Talk:Palestinians/Archive 7

Misunderstanding of the term "Palestinian"
The term "palestinian" is refered to all of those people that nativley lived in the area of palestine, this area was called "Philisteen" or in Arabic : "فلسطين". see Palestine it says: "The term "Palestine" derives from the word Philistine, the name of a non-Semitic ethnic group, originating from Southern Greece,closely related to early Mycenaean civilization. They inhabited a smaller area on the southern coast, called Philistia"

it says too that they exist before, on and after the 830s BC.

Another thing, use your logic and your mind, it doesn't make sense at all to call a "Jew" by "Palestinian", it's pretty much the same as calling an "American" by "Indian", or vice versa if you like it...

Arabs did not say that jews did not exist on the holy land of Palestine, I didn't say that either. we recognise that Jews lived in the holy land, but you need to be fair to history and acknoledge the same thing towards Arabs and towards Palestinians, just becuase we are in a conflict doesn't mean we are free to kill facts from our common history...

Majd Mash195.229.242.88 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Indeed
Mr Majd Mash you have a misunderstanding of History.

It was the Romans who conquered ISRAEL, and renamed it 'Palestina' as a term of Insult to the Jews (who had defeated and scattered their non-native enemy Philistines). They also renamed Jerusalem 'Aela Capitolina' which did not stick.

The above is just one reason your comparison to "calling Americans" "Indians" doesn't work. If one refers to the real and original names it makes perfect sense; "Jews" are from..... Ju-dea. (and surrounds) Hark!

Arabs are from Arab-ia; the Arabian Peninsula, Now Saudi Arabia. They didn't get to be the 'natives' of anywhere else until agressive Mohammedenism swept them through the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe from the 7th-12th century AD. Just vestiges of the Original populations of Animists, Polytheists, and Christians such as Assyrians, Copts, Phoenicians, byzantines, etc, remain in these conquered and cleansed lands.

BUT, the point of my correction below was to the 20th century usage of the term which is Mistaken by Wiki. That is what I corrected as it was/IS mistaken. My point was not to get into ancient history as I just did above, but merely to correct who was called, (and who considered themselves) 'Palestinians' in the 20th Century.. and that would be.. Jews.

abu afak, abu_afak2@yahoo.com

Golden Bough reference
The article states:

According to Sir James Frazer, the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites. In 1902, he wrote in his book The Golden Bough: "'The Arabic-speaking peasants of Palestine are the progeny of the tribes which settled in the country before the Israelite invasion. They are still adhering to the land. They never left it and were never uprooted from it.'"

The Golden Bough is a book about mythology and religion. I couldn't find this quote by using the index in the print version, so I downloaded the e-text from Project Gutenberg and searched for mentions of Palestine. As far as I can tell the quote doesn't exist, so I'll remove the reference - if anyone can find it, please restore it and give a page number this time!

May the Palestinians achieve a stable, peaceful, independent liberal democracy soon. 41.241.197.231 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find it either. I'm also dubious about using Frazer as a source since ancient migrations were not his specialty and also because we should prefer modern sources.  He's clearly way ahead of Twain as a historical source, but we shouldn't have to compromise standards at all when so much has been written by modern experts.  --Zerotalk 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot 41.241.197.231. It's a very good step in changing the section to a factual version and not repeating some sources twice etc. Amoruso 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per this, I removed the Frazer quote. The genetic study has been discussed twice in the same section, that's why it was removed. As for the Caananites, see discussion above - it's simply not relevant to the section and it's also false, it's a misunderstanding of what the source says, discussed above and see the discussion at the discussion page of Palestine too. Amoruso 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Frazer is not a good source for this at all, but Amoruso, please don't reinsert the dubious material drawing a parallel between the Nakba and Mizrahi immigration to Israel. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Druze?
The Druze article says they don't consider themelves Palestinian. So why are they listed here? Adding Jews is confusing too I think havinga a definition at the begining that no one uses is a bad idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.57 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Reference has been disabled
The link to reference #25 (The Arnaiz-Villena paper) is broken and does not work. Can someone please fix it? 64.121.193.126 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)ps

Are Palestinians an ethnicity?
I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I'm not sure that Palestinian is not an ethnicity, at least not in the same sense as groups with ethnicity templates (such as Into-Aryans or Greeks). At best, it is a nationality. The word "Palestinian," when used to describe the Arabs that once lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendants, is a term that is only about 50 years old. I noticed that Jordanians and Saudi Arabians do not have their own ethnicity template, even though those nationalities are older than Palestinians. I propose deleting the Palestinian ethnicity template. --GHcool 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An ethnicity is not racial, but rather a group that has a self-understanding as a group that shares values, traditions, and aspirations. It is somewhat presumptuous to tell other groups that they are not a true ethnicity.  The fact of the matter it is a vague conception.  Also nationality is often interchanged with ethnicity, because nationality can define a group with a shared set of values, traditions, etc, depending on how well developed the nation is.  It is true that the issue of the Palestinians has been politicized and there have been repeated denunciations by various Israelis and supports of Zionism that there are no Palestinians, just some nomadic Arabs, but again, it is presumptuous to say that another group isn't a real ethnic group.  In fact, it generally agreed that the Palestinians were not a well defined ethnic group prior to their shared experiences with Zionism.  But since then, they now share a very unique and thoroughly defining experience with Zionism, such shared and significant experiences are what create new identity groups, because the Palestinians now have a significantly different historical experience, and thus self identity and values and aspirations, than neighboring Arabs communities.  --64.230.126.5 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this is a difficult and, often subjective, issue. The Palestinians are, from a larger context, Levantine Arabs related to Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians moreso than to say Egyptians (who do have an article and rightly so) or Saudis and other peninsular Arabs. The people of the Levant represent a fusion of various Semitic groups (including Jews who were most likely converted to Christianity and Islam over time and adopted an Arab identity or simply mixed with them) and invaders such as the Philistines, Greeks, Persians, Crusaders etc. The best way to go would be to either keep Palestinians as an ethnic group OR create a Levantine Arab category, but that would create other problems such as the view of Maronites who may view themselves as the descendents of the Phoenicians moreso than Arabs etc. Recent genetic studies by Nat'l Geographic support the view that many Lebanese (and some Tunisians who can be linked to Carthage) are related to the Phoenicians. Since the Palestinians are indigenous to the area and show a historical continuity and have a culture (that does mirror that of their neighors not surprisingly), they are a group, but there was always fluidity in the region in that people in the Levant moved around in their area. Today, they are often identified as a type of Arab, often congregate and identify with each other so in that sense they are an ethnic group. Either way it's a difficult issue. Tombseye 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My original question remains: If "Palestinian" is an ethnic group, why isn't "Jordanian," "Saudi Arabian," or "Lebanese?" The suggestion of creating an all encompassing Levantine Arab category seems to me to be the most ethnographically neutral thing to do. --GHcool 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your idea. The combination that you are pushing for doesn't seem appropriate, but I could see a renaming of this article to something along the lines of "Arab Palestinians" or "Palestinian Arabs" which is a conception similar to the existing useful article entitled "Jewish Americans" (which is also categorized as an ethnic group.)  Britannica says that there are two ethnic groups in Israel, Jews and Palestinian Arabs (which is further broken down into Muslims, Christians and Druze.)  See .  According to the CIA guide to ethnic groups, the West Bank is composed of "Palestinian Arab and other 83%, Jewish 17%".  --64.230.126.5 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no reason why we can't create articles for the Jordanians (actually the group known as Bedouins as that is how other references breakdown the Jordanian population as in this case with Palestinians as somewhat distinct and see the Universal Almanac for a rendition on the matter) and Saudis actually. Or just Arabians even in the case of the Arabian peninsula. Ethnic groups that speak the same language can be tricky as views vary. For the context of the Israeli-Palestinian situation (and the status of Palestinians in other countries), the Palestinians ARE an ethnic group, but one that is not necessarily without overlap with their neighbors. The Maronites have an article that is both religious and relates to their ethnic identity already. Also, for much of the 20th century, the Palestinians have increasingly been cohesive as an ethnic group since they are refugees and/or 2nd class citizens (i.e. outsiders) in the countries outside the Occupied Territories (such as Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan etc.). Social dynamics can lead to the creation of an ethnic group and so from that context they are an ethnic group. Clearly, if the Library of Congress is looking at them as a group, then there is some validity to them as a group of sorts. Also, in Lebanon they remain somewhat distinct. Ultimately, the Palestinians are also part of an intricate system of tribal affiliation which in the Arab context means that regional Arabs intermarry and interact and are thus more similar to each other. The Levantines can breakdown into a north-south divide, while in Jordan the Bedouin group (as opposed to the Pals who moved to the area following the Arab-Israeli war in 1948 and some ocnflicts afterwards) is considered more native then the Pals of the East Bank. These are considerations when discussing the issue of whether Pals are an ethnic group or not. I'm not sure this warrants eliminating this article though so much as creating a Levantine article AND articles for other regional Arabs since we already have that with the Maronites and Egyptians. Tombseye 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have misrepresented myself, and if I have, I sincerely appologize. My argument does not apply to the title of this article, "Palestinian people," which I believe is an extremely useful and well written article about a group of people that are internationally known as Palestinians (and certainly Wikipedia should reflect this reality).  What I object to is the Template on the right-hand side of the article which describes "Palestinian" as an ethnicity in the same sense as Greeks, Indo-Aryans, Persians, and other undisputed ethnicities that go back hundreds or thousands of years.  I'm not an anthropologist, but my understanding of the term "ethnicity" is that a group of people that has been around for less than 100 years should not be called an ethnic group.  --GHcool 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally support GHcool, you cannot call a group that is both Jewish and Arab Palestinains and claim it's an etnicity. you could have done it back at 1900.. but not after 450,000 jews came to the land (USSR and Europe) and another 500,000 arabs came to the land from the nearby Arab lands (there wer'nt that many states at the time)... i'm talking pre-1947, for those who are not aware, more than 400,000 arabs came to the land between 1920-1945 in an arab attempt to keep the entire land islamic by force. Jaakobou 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GHcool's case would be good if ethnicity was defined only according to biology. However, according to all the dictionaries I consulted, the phrase includes groups defined by other criteria, especially by cultural ties. American Heritage Dictionary: "Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language." Wordnet: "an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties". Oxford English Dictionary ("ethnic"): "Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics..." Finally, the box is not a legal document. The Palestinian people clearly have a strong case for inclusion. --Zerotalk 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of therm "ethnicity" is a complicated isue. Nowadays it is usually understood as self-identification. Other definitions ae also possible, but to my knowledge, this is the only workable one. Beit Or 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The American Heritage and Wordnet definitions found by Zero are way too broad for the term as I understand it. I think the Oxford one is closer to how people actually use the term.  If Palestinian is an ethnicity (and by the Wordnet and American Heritage definitions, it clearly is), then where do we draw the line? Is American an ethnicity? There have been people themselves Americans since 1776 (almost 200 years before people started calling themselves Palestinians).  Certainly Americans share national and cultural ties and observe similar customs, beliefs, and a common language.  We can even go further: are Trekkies an ethniciy? They share common cultural characteristics and even have their own language that they read and speak (Klingon) and one could argue that they even share common customs and beliefs.  There have been people calling themselves Trekkies almost as long as people have been calling themselves Palestinians.  It is not difficult to extend the logic of what is an ethnicity according to the American Heritage Dictionary to Trekkies or even to less distinctive groups (such as the Democratic Party).  --GHcool 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your correct GHcool that there is a fuzzy line between ethnic groups and identity groups. Democrats are clearly an identity group.  On the boarder subject, I recommend reading the ethnogenesis article, it describes the process of how ethnic groups are created.  I find the article on imagined communities to also be fascinating.  --70.51.228.137 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting articles. I still think there are many more groups that don't have ethnicity templates that deserve them more than the Palestinians and a lot of groups that do not deserve ethnicity templates that could argue that they are ethnicities under these broad definitions.  --GHcool 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ethnic groups is not confined to ethnic groups in the narrow sense, nor are its templates. The use of the template is not a judgment on the status of the group. Fundamentally, nations (not states), ethnic subgroups, and associated groupings of ethnic groups (e.g. the natives of a certain region of the Americas) are handled the same way. We just had to keep the project name from getting too cumbersome. - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Palestinians
Tewfik you removed the paragraph below claiming that it is original research. This despite the fact that almost every sentence in the paragraph is sourced, often with multiple sources. Is there a dispute to the quality of the sources?

Canaanites are considered to be among the first to live in cities in Cna'an, (later renamed Palestine by the Roman Empire). Both Arab Palestinians and Jews (Diaspora and Palestinain Jews) are considered to be closely related to the Canaanites. . Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula, Additionally, Israelites, Philistines, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and some intermarried. Some of their descendants converted to Christianity and later to Islam, and spoke different languages depending on the lingua franca of the time. Ramallite (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the connection of the above paragraph to the Palestinians? Beit Or 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The connection is the title of the section. Why? Ramallite (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources tracing the origins of Palestinians to Canaanites? Beit Or 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources that they aren't? I do hope you're not dwelling on this "Palestinians are recent immigrants" canard. To answer your question, 1- some of the sources above are specific to Palestinians even though the text fails to mention it because it seems to be implied. 2- I have genetic studies done at Hebrew University provided by User:Haldrik for another article, but using genetics in an article like this is (to me) demeaning, since the Palestinians people are not lab rats. Ramallite (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to include a claim. If you want to include into the article the claim that Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, you must bring reliable sources supporting that claim. Beit Or 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Ramallite (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that people have really been hammering away on the ancestry section. It used to be quite different and more extensive, see .  --70.51.228.137 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The old version of the article contained:
 * According to Sir James Frazer, the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites. In 1902, he wrote in his book The Golden Bough: "The Arabic-speaking peasants of Palestine are the progeny of the tribes which settled in the country before the Israelite invasion. They are still adhering to the land. They never left it and were never uprooted from it."
 * The genetic studies of the Palestinians have supported the original claims of Sir James Frazer: "Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times."
 * It seems straight forward to me. The last reference is hosted on rense.com, but it is a peer-reviewed academic paper with a bunch of citations according to Google Scholar.  As I understand, Ramallite is a long time Wikipedia of Palestinian descent, who thankfully has a lot of patience, one should be kind to him.  --70.51.228.137 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Beit Or was trying to say that anyone is a recent immigrant. For starters, the claim of Canaanite background is relatively recent. Secondly, people identifying as Palestinians has not existed much longer (used by Jews, Muslims, etc.) and the region's Arabs did not consider themselves of a separate nationality to their Arab relatives to their borders. There are some traditions that Jews share with Canaanites, however none that I know of that has been passed on to Palestinian Arabs. The vast majority of today's Palestinian Arabs descend from the Arabs who arrived with or following the conquering of Syria. Only a few arrived with the Umayyads, but with the Fatimids and as Arab conquest expanded many more came along. --Shamir1 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "the region's Arabs did not consider themselves of a separate nationality to their Arab relatives" What? Are you kidding me? Read "Palestinian Identity" by Rashid Khalidi.
 * "The vast majority of today's Palestinian Arabs descend from the Arabs who arrived with or following the conquering of Syria." Really? Come on Shamir1, I know so many people would LOVE to believe that, but where's the evidence? Not in our genes, that's for sure. Ramallite (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If and when you should meet a relative of yours from let's say...1800, and ask if him how he identifies himself, there is no question in my mind he would not say Palestinian. Palestine had no borders then, and for most people it certainly did not include the Negev desert which it did in 1917. So how would the Arabs of Beersheba identify? As Arabs, Muslims, even Syrians. They considered themselves Arabs just like the Arabs in Amman or Medina. Oh and while you're at it, ask him if he has ever heard of being descendants of Canaanites. I'm sure many people would LOVE to believe that. What do you think that Canaanites just evolved into Arabs somehow? Look at the Moroccans. They can so easily find traces of Berber in their Arabic language even long after the Arab expansion. The Ethiopian Jewish language of Ge'ez can so easily find traces of Hebrew. Certainly there must be at least one Canaanite custom, at least one word, something...if it is true. Historians have not been able to find if the Canaanites survived or not or where they would be, similar to the Lost Ten Tribes. --Shamir1 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well let me ask you: what would a Jew in Jerusalem have responded? What about a Jew in Yemen? Don't kid yourself, Shamir1. As for my relative (let's assume it's my great great great grandfather Avigdor Yusuf Al-Kamrava), I don't know if he would use "Palestine" (although it's not like people didn't use the name), but he would definitely say he was from Ramallah. And that's the point you fail to realize: It doesn't matter WHAT you call yourself. What matters is that your basic human rights are respected. Now imagine that some relative of mine was asked: "What is your religion?" And then being told "sorry, in that case you can't stay in Ramallah and you can't call yourself a Ramallite. You have no rights in this land". That's the essence of the problem today. And as for languages, you definitely haven't done your Arabic homework. Lastly, it's nice of you to repeat a lot of what I say, but I would LOVE it if you got your own phrases. Ramallite (talk)  20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you can say I just LOVE your phrases so much. The point about saying who is Palestinian is that it does not make sense for Canaanites to somehow evolve into a separate people. It did not matter WHAT you call yourself, but it is not like there is a separate race of Palestinians that your great-great grandfather identified with. If your grandfather left Ramallah for Amman would he feel as if he left the country, left a nation? Even Khalidi's book hardly goes beyond 1880. And I've done enough Arabic homework to know that the Arabic language spoken by Palestinians does not have any distinct Canaanite roots. This is unlike Moroccan Arabic. Hmm... you must be talking about the Arab Higher Committee who declared a strike in 1947. Or the Arab League that started war in 1948. It was certainly them who first had such a problem with a religious group having rights in the land. What do you think they would have done to them if it were them who had won, eh? Muslim Israelis have more representation than Muslim Jordanians or Muslim Kuwaitis, and enjoy the fullest extent of political rights. And as for the essence of the problem today, why wasn't any "essence" of a problem created after the Spanish Inquisition, or perhaps the Pale of Settlement? --Shamir1 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered that you love my phrases. Again, when you say "it is not like there is a separate race of Palestinians that your great-great grandfather identified with", that is true for about any people that developed a "nationality", which is more a European concept, in the 20th century. I ask again, what would a Jew who lived in Baghdad identify herself as in the 17-18th centuries? It makes perfect sense for races to intermarry and intermingle as eons go by. The question is, why aren't Americans being subjected to genetic tests in order to give them citizenship and rights? Why aren't you, Shamir1,  being told "Your (great great)^7 grandfather didn't call himself American, so you cannot be a descendent of the Native peoples of North America and therefore, you have no claim to human rights as the rest of humanity does." ??? If my grandfather had left to another city, it is up to him, not to you, how he identified himself. It's not your decision!!!. As it happens, he did not leave Ramallah, and that's what matters. Please spare me the standard lecture about rights of Arabs in Jordan versus in Israel. I am not Jordanian, and not Israeli, so I couldn't care less, it doesn't affect me. Also, comparative suffering is not how I measure things. You can go back in time to argue who was the racist then (once you figure out all the facts about then from all sides), or you can join the present and address the problems now. What's this all about anyway? That Palestinians are not descended from Canaanites? First of all, you can't prove or disprove that either way, and second, for the reasons I gave above (the American example), who gives a hedgehog's groin? We're here aren't we? We don't belong anywhere else do we? We don't identify ourselves as anything else do we? Ramallite (talk)  21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No time, or more correctly no willingness, to answer every baseless statement but will tell you that the people of the past were people. If they could make it work, so can you. Also, cities do not denote a race. My grandfather Shokrollah and his Armenian neighbor Vahagn both were of families who lived in Isfahan for centuries but my grandfather had more in ethnically in common with other Persians. (Same with his Arab wife whose family emigrated from Baghdad.) And don't tell me how you do not care since you are not Jordanian or Israeli, it was you who made a comment about no rights based on religion. Perhaps Palestinians should learn to live in the now and just say what a Kuwaiti journalist said about a year ago: that Arabs have won more by making peace with Israel than by their numerous declared wars against them. Throughout these wars, they played with fire and they got burned; it is up to them to get the bandage. So live in the now and spend money on bandages, rather than rockets... --Shamir1 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I never said there was no such thing is a Palestinian, did you confuse for Zuhayr Muhsin? I am glad you got to see what is in Israeli media though, it is beautifully democratic, and has the highest degree of freedom of press and news in the Middle East, similar to Europe and America. "...I don't see any problem with criticizing corruption or political phenomena in the territories. Our problem is that in this part of the world, they don't sue you for damaging someone, they simply shoot you. Therefore, I have to be careful." -Othman Al Haj Mohammed, journalist from Ramallah (has been given a permit to distribute his newspaper in Israel)

Pictures
As someone correctly pointed out, the pictures of the children do not make the article look good. I know it's been already discussed but the pictures are still there. Plus the article needs some sources, seriously, just the minimum effort. It contains countless of POV and countless of references to Palestinian websites that don't exactly qualify as the most credible of sources. Miskin 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate:
 * What was pointed out about the pictures that you decreed to be correct? ;)
 * Which specific Palestinian websites are problematic? Or did you mean all of them?
 * Thanks, Ramallite (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The pictures of children (3 or so in total) make the article look biased. It's as if they want to make the reader feel sorry for Palestians. Aside the fact that it doesn't reflect the real will of the palestianian nation (which probably doesn't want to be looked at with pity), it can in some ways be interpreted as political propaganda. I don't know about all, but some of those sites (depending on the content), are not credible sources. Plus the majority of sections about historical and cultural information do not provide any references whatsoever. Miskin 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously someone has chosen pictures of smiling children in order to hide the widespread malnutrition and psychological damage suffered by Palestinian children due to the occupation.    They should be replaced by pictures of unhappy children immediately. --Zerotalk 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. How about replacing them with pictures of adults? Miskin 10:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any? Ramallite (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but I wouldn't believe for a minute that the current angelic pictures were put there because they were the only thing that could be found. Miskin 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have said the same thing if the Norwegians page had similar pictures of Norwegian kids? Look, I am not a fan of all these pictures either, but not for the dehumanizing reasons that were expressed in an earlier section above. That discussion was nauseating and I actually stopped editing for a while after seeing the mindsets that are on some of these pages. Ramallite (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That article would have never followed that practice, and yes I would have said the same thing, probably for different reasons. Miskin 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of my photos of Palestinian adults. --Zerotalk 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you find something normal? Something that won't have any implications on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is that too much to ask for the sake of NPOV? Miskin 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because the situation as described in Zero's picture is, in fact, normal everyday routine. Ramallite (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't a picture of four well-known Palestinians be used, this done in other articles. List of Palestinians has many.--Rudjek 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, excluding politicians, there aren't many pictures there.--Rudjek 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I'm sure we can find notable non-politician personalities within the Palestinian diaspora. Miskin 14:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sari Nusseibeh could definitely be included.--Rudjek 14:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the current picture is an excellent one. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah me too, let's enforce this practice by adding pictures of holocaust victims in the pages of Israel and Jews. Miskin 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? First, you automatically assumed that the pictures are there "make the reader feel sorry for Palestians". Well, it's "Palestinians" not "Palestians", and if you think that pictures of smiling children are there "to make people feel sorry", JUST because they are Palestinian and they are children, you have serious personal problems that you need to contemplate elsewhere, not on WP. Second, are you comparing pictures of smiling children in this century with pictures of the dead victims of the worst crime of the 20th century? You must be joking, or not, I don't know which is more offensive and/or sick. You are crossing a line of civility; racism and Holocaust mockery are not welcome here. Ramallite (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to this because it's in the article about Palestinians, but because I see it as a clearly non-neutral practice. I was troubled myself when I first saw the picture until I noticed that other people had brought this up in the talk page already. I would object to this in any article involving a political dispute, but when it comes to a dispute of such a magnitude, I'm really surprised that this hasn't been dealt with already. In fact I'm surprised you don't even realise its importance. Besides all that, have you personally asked those children if they want to be on the internet as representatives of the Palestinian people? It's rather ironic to see how you accuse me of uncivil behaviour and insult me in the very same post. Spare me the lecture, I wasn't insulting neither Hebrews nor Palestinians, and any neutral editor can see that. Yes it's true that I used a caricatured example as a counter-argument to irrational behaviour, but I wasn't delivering any offence at anybody. You're not in position to define which words I'm allowed or not allowed to use, this is an international place offering the right of free speech, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It takes much more than throwing around strong terms such as "sick", "racism" and "mockery" to take that right away from me. Miskin 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you make automatic assumptions. The Palestinian people are NOT a political dispute, they are human beings. Okay? Articles having to do with disputes are a dime a dozen around here. But whatever you say to defend the notion that these pictures are here "for sympathy" will just deepen the offense you've already caused. If you read my earlier entries, you'd see that I am not a fan of these pictures either, but not because of the dehumanizing reasons that you and others have conveyed. That dehumanization is what sickens me. So if you want to have a civil discussion, remove from your head the notion that the Palestinian people, all those people, can be summed up in your words as a "political dispute". This is not meant to be a political article. So clearly, when you say that you weren't delivering any offence to anybody, you actually were. On what bases do you insinuate that I am a non-neutral editor? What edits to actual articles have I done that appear non-neutral? Lastly, sorry if the words "sick", "racism", and "mockery" insulted you. I was merely reacting to what I saw was a deeply offensive set of statements. I think User:MPerel's response to the earlier discussion on this topic sums up nicely why. Ramallite (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how you reached the conclusion that I don't regard Palestinians as human beings by merely pointing out their grave geopolitical importance. I also don't understand what you mean by "dehumanization", for all I know those children do not even know that they're being held on public display, and chances are that as adults they would never agree to it. Furthermore, precisely because this article should be treated exactly as any other ethnic article, you should follow the practice of other articles and have a picture of four notable Palestianian individuals in the infobox. Miskin 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Our children are notable. They are the future. And they are far more important than the photos of any of the rotten so called leaders you want to replace them with.Abu ali 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating the non-neutral, partisan attitude I've been referring to. Miskin 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most Palestinians are ordinary people trying to lead ordinary lives in difficult circumstances. I don't see why the picture on this page should not represent ordinary Palestinian people, why such a representation should be seen as non-neutral, or why we should depict famous people instead. Okay, we could follow the model of Swedish people and have pictures of Fadwa Tuqan, Hanan Ashrawi, Leila Khalid and Sahar Khalifa, which would be very representative of famous Palestinians as it would show a political activist, a freedom fighter, a poet and a novelist as well as two West Bank Palestinians, one from the diaspora and one from the 1948 territories. But most Palestinians aren't famous, and a picture of anonymous Palestinian children is far more representative than any selection of famous faces. And if the children have the temerity to smile, well, good luck to them. Palmiro | Talk 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that the majority of Swedish people are famous and that therefore a picture of famous Swedes is representative of the lot? This doesn't make any sense. Plus this is not a Swedish model, it's a wikipedia model, you can only count in your fingers the articles that don't follow it. I will insist on the question about the identity of the depicted children, I personally find it immoral to violate and/or exploit their personal lives in such a manner. And for some reason I suspect that they're not even aware of it at the moment, as they won't be in position to criticise such an action for another 10 years. Miskin 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not making any statement about the majority of Swedes being famous, only about the majority of Palestinians not being famous. But I do think my comments would be valid in other cases. Anyway, I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding who should be depicted in X-people articles. But I suppose if you're really upset about the use of pictures of children (though I really don't understand this) you could propose use of Zero0000's image of adults, which is certainly typical. Palmiro | Talk 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's check the source of the picture: "Justin McIntosh is an independent artist, photo-journalist, activist and web designer from Boston. He has recently returned form traveling in Lebanon and the West bank, occupied Palestine". That's just great, some american guy took a tourist trip to the middle east and then decided to post pictures of children on the internet. And I'm sure this guy informed every single person about his intentions right before he took their pictures. In my book this is called exploitation. Miskin 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * After arguing this for some time, you have yet to come up with any reason except a fear that someone might feel sympathetic towards Palestinians. This says more about you than about the article. --Zerotalk 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the argument was that this should be in line with the convention on all other like articles. Not everything need be viewed in terms of bad-faith POV.  Tewfik Talk 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons given were nothing but bad-faith POV. Ramallite (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I only pointed out that in my opinion, the fact that this is not in line with common convention is the result of a certain POV. If you don't want to accept it that's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't follow regular procedures. And the justification I received was honestly very poor. Miskin 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramallite, being that you agreed above that the pictures may not be encyclopaedic, then aren't we all really in agreement? Perhaps someone with photoediting software can put together some notable personalities? Perhaps Sakakini or one of the Beidas  Tewfik Talk 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Your "notable personalities" have their own pages containing there own pictures. But the vast majority of Palestinians are ordinary unfamous people and this is reflected in the pictures. I have no objection to adding the photo of building labourers pictured above. But I am tired of Israelis and Americans telling us who can and who can not represent us. And I suspect that the real objection to the current pictures is that they do not deamonize Palestinians sufficiently Abu ali 12:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How could pictures of notable personalities like Sakakini or Beidas be viewed as demonising? Perhaps other editors have suggestions for who to include to bring this into line with other comparable entries?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[sigh] not this again... The current pic is a beautiful, charming picture that illustrates the article topic, Palestinian people, just fine. What is the problem with pictures of children anyway? Maybe more articles on people topics should use them. I see no reason why convention would require adult-only pictures. What type of picture do people want, something a little less humanizing, something more demonic looking? I mean c'mon. -- M P er el ( talk 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We were saying that it would better fit the convention (and encyclopaedic nature of] other comparable entries by instead including notable personalities like Sakakini or one of the Beidas, or anyone else that editors would like to suggest - there is nothing demonic about them AFAIK.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any convention in place per se, but I wouldn't see a problem with mixing pictures of smiling children and ordinary people with the notables you mention, as is done in Filipino people, for example. -- M P er el ( talk 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines seems to be what was requested all along. I appreciate that this whole topic is a sensitive one to many people which makes it even more imperative that we not use words like "demonisation" so quickly. If we all assume each others' good faith, then the willingness by MPerel, Tewfik, Ramallite, Miskin, Zero0000, Rudjek, and Palmiro [stated above] to discuss alternatives to the current layout would be far more obvious, far quicker, and with far less tension [[Image:Smile eye.png]].  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, unless you can point me to a nation or people whose vast majority is composed of celebrities or non-simple people, your argument doesn't stand. How do you expect me to view your opinion as a neutral one when you accuse me for trying to "demonise" the Palestinians. This is just over the top. MPerel I came up with a dozen of serious reasons as to why those pictures are unappropriate, including: If none of the above are enough to convince you that something's not right, then I've nothing more to add. By the way I'm neither, American, nor Arab, nor Muslim, nor Palestinian, nor Jewish nor Israeli - I'm probably the only real non-partisan on the issue. Miskin 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * not following common wikipedia conventions
 * giving space for implications on a serious political issue
 * the violation of the children's personal identity

Hi Miskin, my response to the concerns you express: -- M P er el ( talk 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * not following common wikipedia conventions: In browsing through people articles, I don't see that there's any consistency or common convention. It appears the majority of people articles don't even have a picture at all.  Is there a policy or manual style preference written up somewhere I'm missing that says we should use only adult pictures?
 * giving space for implications on a serious political issue: I'm not sure I understand how a picture of smiling children implies anything political. The meaning I sense behind this is what concerns me.  Would you explain more clearly, what political message do you think this picture of children implies?
 * the violation of the children's personal identity: If this is a concern, then it's a Wikipedia-wide problem because there are all sorts of articles with pictures of children in them. Should we remove the pictures of children from the Children article?

Precisely because I'm a non-partisan I find it naive to shut our eyes before the fact that this article is about a people involved in a serious political conflict. For that reason I'm acknowledging that it is comparatively important to refrain from revealing the identities/faces of innocent people. In other words I don't think it's as important in the children article, though one thing I know for certain, is that the children in this article are not aware of their expose. It is equally important to refrain from provoking emotional feelings that might be interpreted as an implication on the political issue. My personal reaction when I saw those pictures was sorrow, sympathy, and quick thoughts about the issue. It didn't occur to me because I'm an oversensitive person or anything like that, I'm sure it happens to most people who visit this article, and something tells me that it wouldn't happen with articles such as Italians or Germans. The fact that there is a chance that it occurs to some people, means that it should be changed. I think it's unfair to both readers and the children. Most importantly, I feel that this practice aims to exploit a child's innocence in order to serve as the means of political sub-propaganda. This is as clear as I can get. Miskin 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Miskin says "It is equally important to refrain from provoking emotional feelings that might be interpreted as an implication on the political issue" etc. Hmmm, let me get this straight... so the mere thought or picture of a smiling Palestinian child makes you feel sorrow and sympathy and think about the issue... but as long as it was a picture of an adult, that would ensure that you would feel no empathy?  If that's the case, then the problem is as I suspected.  It's easier somehow to dehumanize and demonize adults, but since it's harder on the conscience to justify demonizing children, we know that pictures of children are obviously just "propaganda" tools to try to make us view the Palestinians as human, right?  Btw, people who keep insisting how non-partisan they are tend to get my antennae up.  I find it's usually an exemption-seeking preface to something offensive about to be said. -- M P er el ( talk 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I get it, so someone who doesn't agree with your practices is automatically a partisan, an anti-Palestinian, someone who wants to demonize Palestinian, or even maybe a Jew. Someone called me racist earlier because I dared to mention the word "Holocaust" and allegedly make a mockery out of it. I've got to admit, I've known cynical, but this is something over the top - no wonder why some articles will always be at a bad shape. I'm amazed on how you managed to twist around what I said and conclude that "since I don't want the article to inspire sympathy, I want it to inspire antipathy", or even worse to "demonise" Palestinians. You and all others who have been so cynical towards me, haven't even thought of once that I might be simply interested in enforcing the NPOV policy by criticising both sympathetic, and demonising elements. Funny that you mention it, but for the time being I'm the only person who's being offended here. Miskin 11:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't get it. The very fact that you think pictures of children, just because they are Palestinian, are meant for 'sympathy' is the problem. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Politics section -let's delete it
I propose to delete the section "Politics" altogether. There are already countless articles on this topic and we don't need another one here to attract the same old edit wars that happen in all the other places. More generally, we need to resist the temptation to expand every Palestine-related or Israel-related article until it covers the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Zerotalk 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good point - done.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation Campaign?
Is there a disinformation campaign here...? Why Egyptian people are allowed to talk about the Pharoahs, Lebanese talk about the Phonecians, Jews about Israelites, but yet the Palestinians has no origin and descendend from the moon! Ummayids ruled Sudan; The Sudanese speak Arabic but yet, their ancestry is not pure Arab and has a strong African element! There are plenty of sources to support the Ancestry of the Palestinians section and relating it to pre-Umayyid times. I do not want to flood that section, but a representing sample of information is eonugh. If todays Jews from Russia are related to Israelites, then I do not see any reason to block information discussing the Palestinian ancestry and how too it is very native to Palestine. Unless someone here wants only to disinform. These are not political statements but rather very well known history. There is a lot of tal about the roots of the Palestinian families. This has been studied in Arabic books 6 or 7 centuries back too. Mideast families always trace their origins and it is not surprising that there is just too much materialon that which can be included in this section on the Ancestry of the Palestinians.

Here is more to read:

Almaqdisi talk to me 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being blocked. Extensive passages from The Golden Bough, which is not recognised as a scientific work, don't belong here, as well as information about other inhabitants of Palestine without any claimed connection other than that made through juxtaposition, ie OR. The line about Raja Ibn Haywah is similarly OR as it lacks any published argument. The Arnaiz-Villena paper, which you didn't add this last time, is already discussed at length in the article. Sometimes I miss information already in the article, so make sure you read carefully before adding more.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians talk about the Pharaos and Lebanese about the Phoenicians because no-one cares enough to remove their POV. Everybody knows the truth. Miskin 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tewfik and User:Miskin, then some one should also go to all Israeli articles and remove the connection between Israeli Jews and Israelites as it is too according to what you both are saying is OR. The material on the Palestinian Ancestry is being supported by resources and citations. The material about Raja Ibn Haywah is found in many Arabic literature and in this english one I added as a citation. If you cannot read the citation, then do not remove it. just Ask, and I can simply send it by email for verification. Please User:Tewfik consider your removals again. I am sure that there is not much time for us to waste on this. By the way, I hope you did find Ben Gurion's statements interesting too. Also I am including two books from Frazer and not only one. One of them was recntly republished! Almaqdisi talk to me 18:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained above exactly what is wrong with your additions. The Canaanite connection is made b juxtaposing sources and not by verifiable RS = OR. Frazer's work is not an RS for scientific arguments. There is no published linguistic argument about Raja Ibn Haywah. The Arnaiz-Villena paper is already discussed, along with its extremely important criticism. This information just doesn't belong here.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Almaqdisi I don't know what you're talking about, I didn't make any comments on the article's content except that it provided very few and/or non-credible sources (such as partisan websites). In my opinion the use of "genetic research" in ethnic articles to serve any purpose whatsoever is not a serious practice. I haven't looked at the Israeli article for awhile but I'd be against the inclusion of any non-historical information likewise. Palestinians are an arab people, looking into genetics in order to find what percentage of their ancestry dates to pre-arab settlement is like searching for a needle in a haystack. What if you found a percentage of Chinese ancestry, would it interest to put it in the article? I don't think so. Simply put, any implications to "race" are unscientific and can only have political motivation - and I'm not talking specifically about this article, so think twice before starting calling me names. Miskin 01:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But the Canaanites themsevles are Arabs and came from the Arabian Peninsula. The history of Arabs in Palestine pre-dates the Islamic invasion of the 7th Century. This is what concerns me really. The article fails to mentions such important information. In fact, I realize that there is a huge gap between what Arabs read and what is in non-Arabic resources. The Arabs claim that Canaanites are one of the non-Ishmaelite Arabic tribes. They call them Arab Arebah, that is the original Arabs. At the same time, there is Ishmaelite Arabs whom Arabs call Arab mustarebeh... The history of Arabs in the levant is much much before the Islamic invasion. Also, many of the people of Palestine in the Umayyid period were Christians. Some of these Christians are Nazarene, or Jewish Christians. A significant part of them converted to Islam like others in the Arabian Peninsula. These populations in their whole make up much of the origin of Palestinians. By the way, the Peasants have deep roots in Palestine. Palestinians in cities are more mixed. Anyway, I hope do not see why we should exclude resources.. Anyway, I will look for better ones in the upcoming days. Almaqdisi talk to me 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * that's some pretty interesting perspective/manipulation on history. no offense, but the cnaanites and jevusites pre-date arabs/hebrews who are both considered to be decendants of abraham (might be a cnaanite). the hebrews were the ones who created the kingdom of israel while the decendants of Ishmael made their fortune in different areas of the levant... in any event, arab/muslim hold on occupied kingdom of israel took hold only at the 7th century and not beforehand... perhaps you should explore on how muhammad killed the exiled jews of israel in saudi-arabia and then propagated his religion elsewhere... i'm suspect you are not aware of all the return attempts of jews to their homeland that were met with muslim massacres... anyways... i think the biggest problem for the palestinians with resources is that in arab culture (and please excuse me as this is a known phenomenon and not meant to reflect on every arab but only stated as an observation) there is such a thing as "figurative speech" in which situations are made up or enhanced in order to support a theory... this off course exists in other societies as well... but it is not as accepted as in arab society.. (best i know of) examples? i suggest you look up "blaming the jews" on google video... and if you think it's not a good enough sample to make a point.. you can drop by memrifilms.org for a nice ensamble of the "the zinoinsts gah!" conspiracy theory... on the topic.. i figure each source can (hopefully) be judged fairly by the community here at wiki but i don't think the palestinian conceptions on their geneology are nessecarily accurate... esp. if you consider some/most people claiming that abraham was a palestinian... *ghasp* (170AD, kingdom of israel renamed Palestine under Roman rule). Jaakobou 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, well, interestignly you have raised several issues. Well, first regarding the name Palestine and Kingdom of Israel. It is not true that the name Palestine was initiated by the Romans... It was in use even before Christ. There are many reports of anceint greeks and ancient egyptians using the term to refer to this land. The term God of Israel and Land of Israel are really biblical and are not necessarily used by other cicilization of the time. Israel was simply Jacob.. Even muslims use the name Israel to refer to Jacob as done many times in the Quran. Notice that ancient Egyptians dealt with the Philistines and Egyptians called what Moses called the Land of Israel, they called it in some writings Canaan and others Land of the Philistines. Philistine is the same name used in Arabic Filistin to refer to Palestine. Also, when I talk about Arab culture, I really mean the literature written by the earliest of Arabs, I am talking about books written at least 800 years back. There are many books document the various immigration of Arabs. Ibn Khaldoun fir example clearly mentions that most of the population in the Levant is related to the pre-Islamic invasion. Again, it is more accurate to describe it as Islamic invasion and not Arab invasion. Arabs were present in the Levant. You can check the article Arab. Finally, regarding the issue that Canaanites are of Arabian origin, this is something not only mentioned by centuries old Arabic texts. But it is also verified by writers like Bernard Lewis, Philip Khuri Hitti, and others. You can check the Bernard Lewis book the The Arabs in History where he says:
 * "According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."


 * You can also check, and and.
 * The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians. Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times.


 * In anycase, I think WikiPedia should present most of these relevant info as they are directly related to the ancestry section. I feel sad that other editors think that this is OR and POV and so forth. Honestly, I do not have the time to fight for this, and want the cooperation of other editors. Else, I feel it is really becoming useless to keep editing at WikiPedia. I understands that WikiPedia is about presenting the most relevant documented info regarding a subject. I think all the previous resources I presented are related to this including those that User:Tewfik keeps removing without any convincing argument. Finally, regarding Ishmael, the descendands of him are called Arabized Arabs. This is how it is in the Arabic literature again. The Prophet Muhammad is from these Arabized Arabs who descende from Ishmael and who are the cousins of the Israelites. Canaanites are not Ishmaelites, but instead originated from a sequence from immigrations from the Arabian peninsual startinc in the years 2500BC, long before abraham himself.
 * Almaqdisi talk to me 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have that much time myself to go over all the links, however, i can tell you that "Palestine" is different (in so many ways) from "Pleshet" which is the name given to the Philistine controlled areas on the land... (note: philistines are not palestinians.. the root of the word has completely different meannings) which were according to archeological and historical records living at the areas of the gaza strip and not all accross the land... i also tend to object to the notions that arabs were before cnaanites/jevusites in the kingdom of israel area. it sounds like revisionism to me considering the archeological diggins i've seen here on my many trips... have you ever read historical records (or seen archeological excavations) on the land from the people living here or are you basing your information only on american/muslim writers? ... anyways.. i don't think your issue is solvable unless you have more time to promote it... that is the case with wiki.. time is of the essense and we don't have enough of it. Jaakobou 10:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources presented deal with the subject of this article - the Palestinian people. You may believe that the Canaanites are the same people, but without reliable sources making that argument, that is your own original research (speaking of RS, you should really discriminate more, as one of your sources included the following ridiculous passage: There [Jerusalem] stands on top of one high mountain, with the odour of the sea spreading all around it and the roaring waves heard from the tops of its homes constructed close to each other).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With my respect to you Tewfik and Jaakobou, I have ponder much on this. The fact that some resources are seen unrelated as Tewfik mentioned does not bother me a lot. At the end, it seems that WikiPedia is not the best place to know about neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians. I have strong feelings that Wikipedia is not areliable source for anything related to History, or Politics. Simply, facts will always be distorted. Always someone will like to see information the way he likes. there should be no harm for all of us of accepting the truth even if we do not like it. If one needs to know about the Palestinian people, he better go and read the Journal of Palestine Studies, and many other places where he can find out about the Palestinians villages, their culture, and words Palestinians still use today of Canaanite origin, their accent, etc... Their connection to the Israelites as well as the various immigration from the Arabian Peninsula, including the Islamic conquest of the area. Anyway, I wanted to help out on WikiPedia, but as long as people keep removing resources, it is a waste of time. I consider this not different from Book burning. Some of the references that you can read includes The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine, Studies in the Ottoman Archives--I, Two Journeys to Seventeenth Century Palestine, Palestinian historiography in relation to the territory of Palestine, etc.... I think one should realize that this is not the place to present the most authentic and scientific resources regarding the subject. I do not think there is any academic spirit here. So sorry to say this, but it is the truth. No hope from bringing peace even to articles that talk about the Palestinians! Almaqdisi talk to me 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the sources argue a connection between Canaanites and Palestinian people, making such an argument, however convincing or obvious it may seem to you, is original research.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, a map for your inspection - note "philistia". Jaakobou 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jaakobou, I am aware of the map. But I do not know how it helps here. The fact the the word Filistin in Arabic comes from Philistine is not my own suggestion. It is what everybody knows. The word filistin has been traced in many writing, Egyptian and greek, much earlier than the Roman invasion of the region. The biblical Israelites called the Holy Land the "Land of Israel", and called even God "the God of Israel"... Also Tewfik, if you read what is in the Article, they all suggest the Canaanite connection! This is not my own research. All the genetic studies proved that, and people like Frazer who studied the folkloric stuff said that before. No new information here. I do not think you are in a position to just claim that the sources I had there do not make sense and are my Original Research. I am not the author of these articles! These sources are by people who particularly studied this issue. You are welcome to find a reference which suggests another possible ancestry of the Palestinians than what is commonly known throught the region, confirmed by several methods. These methods are, folokloric, accent, names of cities, agricultute style, dressings, cookings, the use of Taboon and Saboon in the Palestinian villages, what people wrote about themselves since centuries, the documentation of many of the large Palestinian family roots, and finally genetics which did not contradict any of the above.......Almaqdisi talk to me 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Almaqdisi' I don't think you understand the problems behind such "studies" - they are made/used with the intention of making/supporting political agendas - anyone who's knowledgable knows that abraham is the forefather of both arabs and jews and going back to cnaanite times to prove that "only palestianins are cnaanites" without adding abraham and the jews into the mix is a subverted attempt for revisionism (lord knows there's plenty of those around). on the topic of your bible translation - i'm sure you have not read the jewish bible in it's hebrew text and i find it a little funny that you change the text of the bible to fit your theory about the philistines in comparisment with now days palestinians... i'd go as far as calling it "pseudo research" even. Jaakobou 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jaakobou. I am not saying and neither any of the sources here say the Palestinians == Philistines. We were discussing the origin of the name Palestine, which is Filistin in Arabic. I was only mentioning that Filistin in Arabic derives from Philistine. I was also saying that using the term Philistine or Filistin to call that Holy Land was common even before the Roman period. In fact some Egyptian writings and Ancient Greek writings used this to call this piece of Land. The name itself does not have any political implications. The term Land of Israel is the one that is brought every now and then to connect today's Israelis with the ancient Israelites... My contributions to the ancestry of the Palestinians is only to cut through the noise I read here and there. This noise is as follows: Palestinians are Arabs, and therefore should go back to Mecca. Palestinians did not exists. The term Palestine is abusive to Jews... Muslims cleansed the indigenous population of the Holy Land, and hence only today's Jews have the right for it. Jews to Judea and Arabs to Arabia... Etc..... I am sure you are familiar yourself with much of this disinformation.
 * The matter of the fact that, although Palestinians speak Arabic, it is because Arab culture dominates the Middle East. Palestinians are Arabic speaking, true. So is their Muslims, Christians and Jews.
 * Now the term Arab as I have said before has three meansings. Three ways to be called an Arab:


 * First, if your origin traces back to the Arabian Peninsula. This includes all tribes before the period of Abraham including the Canaanites. These are called Original Arabs, or in Arabic "Arab Aribah". These tribes spread outside the Arabian Peninsula because of the severe drought and lack of water 4 BC. These are all historic data you can find


 * Second, are the extinct Arabs, these include all tribes and towns destoryed like those of Aaa, Thamud, etc....


 * Third, Arabized Arabs 'Arab mustarebah', like the Ishmaelites. These descend from Abraham and through Ishmael, and from them is the Prophet Muhammad.


 * Fourth, those who speak Arabic regardless of their genetic or ethnic affiliation.


 * Finally, the Canaanite culture was adopted by the Jews. The Hebrew language is related to the Canaanite languages no question about that. The ancient Jews are related to the Canaanites, no one denies that. Todays Jews particularly those not native to the middle east are a different story. They have mixed ancestries and Judaism is a religion in this sense rather than ethnicity. See Bernard Lewis work on this.


 * That article could be rather enhanced and tuned to a language we all agree on instead of removing any material. We can have it more neutral. The resources I attach adhere to Wikipedia's verifiablity conditions. They are not my original research, and it is going to enrich the genetic data section by combining things from history writer and anthropologists like Frazer and Ibn Khaldoun.
 * Almaqdisi talk to me 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments above, you'll see what the problems with those additions were (ie they are either already in this entry, aren't RS for the claims they make, or don't make the claims attributed to them).  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does historical recognition have to do with it?
at 29 January 2007, material regarding the status of jewish palestinians on the Palestinian National charter was removed - see the changed edit. the question asked was: "Does anyone claim all Jews should be called Palestinians?".

i think that's a very important question, i think, from all the materials i've read and the people i encountered that arabs/muslims would like to claim that "there are no jewish palestinians" (unless they are under muslim rule), which in my personal view is wrong from it's base considering that this claim comes from the lack of land definition in muslim lands over the difinitive definition of countries made in europe... interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject and also in regards for inserting this material back into the article. Jaakobou 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There should probably be mention of the ideas in article 20 ("Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood"), just as article 11's admission of some Jews is mentioned.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * since my edits are encountering resistance (pun intended), perhaps you could make the change seing that you agree with me on this point. Jaakobou 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Arab Palestinian Culture of Jihad
i'm sure that if i'll insert any material on the culture of jihad by arab palestinians that it will be removed since, it would seem, edits are made based on emotions rather than based on encyclopedic value. however, i promote we add an "Arab palestinian culture of jihad" segment to the article since it is such an integral part of the current-day palestinian culture.examples: your thoughts? Jaakobou 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? Tiamut 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)