Talk:Palestinians/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Edits altered

Why in the world cut all of my work that I spent all night in one second? what evidence or reference do you have against my edits ( my edits references) have mercy please!75.72.88.121 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my edit that you removed ?? did you read the reference I provided with the same lettering of Herodotus ( that Palestine is not Phoenicia on the shore and between phoenicia and Egypt? egypt enclude sinai, so where is Palestine?75.72.88.121 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiamut: Every dam family in the world have a coat of arms, why the palestinian people don't have a right to the coat of arms??? plus it is used by the Palestinian authority as insignia on office doors and military uniforms and many other places!! any small minority of less than 400 people have their coat of arms? why you a palestinian don't like it. It is not a POV it is a fact used by the people and the authorities of palestinians since before the establishmeny of Israel ( including the falg: from the arabic poem: our grass is green our sky is dark ( for the enemies) oyr swords are red etc etc) the falcon is a symbol of almost all nations in the world, nothing more famous among falcons like the Arabic Falcon ( the Free Bird the fasytest animal in the world 120m/hour when striking, that is why it is sold for a million dollar a falcon, while falcons of the world are just 50 bucks each) and saladin is a secular personality beloved by the europpeans more than the arbs themselves, and near your city is the Village of Hittin where Saladin and plenty of palestinians defeated the crusaders ( the ancient British ), what is wrong with you?

As for the second protest why change Palestine to include Phoenicia and other places, while as Herodotus clearly say that the fifth satrapy starts with syrian coast meeting the turkish coast and going a shore all the way to egypt through phoenicia and that area of syria called Palestine) what? for the mother of all lords.

. where is your reference that somebody interpret herodotus differently ( where is it) other than somebody from the editors wrote it, and how come there were philistines in 450 BC in Palestine ( the sea people now are surely known as the Ionians!) and Herodotus is Ionian why did he not talk about existance of Ionians in Palestine???75.72.88.121 (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why remove the map of palestine during the Romans ( 700 years) acknowledging that Romans indeed used the word palestine for the exact same palestine as you can see from the roman map ( with only a little part of northen jordan ) by the way Jordan was never part of Palestine or vice versa, Jordan was called Arabia Felix in roman and in greek times and this is another proof that jordan was not connected to palestine only by the enemy Britain which was planning in advance to drive the palestinians out side palestine and into jordan ( as another palestine) which came true!! so why are you on the side of the enemies of palestine?? Don't you know that zionists keep saying that palestine and jordan were one ( not true untill 198 when the British invadors did that to facilitate Jabotinsky. and to get money from Rothschild family? ( thanx to this unholly alliance Britain fell from the top in no time??75.72.88.121 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First, can you stop ranting and making personal attacks?

Second, I didn't remove your edit on Herodotus. I placed it in the references because it breaks the flow of the text. Second of all, I changed the wording to reflect that is includes Phoenicia. Your wording implied that it did not.

Third, I moved the coat of arms down into the body of the article because we already have a nice picture in the lead. There's no need for it there. I have no ulterior motive for this, other than following article layout guidelines, which I asked you to read earlier.

Fourth, I removed the map of Palestine during the Roman era because there is already a picture of Palestine from the Arab medieval period and the subject is better dealt with in the article on Palestine. As I've tried to explain to you over and over again, this article is about the Palestinian people (as a people). It is not about the boundaires of Palestine throughout history. That is discussed in the Palestine article itself. Let's try not to overlap.

Finally, I know very well what the Zionists say. I live in Nazareth, remember? I'm very familiar with their arguments. I don't need to be reminded by you what they are. There is nothing "wrong" with me. I'm trying to keep this article at tip-top shape. I'd appreciate it if you would stop questioning my national loyalty and my intentions and focus on making this article a good one. Some of your edits have brought in very important information. Did you notice that I expanded the new section you created on the struggle against British occupation? I'm trying to work with you here, but you are not making it very easy. Please, calm down. Stop speculating as to my intentions and let's work together to try and understand each other and make this article the best and most comprehensive one on Wikipedia. Okay? Tiamut^talk 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be extremely careful in editing the section on Herodotus. I note you write, for example,:-

'Herodotus clearly say that the fifth satrapy starts with syrian coast meeting the turkish coast. '

Herodotus never mentions the 'Turks'. So far it appears as though you are trying to implode the article on 'Palestine' and threatening to succeed where numerous cantankerously pro-Zionist editors have so far failed, because careful editors have tried to maintain the integrity of text aspiring to be NPOV. Please be more careful in future Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the link to Herodotus book 2 logos 8 on the web?

it is so clear that you don't need to put an interpretation of the 10th alternative possibilities!! he says palestine is between phonecia ( not phoenicia) and egypt! and open to the sea! could that Palestine be other than our Palestine? there are many online reputable journals that explains just that, but you and the bunch choose the far out possibility and make it number one against Herodtotus words! is that guy wells a reputed historian, does every thing he said taken for sure, or wasen't ninety percent of his stuff sci fi stuff?????? there are two wells and both of them sci fi ! ( science fiction imaginaries)

well cilicia he mentioned not turkey but why don't you check where is that place ( it is Hatay provice in Turkey north of Antakia (antioch0adanah province too. it is a very famous name in the ancients, should I explain every bit on the article itself? can't you use your mouse instead of just removing my edits. take it on your heart and do some counter research like I am doing all night long, it is not respectful to do that you know, not at all, I should be asleep few hours ago but I have to collect the peices after any given person comes and have a look and then remove, so easy to do75.72.88.121 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So where the difinition of Palestinian people in this article?? how can you study a people before you know who are they???? the only difinition of Palestinians is that by the palestinian authority ( all descendents of people living in Palestine Before the 1981 British occupation of Palestine. It is simple and concise and does not include the british people and others who came in Palestine with a british visa, because it is illeagal!! Imagine if palestinians invaded England and we started ditributing citizenship cards on English according to our liking( including even the Queen) do you think that will be acceptable to the English. what if we decided to make a woman from the Welsh celts as the Queen of England, and demote the Current Queen as a maid to the new Queen? is that acceptable?. Since palestinians never stopped fighting the British from day one ( and the body count from both sides testify for that) 10s of thousand of british soldiers from 195-1947 ( since the Palestinians were fighting the british even before the british came to palestine. Even since 1096, not a british soldier dies in any of the battles arounds the world but a Palestinian soldier dies from the other side!! ( not only the crusade but all other wars and battles England endulged in sea or land in the Old world!75.72.88.121 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi I would like to ulter these statements in the article because they are wrong: 1- The PA was not created by the Oslo accord but by the PLO! and voting of people of the national assembly.

2- denotes generally[5] the coastal land, including Phoenicia of Sidon down to Egypt.[6] (((should be between phoenicia ( capital sidon) and Egypt))) 'Syrians of Palestine',[7] it refers to a population distinct from the Phoenicians, and thus probably Philistines though it may also cover several other tribes and ethnic groups present in the area, including the Jews

Can't be philistines in 450 BC and little jews were back from Babylon. the land was void of Jews in 450 BC time of Ezra trying to resurruct the wall against the will of the Ishmaelites (arabs) read Ezra. eventually only part of jews returned.

3-map umayyad: I request the Umayyad administrative map be returned because it clearly shows that Arabs from the 7th centry were using Palestine for the name of the arae!!( a powerful proof, silencer.

4-links should be to palestinian diaspora link not arab diaspora!

This should be mentioned as to who are the Palestinians( difinition) this will cut the arguments: Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father- whether in Palestine or outside it- is also a Palestinian. Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.

5- to mention that palestinian who is late from a trip looses his RESIDENCY ( can not go back to his family and home) loose residency even was born there.

6- How do you start an article like this??: The first widespread endonymic use of "Palestinian" to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of [[World War I] and there is even more following, is there exodemic or intradermic spread too? is this an article to help people buy books for their final thesis??75.72.88.121 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put the difinition of palestinian according to the Palestinian authority:

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father- whether in Palestine or outside it- is also a Palestinian. Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians.

I found it at the website of PA charter to the UN. By making it clear from the beginning so no stray away and turning off readers. readers here are not doing a thesis rather get introduction about the palestinian!! Ot is impossible for a lay person to read these referenced Books from libraries or from amazon.com. most info are on the web these days. Libraries are closing all over. I would like to refer to the criteria/s by Miller about characteristics of peoples at this web article:

David Miller a professor of political theory at oxford, offers the most set of difinitions of what constitute a nation: 1-members recognize each other as compatriots. second- historical continuty 3-active identity (plo liberation movement, resistance), establishing a university or a studies center, 4-particular geographical place, 5- a common public culture folklore religion and language 6- genetic relatedness (at least myth of a common origin), 7-rule at least as a unified province.the historical identity took place in that country (nation' cradle)

as you can see all items are in the palestinians. we need to enrich the article with examples for these set!75.72.88.121 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition provided by the PLO and PNA is in the etymology section. I don't think it needs to be in the introduction. Below, I am proposing that we remove the paragraph on the the first use of Palestinian as an endonym into the section on etymology where it belongs since it's highlighting in the introduction is WP:UNDUE.

About Palestinian being a nation, you are most welcome to add such information to the body of the article. Putting it in the intro would not be wise at this juncture since a multi-month discussion ended with no consensus on its inclusion there. Instead, "a people" was the preferred compromise choice. That doesn't mean you can't write that Palestinian are considered a nation though in the body of the article, as long as it is cited to reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is all messed up because of Not defining who is Palestinians ( before we talk about them in details), The jewish crew argueing with Tiamut and educated crew about who is exactly is palestinian and bringing forever increasing references of all kinds. Just put the difinition by the Palestinian Authority which include all arguments ( 400 samaritans, 200 jews before 1900 or 20000 jews who came from Egypt after the 1917 british invasion etc) I got headache and can not read the article so how about the lay man. It is a turn off , images and videos are more informing than references by unknown people and the Bern Lewis thingy.75.72.88.121 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I also suggest put the arguments of the antipalestinians in a below section titles different opinions.like the similar articles across wikipedia75.72.88.121 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the newbie editor,75.72.88.121, has been discouraged from contributing by the perception that their contributions were being reverted out of hand. I agree there are definitional problems with this article. Doright (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move paragraph out of intro into etymology section

This paragraph

The first widespread endonymic use of "Palestinian" to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I, and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September, 1921. After the exodus of 1948, and even more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state.

should be moved into the etymology section. It's placement as the second paragraph in the introduction places WP:UNDUE emphasis on the process of national identity construction, not present in any other article on a national group.

Objections? Tiamut^talk 10:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

None from me. Do you plan to fill it with something else?-maybe see how the article fills out, or not. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For now, no. I'd like to see how the article develops a bit first. Of course, we can always discuss what other information might be useful to the lead, after we reach agreement on this paragraph's removal. Thanks for your input. Tiamut^talk 11:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a difference between nation-state and nation. You do not need to compromise and make concensus with antipalestinians. The antipalestinians view should be made in a section at the end (alternative view). The article is about palestinians and should be written ( or at least approved by the palestinians, like other ethnic articles on wiki) I demand cleanse the article from zionist and israeli views by designating a section. You don't need to write about the palestinian as a nation untill they become a state!Reletomp (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to this suggestion. It is relevant to the article that the usage of "Palestinian" as separate from Arabs in general is relatively new and still developing. Additionally, I agreed to the recent compromise ("a people" rather than the better-sourced "people") partly because the intro also included this particular information. It needs to be left in for some sort of balance. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7 You write:'It is relevant to the article that the usage of "Palestinian" as separate from Arabs in general is relatively new and still developing.'

Actually, most Western writers of the 17th to 19th century distinguished the native fellahin of Palestine from the 'Arabs' as another 'race' altogether, and it is the rise of Zionism and its rhetoric, and the corresponding 'Islamification' of the population in the reactive nationalism of the area, which led to the conflation of Palestinians with Arabs. Your remark, like many others in here, simply reflects this nationalist rewriting of the past. The Bedouin were defined as 'Arabs' the Palestinian majority were 'fellahin'. Source:-

“the word ‘Arab’ needs to be used with care, It is applicable to the bedouin and to a section of the urban and effendi classes; it is inappropriate as a description of the rural mass of the population, the fellaheen. The whole population spoke Arabic, usually corrupted by dialects bearing traces of words of other origin, but it was only the Bedouin who habitually thought of themselves as Arabs. Western travellers from the sixteenth century onwards make the same distinction, and the word ‘Arab’ almost always refers to them exclusively.’ p209 James Parkes Whose Land?

Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7, given that it is an etymologically related piece of information, wouldn't it be better placed in the etymology section (right below the introduction?) Also, how do you respond to the concerns of three editors here that including it in the introduction places WP:UNDUE emphasis on the process of national identity construction, not present in any other article on a national group? Further, isn't it somewhat internally contradictory to a) object to Palestinians being characterized as a nation, while at the same time b) insisting that the "newness" of their national identity be emphasized in the introduction? Tiamut^talk 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with developing the etymology section where the debates can be presented in full and leaving this out of the lead for the time being. On the general issue of the weight to be given to the construction of national identity, I would point out that all articles on ethnic and/or national groups do or should give space to this. See for example the careful explanations in the lead of Scottish people and the section title problematic definition in French people. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If as you Itsmejudith note, the leads for French people and Scottish people carefully explain the terms, then it is difficult to understand why this innocent hint in the lead should expunge a similar point, made laconically, and be relocated further down in the relevant section. Perhaps User:Tiamut, I have missed something, but the lead should technically have a brief sketch of the use of the term, which is then elaborated on in a lower section. The remark seems to me appropriate where it is, and, as Itsmejudith notes, similar passages are present elsewhere in Wiki articles on nationalities. Furthermore, the text is not 'etymological', it refers to use and defines the accepted use of the word, and that means the lead is the appropriate place for it. INHP Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the French people article does not mention anything related to this discussion in the lead. The lead is two sentences long and neither one discusses the construction of national identity. While the Scottish people does include some such information, it also refers to Scots as a nation and an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland in the very first sentence, firmly establishing the legitimacy of this identity.

Those insisting on the inclusion of the recentism of Palestinian as a national identity are generally the same people denying the applicability of the use of the term nation to refer to Palestinians. Now given that we agreed not to reopen the debate of nationhood for at least another five months, I want to make clear that I am not advocating for the inclusion of nation in the lead a this juncture. I do however think it is grossly unbalanced to stress the recentism of Palestinian national identity, without using the term nation to refer to this people. (To me, it seems a favouring of the Zionist narrative that Palestinians are merely Arabs who decided to pretend they had a national identity.) As such, and due to the concerns of other new editors here, I am proposing that the paragraph in question be moved down into the "Etymology" section. From my reading of her comments, ItsmeJudith is not opposed to this suggestion for the time being. It is not a radical move, but I feel it's important to achieving NPOV balance in the lead. Tiamut^talk 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I made two points in one contribution, sorry if it wasn't clear. The first is that I don't mind if the question is kept out of the lead. This is just because I think it is always easier to write the sections first and the lead afterwards. My second point was that articles on peoples should discuss the construction of their ethnic/national identity. The two articles I cited give some prominence - in different ways - to such a process of construction. The notion that the origin of the Palestinian national identity is wholly recent is, in my opinion, a notable but a minority view, and I agree with Tiamut that it should not be given a great deal of prominence. It should definitely not be implied by weasel wording. I haven't had a chance to read all the archived discussion on the point so can't comment any further on the nuances. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what boogeymen Tiamut is referring to when talking about the "Zionist narrative," but it seems to me that this issue shouldn't be that complicated. Most (though not all) Middle Eastern countries are a result of borders that were drawn more or less arbitrarily by colonial powers for their own purposes. During the time of the Ottoman Empire, administrative boundaries had relatively little effect on the way people moved and settled. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc., are all recent innovations, but that doesn't mean their national aspirations are any less valid. --Leifern (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Leifern, I wrote: To me, it seems a favouring of the Zionist narrative that Palestinians are merely Arabs who decided to pretend they had a national identity. What boogeyman are you talking about? Tiamut^talk 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think his concern was that you might have been using "Zionist" as an epithet, though in this case I think you probably weren't. perhaps in the future, we could use phrases like something like "views commonly seen among pro-Israel political advocates and pundits," or something, similar? thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No epithet intended, merely description. Note I did not say "Zionists" but "Zionist narrative" which refers to a political line of thinking, rather than characterizing people according to their views. "Pro-Israel political advocates and pundits" actually seems more offensive to me, but hey, to each his own. Thanks for your input Steve. Tiamut^talk 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, what I was reacting to was the premise that only someone you think would be opposed to Palestinian people would dare suggest that it's "recent" that Palestinians have identified themselves as a distinct people. Setting aside whether that's the case, I'm merely pointing out that Middle Eastern nation-states are for the most part recent inventions. This doesn't make, say, Syrian or Iraqi claims to peoplehood any less legitimate, and neither does it make Palestinians claim the same. As a general principle, I find these "xxxian people" articles problematic - you can see how awkward it is on a relatively uncontroversial topic, namely Norwegian people.--Leifern (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. sorry, I agree with Leifern. (Although i don't feel tiamut's comments were actually excessive or malicious in any way.) However, i do want to note that it is not necessarily Zionist to hold certain political or historical viewpoints on Palestinian political claims, any more than it is "Arabist"to claim that Israel has in some way mistreated Palestinians. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your comments Steve. In response to Leifern, I'd like to clarify something. My comments were 1) that in my opinion the intro seemed to favor a Zionist narrative and 2) that those who were supporting its inclusion in the lead tended generally to be the same people opposed to the idea of including the word nation in the lead. This contradiction was, in my opinion, worth noting, since it exemplifies how personal bias can lead to doublethink. I did however not say that only those who opposed to Palestinian people would suggest it was recent. That's your interpretation of what I wrote. While you are entitled to it, I thought I should be clear about my position and what I was trying to convey. Thanks for your time. Tiamut^talk 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So what this nonsense exactly mean: Does it mean that just because the British are Europpean they lose their Identity as British. It is known that all Europpeans are descendent of the Goths people ( or german peoples: Anglos, saxons, Franks, germans, visigoth of Spain, the Lombards ofitaly, the ostrogoth of Italy, the Slavs, the Yiddish speaking peoples like Ashkenazim and Khazar etc). does that mean because all of them are Goths they should give up their land for who ever demand it? How about England London. London area was inhabited by the Celts of Brittny of France) before the anglosaxons (goths scythians) kicked them out. Should we then bring the people from Brittny France and settle them in London? Palestinians are Arab nation just like France is a Austria is a german nation or France a gothic german nation ( the Franks etymology is Free-angles, who were freed on the bridge of Frankfurt and sent west Angles being a german people ( the angles of England!) so angles were in Germany east of frankfurt river, became the Franks in west of Frankfort and became the English in England (Engle-Land)75.72.88.121 (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To get back on track here, I'm still waiting for a solid reason as to why this paragraph needs to be in the introduction. While Palestinian as a national identity crystallized in the late 19th century, almost all national groups in the Middle East and Africa and other colonized regions did not come to think of themselves in national terms until after the drawing of national boundaries by outside forces. I find the highlighting of the recentism of Palestinian national identity, per its placement in the second paragraph of the introduction to be WP:UNDUE. I think the subject is better covered in the "Etymology" section, directly below the introduction. I would like to make the edit as suggested. Are there any strong objections? Tiamut^talk 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:6SJ7 objection to the proposal that a clarification be removed from the introduction. I agree that the distinction he makes is relevant. Doright (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I see by your statement "the lead should technically have a brief sketch of the use of the term, which is then elaborated on in a lower section," that we are in agreement. It appears the only difference is that you prefer a version that I have shown to falsely sourced, and, have provided no rebuttal nor evidence in support of your position regarding the text here. Doright (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leifernand Steve, Sm8900 debunking of Tiamut's proposal. It seems that Tiamut's proposal is ill-founded and and based upon a straw man argument to refute a claim not stated in the article. Remarkably, Tiamut says, "To me, it seems a favouring of the Zionist narrative that Palestinians are merely Arabs who decided to pretend they had a national identity." Leifern's point is well taken. He says, "I don't know what boogeymen Tiamut is referring to when talking about the 'Zionist narrative.'" Since, Tiamut's argument is predicated upon a rebuttal to this "pretend" thing that is not even stated in the article, it must be the desire to balance the "bogeyman" that is used to justify this unwise proposal.Doright (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On Herododtus on Palestine

cyrrent article version says Herodotus, active in the middle of the 5th century BCE, where it denotes generally[5] the coastal land, including Phoenicia of Sidon down to Egypt.[6]" the reference 6 refers to Herodotus Histories Book 2 logos 8 where he says clearly that Phoenicia that its capital sidon is not Palestina. Since the current version support a STRANGE claim it should be supported by two references but not The Histories of Herodotus. I would like to refer to the Archaelogy magazine on the web that says clearly that the passage in Herodotus is clearly without a doubt Palestine is between Phoenicia and Egypt!! The current reference which easily accisable on the net ( a ref was removed recently to Herodotus logos 8 b2). It was the greek who named it Palestina BEFORE the Romans! ( in the Hellenic empire after Herodotus and before the romans!). It is obviously that the current version is manipulated by anti palestine theory supporters. You should change the wording immediatelyabubakr (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the words of Herodotus "From the town of Posidium, which was founded by Amphilochus, son of Amphiaraus, on the border between Cilicia and Syria, as far as Egypt - omitting Arabian territory, which was free of tax, came 350 talents. This province contains the whole of Phoenicia and that part of Syria which is called Palestine" at [1]

here is Jstor archaeology article

[2] and [3]...abubakr (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here more from Herodotus:

Herodotus 3.5 describes the egyptian borders: “the only clear entry pass into egypt is this: from Phoenicia as far as the boundary of Cadytis is the country of what we called Palestinian Syrians; from Cadytis, a city that is in my judegement smaller that Sardis, to the city of Ienysus the seaports are in the posession of the arabians” ! You can see that Herodotus Palestine of Syria does not need interpretation: It is the land between Phoenicia with its capitol Sidon and the Borders of Egypt at Al-Arish (just like Egypt current borders now and any time in the past. Palestyne of Syria is all the land mass that opens to the sea between Phonecia south of Sidon of course to al Arish( near Rafah), hence it is the same Palestine of our days.! It is not true that Hadian named Judea as Palestine after 120 AD because Judea was already a small part of palestine (10% just the enclave around Jerusalem) while the whole area was known as Palestine at the time of Romans befor and after Judea's demise. The finding that Palestine was named palestine in the greek time means blast the Jewish media Point of View about Hadrian story. Obviously you wikipedians take the unreferenced material as for granted but when somebody is new to wiki you impress him by finding a reference to his claim to replace the material that is not referenced that you put in Wikipedia for granted as because it is popular in the media( even though not referenced!) It is upon you to bring proofs ( 2 references ) for the STRANGE claims that Palestine of Herodotus is not the current Palestine, and as a strange claim it should be put after the normal reference as a Strange claim alternative/s! I hope there are ears listening. At any rate people are reading this talk page and are finding for themselves how the wikipedians are biased and in cahoot with the controlled media! ( in all the articles that mentions the hadrian story fail to present a reference)!!!abubakr (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're a Wikipedian abubakr. Are you biased and in cahoots with the controlled media? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW your point seems to be a good one. Scholarly articles discussing Herodotus's definition are an appropriate source for the article. We should avoid directly quoting Herodotus's Histories, as they are a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Abubakr, you've rasied a number of important points. I did a little research myself and found this text [4] which speculates as to who Herodotus meant he spoke of the "Syrians of Palestine". Note that the author makes clear that Herodotus never used the term "Jew" and yet, in our version of the article, we include "Jews" as one of the groups to whom Herodotus meant to refer. I'd like to remove this information from the article because I think its dangerously misleading to suggest that modern-day Jews were discussed Herodotus. Indeed, the author in the text I linked to explains how that thesis came to be established and its not a very convincing series of deductions. I'd also like to add the more scholarly sources you put forward, rather than using Herodotus as a primary text. I thought though, that I would open the issue here first, considering that many might object or claim "bias" if I made the edits without explanation. Thanks for the information and for listening. Tiamut^talk 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. From memory, chancing on this text or the one on Palestine, I was struck by the usual cliché that the term Palestine was imposed by Hadrian, and added in the information from Herodotus, but sourcing it with the commentary by Hows and Wells on the Greek text. In the meantime, I gather this note has been conveniently removed, either from here or the other page, or both. These classical commentaries, at each section, gloss the primary source with detailed notes, pointing out contradictions ambiguities etc. One can't keep up with everything, but simply note, from time to time, how good information is neatly clipped out wittingly or otherwise, to leave confusion, as here, apparently. p.s.User:Tiamut The text you cite from Google Books, confirming the gloss 'Jews' for Syro-Palestinians by cross-reference to later use (Ovid) is just one of hundreds, on a problematical equation. Most issues here are controversial and any one scholarly text will only give a snippet of one of many possible interpretations Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict - but it speaks to the points you raise anyway) Further, this source says the "Syrians of Palestine" or "Palestinian Syrians" (both terms are used by Herodotus), were an "ethnically amorphous group" whom this author speculates refers predominantly to Arab tribes. It seems the association of the "Syrians of Palestine" with Jews is due solely to the fact that they are described as practicing circumcision (which Herodotus reports that they themselves say they adopted from the Egyptians). Later writers assumed they were Jews, since circumsion is associated with Jewish tradition. However, this deductive logic has been called into question by a number of more recent scholars. I don't think we should include speculation as to the "Palestinian Syrians" ethnic composition in this article since it would take up too much space and is only tangentially related to the subject. Perhaps it can be discuss in the article on Herodotus' writings itself and then linked here. So, is anyone opposed to removing the information on the ethnic compositon of "Palestinian Syrians"? Tiamut^talk 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And How do you know that Arabs did not practice circumcision? How about the Samaritans ? in 450 BC there were no jews in Palestine they were still in Babylon for a 150 years. there were only Arabs and Samaritans (arabs from Hamah and Homs and Damascus of Aram!) You know that Arab practice circumcision as in the Bible story of Abraham and Ishmael circumcision at age 13 for Ishmael and the Arabs after him! Also Herodotus mentions many many other nations that practiced circumcision in his time not just the jews ( actually he never mentioned the jews as one of the people who practice circumcision in his time because they were not in Palestine then!) As I told you before you are still occupied by the your perceptions because most of you are jews or are impressed with the Controlled media ( by the way you can not use scholarly or media articles that don't present a reference that Palestine included Phoenicia! this is a strange claim and require a scientific reference not a media article written by a jew!? You should refer to Herodotus first not to interpretation. The dominant interpretation in scholarly archaeological studies ( like the Jstor article I presented and many others ) is that Palestine was seperate from Phoneicia! and between phoenicia and egypt ( clearly ending at El-Arish as my Herodotos ref shows). The current version of the article is a 4th grade alternative opinion, and showld not be mentioned alone but rather after mentioning the top 3 other dominant views ( the first one being Herodotus words without interpretation!!!), All this of course according to your Wiki rules that you terrorise every new person with75.72.88.121 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked, and see that the passage here does indeed still refer us to How and Wells on Herodotus. You wish to remove it? It strikes me as innocuous. Most Wiki articles on ancient Israel are, to me at least, virtually unreadable, since they are written from a Biblical perspective, one known to have been patched up from clan myth cycles and oral lore mostly after the time Hoerodotus wrote i.e., and not from an archeological or comparativie perspective. The note seems innocuous to me, and useful in so far as it shows that the reality of the terrain was polyethnic, as were the Jews themselves, in the sense that the word Jew is used loosely to refer to what were, in high antiquity, a broad number of culturally and often ethnically distinct groups/tribes merging over time, and at times diverging. What we have in the OT is a very narrow clerical reworking, a creation of national consciousness, by a small elite, of traditions hailing from numerous clan, tribal and ethnic groups. All the commentators were saying then is that many of these local groups, Canaanites, Amorites, Kenites,Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Samaritans, were probably there, as were varieties of Jews, even those looked down on as polytheistic idolators by the Pharisees. But I have no strong objections either way Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm sure that you can appreciate why the ethnic identity of the "Palestinian Syrians" mentioned by Herodotus would be a major point of contention to the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While some sources say they were Jews, others completely reject that conclusion. Given the polarity of opinion, I don't think we should mention anything about it at all, since there is no space in this article for that kind of discussion. My suggestion is to state simply that Herodotus uses the term "Palestinian Syrians" as an ethnonym for the people of the region, but that their ethnicity remains a subject of debate. We can then provide a link to the Histories (Herodotus), where a sub-section can be created that discuss this debate in detail. I'm not trying to deny Wikipedia readers informtion. I'd like to see a fuller discussion of the scholarship on the subject. Just not in the etymology of this article, where an extended analysis is inappropriate and where brief mentions would have to privilege the views of one or two scholars over the rest. Possibly misleading people into making conclusions that should not be made. Tiamut^talk 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, in the light of the preposterous pettifogging we have seen in here by pro-Zionist editors, who militantly editwar to cancel out any suggestion that might intimate Palestinians have native rights in that area, that you are extremely wary of edits that can add in information the malicious might jump at to start another incendiary firefight. I find, as I think you do, that this obsession with racial origins rather bizarre, especially coming from certain quarters. We are all bastards, and the more mongrelization the better, and how people can think 'race', under its present euphemism of 'ethnos', important in identity is better left to psychiatrists. But since the pages on this area are so prepossessed by the idea of a special, unique, quasi racio-ethnic identity with Palestine based on mythographic narratives that speak of a single people, where the reality was far more promiscuous, I tend to think Wells and How's comment on the mixture of ethnic groups in the area salutary, a breath of fresh air. It is important not to be intimidated into excessive cautiousness from exposure to malicious editors with an ethnic axe to grind, but stick to the scholarship, whatever the consequences in other minds.

There are many commentaries on Herodotus and I chose one that is pre-Balfour. I don't think you will get anyone adding the material, and raising a debate, on this subject at the wiki Herodotus page, since H's refs.to Palestinian Syria/Palestine are nugatory. Still I won't press the point. Regards as always Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

75.72.88.121 Please stick to verifiable facts, and refrain from vague ranting. If you have a point to make, make it succinctly, and cite for each point a scholarly source. Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

sticke to the verifiable resources? which is what? not Herodotus? Herodotus is not verifiable? did not you read what Herodotus says. Can you show copy past the wording from How and Wells where they supposedly said that Palestine include Phoenicia as the current version of the wiki article say?

It is How and Wells that say that Palestine is separate from Phoenicia as the Jstor article says, and cherck this too: Herodotus here as in a number of other places distinguishes the Palestine Syrians from the Phoenicians (compare what he says in 7.89). [5] Also, Philo of Alexandria ( a jew) in 40 AD ( Roman period) says that the region where some jews and essenes dwell is called "palestinian syria) this is 100 years before Hadrian and inside the Roman period itself!? Actually the only STRANGE Claim that could be deducted from Herodotus is that Palestine is part of Phoenicia not Phoenicia part of Palestine as the wiki article current version says?? Enough is enough! This is gone too far, I could not find any where that Phoenicia is part of Palestine This a non existant strange claim reported Exclusively by Wikipedia, and it is inline with the Zionist propaganda that Palestine never existed only untill Hadrian75.72.88.121 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously Tiamut you did not notice from the excerpt from Herodotus that he says that the Palestinian coast was in the hands of Arabians. You also fail to recognize that 450 BC was the period when Ezra was negotiating with the Ishmaelites (Arabs) to let him build a wall around Jerusalem. This is BEFORE the jews were to come back! Even after they came back from Babylon and diaspora only a fraction came back (1% of the population of Palestine) hardly noticeable by Herodotus in 450 BC ( even though Herodotous was BEFORE that 1% came Back!!! Judia was and is always a 10% of Palestine The closed enclave around Jerusalem which is in the west bank palestinian terotories.

There is no need for reference to show that in 450 BC there was no jews in Palestine or Judea to talk about ( by any body including Herodotus). The claim that Palestinian syrians were probably partly the jews is also a strange claim!!( ie nedd to be supported by two references from 450BC, curently don't exist)75.72.88.121 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

History is fluid, full of lacunae, and often narrated by people with an ear for hearsay, legends and pseudo-historical romances. I think you are arguing at cross-purposes with us. Whatever, as dinner beckons, I will simply transcribe what Hows and Wells say on Herodotus Bk.3, 5:-

'The Palestine Syrians are here distinguished by H., from the Phoenicians (so too in ii.104): their lands also are distinguished in i.105 (probably), iii.91.1, and iv.39,2; in ii.106 he applies the term to include the coast north of Mount Carmel. But the most important reference is vii.89, where H.distinguishes the 'Syrians in Palestine' from the Phoenicians, and then goes on (2) to use 'Palestine' of all the coast land, including Phoenicia, 'as far as Egypt'. He never uses it of Phoenicia alone. Here he means 'Philistines', who were still powerful in his time (Zech.ix.5); it is true that he says they were circumcized (ii.104.3), but he says (ib.) the same of Phoenicians. Either the neighbouring tribes had begun to copy the Jews in this rite, or H. confuses the Jews and the coast peoples. He cannot have meant by the 'Palestine Syrians' 'the Jews' only, for they were at this time very unimportant.

The ancient geographers did not usually extend 'Arabia' to the Mediterranean, nor does H. himself in iv.39. He means here that the ends of the trade routes from Arabia to the Mediterranean were under Arabian control . .For the Arabs of South Palestine as dependent allies (not subjects) of the Persians cf.88.1 n.' How and Wells, pp.256-7. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How and Wells do not contradict Herodotus The phrase you refer to from How and wells is miss understood by you "and then goes on (2) to use 'Palestine' of all the coast land, including Phoenicia" Palestine of all the coast land ( means what it means that Palestine is part of the whole coast that also (the whole coast) include Phoenicia as well!!! Herodotus never said that Palestine include phoenicia, Herodotus book is available online and is in the greek language "This province (beyond the River (Euphretes))contains the whole of Phoenicia and that part of Syria which is called Palestine" at [6]75.72.88.121 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what Zacharaiah 9:5 refered to by How and Wells ( as philistines in ((Zach IX,5)) says "Ashkelon shall see [it], and fear; Gaza also [shall see it], and be very sorrowful, and Ekron; for her expectation shall be ashamed; and the king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited" There is no mention of Philistines in Zach9:5!! How mistakenly thought that since Pjilistines lived in Ashkelon and Gaza 500 befor Zachereiah then they must be still living in his time!! How is mistaken. However Herodotus mentions the Arabs many times as inside Palestine of Syria( a land between Phoenicia and Egypt), on the coast and inland in Palestine! , he also mentions the Samaritans who are Arabs and Aramaeans (cousins of Arabs) converts to Judaism, but never mentions Jews or Philistines(the sea people). Ezra (Ezra book the Bible) mentions how Ezra was unable to convince the Arabs of the city of Jerusalem! to let him build a wall around the city because they did not like walls and so they can take their cattle to the country daily with out having to cross a gate! Ezra was alone with no jews in Jerusalem then. Ezra as the bible says ( and as the existing! Persian documents say-he was historical figure not just biblical) was sent by the Persians as a minor official in Jerusalem only. It was 40-50 years after Ezra that an order of Xerexes 3 that ordered to built the temple and jews started returning after that! in 450 AD the time of Herodotus there were no jews in Palestine or Jerusalem for more than a 150 years and for another 50 years after Herodotus . It was impossile for Herodotus to describe a people who lived before his time by 150 years or more.75.72.88.121 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I demand from Itsmejudith to allow me to change the part about herodotus to correct it as palestine between phoenicia and Egypt at Al-Arish and that Herodotus mentioned many times the Arabs inside Palestine and never mentioned jews, and also to cut the references to philistines and Jews as probably the Palestinian Syrians ( since this also a strange claim)75.72.88.121 (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You insist that How and Wells meant Palestine include Phoenicia while I insidt that How says Palestine part fof the whole coast of which phoenicia is a part too!/ And since you consider How and Wells is the Ultimate resource ( like I also do) then we should mention it that Arabs were there because Cadytis according to How and Wells is Jerusalem as the Arabic name of it Al-Kuds(Cadytis), and that the arabs from Cadytis to Al-Arish was in the hands of Arabins read Herodotus Herodotus 3.5 describes the egyptian borders: “the only clear entry pass into egypt is this: "from Phoenicia as far as the boundary of Cadytis is the country of what we called Palestinian Syrians; from Cadytis, a city that is in my judegement smaller that Sardis, to the city of Ienysus the seaports are in the posession of the arabians” again in this paragraph Herodotus also says the land of Palestinia syrians he already mentioned as Palestine of Syria (IS SEPARATE FROM PHoenicia!!! Lets add the How Wells claim that Cadytis is Jerusalem a name known of Jerusalem since ancient times and Not Jerusalem which is an invention of the rabbies found only in the Masoretic Bible which many Bible text critiques consider forfeited and or altered, Hence I ask Itsmejudith to add this not to the article Jerusalem (al-Quds) in wikipedia75.72.88.121 (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody have wrote in wiki palestinians article that " Palestine in Herodotus meant GENERALY[5] all the coast including Phoenicia[6]"

In his reference [5] he mentions (5- With the exception of Bks. 1, 105; 3.91.1, and 4.39, 2. )!!! ie books 1 , 2, 3.9 and 4.39!!! But these are ALL the places where Herodotus mentions palestine minus his other ref [6] book 3 section 5 3.5 which is this! " "From the town of Posidium, ---, as far as Egypt - omitting Arabian territory, which was free of tax, came 350 talents. This province contains the whole of Phoenicia and that part of Syria which is called Palestine, and Cyprus. This is the fifth Satrapy." (from Herodotus Book 3,5 8th logos. So how is it that Generally refers to only one place in Herodotus and the supposedly un-generally refers to ALL the many citations of Palestine by Herodotus!!!! even though ref[6] actually says that palestine is separate from phoenicia as the ref says??? these two citations should be from How and Wells not from Herodotus ( if we beieve that that somebody have the evidence that they said so, ie [6] and [5] references statements!!! According to Nashidani it is only according to How and Wells and NOT Herodotus that somebody and Nashidani DECIFERED How and wells sentence which actually says that Palestine is part of the whole shore that include phonecia), so how How and Wells says that Palestine include Phoenicia is beyond me???? the two references 5 and 6 (all citations of Palestine in the books of herodotus) says that Palestine is not phoenicia ( not part of phoenicia nor phoenicia part of Palestine but both Palestine and Phoenicia are part of the fifth Persian Satraby called ( Behind the River-Euphrates). The putting of the two refrences [5] and [6] to support that-somebody' claim is Pure cheating. He should mentions other ref from How( which we don't know still what it is , may be How and Wells? where this statement come from:(With the exception of Bks. 1, 105; 3.91.1, and 4.39, 2.), and how can ref [6] means that palestine include phoenicia even though you read it now above! I want these references same ones to support what is meant to support the general understanding that Palestine is not part of Phoenicia!!!75.72.88.121 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is also two more references affirm my demand one from the Jewish Encyclopedia itself:

"The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from 'Plesheth', a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as 'Philistine'. Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were ... most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities",

"Palestine includes the whole of the country between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean as well as the country immediately to the east of the Jordan. The word represents the Greek form, Παλαιστίνη, of the Hebrew (Ex. xv. 14; Isa. xiv. 29, 31; Ps. lx. 10 [A. V. 8]), although in the Old Testament is applied only to the land of the Pelishtim (), or Philistines, and hence denotes merely the coast district south of Phoenicia. It was the Greeks who began to denote the inland country as well by this term; such an application, by a foreign people, of the name of the coast to the interior is no rare phenomenon. As early as Herodotus, who is followed by other classical writers, as Ptolemy and Pliny, the phrase Συρίε ἡ Παλαιστίνη (Syrian Palestine, Palestine of Syria) denotes both the littoral and the neighboring inland region (Judea and Palestine), as well as the entire interior as far as the Arabian desert" "The region now called Palestine is the southern-most part of Syria, and is included between two lines drawn from the Mediterranean eastward—the lower from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean through the southern end of the Dead Sea, and the upper from Tyre to the southern foot of Mount Hermon. This portion of Syria has certain natural boundaries to justify its historical individuality [7] then the southern coastline was called by the Greeks “Palaestina”.

The place-name Palestine - which was reborn as a territorial name in 1920 - derives from the Latin Palestina, the name of the Roman province.

This, in turn derives from the Greek Palaistine (as used by Herodotus), which was derived from the Hebrew Pelesheth, land of the Philistines [8]75.72.88.121 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Friend, unless you learn to read texts exactly, raise single points, one at a time, and suppress the temptation to stitch up a patchwork of assertions into a quilted tirade of truths and falsehoods, dialogue will be impossible. There is far too much that is simply wrong-headed, false or poorly phrased in your long posts for me to reply to. I will analyse just one remark:-

'And since you consider How and Wells is the Ultimate resource ( like I also do) then we should mention it that Arabs were there because Cadytis according to How and Wells is Jerusalem as the Arabic name of it Al-Kuds(Cadytis), and that the arabs from Cadytis to Al-Arish was in the hands of Arabins '

How and Wells is a reliable source. No source is an 'ultimate source'. Kadytis, variously known as Kardutos/Kanutis) according to How and Wells (Herod.(a)ii.159;(b) iii.5.1)is not Jerusalem, but Gaza, since (apud iii.5), it refers to a coastal city. The rest of the remark ('that the arabs from Cadytis to Al-Arish was in the hands of Arabins') is, in English almost meaningless. In historical terms, it is indeed meaningless.

Nearly every paragraph you write adds several new problems, like the one above. Nothing personal: it's a matter of treating interlocutors with respect. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My demand is that this following paragraph:

"where it denotes generally[5] the coastal land from Phoenicia down to Egypt.[6] In expressions where he employs it as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the 'Syrians of Palestine',[7] it refers to a population distinct from the Phoenicians, and thus probably Philistines, though it may also cover several other tribes and ethnic groups present in the area, including the Jews.[8]"

should be written like this:

"where it denotes [5]+[6] the coastal land between Phoenicia south of Sidon and Egypt at al-Arish, and when he speaks of the Syrians of Palestine he mentions only the Arabs[6][Herodotus 3.9, 3.5]

This is all that. simple and correct And How and Wells have the dominant view ( not the strange one!) that Cadytis is Jerusalem as its arabic name now (AL-Quds) see: Walter Wybergh How and Joseph Wells, in their influential Commentary on Herodotus [oxford u press 1989 A Commentary on Herodotus. With introduction and appendixes by W.W. How and J. Wells. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950. Reprint corr.impr. 1928. 2 vols] "As for Cadytis, these same authors note that it is only mentioned here and in iii.5.1 where H(erodotus) describes it as about the size of Sardis'. It has been identified with Jerusalem and its name explained as = 'the holy' (cf. the present Arab name 'El Kuds');" [9] more links http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-097X%28200102%29321%3C57%3AHDOTEM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage http://books.google.com/books?id=pACJYw0bg3QC&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=the+whole+of+phoenicia+and+that+part+of+syria+which+is+called+palestine&source=web&ots=GB1q34jw5C&sig=ZJSqU2aJgt0Duc835lRA5MxLxL0

Harry Thurston Peck. Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers. 1898 says: Kadutis: A town of Syria, mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 159), supposed by some to be Gath, by others Jerusalem (El Kuds)!75.72.88.121 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I am afraid I am not the one who says that How and Wells are considered the dominant scholarly view about Herodotus!! Nor did How and wells say that Palestine include Phoenicia, you just read it wrongly and possibly How and wells made a lingual grammer mistake. At any rate Herodotus is superior to How and Wells, and I showed you many articles from JSTOR Database and other places that almost all people understood Herodotus as he says that Palestine is not part of Phoenicia and that the recent jewish media article actually depended on non other than than this wikipedia article to pass this strange claim. Making Wikipedia as I explained many times more princely than the prince!75.72.88.121 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nashidani: I would like to remind you that the copy/past quotation from Wells was not from Wells and How but a commenter of How and Wells( hence we got somebody commenting on somebody elso who is commenting on Herodotus)

Even though this final comment still means exactly what Herodotus that Palestine is not part of Phoenicia rather between it and Egypt. I am sorry but you did not bring your proof! while I brought many so far!75.72.88.121 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:75.72.88.121. A small point. One 'requests' or better still 'suggests'. One does not 'demand', in English, except when one speaks with a French accent. 'Demand' and 'demander' sont des faux amis.

You misrepresent How and Wells, who after noting that Cadytis has been identified with Jerusalem, and its name expained as = 'the holy'(cf. the present Arab name 'El Kods'), add:-

'But it is clear from iii.5 that Cadytis was on the coast, at the south end of the road from Phoenicia to Egypt; and H's comparison with Sardis, which may rest on his own observation, would certainly not suit Jerusalem, in the days of the humiliation after the return from the Exile. Gaza, on the other hand (certainly captured by Necho), was always an important station of the trade-route from Egypt to Syria'. 1936 Clarendon Press, Oxford vol.1 reprint p.247

I.e. you misrepresent the authors, and the case is closed.

You then say:

'Nor did How and wells say that Palestine include Phoenicia, you just read it wrongly and possibly How and wells made a lingual grammer mistake.'

Hows and Wells did not make a 'lingual' mistake, and if you think so, you are putting your foot into your mouth. Commenting on vii.89, where Phoenicians are distinguished from Syrians in Palestine, they note that the text at vii.2 'use(s) 'Palestine' of all the coast land, including Phoenicia, 'as far as Egypt'.' (vol.1 p.257). The passage on which this statement is based is as follows in the Ionian dialect of Greek Herodotus employs:

ουτοι δε οι Φοινικες το παλαιον οικεον, ως αυτοι λεγουσι,επι τηι Ερυθρηι Θαλασσηι, ενθευτεν δε υπερβαντες της Συριης οικεουσι τα παρα θαλασσαν. της δε Συριης τουτο το χωριον και το μεχρι Αιγυπτου παν Παλαιστινη καλεεται.

Rewrite Herodotus, emend his Greek, and put out a new edition, revised by yourself, of How and Wells. The actual texts say what they say, and mean what I, following the commentary, have said they mean. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You now write:'I would like to remind you that the copy/past quotation from Wells was not from Wells and How but a commenter of How and Wells.'

Untrue. I have my own copy of their work and transcribed it faithfully. If you don't believe me, ask me now to cite any page, or their remarks on any section of Herodotus, and I will give them to you, transcribed, within minutes. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How mentions two possibilities but indicate that Cadytis is Jerusalem is the strongest. and this is the impression of scholars.( it is the dominant opinion of How). You have brought a copy/past from the digital Perseus online where an unknoen summerizer is commenting on How. At any rate there is no place in any scholarly references online that Palestine include Phoenicia but very recent media articles that base their writing on the wiki article here. . I have presented many online citations about Herodotus that mentions the original dominant opinion that Palestine is not phoenicia and it is between phoenicia and Egypt ( just like current palestine ) I demand instead of request is because the article here is corrupted beyond belief. I demand that Itsmejudith request an expert intervension through profnet.com or other places. Your copy/past of "But it is clear from iii.5 that Cadytis was on the coast, at the south end of the road from Phoenicia to Egypt; and H's comparison with Sardis, which..." is also not from How but from a commenter on How!. To summerize: 1- Palestine is that part of Syria (Aram) that is between phoenicia and Egypt. 2-Herodotus mentions no people in Palestine other than the Arabs ( in severla places inside Palestine. Ezra from the bible also mentions that only Arabs were in Jerusalem and around (his people did not come back yet). This is the case then it should be mentioned as thus: Herodotus verify the existance of Palestine as it is now and through the ages, and he verifies that no other than arabs were in Palestine as he swa it!!!!. No need for guessing about who else might had been there then because there wasn't but the Arabs, and makes it an original opinion since nobody reported about the period but Herodtus and any commenter was not alive then! To Nishidani, what is the exact wording from How and Well book where it says that Palestine include Phoenicia??? what is the exact phrase?. What you have reported is from Pereus Digital Online in which some unknown person is summuryzing (severly) the work of How and Wells?!

Even the phrase you brought from Persues online says "palestine of the whole shore that include phoenicia) This doesn not mean that Palestine IS the Whole shore, but that Palestine IS FROM the whole shore.

Herodotus says the Fifth Satrapy ( Beyond-the-River-Euphretis-Satrapy incluses the Coastal strip from "From the town of Posidium on the border between Cilicia and Syria, as far as Egypt - omitting Arabian territory, which was free of tax, came 350 talents. This province contains the whole of Phoenicia and that part of Syria which is called Palestine, and Cyprus"[10] or under the fifth satrapy in [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.88.121 (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IP editor your edit removed cited information hence reverted .Please explain why you are removing cited information before removing it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As this whole section explains" to mention that that Plaestinian syrians were probably jews is a mockery of the truth. Herodotus never mentioned jews or Israelites, but he mentioned Arab 56 times and mentioned Arabian peoples 13 times ( many inside of Palestine). To add the citation from How and Wells commentary book on Herodotus in which How wonder of the possbility if jews were in those syrians (a strange claim by How) can not be used as a top level reference from Herodotus!! If It had to be mentioned then it should be added that Jews (according to same How) were very unimportant then ( because they were in Babylon at that time in 450 BC as How implies to the fact) Hence you can't ignore the 56 Herodotus references to Arab and Arabian in his book and talk about the strange suggestion by How!!!! This article about Palestinians not the jews.and the Herodotos reference is talking about Palestinian Syrians as Canaanites and Arabs only ( no mention of jews and israelites) it is possible some of the Syrians were the Samaritans ( aramaens (ie canaanites who converted to judaism ). According to Wikipedia you need to present TWO References for a strange claim and the reference to Jews and philitines in the paragraph is strange ! Is is strange or not(not mentioned by Herodotus) ? does it need two references or not), lacking another reference it should be removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, what you apply on me should be applied on any body else75.72.88.121 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consult WP:V again. It does not say that extraordinary claims require two sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you re not reading my complaint here in discussion , it seems I will have to be writing for ever here until the concensus member committee meet again!! It is a strange claim that Herodotus never mentioned Jews or israelites but mentioned Arabs 56 times and Arabians 13 times, yet on the article all what we get from herodotus about Palestinians in 450 BC is that they might been jews or philistines (philistines in 450BC). Obviously you are skewing the info anyway possible to forge the truth. The truth is that Herodotus never mentioned jews and israelites but mentioned arabs. How and wells book commentary just question the possibility ( an alternative opinion even by How and wells). Yes you need two unrelated refs otherwise it should be removed ( the sentence about jews and philistines in Herodotus. and the ref to how should be removed. since it serves no porpuse but to present the faint suggestion of jewish or philistines (sea people) in 450 BC when every body knows that jews in that period were still in Babylon. This is the time when Nehemia and Ezra were still negotiating with arabs residents of Jerusalem to let them build the wall. I would like to suggest that this article be written by palestinians not isarelis or British people, since they caused the diaspora and tormented the palestinians, and cause a lot of conflict in editing this article, I suggest that antipalestinians and other opinions be placed at the bottom under a section titled alternative opinions theories fancy claims etc= where they can argue forever with other weird ideas minded persons. This article for example spend most part of it about the difinition of palestinians ( antipalestinians claim that jews are palestinians and the british occupation was representive and legal in giving citizenships. It is like giving the white american settlers half part in writing about native americians (how they are red indians savage unchristian etc ect) This article is plagued by debates between two sides of postgraduate people. It does not help the layman who wants to know something about Palestinians to read "the first endogemic use !!!!) This article is a turn off for people seeking first introductory info (ie what encyclopedia should give) about things.abubakr (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't answer harangues. I have a degree and postgraduate studies in classical Greek, a substantial library of primary and secondary texts in that language, and English is my mother tongue, though I am not English: my forefathers were part of the diaspora that followed the English genocide and dispossession of the original inhabitants of Ireland over centuries. You're in a hectic hurry to get somewhere, and, in that haste, are kicking and lashing out wildly, indeed imcomprehensibly, at fellow companions on the same trail. If you reflect on this absurd contretempts with some detachment, I will welcome your comments. If you persist in ranting, distorting English texts through ignorance of grammatical niceties, and continue to make inferences about my reading habits (perseus etc) which are preposterous, then we have nothing more to say to each other. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are Palestinians

I would like to request sharpening the article by distansing it from the debate between anti-palestinians and pro-palestinians.

First the article start with three terms where the third term is different from the first two and that they are used (as in the past tense) to describe same people ( not same people!)as ( the arabic speaking people who have family relations in Palestine!?). This is not true that any body that has family relation in palestine is palestinian( this then will include all the jews in Isreal plus their few million relatives who are jews and Non-jews!!). It also includes millions upon millions of relatives of palestinians who are not palestinians from all over the world and many arab countries!. A person can learn arabic in six months these days ( and millions of Israeli jews already speak arabic!). The Palestinians are the people who lived in palestine up to the 1917 invasion by (the overseas-foreign-imperial-gold-seeking-country of Britian!) and all their descendents from 1917 till now. This excludes all the people who were brought into Palestine by the illegal British occupation force and later consequences like the Israel state. Palestinians thus include residents of palestine until 1917 ( and their current descendents) including many non arabs (few hundred samaritans, few hundred jews till 1917, few thousand gypsies and bosnians and turks and greek and armenians etc) and also include people who did not speak arabic as a first language ( like those minorities mentioned above). Now this is the difinition that the world knows us Palestinians by, They know that Israelis are not the palestinians!, You know: when the word Palestinians is heard in the news, an eskimo man doesn't jump up in his bed because he thougth they mentioned him!?, not the same to an israeli person!!? The world know exactly who are the palestinians and to be more clear they call us terrorists in the jewish media( they iclude all palestinians who are resisting the illegal occupation of Israelis this include arabs, non arab moslem palestinians like chechens or turks, the Palestinian non-muslem (arab or non arab) christians, These ( the terrorist palestinians or just plain palestinians ) are the people who lived in Palestine untill the invasion of Britain ( an arch ancient enemy of Palestinians since times immemorial, from the sack of Jerusalem in 1099 on all muslims and christians of its inhabitants, passing through the killing of 10000 palestinians in acre by Richard the Lion Heart of England 90 years later!, passing by endless number of battles between the two parties ( yes Palestinians and British!) since then till 1917 and then through the british occupation from 1917 till 1948 in which thousands of palestinians and British lost their precious lives in 1936-1939, and in every year of the occupation!) So lets stop the fuzz about who is palestinian and when they were started to be called palestinian OK? Palestinians also include the people who were deported by the British from 1917 and 1948 like the Grand Mufti of Palestine and the Sacred Mosque of Jerusalem!!!try palestinians deport the high Anglican Bishop in Glaxbury!?)( obviously british are ilegal representives for the palestinians!) The article jump to the next subject etymology to repeat the argument all over again: the question of who was called palestinians in 2000 BC or not.or in 1930 or not This is As "If Native Americans were not called literally native americans (in English) or (Red Indian in English ) in 10000 BC then they do not qualify to be native americans or be a nation or a people!??. the insistance on the need to using the term Palestinian back in History is absurd. The Native americans did not call themselves native AMERICA!!ns or red INDIA!!ns ( for india and america are terms from the old world never heard of before in the new world inhabitants!! We know that Phoenicians did not call themselves Phoenicians ( rather Aram) and the Syrians did not call themselves Syrians ( rather Aram) but it was names given to them by then a slave mercenary men of sea known as the Greek or Ionians! who accompanied Alexander as slaves literally!!( bonded by their wives and sisters) According to how this article goes, it emphacise the superiority of a name to qualify people to become a nation or a people, even though this is not mentioned by any Historical scholars so far, and gives a person who convert to a religion at a moment of time a sudden instant inclusion in a nation?( like the jews) In talking about palestinians we should start by defining who they are as the inhabitants of a geographically closed bordered area as palestine borders and from there we talk about what they have and have not of the six essences of a nation or people as defined by the David Miller article in azure as I reported few posts back, or any ligitimate agreed on other than david miller. But to spend all the article on a debate of a high tier of unknown references ( who are mainly abrupt in the time of history). We should add that palestine refered to the land known as Canaan, and replace the map which is not as arabic geographer said because it added part of east of jordan river ( nabataean desrt of arabia) which never happened in Arabic times or Roman times! but only to a part of east of the jordan at the top north which was called the Jordan administrative in arabic times and palestina iii IN ROMAN TIMES, but the current state of Jordan was always part of Arabia then named arabia nabataea. It was England the abrupt-illegal-foreign entity that made the huge inclusion of the jordan state area into palestine in around 1920 that never happened for 10000 years before!!!. I would finally suggest a firsm difinition of palestinians as the people who were living in palestine up to the british invasion 1917 and their current descendents wheather they were still inside palestine or outside! this is just two lines. and then ignore the story about when they were started to be called palestinians since this is not a part of the tenents of being a people or a nation.abubakr (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the phrace that roughly half of the palestinians continue to live in Palestine( instead of Mandate of Palestine which is a political temporary terminology different from Palestine which never included the current state of Jordan area since ancient times).

I also changed the difinition of Palestine in its page to mean palestine not the mandate of palestine which is something completely different)abubakr (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC) To Mr Jacoobo: Jordan is part of British mandate palestine!!, British mandate Palestine is a temporary political assignment not a geographical or historical difinition of Palestine! If you go to mideastweb.org you see that the map of Palestine stayed the same since Canaan times (between the sea and the jordan and dead sea river!) never a part of the desert or land east of the dead sea was a part of palestine!. Only a small part of Jordan state east of the river jordan at the top most north was considered part of Palestina section III in roman times (byzantians only) and in Arabic times (Jund Jordan) check the maps of palestine in that website (through the ages)!! British brief occupation of the area ( stale faced anglosaxons on the soon to drawn island somewhere in the north west of the earth, has no bearing on the history and geography of the world, since they are hardly themselves to be found on the map of the world!abubakr (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gain consensus for changes to introduction before making edits

Please, to everyone. Any changes to the introduction that singificantly alter the meaning of text should be discussed here first. Consensus should be gained before making the edits. Telling us you are going to make the edit and why is not enough. The introduction is a summary of the article and represents the result of many months of discussion to achieve consensus. While I appreciate that it is frustrating to have to do this, it is required so as to avoid edit-warring. Changes to punctuation or changes for flow that do not singificantly affect the meaning of hte introduction are fine. But changes that introduce new information or alter what things are highlighted need to be discussed and gain consensus first. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tiamut I have presented my requests for a while now about the need to change the introduction to add difinition of palestinians. I have put a difinition that is realistic. As I explained in last post, when the palestinian word is heard on the radio, it does not alert the isaeli person that it is talking about him, but RATHER about his nemesis problem or foe. Palestinian people is different from Arab Palestinian people and they don't refer to the same exacvt people. and since the article is about Palestinians and not Arab palestinians, then the difinition is so. I don't work full time in wiki, and I have to go to work, and I don't see anything about concensus in editing the wiki. You are free to change or add parts to the article (if only if you got references to present!!!!), there are many tiny bits here and there and we can't just be able to make concensus about each bit in a new meeting or so. I do not remove something that is referenced but add to it, and I hope I treated the same wayabubakr (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adanamuf/abubakr, I don't understand what you are saying at all. I am not against people adding sourced material to the article (please read WP:V and WP:RS to understand what this means exactly). The only exception to this is the introduction, where changes should gain WP:CONSENSUS first. This is because per WP:LEAD, the intro is a summary of the main points of the article and because changes to the introduction without discussion tend to lead to edit-warring due its prominence and importance in setting the tone for the article. Please be specific about exactly what you would like to see added and/or removed, propose it here, wait for feedback from other editors and if there are no objections after a few days, go ahead and make the proposed edit. If someone WP:REVERTs after that, do not restore the same edit. Instead, open discussion of the matter here. If no one explains their objection, you can go ahead and restore the material. That's all I have to say about the subject for now. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You have reversed my work that required me more than 10 hours of labor on the internet searching and studiying the websites.

I think it took you only few minutes to decide to reverse every thing back with out any reference!!. Obviously only what matched the complete picture about the universe in your mind can go published! I don't think you know that much with due respect, unless if you are the mighty god! . I don't know who are the concensus committee these days? If it is only you and me then why don't you take a deep breath and study the bits one by one. I will summerize: 1- Palestina arabs and Palestinians are not terms for the same people!. 2- The articler is about Palestinians not Arab palestinians> 3-The terminology about Palestinians is not detrimental about the subject ( I brought the example of the Native Americans). 4- It seems every body in the world knows who the Palestinians are but you and Steve. 5- the Palestinians word on the news does not alert the Israeli jew as refering to HIM? 6- the topic about Greek etymology is better now with my edit! don/t you agree?, if not, what don/t you agree about my changes?? 7-the Falg and COA and Map of the homeland of the palestinian people is essential to be at top just like other articles in wiki about other peoples of less significance ( Cajun, acadian, etc), they are being at top in other articles about palestinian people and palestine! ( see palestinian authority for example) 8-It si a disrespect and insult on you behalf to cut these essential memorials about palestinians even if you claimed to be palestinian ( try removing the flag of Israel from its article for example, because you don't think there is a so called concensus. 9- I warn you this a serious case of defamation and discrimination on you r behalf or on wiki if you were an administrator. 10-I demand that you stop the insult and defamation behaviour because it is untolerable!abubakr (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnanmuf/abubakr, I think you have a very valid point regarding the flag and coat of arms. They do belong at the top of the article I would like someone that's better at formatting to move them to the right and align them with the table of contents. This format is more in line with other articles on WP. The map may be a little more contentious and might be better left to the article on Palestine itself. A few of the images you have suggested are very relevant It would be a good idea to let someone format them into the article so that they don't interrupt the flow of the reading. Tiamut or Itsze or anybody, other than being in a bad format, is there anything contentious about the images abubakr wishes to add? I am not an expert in this field and don't know all the nuanced issues that may arise. Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Padiallah, my main objection to the pictures being placed at the top is based article layout guidelines which frown upon sticking a bunch of pictures together in the introduction. It's just plain ugly. Their content doesn't both me much at all. I like the national flag, the coat of arms I was unfamiliar with, to be honest, but it doesn't irk me and of course the map is always welcome. I just don't think they should all be crammed together at the top, given teh guidelines on layout. Others are welcome to add their opinions. Tiamut^talk 09:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note further that I removed the pictures from the introduction until we can gain consensus for their inclusion. This falls in line with the general request I have made many many times now not to make changes to the introduction without garnering consensus so as to avoid edit-warring. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Majority

per this diff: [12]

Requesting an explanation to the removal of article note and Input on the largest Palestinian population in a single state-area. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is because it right. It is not Jordan that the top majority of palestinians live but Palestine (see demographics) you requested to go to talk page to discuss it but you only came to the talk page 2 hours later!and I asked you to come to talk page before you request!? Obviously you meant to say to wait for you for couple of hours right? This is very respectful on your behalf! and what majority you mean ? ( in the world) or between the palestinians or the israelis?abubakr (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be offensive and I hope my phrasing will be considered with good faith, but there is no country called 'Palestine'. If you intend 'Gaza'+'West Bank'+'Israel' then you are correct that the total sum of 'Palestinians' in the 3 territories is more than in Jordan. However, these are 3 separate entities and not a single state. Are there any reliable sources using the term "Palestine" to support the "live [in] Palestine" perspective? if no, then my version is the proper one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you won't be able to discuss this problem for a lil while longer, I am going to be bold and revert back to "the wrong version". However, this is not intended to force my opinion and if you have proper citations I am certainly open to seeing them and changing the text back. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with the revert, I know enough not to start an edit war regarding the existence of "Palestine" (especially in these articles), but I did want to express my distaste of your move to edit the article after the opposing editor had been blocked. It would have been better form to ask an opposing editor to agree with your version and make the edit so you could remain above reproach. Just bad form. Padillah (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If I wait for all my detractors (you know who you are) I'll get nothing done. If you have content based qualms, feel free. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First, a "majority" is a portion greater than half. According to the text and the infobox, the majority of Palestinians do not live in any one territory, even counting Israel-Palestine as one territory.

Secondly, the text and the infobox now contradict each other, which is bizarre, since I'm pretty sure the same editor has been responsible for both sections. It does not appear that even the plurality of Palestinians (that word, by the way, means "largest portion") live in Jordan. They live in the area that the entire world knows as "the Palestinian territories," regardless of what a minority of Israelis think about the applicability of that label.

This is incredibly frustrating. I've noticed an odd tendency on WP to over-emphasize the "Palestinian-ness" of Jordan, and I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right that "Jordan is Palestine." Wikipedia is not the place to go righting perceived historical wrongs. Both the Palestinians and the entire rest of the world believe that the Palestinian homeland resides within some portion of "Eretz Israel," and that's the primary POV which our article should document. <eleland/talkedits> 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I checked the news nothing new, gaza and west bank are still palestinian terroteries and PA control only 10% of the two areas. both with Israel are Palestine (a wiki article about palestine) historical and 1920 Mandate Palestine are match minus the Negev and Eilat, so I will revrt to prevent contradiction with demographicstartan 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusthefirst (talk • contribs)

Eleland, I aree with you. The emphasis on Jordan is WP:UNDUE. And the changes to the text of the introduction without engaging in discussion to gain consensus first, are disruptive. Jaakobou, please stop adding your text until you gain consensus for what you want to include. That goes for everyone. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there a source supporting this claim? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleland,

1. Thank you for correcting my English error, I completely agree with this edit, albeit, it could have been done without the snide "please learn what simple english words... mean".
2. Your personally directed interpretation, "I can't help but wonder if a person or persons is pushing for the POV of the Israeli extreme right" seems like the same issue we've just been through on WP:AE and I request you avoid such comments in the future also.

Timaut,

1. I disagree with a "mass revert of all undiscussed changes" [13], esp. when it includes undiscussed changes in itself [14].
2. I'm not interested in any edit wars and I request you add your changes onto my earlier edit which was accepted by Eleland as (grammar aside) accurate enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, while Eleland may have found your edit to be "accurate enough", I did not. I have asked you for a source for your population figures for Palestinians in Jordan, you have not provided one. So, I found one myself, which indicates that the estimated Palestinian population in Jordan as of 2005 was 2.7 million people. Further, my request not to make undiscussed changes applies to the text and layout of the introduction, and not the population table figures. This edit which you cite as an example of "undiscussed changes" provides a source for what was a previously unsourced population figure. Please do not make unfounded accusations claiming that I engaged in double-standards when all I am doing is sourcing material that is unsourced and bringing both population statistics on Palestinians in Jordan in line with one another. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well,

1. your source says that the 2.7M population is an "extrtapolat[ion] from a population 2.3 million in 2001". This makes for a rise of 17.4% in the span of 4 years and would make for another 350,000 People for 2008 making it 3M as was written before. Your lowering the number by using an outdated source actually detracts from the article's quality and accuracy. To clarify, my problem here is the outdated source found and added (in good faith).
2. Wikipedia standards for artificially unified territories, such as the European Union, is to separately count their population per territory and only make a mention of the sum of populations. (See List of countries by population) However, noting that despite the obvious Hamas/Fatah breakdown, many still consider "Palestinian territories" to belong to a single group of people, I've kept them in the listing when I broke down the populations info box.
3. Clearly though, Jordan is the leading unified, globally accepted territory with Arab-Palestinian population and I can't understand the reasoning to exclude this fact.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. We can find a more up-to-date source, if 2005 is too oudated for you. I prefer that we not make extrapolations ourselves, since that could be considered WP:OR. So I will look for one, okay?
2. Making an analogy between this situation and that of the EU is not helpful (IMHO). The EU was never once a wholly united entity, whereas the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, as well as what is today called Israel, were once a part a recognized legal entity known as British Mandate Palestine. The fact that roughly half of the Palestinian population in the world today still lives within the boundaries of what was once Palestine is notable. Indeed, even Ynet news thinks so, as they mention that Palestinians have one of the highest birth rates in the world, forcing Israel to consider the possibility that Jews, despite ongoing Jewish immigration, will one day be a minority in historic Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. In September 2007, Israel's population included 5.45 million Jews, 1.4 million Arabs and 310,000 others, according to Israeli government figures [.... According to actual results, 3.76 Palestinians live in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, the territories the Palestinians want for a future state.]
3. It is true that outside of historic Palestine, the largest concentration of Palestinians is in Jordan. But perhaps you could add this information to the section on "Demographics"? I find its inclusion in the introduction to be WP:UNDUE.

Thank you for explaining your position and in such a polite and reasoned fashion. Tiamut^talk 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou,

Sidelines about incivility (or whatever) will not distract from the real issue here, which is the use of idiosyncratic personal interpretations, better known as original research. I would also ask that you not claim that I "accept" a given edit. In fact, don't make any claims about what I do or do not think. Leave that for the psychics.

Referring to the Palestinian territories as "artificially unified," with a comparison to the EU (?!) or not "globally accepted" is simply at odds with the facts. It's also at odds with all the sources for Palestinian population. Not a single reliable sources I have seen, including Israeli and "pro-Israeli" sources, claims that Jordan has the largest Palestinian population. They all give the figure for all the Palestinian territories, including both Gaza and the West Bank.

The Palestinian population in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem has reached 3.76 million, up from 2.89 million a decade ago, according to census results

Yediot Ahronot

The basis for most of the population statistics for the West Bank and Gaza are currently numbers that come from the Palestinian Authority [...] Israel also collected statistics on the West Bank and Gaza [...] Israel's last public statistic for the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza was 2.1 million.

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Palestinian Population Worldwide (mid-2001)

West Bank & Gaza Strip 3,298,951Jewish Virtual Library

Even if this were not so, the over-emphasis on Jordan is bizarre and frankly offensive. Palestinians worldwide see Palestine as their homeland. Hell, by definition, Palestine is their homeland. Thus, the region of Palestine is more significant in a discussion of Palestinian people - and it would be, even if the majority were in Jordan, or Syria, or Cyprus or Japan or Antarctica. Compare our article on the Jews, which very prominently features Israel in the discussion of population, despite the fact that more Jews are found in America than in Israel.

Yes, I am aware that a few holdouts still insist that "Jordan is Palestine" or "Palestine does not exist," but we've been through this already, in the title dispute. All current reliable sources, including Israeli conservative sources, have moved on from this historical fallacy. Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman do not hold "veto power" over our presentation of facts in this encyclopedia. Nor do their adherents. <eleland/talkedits> 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut,

1. I think we should keep the previous version (3M) until an up to date source is found. I'm not sure what source was previously used, but the outdated extrapolation is not a good reason to lower the previously cited number.
2. It's been more than half a century (60 years) since the British mandate. I certainly did not delete that 1/2 of Palestine's Arabs still live in that territory but only put it with a secondary location to where the majority of them reside. Political considerations don't belong in how we cite the data so the Ynet input is offtopic.
3. I think that it is improper to pick and choose what largest population we list in the intro, either we list both 3 million large populations or neither of them.

Eleland,

1. Palestinian territories are artificially unified with 2 separate governments that don't recognize each other.
2. The actual population statistics have been published and it's not WP:OR to take the larger number and put it at the front.
   1. Offtopic 1, it's against Palestinian and Jordanian interests to publish that the largest Palestinian community is in Jordan.
   2. Offtopic 2, There have been claims that the 'Palestinian territories' stats have been overstated by as much as 1.5 million which would make the Jordanian number larger even if we were to consider Gaza+West Bank to be unified under a recognized self governed territory.
3. Since the 'unified' input is common, I kept it on the info box. However, giving this artificial stat more significance than the non artificial one, and in the intro of all places, is improper. My suggested solution kept the information and gave it due respect.
4. There's no over emphasis when it's the largest community and it's improper to inject politics into a basic mention of Palestinian localities.
5. I personally take offense when other editors can't see things from a neutral perspective and result to name dropping of right-winged Israeli Politicians to justify hiding of basic input. No one asked to write down the Jordan=Palestine fringe perspective in the intro and there's no reason to act as if someone did.
6. To remind, this article is called 'Palestinian people', not 'Where Palestinians want to be'. Yes, the Palestine perspective is important, but it's already listed in the intro and shouldn't be the only Narrative of the article.
7. there's far worse right wingers than Netanyahu.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am well aware of the political situation in the territories, but "artificially unified" is a cryptic, ambiguous, and contentious phrase which you seem to have invented on the spot without reference to the sources. You think it's artificial. A lot of people think Israel is "artifical." We don't go by what random Wikipedia editors think, we go by the sources. The sources do not say that "the largest Palestinian community is in Jordan," unless the reader unilaterally decides that the West Bank and Gaza should be taken separately. Even if they did, that would not necessarily lead us to emphasize the Jordanian community over others. It's not a question of "where Palestinians want to be," it's far more fundamental than that. Palestinian-ness is defined by the lands of Palestine. You keep referring to this as "the Palestinian POV," but it's not; it's objective fact. To repeat the point that you ignored, just as it's appropriate that the article on Jews gives proportionally more attention to Israel than America, even though America has more Jews, an article about Palestinians ought to focus on Palestine.

And I'm aware that there are far worse Israeli right-wingers than Netanyahu. Some of them edit Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!!! Hiyo!!! Slow down folks!

oh, forget it. didn't realize you were simply utilizing Jaakobou's phrase further up. aplogies. however, i think I'll keep my post here for a little while. thanks. Eleland, I did not apply adjective like "worse" to any individual person, concept, or action on the Palestinian side, especially to my fellow editors. please do not use pejorative terms for any Israeli leader, person or thing.

as far as pro-Israel editors, I am sure you are right. However, do you serve your own interests by saying so? Try to be more like me; use civility as a foolproof way to get your point across, instead of undermining your own case.

whoops, did I say that out loud? :-) I meant, try to use civility more often, since everyone here is so nice. :-) there, that's better. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Tiamut, we had above us quite a conversation stopper, but I hope we can still discuss my changes in a calm communal atmosphere. Please let me know what are your thoughts about my previous notes from this discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, in response to the three points you addressed to me above:

1. I don't think we should retain an unsourced figure of 3 million when we have a sourced estimate of 2.7 million dated for 2005. Three years ago isn't that out-of-date. That is, unless you have a more recent reliable source. If you do find one, please let me know. I've been looking, but haven't been able to find anything as reliable and more recent.
2. Time doesn't make core issues go away. Palestinians claims Palestine as their homeland and have used the boundaries of British Mandate Palestine (1923-1948) as the context for that claim, that having been the last time the area in question was one united entity. Eleland and I have provided you with a number of reliable sources indicating that Palestinian population figures are often provided within the context of their numbers within the boundaries of historic Palestine. The high numbers of Palestinians that have remained within the boundaries of British Mandate Palestine is a notable fact and an issue of great concern to Israeli governments. It's also a plain fact of Palestinian population distribution that we shouldn't try to bury by ignoring.
3. We're not picking and choosing who to list in the introduction. We explain that roughly half of Palestinians still live inside what was one entity called Palestine and the other half don't. That's a pretty straightforward split and I don't see why we shouldn't mention it. Picking and choosing would be to highlight one country of the many to which Palestinian fled in the lead up to, during and after the 1948 war (which is actually is what we would be doing if we list Jordan). Tiamut^talk 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I can't like a source that uses 2001 figures for extrapolation, but if you insist, I wouldn't press this (inaccuracy) issue... I'm sure a better source will come up; if not now, then later.
2. The core issue should be focused on at "core issues" or "israeli palestinian conflict". There's a good number of sources that divide the territory nowadays and Hamas even passes it's own draconian Gaza laws... off course time changes things, Israel is no longer the same figure listed on the UN 1947 maps and the Palestinian issue is not remotely the same as it was back then either. The artificial unification of the numbers is worth a mention but should not be made the only narrative of the introduction... surely if half the Jewish population was in Arab countries outside Israel, then that would be listed on the intro to "Jewish people" article.
3. We should either mention both largest populations or mention neither, this "in Palestine"/"outside Palestine" is implicitly political.. I'm willing to go to medcab on this if necessary; not every article about Palestinian Arabs should be focused on the Israeli-Arab conflict narrative alone... I for one, would want to know what is going down with the old Palestinians' majority in Arab countries.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou, an absolutely desoapboxed, 'unrhetorical' comment

(1.1) 'I personally take offense when other editors can't see things from a neutral perspective and result to name dropping of right-winged Israeli Politicians to justify hiding of basic input.‘ User:Jaakobou 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(1.2) 'There have been claims that the 'Palestinian territories' stats have been overstated by as much as 1.5 million which would make the Jordanian number larger even if we were to consider Gaza+West Bank to be unified under a recognized self governed territory.’ User:Jaakobou 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(1b) Right-wing groups in Israel, .. are making a supreme effort to undermine the credibility of the Palestinian data. Meron Benvenisti,’A demographic threat on the wane,’ Haaretz 19/02/2008

(2a) ‘there is no country called 'Palestine'. If you intend 'Gaza'+'West Bank'+'Israel' then you are correct that the total sum of 'Palestinians' in the 3 territories is more than in Jordan. However, these are 3 separate entities and not a single state.’ User:Jaakobou 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(2b) ‘In any case, an efficient way to defeat demography (by right-wing groups, Nishidani) already has been found: break down Palestinian communities into smaller groups, which will make it easier for the dominant Jewish community to deal with them.‘ Meron Benvenisti,’A demographic threat on the wane ,’ Haaretz 19/02/2008Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinians don't recognize Israel. We are talking how many Palestinians are still in their home land Palestine and how many are outside their homeland Palestine. Politics has nothing to do with this nor the political process which is also not recognized by the Palestinian people!75.72.88.121 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you for taking the time to reply to a comment I've made 5 days ago to Tiamut, but I don't understand what you intend to get out of the Meron Benvenisti link. It is just an opinion peace by a person with a professed 'left-wing' perspective/agenda.

If your intention is to show that the in-Israel demographics issue is of importance, no one said otherwise. If your intention is to prove that dissection of the land is a 'right-wing' conspiracy, that is a ("far from consensus", Jaakobou) left-wing opinion that neglects at least a couple of the inner-Palestinian factors such as structure of society and militancy.

Which is the point you trying to get across?

• The one about importance of the topic (not contested),
• The one about who is to blame for the dissection (a point of view),
• The one about who is still in "their home land Palestine" (advocacy and a point of view).

Regardless of whichever point you're stressing, the article should be written without a declared agenda to emphasize a certain point of view. What is the reasoning for removal of the mention of a community of equal size (3 million) out of a paragraph that details the location of Palestinians? The "their home land Palestine" justification is implicitly POV, already mentioned as a main issue in the intro, and has little to do with population allocations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get across any point about the text, other than that of reminding you of the duty to understand what other people are saying before you reply to them. You took exception to a couple of remarks. I showed above that your attempt to refute those remarks, or what you took as their implications, ignored their context. What other editors said is what Meron Benvenisti says, and the line you pushed looked, contextually, uncannily similar to the line pushed by 'right-wingers', precisely. This is quite simple and straightforward, at least in terms of the construal of English. Your edits do parallel quite precisely what Meron B. identifies as the right-wing settler position. There is no need for embarrassment about this. We all have a POV. The text we construct, by selective use of materials and language, should not reflect those POVs as if they were 'the facts' or 'the reality', as opposed to the perspectives of the parties described Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically, if I understand your "simple and straightforward" comment properly, you see it your duty to point out that other editors allegedly present an extremist left-wing agenda while I allegedly present an extremist right wing agenda. What makes this offtopic (and false) distinction helpful to the discussion (I was trying to have with Tiamut) is beyond my understanding; Do you have anything to add regarding the paragraph in discussion? (preferably without offtopic chit-chats regarding right-wing and left-wing extremists) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't speak of 'my duty'. I spoke of a duty all of us are obliged to honour, that of understanding each other's perspective. Much argument arises from a failure to adequately understand what the other is saying. I have difficulties, because, as my remarks, which you call 'chit-chat', show, I observe many statements that are poorly formulated, ambiguous, or question-begging. Everything I myself write in here leads me to a sense of worrying scruple that I have not quite put it as I should have liked to. If you dislike my noting that what you or Michael have written, to give some recent examples, is phrased ambiguously, so that the reader cannot understand what you are saying as against what what your writing variously implies, you're obviously welcome to a sense of disgruntlement. But Talk forums are intended as a vehicle for clarifying matters, and I see nothing wrong in asking people to express their intended meanings more lucidly. Secondly, as to my breaking into a conversation between you and Tiamut, I repeat, (we've already had this argument) anything any one of us says to any other member of the team here, may be commented on by third parties, for the simple reason that discussions bear on a text we all share in editing. Simple and straightforward. Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

Tiamut, we had above us an off-topic conversation disruption, but I hope we can still discuss my changes in a calm communal atmosphere. Please let me know what are your thoughts about my previous notes from this discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again - PLEASE DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE INTRO BEFORE MAKING THEM

Please, everyone, the changes to the introduction are mucking up the article and leading to edit-warring. Do not add material to the introduction or change the meaning of existing material without proposing your changes here first, and working towards gaining consensus. This is to avoid edit-warring andmaintain the article's quality. I will be reverting all changes to the introduction and the additions unsourced material in the body. Thanks for listening. Tiamut^talk 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this comment and fully agree with the reasoning behind it. Essentially all of the changes to this page for a while, it seems, have lowered its quality in some way. <eleland/talkedits> 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well!? my changes were removed several times? had anybody checked about them yet? Here they are again and again::::::::

1= the "when the term Palestinians is used" phrase is not important to define a people, example (native americans-red indians!!??), the important is: who they are, where they lived, live, deported?, characteristics?, language religion, habits? etc etc), However half the article now is about that term (palestinians)!? and if it was used on the jews between 1917 -1948 and if it should be specific to palestinians? and so on and on and on and on and on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2= there is a big infarction in the begining: by saying the terms Palestinians and Arab palestinians are terms used to bla bla bla... Obviously Palestinians are not Arab Palestinians!? Palestinians are 80% arab and 20% the usual minorities of the Middle East: Armenians, greek, kurds, turks, chechen, dagestan, persian, coptic, italian missioneries, bosnians, Samaritans, gypsies, jews, etc etc etc etc!, and to remind you: the article says: PALESTINIANS (PALESTINIANS!!!!), so why mix and make contradictions of difinitions from the beginning?

3= This article and all articles about palestinians and arabs are fond of every thing 3rd grade fantacy , freakish or out right lies! stories: example: no mosques but maqams?? what maqams? the Israeli journal said that day that 10000 sleeping rooms in Israel were mosques and people feel guilty about it! so where are the maqams? or saint tombs that palestinians worship like Prophet Jonah or saint George? George by the way is the physical historical christian martyr , not george who slew the dragon in the forfeited masoretic bible!). In another place a reference is given about the British mandate colonial report, and how that from the report the writer finds " when the good british came, they gave nationalities with no regard for religion or ethnic bla bla). BUT The reference does not say that? It says clearly that the Queen under supervision and financing from the Jewish Agency imported few thousand JEWS quota every year!!!) according to San Remo conference and gave them citizenship certificates like the palestinians as Palestinians (with equality!) so she did not give the imported jews only but also the palestinians PALESTINIANS CITIZENSHIPS FOR GOD SAKE, thank you Queen thank you for your equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The report admit to the supervision of the World Agency to the queen and giving her money! to facilitate Jewish homeland in PALESTINE!

4= If you can not allow the pictures at the top together, then why not put them under each other ( flag, emblem, map). A guy ( a wiki administrator with several editor log names, cut every thing because the map of Palestine 1922 does not have the STATE of Israel name on it!?so it is anti semitic! ( meaning the picture and the guy who put the picture: me!)even though the picture was in wiki commons!!!.

5= Instead of the arguments on the existance of palestinians or their nationality why remove the UN stamp that shows the world already acknowledge that!? (So thank you very much Tiamut and the generous friendly liberal apologist zionists like j and e, it does not seem we need your help tracing palestinian identity!)

Well I think this is enough for now so that your committee can digest them and discuss them by next year( Nobody in a hurry at all?, we are all cool slowly slowly on the pace that nobody gets irritated from the already known truth world wide) and let palestinian children get shot daily, we are not in a rush at all to define who palestinians are!?.11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

The use of multiple images, all of different sizes, in the same section - often on both sides of the screen - has a deleterious effect on readability. To be blunt, it looks like crap. Let's narrow it down to one image per section, along the right-hand side. I suggest we start by avoiding political emblems and the Palestinian flag. This is not an article about the PA. <eleland/talkedits> 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, since when images became less informative than words? what is bothering you about palestinian flag and map and other images. why don't you remove the Israel flag and map from the Isreal article??? and lets see what happens!!? The Palestine map is related to difintion of the Palestinians, it is essential! Do you want to talk about people before you know who they are by difinition? this is really gone too far by antipalestinians. In any people article: you have to talk about who they are first,and then their history, their folklore, art, etc. and images are always much better than words. The Palestinians flag was established few months before the Israel flag. The map is of 1922 of Palestine or Mandate palestine (at which time there was no thing called Isreal!, the name Israel was chosen as a last minute suggestion in 1948 by Ben Gorion), the last time there was a state called Isreal before this was 3000 years ago and that was only in a small chunk of Palestine (Samaria and some land to the north of samaria!) that lasted 150 years till its fall to the Assyrians).

Herodotus did not mention Israel or Jews or anything related to jews in 500 BC! while He mentions arab/arabia 56 times and Arabians 13 times, and said that the Phoenicia and all syrian coast is the coast of Arabia!!! ( meaning all syria and Palestine were Arabian at his time!)

Palestine is well defined historically by Herodotus and Greek rulers 330 BC till 70 BC knew it and called it (as from sea to Jordan river) by name Palestine this continued non stop by the Romans all the times of the Romans till 635 AD, the Arabs continued to call it Palestine (Jund Filastin) from Sea to river only!, untill the word fell from use by the Ottomans, The British ordered the Ottomans to rename it Palestine in 1850 ( from Sea to river again), the British from 1920 till 1922 called the area Palestine Mandate along with the Jordan state area together Palestine Mandate) but in 1922 ( just two years later) Palestine Mandate became only Palestine as known historically ( and Palestine mandate or Mandate Palestine from 1920 1922 does not mean a defined country but a plan of what to do with the area) so you can not use this term as defining Palestine

The request for discussing the change on introduction been more than a month old now ????????????????????????????????????????? request to change the introduction into a difinition and adding map and flag at top! Since Nobody! was able to contest the questions I asked and the changes proposed ( difinition at top), so Tiamut and others should not revert back to the contested versionabubakr (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing Tiamut and eleland of being anti-Palestinian? Let me add a few more: ??? What kind of alternative universe have I landed in here? Beam me back, Scotty! 6SJ7 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome to bizarroland! Anyway, I've restored the old introduction (again). I've also removed this material:

In the PLO's original charter, Article 24 states that The PLO: "does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area." These two regions were included in the British Mandate of Palestine. It should also be noted that the borders of the British "Palestine" mandate were little more than lines in the sand.

Why? Well, it's not clear how this is relevant at all. Further, Jordan was part of the Mandate for the first two years of 31 only. I don't see why we should highlight its inclusion, particularly when it's already mentioned in a footnote. Also, I would encourage Doright to not place a tag at the top of the article regarding his problems with the definition, but instead open a section for discussion here. (Which is what he should do anyway when placing a tag). Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from my page I am a MD I know much about projection and Neurological Parallel Network, and Psycho disinformation etc. I suggest you read about these highly subspecialty in medicine to know more. being used in Intellegence! I have requested make a difinition of Palestinians more than a month ago in the begining of the article! Every body in the world knows who are the Palestinians! They are not the Israeli jews right? I mean all the times you hear the word Palestinians in the radio or on TV, it does not come to your mind not even for half a second that it means Moshe Dayan or Ytzhak Rabin right? because these two person were born in Palestine between 1917-1948 to Jews who were brought into Palestine according to the San Remo conference in which the British declared the Balfour Declaration to the Jewish Rothschild in a letter: the commitment of Britain to help establish a homeland for jews in Palestine ( this is all mentioned in citation [6] in the article (read the Colonial report by her majesty the queen 1930 in this reference in this article!), so before we talk about (Palestinian People) we should know who they are first. You don't start an article about Native Americans for example and then you talk about the Pilgrims and their celebrations of the Thanksgiving and apple pie and their memories of King Arthur and Camelot, right? do you know why? Because these people and their customs and folktales ( arthur) and their celebrations( thanksgiving) are not of the Native Americans! right? Do you understand my friend? do you, or are you going to play dumb founded again?

So the Palestinians are the people who resided normally in Palestine ( historical Palestine and Mandate Palestine after 1922 are identical!) before 1917 the moment the British invaded Palestine (Conquest of Palestine). Now lets see the relation between Britain and Palestine through the ages? right? they are bitter enemies! from the Crusade 1099 ( about 900 years ago), so Britain does not represent Palestinians? how are we so far? are you still dumb founded? The things that Britain did in Palestine from 1917-1947 are illegal don't you think? What if the Palestinians in the near future conquered England and settled the welsh and welsh minorities in France the (Brittany province) of the black hair and eyes and celtic language) in England and deported the English from England, can you call the new people English?? considering English come from the word Anglosaxons who came in 450-700 AD? what is your answer? English from Engle-land ( engle or Angle being the Goths tribe that came from Europe (germanic goths).

As an article about Palestinian people you have to define them (REGARDLESS IF THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES A NATION OR NOT!) who are they ( the answer they are the people who lived normally in Palestine between the sea and river Jordan before 1917! regardless if they consider them selves christians muslims arab non arabs etc) these are the palestinian people and their heritage is a mix of the Arabic Majority as well as the ancient Canaanites ( who were non other that the cousins of Arabs who spoke semitic like the Arabs) and the Ancient Israelites ( the Ancient Israelites converted to christianity then Islam, or stayed in palestine as jews), very simple ( they did not dissolve like salt, they did not immigrate from Palestine?. To claime that ancient Israelites immigrated from their land is a strange claim!, should be proven by TWO! historical references? no body have even one historical reference, because it never happened( no evidence of a trail of sorrow witnessed by anybody from neighboring countries or the Roman administrators, showing that ancient israelites immigrated after the destruction of the 2nd temple destruction in 70 AD or even after the Bar Kohba revolt.

Finally: Images are better than words. Actually if you can read words, then you are OK to see images? right? people used to write and read because there was no technology to completely describe something in detail as photographing or painting, etc. We are blessed in the 21 century to have all these previlages ( including Google instead of going to the libray), and it seems counter productive to go back to use only words?? The beautiful pictures of the Dome and the mosaic are not crab!! nor are the Louvre museum paintings, or the rare 1858 photo and others, you have another problem Eleland!, like hating Palestinians and their heritage's productionsabubakr (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC) We are not here in the business of PLO Tiamut? we are here in the business of (surprise surprise) PALESTINIAN PEOPLE? Got it? The Palestinian People don't include the jews who came with the British in 1917! Other wise we should be speaking about students in the Technion as the Palestinian people? or the israelis as Palestinians? This is absurd and bizare. I said it before every body in the whole wide world knows who the Palestinians are? Only you and steve and judith and eleland and jacoobo are unable to define them? obviously for a hidden reason! you don't like them and want to blur their difinition! Not before defining them you can speak about them! it is unscientific and misleading to do that! The palestinians know who they are, but they are blocked from this wikipedia article about Palestinians! to tell who they are and only the jews are allowed to define who palestinians in this wiki, while palestinians are banned! I am refereing to me being banned in the last few days, and when some palestinians (I guess) who reverted the material back to my edit, they also received threats from editors ( ) , please check the last few days article history. Tiamut you had one month to discuss the proposed changes!! you did not bather to answer any of my numbered questions above or find a reference to the contrary! So you should let the edit be (especially that it was the same to that of wikipedia few months ago!!!, and you know it!): "the overwhelming majority of uses of the term today are in reference to the people, mainly Arabs, whose ancestors inhabited the Region of Palestine before 1918": [15] abubakr (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnanmuf/abubakr. I'm not an idiot, so please don't talk to me like I am one. I also have an MA degree and I have been much more active than you can know (since you don't know who I am in real life) on the issue of Palestine. So please don't offend me by questioning my national commitment either.

You don't seem to understand what is going on here. This article has suffered from edit-warring for years and in an effort to clam things down, it has been suggested that edits to the introduction in particular be aired here first. What that means is that you should propose the exact text you would like to see included in the introduction and make a cogent argument (brief, if possible) as to why it should be included. Making long rambling entries accusing people of various misdeeds is not engaging in discussion designed to improve the introduction. In fact, it comes off as sabotage.

I nonetheless agree with many of the points you have raised. (You are absolutely correct that an article on Palestinian people should not mislead readers into believing that present-day Israelis - with the exception of Arab citizens of Israel - are Palestinians.) However, the text you keep inserting into the introduction is poorly composed and doesn't make the points you say you want to make. So please, work on composing a couple of sentences, place them here, let others improve upon and comment on the validity of your suggestion, and maybe, just maybe, you will garner the consensus required to change the inroduction. Tiamut^talk 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean by " may be just may be". I can't spend all my life at this article, you and all others have already read my request a month ago, you were unable to make an argument against them ( they are referenced). Since you don't have argument referenced or non referenced then my edit should be integrated in the article! there is no need for consensus in wiki according to wiki rules! as long the info is referenced it should have the day light on it.regardless if some people don't like it. I don't like the article Israeel for example, Should they cancel it so they don't hurt my feelings? I have repeated my arguments again and again and they are still few lines back above. Got a response, let us have it, no? then referenced edit allowed! palestinians children are killed on a daily basis in Gaza, no wait for may be just may be!!!????Tomorrow I will post my edit ( palestinians difinition, map,... You and others who don't agree on my edit better hurry and read my proposal above and discuss them75.72.88.121 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP, have you noticed that there are sections on this page where the changes I would like to see made to the introduction have been sitting, waiting for people to agree? This is how we here at Wikipedia work when it comes to articles on contentious subjects. Yes, it takes a long time to get agreement sometimes. Yes, it is deeply frustrating, particularly when people's objections don't seem to be policy-based, but rather seem to be the result of their ideological positions. However, just because some people break with policy, doesn't mean that we can too. That would lead to anarchy.

Anon IP, while you claim that your edits are "referenced", you have rarely bothered to include references in the text you have added to the article. Much of your writing is littered with spelling and grammatical errors and is quite frankly difficult to read and comprehend. If you would take the time to place your suggested edits here and ask people to help you clean up the language and help clarify the points you are trying to make, you might meet with better success. Abusing people who are trying to help you understand how to improve the article, including people like me, who are deeply sympathetic to what you are trying to say, isn't helpful. It's alienating. And I'm honestly beginning to wonder whether you are here to make this article better or if you you are here merely to cause problems/distractions.

If you do add anything to the introduction without garnering consensus first, I will revert your edit. This is simply because I will revert anyone's edit to the introduction that doesn't garner consensus here first. This is to protect the article from POV pushers from all sides and to reduce the tendency towards edit-warring. If you don't have the patience to engage in months-long discussions, than this may not be the place for you. I'm sorry, but because of the deeply entrenched views on this subject, that's how this page has come to work. With respect. Tiamut^talk 16:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

this is how was the article in wiki in the past and the whole article in the weblink: "the overwhelming majority of uses of the term today are in reference to the people, mainly Arabs, whose ancestors inhabited the Region of Palestine before 1918 http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Palestinians the Map is essential to explain what Palestine is in the difinition of Palestinians75.72.88.121 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor's addition to introduction

This sentence: "The overwhelming majority of uses of the term Palestinians today are in reference to the people, mainly Arabs, whose ancestors inhabited the Region of Palestine before 1918." has been added as the second sentence to the introduction, per the suggestion by anon IP above. Though I cautioned against new additions to the introduction, I personally have no problem with this one. It appears that it was in much older versions of this article for some time. Other editors who do have a problem are encouraged to revert it out and discuss their reasons for doing so directly below, in light of the need for new information added to the intro to gain consensus first. If it is reverted, hopefully the discussion will garner consensus on how to accomodate the jist of the edit. However, if consensus cannot be reached, then it won't be included again until such time as that can happen. Agreed Anon IP? (Read WP:BRD for an idea of what we are doing here.) Tiamut^talk 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am weary of what consensus means here? I know that all the others are reading every bit of what I write,( for example Steve who was annoyed by the story of Saint George! and judith when she interrupted to explain the strange claim req. They are unable to respond so that means they consented already! Tiamut. this website ( where I got the definition) is excellent. it revised wiki article excellently and put only the reasonable stuff . It is good to reclaim the wiki article back from them, see the arrangement in their article. it is better!75.72.88.121 (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement by all established editors. If one cannot be reached, then WP:DR process should be followed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the intro, but I'm open to hear reasoning for it's inclusion and to reconsider. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thgank you for responding to my request that you explain your reversion of this material. However, you have not explained why you are opposed to its inclusion. Defending its inclusion without understanding where your opposition is coming from seems rather strange. Please elaborate as to the rationale behind your deletion of the material added. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My recollection of sources would suggest that Arab population in the British mandate of Palestine tripled between 1920 and 1945 with a large portion of this increase coming from immigration. The claim that "Palestinians" does not "mostly" refer to these people seems... well, wrong. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I have searched for information that would support the wording of the sentence, but I have not been able to find it, so I would open the floor to others who feel that it deserves to included. Please be clear and provide sources supporting your argument. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dialect

Why has all of the detail on the specific character of varieties of Arabic spoken by Palestinians, been radically reduced? I found it fascinating. It conserves and notes distinctions between bedouin and fellahin speech long noted as distinct populations. Was it erroneous?Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to Palestinian Arab dialect article in wiki, it says the Palestinians have a distinct dialect from the other arabs and levant. It does not suggest that there are three branches of Palestinian dialect( you have no citation for this), only that bedoin and city dwellers might not use K instead of Q but this is only a small part of the Palestinian dialect ( the dialect it not only about Q to K!!!) and the Druse are not arab by DNA testing ( L haplogroup of Pakistan and india, so them saying arabic q as q is not an indication that they are more arabs than palestinians!?23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Druze have heterogeneous origins, but they're as Arab as most other self-proclaimed Arabs, i that they have been Arabised. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________ how would someone not expert or not Arabic to understand the deference' between the Palestinian dialect and the other arabic dialects? there is some arab who understand english and they can't understand the Palestinian dialect  !! is this is what whikipedia is about? not experts Hate groups just want to attack every thing Palestinian and the discussion page about the Palestinian and most of the users is Zionists

Haplogroup2010 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)haplogroup2010

The Druze are 60% L haplogroup dominant in Pakistan and India. Many druze speak a native language and songs that are Hindi from the area around Kalkutta area in India. They are arabized, it is true, but hardly you can find a druze as Arab poet ( traditional Arab poems not the Europpean style). It is known they were imports to the Fatimid Khilafate in Cairo from India including their prophets and masters. the Palestinian dialect is characterized by converting the Arabic Q to K instead of converting it to A like most of the rest of Arabs ( especially the levant) . Conserving the q as q is not indication of Arabism according to linguists. Nor is converting q to k is the whole of the Palestinian dialect!abubakr (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Druze being non arab goes along with their demand that Arab or Palestinian should not be mentioned in their Israeli citizenship cards, while Christian Palestinians of Israel insist on adding Arabic or Palestinian as the article from Jerusalem post says. They insist they are not arab and their DNA tells the same storyabubakr (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the commander of the 3rd Israeli Army is a druze and the deputy Minister of Defence in Israel is Druze! Also Druze are the only Pre Israel state people who are inscripted in the army along with Arab Bedoin. The Arab Israeli ( christian and muslim) are not allowed to serve in the Israeli militay ( the law says they are excempt from military service) yet another indication of the racism and discrimination of Israel against its own citizens!abubakr (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

abubakr You have a specialized area of knowledge? Use it and we can learn from it to improve the article. From your remarks you know nothing of dialect, and your intervention here is only destructive. Dialect/linguistic identity has nothing to do with genetic identity, and genetic identity is a quantitative abstraction having nothing to do with cultural, religious or political identity. 'Dialects' break down into regional dialects: Hebronite dialect has its own distinctive sounds and idioms, as does Nablus. If one speaks of 'English' dialect, it does not mean that all dialect speakers of London dialect have the same sound patterns. Some like cockneys have a glottal stop, others not. etc. Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong Nishidani. Recent DNA studies proved there is a strong relation between Language race and Genes! It is probably that language has a tree that go along side the ancestry tree. ie the changes on the language every thousand year shows up on the DNA tree too!! It is amazing and your opinion is from the eighties and the politically correct one. You are unable to shake off people like Bernard Lois and Ibn Khaldoun after science discovered them wrong. You are stuck to their produce forever like parrots75.72.88.121 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) language is the history of people their story their folklore their unique experience!. You are talking probably about the Espranto language which had failed!or the Israeli Hebrew ( similar to like espranto) which will fail! Palestine is a small country to have different dialects. They are a unique different dialect that if was written will be difficult for other arabs to read ( just like lebanese and egyptian dialects) This is one of the great evidence that they are a unique nation, and you are trying to destroy this notion, pretending you are pro palestinians75.72.88.121 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) excuse the vulgarism, but, bref, crap (see, indubitably, WP:BS). In the area I live in 4 dialects are spoken, and the people are of one nationality and 'race', which, like all 'races' was formed over the longue durée of historical man's genetic promiscuity. Let's make a bargain.

(2)If there is an area I am intimately and professionally familiar with, it is the history of theories of language and race. You stick to genetics, and I'll stick to linguistics, respectively areas where we have expertise. p.s. I'm, happy not to shrug off the influence of Ibn Khaldun, one of the finest analytical minds of universal history. As to who Bernard Lois is, I've no idea, unless he's the son of Bernard Moss and Lois Lane.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldoun was a berber or Persian who was angry for not being of Arabic descent, he made the remark that arab had little racial impact on people in north africa and syria. The recent DNA study proved that arabs of the 7th century had huge and progound impact! ( ie north africans are mainly arabs have the DNA marker of the Arab dys388=17, so you can not use people like Bernard Lois ( or what ever his name is , but you surely know who). Those people try to lie as long as they could not be proved wrong. Now they are proven wrong, and they are ( bernard lois and other like Daniel Pipes) are laughing at you who still listen to them even though their lies are obvious big peices of crab75.72.88.121 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I am talking of course about B Lois notion that the people of the holly land have changed races since 3000 years ago. This notion defies scientific knowledge of the DNA and archaeology that this impossible to happen. but yet you still keep this crab anyway ( like parrots who already memoriesed the phrace and stuck with them) I feel pitty for you all75.72.88.121 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I am also an expert professional in Arabic ( my mother language) poet, etc, and I know what I am talking about! The palestinians have completey unique dialect! period. Their dialect have branched from Negev Bedoin dialect! and the ancients. Palestinians are credited with preserving the ancient names of canaanite cities and villages! isn't that true? wghat does that mean. It means they are partially the canaanites or other wise could not had preserved all these names ( canaanite Kfar word, ect) unless they are the same people. Now compare that to Israeli word for Beer sheva for Be'er Sab'a/ while they tried hardly to preserve the ancient name they messed it up big time because they are Europpeans ( V is not semitic, could not pronounce Be'er or the (a) at the end of Sab'a. While the palestinians preserved the ancient names as is ( because they are them as is!) got it!75.72.88.121 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All of which doesn't answer my point, but would delight Gobineau Houston Stewart Chamberlain and other illuminati of the con-frerie of the swastika. Friend, I don't think you can contribute much in here, but I enjoy your company: you have a distinctive gift for portmanteau punning. As one dourly toils at precisian definitions over the blank screen that has replaced Mallarmé's 'vide papier que la blancheur défend' , it is nice to eavesdrop on the hum of your exquisite finneganswake-ease in the wings. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, Nishidani, I think you just issued one of the most rousing defenses of freedom, tolerance, and human understanding I've ever seen or heard...either that, or it was an ode to free verse. :-) Nice to have these verbal rodomontades which leave one slightly reeling, and slightly unsure! :-) anyway, on behalf of people on both sides of this conflict, who may need some signs of postive sentiments, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

about Difinition of Palestinians

Doright is using the technical definition of Refugees of the 1948 war on the whole of Palestinians! it is not scientific. The pre-1918 is the original definition in wiki it self and the overwhelming. Imported Jews were called Palestinians too, but we are here talking about the Palestinians whom every body know who they are!75.72.88.121 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) we are here talking about the Palestinian people , not about the uses of the term Palestinians ( there is a big difference) other wise the article would be called " The term 'Palestinian" definition and uses)!75.72.88.121 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I would like to suggest hence to start the article as" while term Palestinians was used some times on different peoples like jewish immigrants to Palestine between 1917-1948, and on the Filistines the ancient sea People, the term in this article refers to The people who were living normally in the Region of Palestine pre 1918 and their current descendents. These people have special chararcteristics partly because of the isolation of Palestine due to its natural frontiers...( and go on with the article)...75.72.88.121 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine administrative name use

Romans did not use it after the Bar Kohba revolt, Judea was only 10% of the administrative roman province Palestina which itself was part of Roman! Syria Palestina province since 70 BC. The Romans merely continued to use the Helenic administrative name of the area but added the word Syria province ( not palestina). Doright is ignoring the Big Histories of Herodotus ( the greek) in 450 BC just 100 years before the greek themselves became rulers of Palestine in 330 BC! It is impossible that Romans replaced name Judea by name sPalestina because Judea was only 10% of Palestina. Caesarea was the Capital of Roman administrative Palestina!75.72.88.121 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go over WP:V, WP:RS and note WP:OR. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jaakobou, when you airily dismiss someone's remarks by a breezy recitative culling things you like about wiki rules,WP:OR, for example, you are not helping the conversation. Specifically our friend's post is not an example of WP:OR, and to brand it as such is a sign you simply cannot recognize, out of ignorance one must presume, unless his distinctive English syntax has thrown you, what he is saying. He has garbled several things, but to call it WP:OR only signposts your own lack of grasp of the subject. If you want a dialogic encounter, such terse banner-wavings of irrelevant articles in the rule-book won't do because, if checked, they more often than not, are found to be inappropriate, and a waste of a scrupulous reader/editor's time, distractive indeed, and, in that sense, smoke in the eyes. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, thank you for the explanation on what "one must presume" and what constitutes "lack of grasp". Do you have anything content related to add? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Heaps, but I have only a decade or two left, and I do not wish to waste most of it trying to get past incoherent editorial fiats made by people who don't know much about the articles they edit. Here for instance you show little knowledge of the topological and nominal complexities of Palestine. Had you the merest inkling you would have twigged to the important point our mutual friend did make, amidst some confusions. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I am forced to ask: What are you doing editing here? If you have no intention of wasting time helping us understand this situation then what are you here for? You readily admit that the anon user wasn't as lucid as they could have been but you expect us to find some manner of clarity regardless. I would love to learn more, but find my efforts frustrated by others who think I should already know. Well, if someone doesn't explain it to me how am I supposed to know? Padillah (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sticking my finger in the dyke, along with a few dozen others, to avoid the flood washing away what good does survive tendentious editing. Your question is best addressed to Jaakobou. He dismissed a remark as involving a violation of WP:OR. Now, if someone, reading another editor's remarks, says it constitutes 'original research', the immediate implication is that the remonstrating editor knows the technical literature sufficiently well to detect a viewpoint not stated in it. In short, by dismissing the earlier poster's remarks as an example of WP:OR infringement, User:Jaakobou was asserting: 'I know the field you speak of well. I've never read anything resembling what you wrote from scholars. Therefore it is original research, and therefore cannot be posted here.' Since I have often been accused of a similar violation, by editors who don't appear to know much about the subject they are editing, editors indeed who then, when I cite a WP:RS have rejected it because they dislike its conclusions, I am sensitive to those who brandish WP:OR and other terms authoritatively, without making, for the benefit of all other editors, a clear statement of why, from their informed knowledge, the said edit infringes policy by being constructed by the editor, and not sourced properly. I have several tasks in here, one of them is not to do the research an editor like, to cite one example, User:Jaakobou, is required to do if he brandishes policy links left right and centre without providing an indication to us that he has grounds, other than ostensible policy infringements, for dismissing content suggestions Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources to incorporate into article

I thought I would make a section for sources that might help expand the article for enterprising editors who would like to do so. I'll be adding to it as time goes on. Please feel free to add your own sources as well. Tiamut^talk 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tamir Sorek's "The Orange and the Cross in the Cresent" : information of the development of Palestinian national identity that contains new information not currently represented in the article. An interesting quote

  Although a distinct Palestinian identity can be traced back at least to the middle of the nineteenth century (Kimmerling and Migdal 1993; Khalidi 1997b), or even to the seventeenth century (Gerber 1998), it was not until after World War I that a broad range of optional political affiliations became relevant for the Arabs of Palestine.

  Tiamut^talk 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Beshara Doumani's "Rediscovering Ottoman Palestine: Writing Palestinians into History : a survey of historical works on Palestinians and the lack of work written by Palestinian themselves". Tiamut^talk 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• John Dugard's "Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967" : I find this paragraph particularly useful to the article, which currently doesn't even mention "the right to self-determination"

  That the Palestinian people have the right of self-determination cannot be disputed. Such a right has been recognized by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and Israel itself. In the advisory opinion of 9 July 2004 of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory the International Court of Justice declared that "[A]s regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a 'Palestinian people' is no longer in issue."1 On 1 December 2006 the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/25 in which it stressed the need for "the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State". (See also resolution 61/152 of 19 December 2006.)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for these extra sources. Keep them coming. It is a good idea, to cut out a section for "things to be read" (when the thread is archived, I would suggest this general bibliography on materials that might profitably be harvested for the article, be copied and pasted into the new 'Talk'). I have in the meantime put the Dugard remark into the text, along with a note on diplomatic recognition. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being proactive Nishidani. I've also excerpted another relevant quote that challenges the accuracy of the formulation we currently have in the introduction (The paragraph that I suggested we move out of the introduction into the section on "Etymology" or even further below). It seems that the development of Palestinian as an ethnic identity is arguably much older than the pre-WWI period and that its development as a political identity comes just aftder World War I. I'd still like to move that paragraph out of the introduction and discuss the nuances of that development more fully in the section on Identity below. I think out current formulation is misleading, and as I said in the section above adovacting for its removal WP:UNDUE. Tiamut^talk 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the prominence given to the recent-ness of Palestinian national identity strike me as undue. Compare, for example, our article on Ukranians, which mentions in oh-by-the-way fashion halfway through that "Modern Ukrainian national identity continued to develop, especially in opposition to foreign rule in the nineteenth century." Ukranian nationalism is older than Palestinian nationalism, yes, but not by a terribly large margin. It just seems like spillover from the "no such thing as Palestinians" POV-pushing which had afflicted this page for so long. <eleland/talkedits> 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Identity is a very complex phenomenon, since most of us have several, not infrequently at odds with each other. In the national sense one has the moulding of a national temper by modernizing elites, which has often dominated the technical literature. In the other, you have unification of regional identity by the collective threat posed by an invading enemy. No doubt something of the latter existed, in a very simple form, in the Crusader period, in fact many Palestinian festivals which are markers of strong regional community in pre-modern times Nabi Ruben at Jaffa, Nabi Salih in Ramla, and Nabi Musa from Jerusalem to Jericho and back, drawing in people cross-refionally, from Hebron, Nablus, and many other areas, had more than a tinge of nationalism echoing back to Crusader memories, in which popular religion took over the role of the 'nation' as cynosure of identity. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Does 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph contain a false reference?

The first sentence says:

"The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I, . . . . "

However, on February 29, 2008, I accessed the 58 page [Britannica article] and was surprised to find no such claim. I would like to know which editor supplied this reference, and request their assistance in providing the exact quote that they base this claim upon. Thank you for your assistance. Doright (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Doright (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I suggest you access the actual article cited, rather than a different article. You wanted, 'The term “Palestinian”', which reads in part, "The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people." <eleland/talkedits> 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. Thank you. I have found the snippet of EB text that you so kindly provided. Here it is in context:

Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people.

It seems to have a different meaning than what is claimed in the article. Doright (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How and why does it seem that way, and what meaning does it seem to have? Literally the only term or clause which does not directly correspond to a term or clause in the text is "endonym," but that's clearly supported by overall meaning of the text. <eleland/talkedits> 22:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Then there will not be an objection to the edit corresponding to [this version]. Doright (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please propose such edits first, and allow interested parties time to object or not object. Your choice to highlight the past, historical use of the term "Palestinian" was confusing at the least. This is not an article about Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, but an article about the people now known as Palestinians. It is objectively more relevant to discuss their use of the term, rather than a now-defunct use. You are relying on a Britannica note, which explains why "Henceforth [from 1948] the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel." Why would information that Brtiannica includes in a note halfway through their series of articles on Palestine need to be featured in the second sentences of our article on Palestinian people? The only reason I can think of is that the author believes the Palestinians are a "fake people" or otherwise illegitimate — this is borne out by your contribution history. Well, fine, you're welcome to your views, just as anti-Zionist Wikipedians are welcome to their views on Israel. But please don't try to impose them on articles in this manner; at least discuss, first. <eleland/talkedits> 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You complain that the reverted quotation "highlight(s) the past." Yet, your own cherry-picked phrase starts out: "The first widespread use of 'Palestinian . . .'" Clearly, first refers to the past, so that complaint seems a bit odd. And, stunningly, you further attempt to justify your preferred reversion on the basis of my sources, when in fact, I provide a direct quote from the very same paragraph from the very same source that you cite as your source. Now, that's remarkable. The appearance of a double standard and your explanation that you conjure up regarding my motivations clearly reflect more on the nature of your own thinking, editorial approach and concerns than it does on mine. This approach is not helpful to our project. Until you can come up with a argument that is not self-contradictory, please undo the reversion of the quoted material. Regards.Doright (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You may feel like you've scored a point, Doright, but this is about sound editorial judgment, not pushing through edits which you feel you have The Right To Make.™ This article, like almost all other sources, uses the term "Palestinian" to refer to, well, the people who call themselves Palestinians. The first section after the lede goes into etymology, and contains the information you're trying to feature so prominently. You haven't explained why you think it's so important to note the past historical use of "Palestinian" by other groups. I don't mean to presume, but it seems clear that you are using this information to question the rightfulness of the "Palestinian" moniker; implicitly, you are denying the existence of any distinct Palestinian people. Again, that's fine, that's your right, but you're very much in the minority here and your views do not hold veto power over the article. There are a lot of people who think the term "Israel" is historically invalid, and prefer Zionist entity or whatnot, but they don't get to rewrite Israel to that end. <eleland/talkedits> 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Eleland, historian, Bernard Lewis notes, for the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine the very concept of such a nation was unknown. This contradicts the unqualified claim of widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept . . . prior to the outbreak of World War I. It also contradicts the notion that your preferred version properly accommodates the views of one of the most notable scholars to address the subject. In a word it seems WP:POV. Where is the balance? Please note that my subsequent attempts at consensus building have included versions that do not mention how other's use the term. However, Bernard Lewis does explain quite clearly, in his book, "Semites and Anti-Semites," (see page 169) that it was modern Europeans that brought the use of the term "Palestinian" to the people who are the subject of this article. I will ignore your various ad hominem appeals and usage of Poisoning the well despite their ubiquity. Doright (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's an accurate quote in context, it may be something we need to take into consideration. I note that you've quoted half a sentence, and it refers to "such a nation." Let's start with determining what the "such" part refers to. Any nation at all? If that's what he's saying then clearly there's a difference of opinion among experts and we may have to revise the wording. Would you mind typing out a little bit more of the context of the Lewis quote? I don't own Semites and anti-Semites and Google has the relevant pages embargoed. <eleland/talkedits> 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is, in his own words, is referring to a "Palestinian nation." I hope you are now ready to make the correction to the article. Regards, Doright (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

After a particularly difficult set of exchanges with one editor who wished to single-handedly rewrite extensive sections of the text, in section 5 of Talk Tiamut, not an aggressive but rather a very even-handed editor, made a general appeal:-

'Please, to everyone. Any changes to the introduction that singificantly alter the meaning of text should be discussed here first. Consensus should be gained before making the edits. Telling us you are going to make the edit and why is not enough.'

I thought and still think that a sensible piece of advice given the record, which shows an excessive amount of assertive end non-consensual editing by both a Palestinian and by pro-Israeli editors. An interim of relative quiet ensued, and then User:Doright, returning to edit after apparently a year and a half of inactivity, pounced on this article of the 2 million awaiting assistance, and seizes the introduction, unannounced, and made a dozen edits, reverting most attempts to restabilize the text, while showing himself extremely parsimonious with explanations for his changes. To the contrary, he insisted those who reverted his edits explain themselves at length, while arrogating to himself the prerogative of editing without substantive discussion. As I said on my page where he protested against my ‘rants’ and ‘covet’(ous) approach to conflictual pages, this strikes me as an ‘imperial’ procedure. A newby comes in like a bull in a China-shop, unaware of the long history of textual negotations, and apparently of the scholarship underwriting the section of the lead he takes exception to, to plunk one passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica he likes, while erasing the other passage he dislikes. Attempts to challenge this behaviour are met by peremptory demands that the majority, which happens to oppose this edit, explain itself, severally. To the, as Joseph Brodsky would say, franknittygritty of his complaint then.

His major challenge is to this text:-

'The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I.'

User:Doright rerights by selective citation

'Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century."

The Britannica source behind both edits says this, with the boldened text elided by User:Doright-

'Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people.

What does this tell us?

(1)Jew and foreigners before 1948 used the word Palestinian to describe the inhabitants of that area.

(2)The Arabs began to use the term from the early 1900s.

(3)In using the term the Arabs saw Palestinians mainly as part of a larger Arab or Muslim world.

(4)The Palestinian Arabs began to use it as a concept denoting a specific Palestinian people before World War 1.

User:Doright text highlights the use by Jews and foreigners of the word down to the foundation of Israel, adding that Arabs only began to use it in the 1900s. He elides point 4, making out that this information about Jewish and foreigne perceptions is more important on a page about the Palestinians than information on how that people perceived themselves.

A majority of editors prefer the second version because it retains all of the Britannica’s information pertinent to the Palestinian people, and reorders it in chronological sequence, for greater clarity of exposition

The difference is notable. In Doright’s version, the key element of Palestinian national self-awareness is erased by selective paraphrase of the EB, and Israel, and non-Palestinian (the Jews could also be anyone in the diaspora) perceptions are highlighted. The other version is not selective, but paraphrases the complete text according to chronological sequence, something not quite clear in the EB article. In User:Doright's opinion, those who oppose his unilateral and highly partisan, idiosyncratic edit are edit-warring against the truth, the sources and himself, and have not explained their opposition (my remarks alone are 'rants' that 'covet' conflict). The record shows who has been exhaustive in clarifying the reasons behind edits, and who is acting with an extraordinary free and rather 'imperial' hand. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have reverted Doright (talk · contribs)'s latest edit here. The reasons for this are numerous. First off, Doright seems to consistently ignore the request to propose and gain consensus for edits to the introduction that have been made throughout this page. Notice that near the top of the page, I proposed removing the seccond paragraph from the introduction altogether, since its emphasis on the recentism of Palestinian identity seems WP:UNDUE. Despite some agreement from other editors, I have not proceeded with that move, in order to gain full consensus first. When Doright comes along and ignores that discussion and others on this page stressing the importance of gaining consensus to changes to the introduction before editing so as to avoid edit-warring, it's disrespectful to others who are patiently waiting to gain consensus first. It also increases the tendency towards edit-warring, so please stop it. Besides that, regarding the content added, all Doright has done is further emphasize the "recentism" by repeating the information at the end of the second paragraph and the beginning of that paragraph. This completely ignores the views of other editors regarding the WP:UNDUE emphasis of having this paragraph in the introduction, increases the WP:UNDUE emphasis further, and is redundant. Please propose your changes to the introduction here first, discuss, and gain consensus before making such similar changes again. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. User:Doright refuses to respond to comments on his proposals. The justification given:

'The current version does not convey the meaning of the author. How about this one that also reflects concerns raised by other editors? Please edit by improving, not merely reverting.)

contains two errors. The 'meaning of the author' referred to is what User.Doright likes, not what the author wrote which, as noted above, has several propositions, of which he favours only one, the one highlighting recentness, and making a centre-piece of Jewish and foreign perceptions. (2) The request that others edit by improving' what he alone writes, instead of reverting until consensus is gained, once more shows the 'imperial' hand at work. Someone who hasn't worked on the page, takes over, shoves in his preferred and partial view, and insists that all changes merely use his script as the fundamental one. An 'imperial' and indeed 'fundamentalist' approach.

To edit and reedit in this way looks like a provocative act to get others entangled in an edit war. Since he alone has problems with the text, a problem no other recent editor can discern, the only sensible thing is to waive the habit, until consensus is achieved, either on rephrasing or, as User:Tiamut suggests, by relocation. User:Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote_mining?

The paraphrasing that has been repeatedly reverted to uses the source out of context. Instead of deleting it entirely, I merely correct the error. My most recent attempt on gaining consensus that was again immediately reverted is:

After 1948 and even more so after 1967, the use of "Palestinian" came to be an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine .

I have determined that this accurately reflects the cited reference. Evidence in support of this conclusion comes from your own source, i.e., : the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Palestine. (1) The Britannica article has many chronologically sections and the subject of the term "Palestinian" does not arise until the section that is Chronologically labeled "Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)." Your version instead anachronistically places it in the section "From 1900 to 1948" or "From the Arab conquest to 1900" depending on how you expect the reader to understand the meaning of your phase "prior to the outbreak of World War I," whereas, the author places it in the section 1948–67. (2) Further, the author adds, "But after 1948—and even more so after 1967—for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify ... a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state." That is, the author places the "nationalist concept " (i.e., "Palestinian state" after 1948 and even more so after 1967. This is well after, where you put it (i.e., "prior to the outbreak of World War I"). (3) The Britannica editor responsible for this section is Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi makes even clearer in his own book, Palestinian Identity - The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, from which the Britannica article borrows, that widespread refers not to the general population but merely the relatively narrow elite. Below are the adjacent Encyclopedia Britannica article on Palestine sections for your reference. Please note where, in the chronology, the subject text is placed by the author:

History » From the Arab conquest to 1900 » The rise of Islam

History » From the Arab conquest to 1900 » Abbasid rule

History » From the Arab conquest to 1900 » The Crusades

History » From the Arab conquest to 1900 » Ottoman rule

History » From 1900 to 1948

History » From 1900 to 1948 » World War I and after

History » From 1900 to 1948 » The British mandate

History » From 1900 to 1948 » The Arab Revolt

History » From 1900 to 1948 » World War II

History » From 1900 to 1948 » The early postwar period

History » From 1900 to 1948 » Civil war in Palestine

History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » The partition of Palestine and its aftermath

History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » The term “Palestinian”

"Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948—and even more so after 1967—for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state."

History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » Diverging histories for Palestinian Arabs » The Israeli Arabs

History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » Diverging histories for Palestinian Arabs » West Bank (and Jordanian) Palestinians

History » Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67) » Diverging histories for Palestinian Arabs » Palestinians in the Gaza Strip

Cheers, Doright (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Doright writes:

I have determined that this accurately reflects the cited reference.'

I.e. he has determined that, uniquely, he has written a statement that accurately reflects the cited reference.

User:Doright. A slight tip. In arguing a disputed point, the point is not won, nor the problem solved, by convincing oneself, but by persuading others.

Nothing in what you have written addresses the criticisms made of your proposals. It merely adds more 'stuff'. So, until you do actually answer those many objections, cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, your rhetorical tip, does not address the evidence that has been supplied in support of the conclusion that your preferred edit is sourced out of context. Nor does your rhetorical tip address the evidence that the proposed correction is in fact correct. It seems to me that what has been provided does address any reasoned objection to the correction that has been proffered . Frankly, given the above evidence, I don't know what your objection is to the correction at this point.Doright (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote mining 2 or 'the pot calling the kettle black'

The dentist has mined my grief-stricken gums, and I can now return, patiently anaesthetized, to the etherized table of our discontents to finish my earlier point.

You complain, User:Doright of a pattern of resistance to your impeccable construals of the EB text. To refresh, that text says:

'Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people.

In complaining that your latest attempt to edit the text has been unfairly challenged by a cabal of editors who weigh in with a collective WP:OWN syndrome, to revert your suggestions, you offered the following example:-

'After 1948 and even more so after 1967, the use of "Palestinian" came to be an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine.

I confess that I did not respond to this, not from insouciance but because polite silence seems the better tack. I ignored what you wrote because it is so bold in its tendentious gaming of the source that it would be rather discomforting to correct you. Native users of English do not thoroughly stuff up the construal of textual sources up as you have done here. But, since you insist on an answer, deep breath, I will now start to parse laboriously what you write, since you appear either to think your interlocutors are dumb to the nuances of English syntax, or that their embarrassed silence is proof of malignity ganging up against perspicacity. When you write:-

'After 1948 and even more so after 1967, the use of "Palestinian" came to be an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine.

I presume you know what you mean. I don't. Could you construe it please? I have an inordinate amount of difficulty understanding what grammatical subject is referred to in your use of ‘by’, an instrumental particle indicating an agent. The agent is clearly ‘the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine.’. Recurring back one alights rather desperately at ‘the use of ‘Palestinian’. ‘ Do you mean to write:-

‘The use of ‘Palestinian’ by the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine came to be an endonym after 1948.

If so, it is a superbly clumsy piece of textual gaming. For one of its vague meanings is that the Arabs who lived in Palestine before 1948 came to define themselves as ‘Palestinian’ after 1948. and particularly after 1967, an assertion you make in defiance of the source you base your judgement on, which explicitly says the contrary . I.e. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. One implication of your clumsy paraphrase is that the meaning of the source is inverted.

There are several other problems in that suggestion, readily apparent to anyone who had the good fortune to come across Empson’s ‘Seven Types of Ambiguity’ in their impressionable youth. But I won’t complicate your life: I will wait till you tell me what you intended writing, as opposed to the highly ambivalent muddle you actually came up with. (‘the use . .came to be an endonym’ is, young man, horrible English. A word can be an ‘endonym’ its usage never. Can’t you see even that?)Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote used as fact

I'm not an expert in wiki policy, but:

The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and indeed in response to it does not in any way diminish the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism or make it less valid than Zionism. All nationalisms arise in opposition to some "other." Why else would there be the need to specify who you are? And all nationalisms are defined by what they oppose.

Now, far be it from me to argue as to the substance of that, but I can't help feeling it should be marked as a quote more clearly. It almost seems as if it is being presented as fact, where the previous paragraph sets it out as a debate.

If no-one disagrees, I will edit it in a couple of days. Fish. (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like top add quotation marks on the quote "..." to make it clearer? If so, please do so. Tiamut^talk 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my idea. I'm just quite new at this, so I didn't want to upset anyone. Fish. (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out someone had already marked it with the blockquote tag, but perhaps the picture next to it was stopping that being displayed properly. So I was making a fuss over nothing. Woops. Fish. (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership & Reverting in contrast with Consensus

Tiamut, Nishidani, Eleland: There seems to be a misunderstanding that recent changes are reasons for reverting or deletion. If recent changes contain valid and encyclopedic information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly, not reverted. It seems WP policy has been turned upside down on this page. Please see WP:OWNERSHIP & WP:Reverting in contrast with WP:Consensus. Regards, Doright (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if recent changes improve the article, they should be kept. However, Tiamut, Nishidani, and I have found severe problems with some of your recent changes, which we regard as placing WP:UNDUE weight on certain facts which the author prefers to highlight, not for encyclopedic reasons but as part of his crusade for the WP:TRUTH. We might, of course, be wrong; this is why the article has a talk page, and why Wikipedia has a system of dispute resolution. Both are open to you. Neither have been seriously explored. We do not intend to blindly revert your contributions, but we are not prepared to accept changes which radically shift the balance of information in this article's lede section, absent a rationale which we find compelling and compatible with policy. (Well, I'm not prepared. I expect that my Nazarene and Nihongo colleagues would agree, but I can't speak for them.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, "We do not intend to blindly revert your contributions." However, now that the collective "you" are pledging to not intentionally blindly revert, I must point out that is not quite good enough. Again, "Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion.If they contain valid and encyclopedic information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly." Again, the collective "you" are in gross violation of this admonition that can be found under the "Don't" section of [this page]. Please note, that the qualifier is that the information be encyclopedic. The qualifier is not that the information pass your ideological litmus test of bogeyman "reasons" that the collective "you" repeatedly ascribe to the motivations of an editor in violation of WP:AGF. I hope to see significant improvement in this area. Doright (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, Nishidani, Eleland: There also seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what consensus means and the Wikipedia process to achieve it. The first step in achieving consensus in Wikipedia according to this flow chat is making an edit, not getting your permission to make an edit. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. There is no basis for reverting just because an editor has not asked your permission to edit. Where the consensus process is breaking down here is that you revert and provide no compromise solution nor evidence to support any claims. I have done both. Doright (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright You write: 'The first step in achieving consensus in Wikipedia according to this flow chat (sic) is making an edit, not getting your permission to make an edit.'

You've made your edit, and a majority found it distorted the text sourced. The second step is therefore to justify that edit which the others, from their distinctive individual perspectives, given at length, find problematical. Your editing practice does not follow step one, but takes as its fundamental assumption that anything you propose must stick on the page, until others can improve it (note: in your approach there is no margin for doubt, what you have edited in can be improved, not challenged substantially). I edited in a remark by David Shulman on settlements. It was vigorously challenged. I thus devoted several extensive pages to the Talk forum to justify it. Weeks have passed. I have not reintroduced that edit, though personally convinced it is legitimate. I have waited for several editors to mull it thoroughly. Some have changed their minds, one way or another. What counts is not my self-assurance that the edit is correct technically, but the consensus of fellow-editors. You have, I repeat, insistedly displayed in your practice, and in your language, an absolute confidence that you alone can read the said passage in its proper sense, as I have consistently documented. That language alone betrays a strong diffidence about how others think. Now you tell us we do not understand what consensus means. It means what it means. It does not mean, I lead, you mob follow.

Claims about WP:OWN work both ways. You have displayed a strong proprietorial attitude to that section of Wiki. You have challenged, idiosyncratically, a rough consensus, and complained the rest of us are not working for consensus. You brandish the word 'rhetorical' (it's becoming, like WP:SOAPBOX, the standard slogan for dismissing my attempts to reason out a dispute). The text you challenge is a 'compromise solution'. You understand as 'compromise' an agreement on your uncompromising solution.

As for the flow chart of where that passage occurs, it is meaningless. For the simple reason given above, but which you ignore. That text, though occurring chronologically at a point after Israel's foundation, has four propositions, one of which specifically speaks of Palestinian identity as having begun to be broached as a discursive reality around 1900, 50 odd years before 1948. All the edit most agree on does is to note this fact. In citing a source one is not obliged to reproduce its chronological structure. One cites a source for the relevant information it has for a theme, and the theme under review concerns Palestinian identity which the EB editor says began to be formed 50 years before the events of 48. You find this highlighting of the datum distasteful, and clearly wish to push the idea that a Palestinian identity is a very late and fragile product, with little historical legitimacy. That is a political position, it is not an historical fact. Your editorial preference is to suppress what the EC text does say on this (and many other authorities) and highlight those parts which speak about foreign or Jewish perceptions. This page is about Palestinian people, not about foreign and Jewish perceptions of Palestinian people. It is not the latter who determine who Palestinians are, but that people, and the scholarship, from whatever source, which in peer-review, determines the historical processes that led to the formation of that identity. This is of particular delicacy given the very long record throughout the period from 1948 to the 1980s in which major figures in Israeli politics denied there was any such thing as a Palestinian people or identity. In pitching the text the way you have you are simply trying to underline what Israeli politicians from Golda Meir to Menachem Begin are on record as asserting, assertions which are no longer taken seriously in the scholarly literature on Palestinian identity. I will return to this, but in the meantime have an appointment with the dentist, something that invartiably proves less painful than explaining the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Said blurb quote

Doright keeps inserting some variation of the following text (bolded):

In his 1997 book, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, historian Rashid Khalidi notes that the archaeological strata [...] form part of the identity of the modern-day Palestinian people, as they have come to understand it over the last century. Khalidi stresses that Palestinian identity has never been an exclusive one, with "Arabism, religion, and local loyalties" continuing to play an important role. Echoing this view, Edward Said notes that Khalidi's 1997 book "is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist."

First, the full quote is actually, "It is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist, and then proceeds to uncover its overlapping layers, historical phases, and tragic setbacks with a complete mastery of the relevant literature in Arabic, Hebrew and Western sources." It's not clear to me from that quote whether Said means that Khalidi's book is the first to "work from the premise" of Palestinian national identity, or it's the first to "work from the premise" and do all the stuff.

Second, it's not clear to me that being the "first book to work from the premise" that Palestinian national identity exists has anything to do with the issue that Doright is citing it for. Nobody believes that Palestinian national identity was not a topic of scholarship until the 1990s, and of course Palestinians declared themselves to be a nation long before then. I mean, come on, the Palestinian National Council was founded in 1964... <eleland/talkedits> 13:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi, 1997, back cover

Palestinian Identity, The Construction of Modern National Consciousness

Let's get the quote right. Printed on the back cover of the book by Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said writes:

"Khalidi's massive study of the construction of Palestinian national identity is a path-breaking work of major importance. It is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist, and then proceeds to uncover its overlapping layers, historical phases, and tragic setbacks with a complete mastery of the relevant literature in Arabic, Hebrew, and Western sources."

In his edit summary reverting and deleting the Edward Said reference from the article,User:Eleland states, the "phrase did not end with a period, but with a comma and an additional clause modifying it to say something different" [[16]]. My question to the community: Is it improper to reference Edward Said as claiming it is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist? Regards, Doright (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a grammarian, but the sentence looks ambiguous to me. At the very least, you can't add a period on your own without putting it in square brackets[.]

It must be added that this is not my only objection to your placement of the quote. You're trying to use a book review blurb to support the thesis that Palestinian national identity is practically brand-new, but you've not shown that to be in any way the scholarly consensus on the issue. Most sources date the emergence of a specific national Palestinian identity to circa 1920, presaged as far back as the 1834 revolt, and cemented in the 1960s-70s at the absolute latest. The Palestinians have been formally recognized as a nation by the world since 1974, when the PLO was admitted to the UNGA as an observer.

I need to re-iterate that simple verifiability is not the only criterion for inclusion in an article. The presentation of facts needs to be neutral, and facts should not be strung together to advance a conclusion not found in the cited sources. The presentation of opinions, conclusions, and judgments needs to be balanced by the significance of the viewpoints expressed. This needs to be demonstrated by working towards consensus with other editors. Drive-by POV edits, followed by wild accusations of censorious cabals reverting them, do not impress. <eleland/talkedits> 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The second clause in the cited paragraph do not change the first clause, but it expands on it. I would prefer to cite the whole sentence to avoid this kind of (quite predictable) pissing contest. Also, the leaflet sounds like a bit of bragging to me, and there are probably better sources to make the point. --Leifern (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Khalidi and Said sound very proud of the claim this is the first book to work from the premise that a Palestinian identity exists. It’s printed on the cover of the book and that is what makes it difficult for anyone wanting to deny it. One has difficulty claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope. I have little doubt that hubris may have played a role in Khalidi and Said bringing this fact to the attention of the general public despite their well know advocacy of the “Palestinian narrative” that they have been instrumental in creating. I agree that pissing is a waste of time, apparently except for those who have really got to go. Here is my latest effort at avoiding getting caught in the wind.[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_people&diff=197052232&oldid=197004313]] Please note I have placed Said’s assertion about the book exactly where our article introduces the book. I think this is pretty straightforward (Said is sufficiently notable) and there is no need to look for additional sources to replace it. Doright (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's funny how so many people are desperate to focus on the recentness of Palestinian nationalism, when the same should apply to practically every population of states created by Western occupiers, that are now referred to as "nations".

I think that's absolutely true in the Arab world - places like Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are quite clearly delimited by colonial edict rather than any linguistic, cultural, economic, or other distinction. I think we can see much of that in Sub-Saharan Africa as well. But this point can be applied in many ways. --Leifern (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing which the Palestinian nation has, which many other of these nations don't have (populations of most other Mid Eastern and African states), is strong homogeneity, which more than makes up for their lack of an actual state. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Among Palestinian Arabs, there are Christians and Muslims, rich and poor, descendants of peasants from small villages, and of absentee landowners who had homes in several Middle Eastern cities. If you include other Arab-speaking peoples in the area, such as Druze and Bedouin, it becomes even more diverse. --Leifern (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Kidding? Religious (and ethnic) minorities are extremely few (Druze might not even identify as Palestinians), Palestinians are almost exclusively Sunni Muslims (97% according to a source used in this article), as for different social classes, well, that's rather irrelevant, as such would be expected to exist in any group of people referred to as a nation. Compare that to a place like Lebanon or Iraq. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Said wrote:'"Khalidi's massive study of the construction of Palestinian national identity is a path-breaking work of major importance. It is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist, and then proceeds to uncover its overlapping layers, historical phases, and tragic setbacks with a complete mastery of the relevant literature in Arabic, Hebrew, and Western sources."

To understand what Said was getting it requires some familiarity with his work, esp. when he wrote of issues like nationalism and regional identity which has been 'occluded or minimized' in the 'scholarly seeming studies of individuals like Lewis, Patai, plus more recently Walter Laqueur, Emmaniel Sivan, and Daniel Pipes. Academic work that advocated a policy line opposed to native Arab or Islamic nationalism had dominated professional and even journalistic discussion . .Central to this attitude was another factor, Israel, also a contributor to the polarity that was set up between democratic Israel and a homogeneously non-democratic Arab world, in which the Palestinians, dispossessed and exiled by Israel, came to represent 'terrorism' and little beyond it. But now it was the precisely differentiated histories of various Arab peoples, societies, and formations that younger anti.-Orientalist scholars put forward' etc. (E Said, Culture and Imperialism Chatto & Windus, London 1993 p.315)

I.e. Khalidi's book worked from a premise not available in earlier work for specific ideological factors, and in using that 'occluded' premise, he found its 'construction' had 'historical phases'. Had he meant to say it was simply 'constructed' recently on a fragile, innovative premise, he would not have gone on to speak of 'historical phases', an expression which, in affirming historicity, accepts that Palestinian identity had roots in the past, reaching beyond the present in which both Said and Khaliidi wrote.

--Leifern Everything you remark on of various Arab identities is equally true of Israeli identity. No one doubts that such an identity exists, despite the influx of two huge waves of repectively Sephardi and Russian immigrants. Palestinians, distinctively are caught up in a double bind which strengthens their identity. Arab nations holding them as refugees brand them as 'unassimilable' in that they are denied nationality rights and treated as residents of another land to which they must return. For Arabs they are 'Palestinians'. Conversely, for many Israelis they have no identity, but are undifferentiated 'Arabs'. Actually, Europeans for a few centuries consistently distinguished Palestinians from Beduin. Only the latter were 'Arabs' in the European ethnography of 17th-19th century, the vast majority were an indigenous peasant population of Palestine. So, paradoxically the Arabs treat them tendentially as 'Palestinians', and the Israelis as 'Arabs'. While both these mutually exclusive foreign attitudes prevail, the fact is history has determined them, for over a century of travail, as Palestinians, and thus they define themselves as they wrest discourse on them by others, and speak for themselves. The PLO itself in its foundational document specifically undertook to accept Jews born in 'Palestine' before 48 'Palestinians' if they would simply accept the original Palestinian majority's right to define its homeland as 'Palestinian'. 'Liberation' was meant to restore that national identity, and include all 'sabras' who accepted it as fellow nationals. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nishidani, it seems there are some things we agree about.. :-) I wanted to write an editorial aside that the diversity is actually a sign of strength and legitimacy, not of weakness and confusion, but I feared that would cloud the topic a bit. There is no question that both the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab senses of identity include very diverse groups of people, along many dimensions (this, incidentally, is my greatest hope for peace - that everyone can get beyond the idea that there are two camps). I think you are right that both the Israeli and non-Palestinian Arab tendency to treat Palestinians as "other" has both helped forge the identity through hardship but also worsen the political and humanitarian situation for Palestinians in most places they exist. I can only hope that this sense of identity becomes more positive over time rather than defined - rightly or wrongly - by victimhood. --Leifern (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Leifern. One could agree on much more generally, I think, were a basic recognition of parity of discursive rights assumed. Diversity is indeed a real strength of modern nations, and a potential force both for good in modernizing semi-states, if the latter do not find their sectarian diversities used to break up the process of forming a unified state, and for 'bad' is the dominating actor employs the old imperial strategy of divide et impera. Victimism is, unfortunately, shared by both the powerful and the powerless in this region. I note you tend to think of Palestinians as 'Palestinian Arabs', and the vehemence with which the latter term is defended in Wiki by pro-Israeli posters shows that grounding the term aims to undermine the Palestinian claim for their specific diversity from other Arabs who treat them anyway as other. To have them labelled 'Palestinian Arabs' feeds the rhetoric that would say they can be relocated anywhere in Arab lands, while, at the same time, denying the ethnographic reality that the majority descend from people were culturally Arabized though being indigenous, as quite distinct subsocieties, to a shared geographical and historical reality. There is a world of difference between being told who you are (by an outsider who still wields substantial power over you) and defining yourself. This article is being constructed, not by Palestinians, but by non-Palestinians of various background, and it is precisely the danger of negative fallout from this discursive hegemony of outsiders on Palestinian perceptions that makes me, for one, hyper-sensitive about the way they are being depicted Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, the undeniable fact is that Edward Said says and Rashid Khalidi agrees that the 1997 book is the first book to work from the premise that a Palestinian National identity exists. There have been repeated efforts to eliminate that fact from the article. Your above comments are entirely extraneous and do not deny the fact. Rather, you seem concerned that this fact cancels (using your own words from yet another of your reversions) a formulation that reflects a good deal of recent scholarship on claims of early 20th century Palestinian nationalism. Doright (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, sign your comments or I won't reply. Anonymity is not a sign of good faith.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not in theory opposed to mentioning Said's view. It is Said's view. When I read it, I naturally wondered whether or not that premise might exist in Arabic texts written by Palestinians, to cite one example of where Said's generalization might prove provincial. I have an open mind on the issue, but the edit made earlier was technically incorrect, in that it stated as a fact (true of all literature, though he is speaking contextually of English academic studies) what was a critical point of view. Secondly that one has for the first time an explicit premise for a point of view, does not signify that point of view is new. It merely, (and this is what User:Doright consistently fails to understand), makes explicit an assumption ('to writer from a premise') that might otherwise be implicit in earlier works. This is quite normal in the philosophical tradition Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, again, your comments consistently reflect a failure to understand that your speculations and ruminations are irrelevant. I trust you will both "in theory" and in fact, not continue to revert this sourced information from the text. Doright (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis, may be ruminative, not for that 'speculative'. What you are trying to put into the text so far is 'irrelevant' since the only visible purpose sewes to be that of building up a 'premise' that Palestinian identity is a very late construction, in oprder, via that precedent, rewrite the introduction to eliminate it altogether as a phased historical phenomenon. This is an encyclopedia, not your workbook. I will exercise the same rights you exercise, except for putting into the text ideas or phrasing that are clumsy, tendentious or that misconstrue sources, as see the record above, you have consistently done. CheersNishidani (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not deny that the notion of a Palestinian people can be thought of as having its beginnings with the primordial ooze from which life on this planet seems to have emerged or accordingly even as early as the Big bang. However, that is irrelevant, along with all your complaints and cold sweats about Zionist bogeyman schemes to introduce content into the article that does not fit neatly into your preferred narrative. Exactly, how does this edit misconstrue the source? Doright (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You write: 'In the first book to work from the premise that a Palestinian National identity exists,' and then ask 'How does this misconstrue the source?'

It doesn't misconstrue the source, and I never said it did. What it does do, fatally, is conflate your editorial opinion, User:Doright, and Said's opinion, stating the latter's view as a fact, when it is an informed reviewer's opinion. Dodge all you like, but you are presenting as a fact what is an opinion. This is typical of your style of contributing. It would help if your inability to construe precisely what other editors write were substituted by an improvement in your, so far, lamentable attempts to write correctly what you yourself intend to write, without creating conceptual or verbal confusions.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You now say that my paraphrase of Edward Said's assertion (i.e., "the first book to work from the premise that a Palestinian National identity exists," and concurrence by the historian Rashid Khalidi doesn't misconstrue the source. Good. I'm glad to see that you no longer support Eleland's reason for keeping this content out of the article (i.e., that the phrase, it is the first book to work from the premise that such an identity does in fact exist, somehow does not mean what it says). Reference edit summary, Eleland states: [that phrase did not end with a period, but with a comma and an additional clause modifying it to say something different] . As is your demonstrated practice, neither Eleland nor Tiamut nor you offer any language in compromise. Just endless reversion. Now you complain that it is merely a matter of opinion. However, you provide no citations, authorities or references to refute the factual claim of Edward Said and affirmed by Rashid Khalidi and the publishers. Your only source is your own opinion and your only argument is ad hominem. Now, Tiamut adds, that it is merely a reviewer's opinion, [[17]] to diminish the fact that she would otherwise claim Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi as among the foremost authorities on the topic. Despite the numerous unconvincing objections and reversions, Tiamut, Nishidani, Eleland have provided no alternate language in compromise. It is merely one revert after another with an ever changing set of "reasons." Doright (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(Recopying comment from below - you make the same old arguments, you get the same response) Doright, I've deleted the insertion you made. It's inappropriate to take a reviewer's opinion from the back cover of the book and pass it off as a "fact". It also seems to me to be WP:UNDUE highlighting to make a WP:POINT emphasizing the "recentism" of Palestinian as a national identity. This subject is already throughly covered throughout the article. It doesn't need to be repeated again here in a way that does not accord with WP:ATT. Tiamuttalk 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Less contempt, more equanimity please

Special note to readers: Nishidani, not I, created this discussion section, Less contempt, more equanimity please. Nishidani then extracted portions of text from the talk page of a different article. He then placed it in here, creating the appearance that I created this section and wrote the two comments into it. Here is the smoking gun. Doright (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the only pillar of the argument that has survived the conversation (albeit extremely wobbly) is the notion that because the 'land of Israel' had been a longstanding theme of Jewish identity over the millennia when human understanding and ontologies were heavily religious, we ought to then somehow conclude that 'Zionism' appeared on the scene independent of its very long historical roots. Israeli-Palestinian conflict User:Doright (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

'I do not deny that the notion of a Palestinian people can be thought of as having its beginnings with the primordial ooze from which life on this planet seems to have emerged.' Palestinian People Doright (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Late signing. Apologies to all for any misunderstandings my absent-handedness might have caused.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright, I've deleted the insertion you made. It's inappropriate to take a reviewer's opinion from the back cover of the book and pass it off as a "fact". It also seems to me to be WP:UNDUE highlighting to make a WP:POINT emphasizing the "recentism" of Palestinian as a national identity. This subject is already throughly covered throughout the article. It doesn't need to be repeated again here in a way that does not accord with WP:ATT. Tiamut^talk 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, as though you have not sufficiently participated in the numerous personal attacks on this page, you again delete content from the article (again without offering compromise language) and have the temerity to post your comment to this ill conceived section instead of the location of the ongoing discussion on the topic When I have a chance to do it, you will find my response to the latest in a series of attempts to keep this noteworthy item from the article.Doright (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please point out a single comment I made here that constitutes a "personal attack" against you, or anyone else. Please do not make bad faith assumptions. I placed my comment here because I thought this was a continuation of the discussion above, and not for any other motive other than to explain why I deleted your addition. You should spend more time discussing content, rather than making baseless accusations. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The double standards are catching up with you, see appropriate section above for response to your explanation. In making yet another personal attack against me, even Nishidani himself says, sign your comments ... Anonymity is not a sign of good faith.[[18]].Then he goes on to create this section drops in a couple of partial extracts taken out of context with my signature on it. And, leaves no evidence in the text that he was the one that put that material in there. No signature, no comment, nothing. That doesn't bother you. Now, you somehow don't notice the objection I made to this section in bold and in the edit summary. Then you support this action when, according to his own stated criteria, it "is not a sign of good faith." I've repeated tried to avoid being influenced by the misconduct that has caused other excellent editors to avoid this page. However, the rejection of all offers of compromise are reverted without offering any counter-proposal. Gee wiz, this is beginning to sound familiar. Doright (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Doright From virtually your first post in here you have made the same complaint that you reiterate here. You're now making mountains out of molehills about a rare lapse of my own in not signing an edit showing a discrepancy in tone. Your remonstration is just, in that inadvertently, by not signing that edit, I slipped into the vice of the pot calling the kettle black. Okay. Point made. No need then to make a case for your being victimized by a collectivist clique of abusive editors every time someone challenges you. I say this while advising you to reflect on the disparity I remarked on above. That remark about the 'primordial ooze' as coterminous with Palestinian identity claims, compared with the straightforward remarks on the factualness of age-old Jewish claims of identity with the same land smacked of contempt, and one should not edit articles about another people with the dismissive hauteur you often display. We've both thus made out points. Back to the text, e basta Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article about Afro-Palestinians

• Interesting article which might come in handy some day: [19] Funkynusayri (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally fascinating read! Thanks for that Funkynusari. This article needs so much more development to discuss this sub-segment, the Circassians, Armenians, Bosnians and others who identify as Palestinian but may or may not be geneaologically Arab (though many do identify as Arab on linguistic grounds). Amazing the diversity of our society! Anyway, keep them coming. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nachba?

Why is there no mention of Nachba here or anywhere in Wikipedia? I found that very surprising.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it here Nakba Day. I believe my spelling is also used so maybe we should add that as a re-direct. Might be worth mentioning a bit in this article with link to the larger article.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Nachba would be using a Hebrew "ch," which does not exist in Arabic. The closest thing is "kh." Possible spellings are: Nakba, Nakbah, Al-Nakhba, Al-Nekbah and very rarely Al-NakhbahLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

technical help please

Hi, I included footnote #4, but I wasn´t able to link it. Can anyone include the link? Here it is: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B07EFD9143EEE3ABC4953DFBF66838A639EDE&oref=slogin

Thanks, 77.2.101.48 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Adding this - "Syria and Palestine should form one country because they are mostly inhabited by the same Arab race"[4] - to the introduction doesn't seem right. It requires a fuller discussion, particularly since no one uses the term's "Arab race" today. For many, Arab is a linguistic and cultural identity, as much as it is one defined by lineage. Perhaps we can include it somewhere in the section on identity and go into a fuller discussion of the affinities felt between Arabs in Palestine and Syria that mitigated against the emergence of a particularistic Palestinian identity in the early twentieth century. But for now, I'm going to remove it from the introduction, which generally requires much discussion before getting changes effected there, due to the controversial nature of the subject for some people. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, there is no such thing as an "Arab race". Closest was the term "Arabid/oid", which was used to describe a certain craniometric type, not any people as a whole. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamat, I included this because the introduction is completely wrong when saying that Palestinians claimed there own state in 1921. The quote from the NYT goes like this: "The Syrian-Palestinian congress has sent President Harding a telegram briefly explaining the aspirations of those it represents. The telegram says that Syria and Palestine should form one country because they are mostly inhabited by the same Arab race." Link: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9B07EFD9143EEE3ABC4953DFBF66838A639EDE&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

77.2.120.216 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, this is classic WP:UNDUE weight and I've reverted the addition. The current language does not claim that Palestinians demanded their own exclusive, single, seperate state, it says that a demand for national independence was issues by the Syrian-Palestinian congress. The IP has gone into the article, picked out the "should form one country" part, and highlighted it; one could just as well highlight the repeated use of "Syrian and Palestinian" as separate entities, and the reference to "the Syrian and Palestinian delegations," note the pluralization. <eleland/talkedits> 12:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, many readers interpretated the text as if this was a demand for a Palästinian state, the context insinuates this too. So while I accept your interpretation I´ll include two words to make this clear.77.2.120.216 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization and deletions

I made a bold reogranization of the article, changing some sub-headings and moving stuff around. Mostly I've retained the text as is, just arranging it differently. I did delete a bunch of stuff and thought I'd repost here so people can object or incorporate things they wish to retain. Here it is:

The claim that Palestinians are direct descendants of the region's earliest inhabitants, the Canaanites, has been put forward by some authors. Marcia Kunstel and Joseph Albright, author-journalists, for example put forward this claim in their 1990 book Their Promised Land: Arab and Jew in History's Cauldron-One Valley in the Jerusalem Hills. Kathleen Christison notes in her review of the work that Kunstel and Albright are "those rare historians who give credence to the Palestinians' claim that their 'origins and early attachment to the land' derive from the Canaanites five millennia ago, and that they are an amalgamation of every people who has ever lived in Palestine."

Adel Yahya, a Palestinian archaeologist, also claims that modern-day Palestinians are the direct descendants of the Philistines and that they might be descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Sandra Scham, an American archaeologist at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem and author of Archaeology of the Disenfranchised dismissed such conclusions as falling into the realm of 'popular imagination and folklore.'

In an article in the journal Science, it was reported that "most Palestinian archaeologists were quick to distance themselves from these ideas," with the reasons cited by those interviewed centering around the view that the issue of who was in Palestine first constitutes an ideological issue that lies outside of the realm of archaeological study.

I think the stuff on archaeology could go into the article on Syro-Palestinian archaeology. The rest seems unnecessary given the other sources already quoted on these subjects in the article. Feedback is welcome. Tiamut^talk 01:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Under "History -- Struggle for self-determination -- The "lost years" (1948 to 1967) 2.2.2 -- Is the term "sacred trust" a neutral point of view or verifiable? It doesn't sound as neutral as the other phrase in the same sentence "international legal status".

[Thank you to those making the effort to hammer out the details of this entry to make it something that can be used by anyone without taking either side. It's hard to find a meeting ground where viewpoints are so opposed to one another. I want you to know I appreciate it.]

labellesanslebete 1/22/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labellesanslebete (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Palestine was Arabized centuries before the Islamic era"

"Semitic tribes from the Arabian peninsula began migrating into Palestine as early as the 3rd millennium BCE,[20][21] and among these migrants were the Arabs, such that the region was Arabized centuries before the Islamic era began[22] [23]" This sentence is heavily POV, and above all, inaccurate. Firstly, although Semitic tribes did migrate from the Arabian peninsula in the 3rd millenium BCE, they were Canaanites, not Arabs. As to the claim that the region was Arabized "centuries before the Islamic era", the only thing Source 23 says about the history of Palestine is that "Historians generally agree that the ancient Semitic peoples Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews) and, later, the Arabs themselves migrated into the area of the Fertile Crescent after successive crises of overpopulation in the Peninsula beginning in the third millennium before the Common Era (BCE) and ending with the Muslim conquests of the 7th century CE." Nothing about Palestine being Arabized centuries before the Islamic era. And as to Source 22, it is ridiculously unreliable.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this deserves serious attention. I would also love to know why Syrian people, Lebanese people, Egyptian people, don't have an article like this, even tho they are all Arabs.

European views of the 'Palestinian people'

I'd like to invite anyone who has relevant knowledge to add a sentence or two about orientalist views of the palestinian people - i moved info about orientalist views of Jews as Palestinians to this section, and it could use some balance.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Muslim, Christian) Druze? Jewish?

Hi, I just wanted to solicit feedback re: the exclusion/deletion of Jews and Druze. Today two (Israeli I think?) editors deleted "Jewish" from the sidebar. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter of whether or not Jews should be there, but it made me realize that the Druze religion is not listed there. I know quite a few Druze who call themselves Palestinians. Thus I would think, even if most call themselves Israelis nowadays, there should be allowance for those who feel they also belong to the Palestinian people. Feedback?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk. Apologies for edit warring. Can we get a reliable source on the numbers? What do other sources list as the religions there, and what do other sources leave out in summary explanations? I imagine there are a lot of Druze; at least, as there are a lot in Lebanon by extension. However, I'm pretty sure that almost all Jews sided with Israel in the 1948 wars and became citizens; additionally, any remaining were personae non grata with the locals. I would really be surprised to find anything other than Druze, Christianity, Islam in more than a few hundred people at most. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, numbers would be useful. Anyone? I just had a thought about your edit summary explanation: "from said article, "After the modern State of Israel was born, nearly all native Palestinian Jews became citizens of Israel". Muslims and Christians who remained within the new state of Israel, also became Israeli citizens, but they still nevertheless identify as a part of the Palestinian people.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; Muslims and Christians. It is my understanding that the community of Jews that had lived in Palestine dating back to before the diaspora came to ally itself with the Israeli side, and fought along with it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, overall this is true. In terms of the remaining Jewish presence within the Palestinian population, true, it is negligible. However, we do see a small smnattering Jews calling themselves such - Palestinian Jews, and we see the Palestinian people overall accepting them. Thus I guess for me the issue is - are there Jews that consider themselves part of the Palestinian people, and does the Palestinian people accept them? And it seems the answer is yes to both questions.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

First it is stated that "The Greek toponym Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη), with which the Arabic Filastin (فلسطين) is cognate", and then later in the same section, "Filastini (فلسطيني), also derived from the Latinized Greek term Palaestina (Παλαιστίνη)". This is a contradiction. When a word in one language is adapted from a word in another language, it is certainly not a cognate. A cognate means that two different words in the same or a different language share the same root word from a common ancestral language (like "Welsh" and "Vlach" in English for instance, or "war" and "guerre" in english and french, all inherited from Germanic). Palestine and Filastin is not a case of a cognate here because it is about the same word which was a simple adaptation from one language to another. Miskin (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for noting this. That contradiction appears to have arisen from someone fiddling with the text, to re-insert an early, ungrounded remark that Filastin was derived from Latin (read:Romans kicked out the Jewish people, and gave Eretz Israel a Latin name. The Arabs came into the land, and borrowed the Latin name. Hence Arab attachment to the land is derivative, etc. a point you see in talk boards everywhere). I put in the word 'cognate'. Offhand, from memory, in proto-Semitic reconstruction */p/ corresponds to /f/ in Arabic, as Palastu in Akkadian would correspond to Filastini, hence making them cognate.

The remark that the Arabic comes from Latin is pure conjecture, though widespread, and is ideologically motivated as well. The Latin word imposed after the defeat of Bar Kochba in CE 135 itself came from classical Greek, which used it of the area as far back as the 6th cent.CE. The contradiction you point out should obviously be eliminated. One very authoritative person to consult on this, in any case, is DBachman. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note 17 simply does not support what the text you cite said. It merely registers the name of an Arab martyr called al-Filastini in 7 cent CE in that area. To deduce all that from the name is WP:OR, besides being a bad example of bad sourcing. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani. In this edit, you removed the material because you said the source cited does not really support the statement made. I tend to agree with you that the source is a little weak, but it is a fact that "Filastini" was used as an adjectival noun in the region as early as the 8th century and beyond. Not only is there the asectic named Abdallah b. Muhayriz al-Jumahi al-Filastini, as alluded to in the original source but al-Muqaddasi, the Arab geographer, writing in the latter half of the 10th century, explains how one of the 36 names he has been assigned, includes "Filastini". [20] As you may or may not know, Muqaddasi means "Jerusalemite", so that he was also "Filastini" is very interesting (he was also "Masri" or "Egyptian", but whatever). That's another source attesting to the use of "Filastini" as an adjectival noun in the time period in question. I should also note that there is another person named "Filastini" who lived in the 9th century, Al Walid Al-Filastini. In any case, these three sources attest to the use of "Filastini" as an adjectival noun. Accordingly, could we work on restoring the text in question, and/or exploring even better sources that can be used? Part of the problem here is that there are very few sources discussing Arab linguistics in the Islamic medieval period as it pertains to Palestine and Palestinian identity and they are not easy to find. Let me know what you think about these new sources. Tiamut^talk 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PLO as representatives of all Palestinian people - or not

"The Palestinian people as a whole are represented before the international community by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."

This is surely the opinion of the PLO but this does not mean it must be the opinion of the Palestinian diaspora or of Wikipedia.

Please let us find a better wording, which acknowledges the role of the PLO with less of a broad brush, or else exclude this reference altogether.

Joshua.c.j (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The PLO or its contemporary form the PNA is officially accredited as the representative of Palestinians in over 100 countries, with consular offices etc. 'Before the international community' is an awkward allusion to this world-wide official state recognition of Arafat's organization.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The legal process of obtaining sovereignty shifted from states to peoples a long time ago. That's why it was called the United Nations Organization, and not the United States. Getting the government of Israel to recognize anyone as the representative of the "Palestinian people" was the most important legal hurdle. The League of Nations mandate (unlike the Balfour Declaration) recognized the connection of the Jewish people to the country of Palestine, and made the Jewish Agency their official representative, i.e. 'Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country... ...An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine'

Needless to say, there were hundreds of non-Zionist Jewish organizations that were never associated with or represented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. harlan (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LoN charter

This article is about what is known today as 'Palestinians' - 'an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine' (from the article's lead). The 'Palestinians' and 'Palestinian citizenship' referred to in the cited LoN documents are a different group of people - which are all the residents of the territory which became the British Mandate of palestine - Jews and Arabs alike. It is confusing and misleading to use the LoN materila in this context. NoCal100 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

indeed people want to know about who are the Palestinian People not the pelest or the philistines of the bible who might never existed! this is the most rediculous informative material i ever read, the whole page starts but never ends about what are the possibilities the could be. this is more like disinformation. there is an intimate relation between the conquest of jerusalem by the british in 1917 and the baldour declaration and the organized immigration of jews from germany by british occupiers and her majesty the queen report and the declaration of the state of israel, hence palestinians are the residents of palestine BEFORE 1917 conquest of Jerusalem and Palstine by the British (historical enemies of Palestinians since the crusade and Richard LionHeart of the third crusade, no strange that the embelm of the Palestinians is the Falcon of Saladin (the guy who fought Richard Lion Heart!10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)10:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Palestinians different than Palestinian citizenship. It is appropriate to revert old difinition (residents of Palestine before the 1917 Conquest of Palestine by the British, This will include all residents regardless of religion or ethnicity who all knew Arabic as the first language because Arabs were dominant in numbers. Virtually all the jews who were brought by the British got Israeli citisenships and are anti Palestinians, so why include them with the palestinians?? before 1917 conquest difinition is the right one palestinians use. Nationality after all is Self identification not citizenship (Khalidi). It is weird you want to prevent people from identifying themselves on wiki pages because it conflict with their enemies??08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually he missed the point entirely. Israel and the neighboring states had no legitimate standing to revoke the nationality that had been conferred on the Palestinians by the League of Nations. There have been a lot of pointless discussions which suggest that Palestinians can't pass along refugee status to their children. Those discussions forget to mention the legal basis for Palestinian nationality, or the unspoken fact that it is nationality - not refugee status - that Palestinians are passing along to their children. see for example International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality: A Forgotten Basis for the Resolution of the Palestinian Refugee Question and The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality a Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality under the British Rule, by Mutaz Qafisheh.

Many indigenous Jews were Palestinians. Nonetheless, most of the immigrants were not. According to the Survey of Palestine, Vol. I, page 185, there were 367,845 Jewish immigrants to Palestine during the mandate era. The figures on page 208 show that fewer than 133,000 ever bothered to apply for naturalization. That means they remained citizens of their countries of origin.

The fact that some Palestinians want Palestine to be a political unit in a larger constitutional federation of Arab states results in irrelevant pedantic discussions about Arab culture. Those discussions have little moral or legal substance. For example, the fact that some Jews wish to live in Israel has no automatic moral or legal significance to Jews living in other countries. The League of Nations Mandate stipulated that it did not effect the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Over the years there have been clear cut statements of dissociation from a number of Jewish groups. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion himself made several statements in response to demands from American Jewish groups explaining that: he understood they were not in exile, that he was not their spokesman, and that they had not vicariously become part of the people of the State of Israel. harlan (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)