Talk:Palestinians/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Indigeneous

Per the sources above at #Indigineity, there seems to be a case for describing Palestinians as indigenous. Atm, we say "native to Palestine" in the lead opening which is arguably the same thing.

Apart from this article, there is an ongoing discussion at Genocide of indigenous peoples as to whether Palestine should be included in that article and opponents are making the argument that Palestinians are not indigenous. However editors are also objecting to inclusion at List of genocides so I think it is probably more a case of DONTLIKEIT than anything else.

If we assert indigenous in this article this would put paid to the "Palestinians are not indigeneous" argument being made at various places. What do editors think? Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

From the very beginning the word "native" was added through edit warring and despite substantial opposition, it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. ABHammad (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the editing history, the principal objector most recently was yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I see at least three reverts from three different editors, a clear sign that there was no consensus for this change. ABHammad (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs please. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

from the sourcing above, it seems like there is very strong support for "indigenous". (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So much guess work. What you mean to say is "The Indigenous Peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida.""International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs". IWGIA. 2016-12-23. Retrieved 2024-08-11.. Moxy🍁 02:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that any one source can be the arbiter for this. The vast majority of sources that weigh in on this question describe Palestinians as indigenous, not specific Palestinian subgroups. (t · c) buidhe 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs is an organization based in Denmark. It's not a worldwide authority that can establish who is indigenous and who isn't. Their definition is for their own purposes. UN defines 5,000 indigenous groups, which is only 6.2% of the world population.[1] I can't find the entire list, but here's an infographic [2] based on [3]. Based on such a narrow definition, most of the world wouldn't be considered indigenous. It's clear these groups have a working definition for their own purposes and are not using the dictionary definition. There is no reason why Wikipedia should use the restricted definition. Bogazicili (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Odd rant about the organization but the The Indigenous World’, a publication that lists groups that have gained global acceptance as Indigenous currently list five internationally recognized Indigenous communities in Palestine.... here are the basics. We should not make up our own definition by synthesis.Moxy🍁 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

1) Are you saying that we should ignore all the sources in Talk:Palestinians#Sources, because of the 2 sources you provided, one of which is "Global Bar Magazine"?

2) Are you objecting to "native" in the first paragraph in the lead? Bogazicili (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume not all have access to the source in full...as 2/3rds mention the different groups. There seems to be an assumption that all Palestinians make up one ethnic group.....no nation or country is made up of just one ethnic group. Moxy🍁 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It makes no difference if sources say they are indigenous, this is the main point. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The obvious analogy is Native Americans in the United States: multiple nations and ethnicities, all indigenous. Anyway, @Moxy: are you objecting to "native" in the first paragraph of the lead? Levivich (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes!...... Native is used for non-human things... like flowers or in a human context to say something like they are a native New Yorker. I have no problem using the modern terminology of indigenous. Only in the United States does the term native refer to indigenous peoples. basics here. Moxy🍁 23:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting you are objecting to Palestinians being native, whereas a lot of ethnicity articles say they are native. Are you also objecting to them?

• English people: "The English people are an ethnic group and nation native to England". How are English people native? Anglo-Saxons came from Denmark and Germany.
• Serbs: "The Serbs (Serbian Cyrillic: Срби, romanized: Srbi, pronounced [sr̩̂bi]) are a South Slavic ethnic group native to Southeastern Europe" How are Serbs native? Slavic people migrated to Balkans in the 7th century.

Are you claiming diferencias.cc website invalidate all the sources presented in this talk page? Bogazicili (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to understand the context they're not claiming these people are indigenous. This usage is explained in the source I provided above. The academic world follows style guides =Academic style guides and modern media publications. Indigenous people aren't flowers or rocks... they are humans. Moxy🍁 23:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

diferencias.cc is not a reliable source. The rest of your answer does not make sense. Bogazicili (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's basic comparison for not academics..... no one's using it as a source... please follow the link provided above.... let me link it again for you =Style guides and academic publications Moxy🍁 23:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Style guidelines such as something being capitalized is irrelevant to our discussion. Our discussion is about Palestinians. And sources presented here: Talk:Palestinians#Sources Bogazicili (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

By the time snap it's clear you didn't even take the time to review the sources. Will let others try to educate you. Moxy🍁 23:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: please refrain from such patronizing language per WP:Civil in this talk page. Thank you. Bogazicili (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy, @Bogazicili: Correct me if I'm wrong about any of the following, but do all three of us agree that the lead...

1. Should, in some way, say that Palestinians are from Palestine
2. Should not say that Palestinians are not from Palestine
3. Should not say that Palestinians are from somewhere other than Palestine

And therefore, the scope of the disagreement is how to say that Palestinians are from Palestine, i.e. "native" or "indigenous"?

If I'm right so far, then doesn't it follow that, if you prefer "native" you would take "indigenous" over saying that Palestinians are not from Palestine or are from somewhere else, and vice versa, if you prefer "indigenous," then "native" is the second choice over "not from Palestine"?

Do I understand your views correctly? If not, please correct me. Levivich (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem saying they're indigenous..... we should just list these indigenous groups. We have known for a few decades now that everyone in the region is similar and have continuously inhabited the region. Today's division is based on modern culture and religion not Indigenous ancestry. Moxy🍁 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, I think the article should say:

1) "native to" or "indigenous" in the first paragraph in the lead. We have the sources for "indigenous". "Native to" could be considered a simpler wording of that.

2) Mention "indigenous" in the body

3) Mention "indigenous people" might have different definitions in the body.

4) In the body, mention that according to International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, "The Indigenous Peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida." [4] Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: That all sounds reasonable to me! Levivich (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support "indigenous" instead of / in addition to "native", given that it is a more specific designation that provides more information. I haven't seen any policy based reason not to use it, and it's very widely used in sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Very few peoples are described as "indigenous" and virtually all are "primitive" societies until recently. Palestinians are the heirs of great civilizations and an advanced society for over a millennium. I don't know any similar people described as "indigenous" on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Look, the only reason I am interested in it being explicitly indigeneous is because there are freakin articles that have that word in their titles and editors (whom are likely known to you) are saying specifically that because Palestinians are NOT indigenous they can't be in the list, which is just bs. This is not some discussion about the finer points, it is just a question of whether the sourcing supports it and afaics, it does. Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That is personal opinion, not a source or policy based rationale. (t · c) buidhe 02:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, just as your view is your petsonal and not any policy based rationale. My view does have the advantage of being consistent: I recommend we treat the page for one people the same as most other people. Your opinion appears to be we should make exception. My point is that I have not seen any convincing arguments for that view. Jeppiz (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

My belief is that the article should match what it says in reliable sources (see above). If that isnt a convincing argument, I'm not sure what we're doing here. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

A weak no. Palestinians are as indigenous to Palestine as the French are to France or the English are to England. Still, we don't use "indigenous" for the French or the English or others either (and we of course should not use it for any other group in Palestine either) as the term is rather ill defined and often problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles using the word tho. See List of Indigenous peoples where "both" get a mention. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In Swedes, it says "native to Sweden". Indo-European languages are not native to Western or Northern Europe. Why are Swedes "native" but Palestinians aren't? Bogazicili (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said they aren't? Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Can you clarify if you are objecting to "native" in the first paragraph in the lead or not? Bogazicili (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, I think we should says Palestinians are native to Palestine, just as we say Swedes are native to Sweden. We shouldn't use "indigenous" for any of them (nor for the French, English, Spanish, Israelis, Russians, etc.) Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Were sources such as these (Talk:Palestinians#Sources) provided for those articles? Why should we reject those sources? Because of other Wikipedia articles? Your initial examples, English people and French people are not even Good Articles. Bogazicili (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Need for sources

The problem in this discussion seems to be the poor use of sources, with different users cherrypicking whatever source fits their preference. The "problem" (or the advantage) is that there exists quite a large body of academic literature on Indigenous Peoples. Any people regularly mentioned as indigenous in such sources could be described as indigenous. Peoples frequently lacking from such sources probably should not be described as indigenous. This is not on how we should describe Palestinians in particular, but a comment on proper use of references. If Palestinians are frequently included in such sources, describe them as indigenous. If they are never or very rarely included, don't call them indigenous. That is proper use of WP:RS. I honestly have no idea, but apparently nobody else in the discussion knows either. As for me, I will happily go along with what academic sources on indigenous peoples say, regardless of what they say (and ignore as irrelevant what any random source not dealing primarily with indigeneous peoples say). Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That is unlikely to solve anything here, methinks, An RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili and Levivich, apologies, but you are suggesting brazen WP:OR violations. On one hand, you suggest using IWGIA as source. On the other hand, you suggest ignoring IWGIA and state that "Palestinians" are indigenous to Palestine. IWGIA limits the indigenous label to Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida. So if IWGIA is the source you suggest we use, we cannot label "Palestinians" as indigenous. This is even worse than cherrypicking sources; it is taking a source and then using said source to claim something the source does not say. I should not have to point out such obvious OR discrepancies to established users. Jeppiz (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Calling Palestinians "indigenous" is supported by the dozens of reliable sources already posted on this page. There is no OR involved in that, it's just V. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I invite you to read my comment again. I don’t know how much clearer I could have made it. Either we decide to rely on IWGIA or we don't. We cannot have it both ways. Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument actually seems to be that scholarly sources describing Palestinians as indigeneous should be discounted in favor of ONLY sources about indigeneous peoples in general. And yet articles that are primarily about indigeneous peoples don't do that so why should we do it here? If that is your position then we are stuck and I return to my suggestion of RFC to resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference between my position and many others is that I don't care one way or other if Palestinians are described as indigenous. I understand and respect that some pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli users are interested in that (albeit with opposite opinions); I'm not. My concern is how we use sources and define indigenous peoples. If that definition ends up being one that include Palestinians, we should describe Palestinians as indigenous. If the definition does not, we should not. I am willing to state that the discussion about indigenous status for Palestinians is unclear enough to warrant a discussion. Describing Israelis as indigenous would just be silly and go against every conventional understanding of "indigenous". So yes, an RfC might be needed but preferably one that focus on how WP define "indigenous" and then apply that definition wherever it applies. Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you seem very confused about what WP:OR is or what my suggestion was.

Here's what I suggest:

Palestinians are sometimes described as indigenous.[sources above in Talk:Palestinians#Sources] Indigenous people may have different definitions, including the UN recognized definition.[5]. According to International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, the "Indigenous Peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida". [6]

There is nothing WP:OR about this. It is perfectly in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV.

I think RfC is premature at this point. No valid argument has been presented about why we should ignore reliable sources presented here Talk:Palestinians#Sources. Bogazicili (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili, this is the third time in just a few days that you either fail to understand my point (which I assume is the case, assuming good faith) or intentionally misrepresent it. Nobody has suggested "ignoring" reliable sources. I have advocated for proper use of reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That language looks good to me. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Either we decide to rely on IWGIA or we don't The heck are you talking about? It's not like we have to choose one source. There are dozens of reliable sources on this page. We can rely on all of them. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Jeppiz, can you confirm "WP" here So yes, an RfC might be needed but preferably one that focus on how WP define "indigenous" and then apply that definition wherever it applies. [7] refers to Wikipedia? It is kind of obvious, but still wanted to confirm. Do you think Wikipedia should settle on one definition of "indigenous"? Bogazicili (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP is a standard abbreviation here for Wikipedia, and yes, I think Wikipedia should coherent in how we use concepts and terminology. Jeppiz (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I don't think I misrepresent or "fail to understand" your points. You just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote to determine which definition of "indigenous" we are going to use just to be "coherent". There is no WP:Coherent. Per WP:V, we follow the sources. If there are multiple definitions of "indigenous" by reliable sources, that has to be represented in the article in line with WP:Neutrality and WP:DUE. Like Levivich said, we use all the sources. Given all the sources in Talk:Palestinians#Sources, I don't think it's WP:UNDUE to call Palestinians indigenous in my proposed text here [8] Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested we "vote". As this is the fourth time in less than a week Bogazicili completely misrepresent what I've written and combines it with stating I'm "confused", "don't understand" and other comments on my person, I've given an NPA warning and will report any further NPA violation. As for my point of thinking WP would benefit from a good and sourced definition of indigenous peoples, I stand by it. Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I replied to your message in my talk page, can we please focus on content here?

Do you have any objections to the below text?

Palestinians are sometimes described as indigenous.[sources above in Talk:Palestinians#Sources] Indigenous people may have different definitions, including the UN recognized definition.[9]. According to International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, the "Indigenous Peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida". [10]

Bogazicili (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, let's move on. I do not object to the proposed text. I might have been a bit unclear. Ideally I would like a good WP definition for indigenous but practically that is unlikely to happen soon. My own personal preference would be not use indigeneous anywhere outside Australia and Native Americans as "native to" is clearer. That said, this opinion seems to a minority position and it's not in anyone's interest to spend more time on it. I have no objections to adding the text to the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Given that there seems to be no opposition to the text I had suggested [11], I have added the following text: [12]. I just changed the part about the definition of the term "indigenous" from a human rights context based on the source. Bogazicili (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless no objection, I'm going to move the following bolded part into a footnote:

"Palestinians are sometimes described as indigenous. In a human rights context, the word indigenous may have different definitions; the UN Commission on Human Rights uses several criteria to define this term. According to International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, the "Indigenous Peoples of Palestine are the Bedouin Jahalin, al-Kaabneh, al-Azazmeh, al-Ramadin and al-Rshaida"."

We already said "sometimes described". The bolded part is messing up the flow of that section I think. It might be also WP:UNDUE to give so much importance to classification of one NGO. Bogazicili (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - re origin of Israeli Jewish population

Religion section, first paragraph ends in “their incorporation into the Israeli Jewishpopulation, which was originally composed of Jewish immigrants from around the world.” This is factually incorrect as also seen when you go to the Demographics page linked in the quoted text. Not all Israeli Jews were immigrants, many were already living in Palestine for generations. Edit request to simply remove the part of the sentence after “Israeli Jewish population.” Let the linked Demographics article provide the necessary context and background of the Jewish population. 142.116.165.233 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

When you say 'many' I think you meant 'few', as per the Palestinian Jews article they only made up roughly 5% in the 19th century; they didn't belong to a separate ethnicity grouping from Arabs, quite different from the European concept. Quote, 'Under the empire's rule in the mid-16th century, there were no more than 10,000 Jews in Palestine, making up around 5% of the population. By the mid-19th century, Turkish sources recorded that 80% of the population of 600,000 was identified as Muslim, 10% as Christian and 5–7% as Jewish.' Also worth noting that some of these communities came from Spain and afar, so the actual indigenous Palestinian Jews of this time is probably less. JJNito197 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

“Native”

The Arabs living today in this territory are from the Arabian peninsula and are Not native to this area. you are misleading people again. You can’t be trusted as a source anymore. 2A06:C701:4F00:C100:D983:D9D8:C7BE:6213 (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I know this type of IP comments get removed due to extended confirmed requirement, but please keep it for talk page record and I'd like to respond.

There was no Anglo settler colony style population replacement in Palestine:

• Dowty, A. (2023). "Chapter 3: The Arab Story to 1914". Israel / Palestine (5th ed.). Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-5483-6.:

  Palestine was part of the first wave of conquest following Muhammad’s death in 632 CE; Jerusalem fell to the Caliph Umar in 638. The indigenous population, descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines, had been mostly Christianized. Over succeeding centuries it was Islamicized, and Arabic replaced Aramaic (a Semitic tongue closely related to Hebrew) as the dominant language

  Bogazicili (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Archiving this, please do not engage with non EC editors unless they are making edit requests, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)