Talk:Palestinian Bedouin

Bias

You will not find a greater champion of Palestinian independence and Bedouin rights than me, ftr. But I find this article is very blatantly inclined to campaigning, and it is wrong. Why bother to say "can be understood as settler colonialism" in an article about this sensitive conflict? But the bias begins with only considering the Palestinian Bedouin in light of 1948, whereas eg in 1830s they took on the forces of Pasha, and Palestinian nationhood owes its identity to poets not of the 20th century but of the 18th. This is a crazy article about Palestinian Bedouins that only serves to wave a flag for Palestine vs Israel. It should go back to Ottoman times. 88.110.147.104 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to contribute and improve the article :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article as is exists entirely to argue that A. Bedouins in Palestine are one people with the rest of Palestine, and B. Israel is ethnically cleansing Bedouins. Both of these claims are highly subjective and used to advance and justify a specific political view. Furthermore, to back up its claims, the article makes wild and self-contradictory claims, like Bedouin nomadism being an Israeli lie. I've tried to clean it up, but ultimately I don't see a reason for this article to exist in its current form. There is no objective fact on this page that isn't presented better in the page for Negev Bedouin. I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted. Bruhpedia (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

While the text you removed was not great for the most part, a lot of it should have been recast as attributed opinion rather than deleted. The motivation of acquiring land for Jewish settlement is absolutely central to the treatment of bedouin since 1948 and the article is actively misleading without it. Zero^talk 05:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"There is no objective fact on this page that isn't presented better in the page for Negev Bedouin.": there are Bedouins outside the Negev (Gaza, West Bank, Galilee Bedouin), whose existence is covered by reliable sources, and for this reason alone this page makes sense. (then I don't have an opinion on the content itself, I'm not knowledgeable enough) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A hypothetical page about Palestinian Bedouins might make sense, sure, but if you take the stuff about the Negev out of this article you end up with two paragraphs, one of which is one sentence:

As of 2013, approximately 40,000 Bedouin reside in the West Bank, split among the Jahalin, Ka’abneh, Rashaydeh, Ramadin, ‘Azazme, Communities of Sawarka, Arenat and Amareen.

Within the Jordan Valley, many Bedouin communities are located within 30% of Area C which Israel now classifies as military firing zones and whered nearly 6,200 Bedouin live. Numerous villages have been demolished by the IDF, some repeatedly, and rebuilt by the affected Bedouin. Between November 2020 and July 2021, one community, in Humsa al-Baqai’a located in Area C had their hamlet. consisting of 83 structures, including water tanks and solar panels and other infrastructure provided by the European Union, destroyed seven times. The November 2020 demolition, coinciding with the U.S. Elections, displaced 73 Palestinians, among them 41 children, and was the largest demolition carried out in years, according to the United Nations.

If there's nothing substantive to say about Palestinian Bedouins, (as opposed to Bedouins and Negev Bedouins, which have pages,) this page doesn't make sense. Following your logic, there are pages for Italian-Americans and Italians in New York City. There are Italians in New York State outside of New York City, whose existence is covered by reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we need a page for them.

Additionally, while measured, reputable sources on settlement as a motivation for Bedouin resettlement would absolutely add to the article, the previous sources were fringe and incredibly opinionated. They were already cast as opinion, but, with wild claims and no counterpoint, keeping them would only make the article, well, actively misleading. Additionally, they were internally inconsistent. For example, the header calls Bedouins a traditionally nomadic people, which they are, almost by definition, but one of the sources I removed called this a lie with little evidence. There's already a Galilee Bedouin page too.

It seems like this should just be a straightforward article on Bedouins in the West Bank.

Bruhpedia (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. We could indeed rename to "Bedouins in the West Bank" or "Bedouin in Israel and Palestine" (similar to Armenians in Israel and Palestine). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ta'amreh tribe deserves mention

Ta'amreh & Ta'amireh (most common spelling), also Ta'amra, Ta'amira, 'Arab al-Ta'amira etc., tribe living near Bethlehem: no mention! Deserve attention. Articles about several Pal. towns mention them, first Dead Sea Scrolls found by them. Once listed, ideally also described: create redirect, link to it from articles.

Arab et Ta'amira already redirects far too narrowly to Beit Ta'mir. I'll change that now.

Here a complete list of spelling variants and where they occur:

• Ta'amireh (Qumran Caves, with 1QIsab, 4Q41, Isaiah Scroll, Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll; Wadi Murabba'at, Cave of Letters, Wadi Daliyeh, Hebrew and Aramaic papyri). Also at Wikisource, The Handbook of Palestine/2 (1922).
• Ta'amirah (Peasants' revolt in Palestine, Beit Ta'mir)
• Ta'amira (Beit Ta'mir, Beit Jala)
• Ta'amreh (Rachel's Tomb, Jab'a, Nuaman)
• Ta'amra (Teqoa)
• Arab al-Ta'amira (Al-Asakra, Ubeidiya)
• 'Arab al-Ta'amira (Teqoa) Arminden (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, wrote a section using the above & linked all of them.

If anyone fells the urge, you can add refs. I've had enough. There are so many Wikilinks that it shouldn't bother anyone anyway. Arminden (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)