of the Cannanites according to one theory, or took the land of Canaan by force from the Cannanites according to another theory. In either case, they do not fit the definition of indigenous.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel", subverting the UN process to set up an inclusive modern pluralistic polity in the former UK-administered territory, which had come into existence in Roman times, as I seem to recall.
Waiting for some input on the question of the Palestinians, and any counters on the Israelites/Israelis.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I have just reverted your edit (it's been 24 hours, I believe), because your justification for it is nonsensical. Your post provides nothing in the way of evidence that Israelites are less indigenous than say, Arabians, which you did not delete. Furthermore, Palestinians have a state, as do the Jews/Israelites. I don't even know what to make of the rest of your reasoning. Somehow, a group that predates any Arab presence in the region is less indigenous than the Arabs? Correct me if I'm wrong here.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
@ Ubikwit - Yes, how dare a people retain their identity for over 3,000 years where other tribes around them disappeared! Making a mockery of the English Wikipedia that uses two different words to describe the same people. The cheek! I say remove all mention of the "Jews" from Wikipedia. That will make life much easier for so many, right <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
That does not make them "indigenous" to lands that were lost during ancient times in a region where civilization predates their coming into existence by thousands of years.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
And here-in lies the true reason the editing of this list is so controversial - "The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel"". All indigenous people have one single denominator, the claim to land rights. You say that the Palestinians have such a claim and the "Jews" do not. Yet the Torah describes both the Israelite coming to, purchase and settlement of the land, its eventual reconquest and resettlement, and the creation of a tribal federation, a united kingdom and two Israelite states before any presence of Arabs in the area.
Where does the Palestinian land claim originate from? They are undoubtedly Arab ethnically. Is there a Banu Filistin in the Arabic, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek or Latin sources? Is there such a people even in the Islamic texts? Is there a defined land claim that can be identified through land marks in the way the Israelite texts describe theirs? Has there been a continuity in the Banu Filistin land claim against conquering Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Caliphate, Ottoman and British empires? I look forward to references 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)<Crock8>
This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I just saw this now. If it isn't already completely over the line, it sounds dangerously close to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. Take this Orientalist horseshit back to Stormfront, where it belongs.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The above is the first instance of a bigoted assertion on your part. Keep your amateurish anti-Semite hunting obsession and bigotry out of this discussion. If you can't discuss history like an adult, you don't belong on this page.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
My comments are not bigoted. I am beginning to think you don't even know what that word means. If you cannot see the antisemitic tropes present in your own argument, that is not my problem.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You raise a number of points and ask some convoluted questions, but I'll try to address the briefly.
First, The Wikipedia page on Arabians is under construction and has almost no background information, and I don't have any expertise in that area. You may be correct that the modern kingdoms/sheikdoms of Arabia are also recently established polities (mostly after WWI?), but the Arabs, in particular, the Bedouins and the Palestinian Arabs in Israel are mentioned in a United Nations document on Indigenous people's issues, so they are not anachronistic: see first two references on p.151 <Ubikwit>
I don't have time right now. I'll take a look later.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: Found the references, although it's also worth mentioning that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. So it seems that Jews are indigenous under international law as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it does not seem that "the Jews are indigenous under international law", you are arriving at that conclusion through POV analysis which is, as far as I can see, erroneous and based on false conjecture. It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness".
Ubikwit, these are some fairly outrageous accusations, certainly more fitting of being designated as POV analysis than what I have written. You would never have accused Bedouin from the Negev desert, who were also initially excluded from the conference, of trying to "hijack the forum". Nope, it must be those wily, conniving, manipulative "Jews".Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jewish organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
And what "unfolded", Ubikwit, was that Jewish groups are allowed to attend the forum, and continue to do so to this day. You are correct that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza (or what was officially recognized as Palestine about a week ago), but I'm not seeing how this proves Jews are not indigenous. Two states for two peoples has always been the official policy, but extremists on both sides of the fence want the entire thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It is apparent that you have access to references related to the case at issue other than the perhaps poorly presented version in the apparently right-leaning newsmedia article for which you provided a link.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Those references would seem to make it somewhat problematic as to how to characterize "Arabs" on the list, but it seems that they belong there. <Ubikwit>
I agree that Arabs belong there, but so do Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Israel, on the other hand, is listed as the opposite of indigenous in the UN document with respect to Palestinian Arabs residing in Israel and attending public schools. That would seem to make the categorization of Israelis as indigenous problematic. You make the contentious claim that the Palestinians have a state, but even if that were the case, they are still considered to be people indigenous to that region, whereas the Israelis are a recent influx, and it would seem that the "Israelites" ceased to exist when the Jews were dispersed into the diaspora, approximately two thousand years ago. I don't think that there is anything errant in characterizing their inclusion anachronistic in that sense, at any rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Ubikwit, you will note that when the "Jews" began to lobby for the re-creation of Israel with the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century, and simultaneously with the European powers that the "Jews" be allowed to migrate to the Ottoman-held lands, they did so under the name Israel. There are ample records of various organisations and funds existing in different European states, all using various forms of Israel, that supported the return of "settlers"
I can't find any references to Jews as non-indigenous. Either way, this argument that Jews are a "recent influx" does not follow because Jews have had an uninterrupted and unbroken presence in the area since ancient times, predating any Arab presence (in the Levant, at least). Regarding the diaspora, they are confirmed to be closely related genetically and culturally to the Jews who remained, as well as the Palestinians, which is why I consider both to be indigenous. Maybe a more modern terminology is required, but I don't see how you can consider Jews non-indigenous as they are also one of the original peoples of the area.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The Jews were certainly one of the early peoples of the area, but that is an involved issue, as the region had been inhabited (by Canaanites?) for thousands of years before Judaism came into existence, as attested to by Egyptian and Hittite sources. I was under the impression that very few Jews resided in Palestine, until the 20th century. <Ubikwit>

P.S. Do not break up my edits here in a manner that obscures who write them and when.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The Canaanites are a people from whom both Jews and Palestinians claim descent. For instance, there has been archaeological evidence that Israelite culture evolved from Canaanite culture, and Jewish presence in the area only declined significantly (but not completely) following the Jewish-Roman wars in the first millennium AD. Given the genetic closeness of diaspora Jews to Palestinians and Samaritans, it seems clear that all three are about equal in terms of descent from the Canaanites.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Israelites do not claim descent from Canaanites. In fact there was a prohibition to intermarry with them due to their religious practices. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps more relevant to this article are the two sections in the Palestinian people article, "Politicized lineages" and "DNA and genetic studies". --Ubikwit (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
I personally believe that, if either Palestinian Arabs or Jews are included, that we must handle it as delicately as possible. And also, we should add references to the various genetic, archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and historical evidence that links both groups together. This way, neither group is unfairly or inaccurately painted as "colonizers" or "aliens" in what both consider to be their historic homeland.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "fairness" based on your emotional proclivities, the Jewish state of Israel is recognized by the UN and under international law as illegally occupying Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are the indigenous people according to those current circumstances, and that doesn't even address the Arabs (Bedouin and Palestinians) in Israel.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
It's actually a matter of being objective and not favoring sides, but I can see you're interested in neither of those things. I don't think you recognize how easy it is to turn your own flimsy logic against you. For instance, the Jews in Arab lands who lived there for centuries, long before it ever had any Arab identity. This would apply to the Mizrahim, the Samaritans, and yes, to the so called "European settlers" in Israel/Palestine whose culture is widely agreed upon to be an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanite culture and were themselves colonized by the Romans. As far as I know, nobody contested Bedouin indigeneity. We're saying Jews and Palestinians also meet the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I should note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do you repeat this false assertion again? The article makes no statement that she "denied Jewish indigeneity", she simply prohibited two groups from participating in a conference.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Because it isn't a false assertion. It happened.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll repeat my response. Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
In order to avoid repeating myself, I will just redirect you to my response to these same points above.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the argument is that requires inclusion of Palestinians in the article IF the "Jews" are included. The entries need to stand on their own referenced 'legs'. No other entry is based on the inclusion of some other peoples as a compromise <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Indigenous_peoples/Archive_4&oldid=1239393605"