Jump to content

Talk:Palestinians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarah SchneiderCH (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 6 December 2023 (→‎Palestinian Arabs: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Property Losses Estimate

The last sentence of the header reads: "According to Perry Anderson, it is estimated that half of the population in the Palestinian territories are refugees and that they have collectively suffered approximately US$300 billion in property losses due to Israeli confiscations, at 2008–09 prices."

However, the *total* national wealth of neighbouring Jordan (population >10M, greater than 2x the current population of the Gaza Strip + the West Bank) is $146 billion, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth. Even if property in Israel is substantially more valuable per square foot (possible), Israel's total national wealth is only $1,046 billion or $1.05 trillion (same source), and Israel is an unusually stable/rich/technologically innovative country by Middle Eastern standards so the land in an independent Palestine has no guarantee to be as valuable as land in the state of Israel.

I submit that this sentence should be removed as not credible, or at least have some sort of qualification added to it providing context (such as the total wealth of neighbouring Jordan).

Regarding Muslim immigration

In Origins:

For several centuries during the Ottoman period the population in Palestine declined and fluctuated between 150,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, and it was only in the 19th century that a rapid population growth began to occur. This growth was aided by the immigration of Egyptians (during the reigns of Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim Pasha) and Algerians (following Abdelkader El Djezaïri's revolt) in the first half of the 19th century, and the subsequent immigration of Algerians, Bosnians, and Circassians during the second half of the century.


According to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1949-3606.2012.00172.x

Between the years of 1871 and 1922, the land settled amounted to 360,431 dunams in the new Arab villages, with an additional 185,000 dunams by 1945.According to the same estimate, using settlements identified by this research, therewere 66,940 (6.5% of the Muslim population of Palestine) Muslim residents in 230 hamlets and villages that had been established between 1871 and 1945. Around a dozen of the villages were established by people who came from outside Palestine(Egyptians, Bosnians, Algerians, Circassians, Iranians, and Shiites from Lebanon).Some 25% of the villages were settled by sedenterizing the Bedouin, mainly in Northern Palestine, while an additional 25% were settled by Arabs from highland villages who moved down to the coastal plain because of population pressures in theirmother village. Another 39 villages were constructed on lands belonging to the sultanor absentee effendi landlords.Just over half the new villages were constructed on ruinsof old settlements, illustrating the degree to which the expansion of Muslim ruralsettlement in the Ottoman and British periods represented a return to areas that hadbeen settled in prior eras


The article should be clearer and say that there were around 67k Muslim immigrants into Palestine at the time, which only accounted for around 7% of Muslim Palestinians. According to Demographic history of Palestine (region) there were around 300k Palesitnians by 1800. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Genetic study

To avoid repeatedly reverting each other, I want to discuss the genetic study here. The source is https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites, and seems to be referring to this study: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf. The current phrasing in the article is "Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites."

There are two issues with the current phrasing:

  1. The source never says "Palestinians". The press release says "modern-day groups in Lebanon, Israel and Jordan share a large part of their ancestry, in most cases more than half, with the people who lived in the Levant during the Bronze Age, more than 3,000 years ago." The journal article itself says: "we assembled a dataset of 93 individuals from 9 sites across present-day Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon, all demonstrating Canaanite material culture", and " Finally, we show that the genomes of present-day groups geographically and historically linked to the Bronze Age Levant, including the great majority of present-day Jewish groups and Levantine Arabic-speaking groups, are consistent with having 50% or more of their ancestry from people related to groups who lived in the Bronze Age Levant and the Chalcolithic Zagros". It is unclear whether any Palestinians were even sampled in this study. Therefore, using it to infer the characteristics of Palestinians is inappropriate.
  2. Even if Palestinians are included in this work, to list them alone risks creating the impression that they are unique in this ancestry, whereas in reality all of the modern groups residing in the area seem to share the same genetic link. This is an important difference in trying to understand the Palestinian's origins relative to their neighbors.

Therefore, the study should either be introduced with an accurate phrasing (referring to all modern Levant residents), or removed altogether. okedem (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the page notice, the article permits no more than one revert per 24 hours, and you reverted multiple editors twice. Unless you want to risk getting blocked, I suggest undoing the last revert and discussing further here for consensus. Duvasee (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your response. I did revert my edit as soon as I saw the admin message about 1RR. Then I came to discuss here. okedem (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Palestinians are represented separately from other Arabic-speaking groups in several figures. In Figure 5, Palestinians score higher by both measures on "Megiddo_MLBA+Iran_ChL" than all the represented Jewish groups except Iranian Jews. In Figure S4, Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL are separated; we see that by one measure Palestinians score the same as Ashkenazi Jews on Megiddo_MLBA and well above other Jewish groups, while by the other measure Palestinians score well above all Jewish groups on Megiddo_MLBA. I believe it is reasonable to summarise what the article says about Palestinians. I don't agree that the existing sentence is unsupported by the article and I don't agree that the sentence suggests Palestinians are unique in this respect. If we want to turn it into a comparison by, for example including Jews and Bedouin, that would be fine but we would first have to decide whether the article is worth that much coverage. Zerotalk 04:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for tracking down that mention of the Palestinians and correcting me. As it only appears in the figures, rather than the text, I missed it.
Still, to me the bigger issue is the impression we're giving. If we say "Palestinians have this connection", it might or might not be unique - we're not telling the reader that, but we're not saying otherwise. However, we're saying this right after talking about "Arabization", implying the Palestinians might not have been originally Arab, but became such by conquest and adoption of language, religion and customs. Presenting the study at that point strengthens the reader's impression that Palestinians were local to Palestine, and then got Arabized. But the study tells us that most Arab groups share very similar levels of genetic connection to the Canaanites, and so this study cannot be used to say whether Palestinians originally were or were not an Arab people. That is - in the context in which it appears, the sentence does end up giving a false impression. okedem (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about populations as if they have single origins - all populations are simply a mishmash and hodgepodge of genetic influences. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I say Arab origin, I include partial origins. Just like the article uses the term in "independent of the existence of any actual Arabian origins".
The article currently lists the Palestinians' genetic link, but then goes on to mention the Israelites, without any mention of their genetic link. In fact, it confusingly says "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region" - leaving the reader in the dark about the existence of a link between them and the Canaanites. Furthermore, by listing the Palestinians, and then saying "Israelites emerged later", an ignorant reader might believe there was a clear Palestinian group at a time preceding the Israelites - a nonsense conclusion, but a plausible one for the uninformed reader. okedem (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to think about how to properly phrase the text, but the basic issue is that discussing Palestinians when talking about antiquity is simply anachronistic and confusing. We can add a section about genetics, that would give a lot more context, but as is that single sentence is out of place. I'm removing it for now. okedem (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong in the phrasing of the sentence, and a whole section on genetics seems a bit much. Duvasee (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duvasee, right now it states that the Palestinians have a genetic link to Canaanites; in the next sentence it mentions the Israelites "emerged", but says nothing about their link. The next sentence discusses the Jews, but again makes no mention of their link. A reasonable reader will assume only the Palestinians have such a link. Either mention the link for all, or for none. okedem (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable reader will see that this article is focused on Palestinians, and for the origin of the Jews they can go to Jews or History of the Jews or Genetic studies on Jews. nableezy - 23:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading your comment it appears there is ground to your comment. I think your analysis is brought about some interesting points. I would write that Jews, Palestinians and other local groups are descended from the ancient Canaanites if this is what the source explains. Although I do think another source should be presented in order to back the Palestinian claim (since the source does not mention it).
Otherwise @Okedem assessment holds.
I personally think it'll be best to write that Jews, Palestinians and other populations descend from ancient Canaanite populations. That way it will be NPOV. But a source needs to be found for that. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When is this going to be revised? It’s extremely decieving 2601:405:4800:CD0:F58C:21F2:1941:BE0A (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

I am requesting a review and edit on the current wording on the following sentence from SECTION: Origins:

“Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites.[92] The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.”

Edit request: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites as do other Arab nations and Jews of the Levant.”

The original sentence is technically incorrect and misleading of the actual source.

Source cited: https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites

1. The source cited does not mention the term Palestinians – it refers to Jews and Arabs

2. The study the source is referencing is found here where Palestinians are mentioned along with Jews and Jews other Arab nations and Africans https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30487-6.pdf

It seems several users have been discussing this on the Talk Page below, however I am non-EC and am unable to participate. But on the basis of WP:BALANCE a more senior admin should be made aware of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinians#2020_Genetic_study

Further to Talk Page:

Comment by USER:Zero Please note that Palestinians are represented separately from other Arabic-speaking groups in several figures. In Figure 5, Palestinians score higher by both measures on "Megiddo_MLBA+Iran_ChL" than all the represented Jewish groups except Iranian Jews. In Figure S4, Megiddo_MLBA and Iran_ChL are separated; we see that by one measure Palestinians score the same as Ashkenazi Jews on Megiddo_MLBA and well above other Jewish groups, while by the other measure Palestinians score well above all Jewish groups on Megiddo_MLBA. I believe it is reasonable to summarise what the article says about Palestinians. I don't agree that the existing sentence is unsupported by the article and I don't agree that the sentence suggests Palestinians are unique in this respect. If we want to turn it into a comparison by, for example including Jews and Bedouin, that would be fine but we would first have to decide whether the article is worth that much coverage.

The information provided by USER:Zero is WP:SYNTH and WP:PST from the original research. The study graphs what USER:Zero is highlighting but the research does not reach the conclusion given in the article of the origins of the Palestinians or Jews.

Two supporting secondary articles below which highlight the key findings state:

“The report published last week reveals that the genetic heritage of the Canaanites survives in many modern-day Jews and Arabs…that most Arab and Jewish groups in the region owe more than half of their DNA to Canaanites and other peoples who inhabited the ancient Near East.” https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2020/05/dna-from-the-bibles-canaanites-lives-on-in-modern-arabs-and-jews


“This study suggests there is a deep genetic connection of many Jewish groups today across the Diaspora and many Arab groups to this part of the world thousands of years ago…Most of the recovered genomes could be modelled as having a roughly 50/50 contribution of ancestry from local Neolithic inhabitants and from a group that hailed from the Caucasus or the Northwestern Zagros mountains, in today’s Iran.” https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites


I hope after reading this you can see the difference between these two sentences, and which is more in line with the sources provided.


Current: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites. The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.”


Edit request: “Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites as do other Arab nations and Jews of the Levant.” Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is solely about Palestinians, we don't need to shoehorn anybody else to prove a point. That sentence is used in a way that shows literal continuity with the preceding one about the Canaanites, similar to how the mention of Jews proceeds the sentence about Israelites. If we are going to delve deeper, we should in its entirety, but this is neither the time nor place; both have their own articles (Genetic studies on Jews and Origin of the Palestinians). In fact content was moved from this article to that article for that very purpose. The whole reason this edit was even made was because someone inserted something[1] unwarranted about the supposed genetic kinship of the Levant, which includes Jews, introducing a segment about how Jews and Palestinians (and vaguely Arabic-speaking groups) are ethnic kinfolk, even though this is inappropriate given that the section is not defined or given credence by genetic studies. People should indeed be aware of the fact that Palestinians are related to the Canaanites, just like how the Jews are related to the Israelites. The opposite can also be true. This isn't controversial, and it is well established. Ultimately it depends on how one defines related and the context it is used in. JJNito197 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Jews and surrounding Arab groups, including Jordanians and Saudis, are genetically related to the Canaanites. Using the same source to make a statement on solely on the Palestinians is not appropriate.
I propose adding a new paragraph at the bottom of the section. It can say something along the lines of "Genetic studies show that Palestinians, like other neighboring Arab and Jewish communities, have strong connections to regional Bronze Age populations, including the Canaanites. Genetic studies also point to the genetic relatedness of Jews and Palestinians." Dovidroth (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JJNito197, the sentence about the Palestinians and the link with Canaanites isn't the issue, it's the clarifying statement after "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.” That is not in the evidence provided as I stated above in my edit request.
If the attention is for the Palestinian people alone as it should be for an article dedicated to Palestinians, I'd be happy if the edit was to remove the clarifying sentence and then it can solely focus on Palestinians. Seems more neutral that way.
However, as Dovidroth points out, the source elaborates on Jews and Arab nations and I was under the impression we shouldn't be selective - if the research shows X - we write X. Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JJNito197, I'm confused by your description of the edit you link ("unwarranted", "supposed") . That edit accurately reflected the source the editor used. That is the same source now serving to support the sentence in question, except that it had been inaccurately edited to speak only of Palestinians, in a way that the source itself never does anywhere in its text. okedem (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would be better suited under the header "relationship to other populations" which was moved to the other designated article as it does not fit the subheader. Please understand that genetic testing and analysis plays an important role for some, one can say defining, but a less important role for others. Edits using genetic testing or the results of said testing for reasons other than medicinal purposes should indeed be scrutinized. Especially as the motivations for doing so is multifaceted.
Another thing about that source that makes it invalid is mentioning Arabs and Jews without being specific. These are 2 very diverse populations with variations in genetics - another reason why this edit is inaccurate. It leaves one wanting further elucidation, which is why the other designated articles are a better fit for the content.
Regarding that original edit, per BRD that user should have gained consensus for those edits as it wasn't a problem for readers previously, hence the lack of complaints in talk. So only when the edit is changed to just Palestinians in continuity with the article and subheader, everybody has a problem. I'm afraid the grievances don't seem genuine. I would be against making any edits that overshadow the origin of Palestinians on their own article. If necessary, we should also insert that Palestinians are related to Israelites on the Israelite page or the page about Jews. That would be completely fair. JJNito197 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 Hi, JJNito197, the issue is not whether or not it refers to the genetic study or the Palestinians, the issue is that the sentence in this current version misrepresents the sources provided.
Specifically, as I stated in the edit request, the sentence - "The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region" - is not mentioned in the sources, and does not clarify whether it is pertaining to Palestinians or Canaanites.
It's poor wording, incorrect use of sources, and frankly, is not the standard we should be aspiring to here on Wiki.
I appreciate you looking at this but as I said, either a new sentence with correct clarifying sentences should be made, or for ease, delete the sentence about the Israelites. That would probably make more sense in all honesty.
For me, as a new user and editor to Wikipedia, and someone who checks every single reference, I find these things to be the easiest and most important standards to keep.
Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chavmen, yes I agree that wikipedia has high standards and we must follow them, lest this whole project collapses. We should wait for consensus. Thank you JJNito197 (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 Isn't consensus also about referencing sources correctly? I think my edit request has been lost here.
The point was that if this article is focused on Palestinians and their genetic link with Canaanites, it is then misleading (and irrelevant) if the next sentence states that the Israelites emerged later as a separate group.
Emerged from who has a later group? The Canaanites or Palestinians? Do you see how it's chronologically inaccurate?
Also:
1) it's not in the source
2) it should not be about the Israelites/Jews (as you've stated 3 or 4 times)
3) it's factually incorrect
If all these reasons are ignored, consensus doesn't actually matter. It's ignoring sources. Chavmen (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JJNito197, the original phrasing of the sentence (the one you linked to) was the one accurately reflecting the source – here’s the source: “Most of today’s Jewish and Arabic-speaking populations share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites, according to a new study”. Further, it says: “…modern-day groups in Lebanon, Israel and Jordan share a large part of their ancestry, in most cases more than half, with the people who lived in the Levant during the Bronze Age, more than 3,000 years ago.”
Now you’re saying the source is “invalid”? First, what is your standing to make such a claim? Second, it seems to me you’ve supported keeping it and the sentence using it – please clarify your position.
Your insinuations of whether grievances are “genuine” are offensive and misplaced. I was curious about the topic, read this article, and the sentence stuck out like a sore thumb, both for misleadingly leaving out other peoples, and for anachronistically mentioning Palestinians at a point of the chronology roughly 3,000 years before such a group became a nation – every other group is mentioned appropriately.
Beyond that sentence with phrasing that does not reflect the source, the sentence Chavmen mentioned is also incorrect, in that it implies Israelites arose separately from Canaanites, where the genetic evidence (the study in the source) clearly shows that the modern descendants of Israelites, Jews, are strongly connected genetically to Canaanites. Therefore, both sentences need to revised. okedem (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi okedem. Whatever that source says, it can be removed or changed to fit the statement. But how exactly does it "stick out like a sore thumb" more than the original edit? Would it be more precise with further elaboration or terse summary? The issue is partly WP SKY IS BLUE as it is obvious that Palestinians descend at least in part from the Canaanites, but the sentence can also be made more succint, or alternatively removed as it was the standard before the original edit. I am not willing to bolster the paragraph with racialist pseudoscience however, so would be against making any elaborative edits about the exclusive genetic makeup of the region in attempt to "prove" something somehow using the inhabitants of the region as political pawns, hence no account for Palestinians in the study. It should be clear and precise. We can start with changing the opening line of the second paragraph with "Palestinians" instead of Palestine. Or "Palestine and Palestinians" which be different way to write this. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
"Whatever that source says, it can be removed or changed to fit the statement"? The source is what it is. I hope you're not suggesting we replace the source to match a statement. We don't replace sources to fit whatever we want to say; we accurately reflect what sources say, whether we like them or not.
"it is obvious that Palestinians descend at least in part from the Canaanites" - nothing is obvious about that to me. In a region with so many population movements and empires exiling populations and bringing in others, there's nothing obvious to me about any such genetic links.
I have no idea what "racialist pseudoscience" you're talking about here. No one said anything about an "exclusive genetic makeup", what are you even talking about?
"hence no account for Palestinians in the study" - the study sampled various populations living in the region, including various Israeli Jews, Palestinians, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, Druze and others. Since all show genetic connections to the Canaanites, the study simply stated them together, saying: "We found that both Arabic-speaking and Jewish populations are compatible with having more than 50% Middle-Eastern-related ancestry". There's nothing political about this, and I hope you're not trying to call this study, conducted by a large multinational team and published in Cell, "pseudoscience".
"We can start with changing the opening line of the second paragraph with "Palestinians" instead of Palestine" - I don't see how this would result in a coherent sentence. Unless you're saying "Palestinians" in the sense of "whoever lived in the region", rather than any specific nation; using that logic, the Israelites were Palestinians, so that becomes quite absurd. okedem (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Palestinians are related to the Canaanites is an obvious fact supported by a plethora of RS. You can debate it somewhere else. How one defines "related" is key here, not everybody is ethnocentric or assumes that it is referring to genetics. Importantly, "genetic congruity" is not a predicate for peoplehood. We do not affirm or devalue a people based on uncorroborated, evolving theories. But as we now have sufficient genetic evidence to also support this for Palestinians, it is adequate enough for us to state on their page, and should not be unfairly criticised if we are going by the results of the study, per your understanding.
The reason we don't mention Jews is the the same reason we don't mention Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, and Druze. Its not about them, it's about Palestinians. As some Arabs and Jewish groups like Ethiopians were not tested, it would be incorrect per WP:SYNTH to label them as also sharing a link to the ancient Canaanites on Wikipedia. The adherents of the Druze faith are actually Arabs - Syrians, Jordanians, and Lebanese, so there is no reason to separate them from the rest of the population as was done in the study. This is one of the reasons why this study is not inclusive enough - one does not pick and choose when to amalgamate, incorporate or separate ethno-religious groups, even if it is in good faith. As far as I'm aware, Israel is the only country to make this distinction and separation regarding the Druze. So this study is not without it's flaws, even if being "conducted by a large multinational team and published in Cell". But we shall await consensus.
The last sentence would start with "Palestine and Palestinians", and we can make the changes to the rest of the paragraph explaining the historical bonds between modern day Palestinians and the Palestinians of antiquity, as it is synonymous like this article set out from the first sentence. Lastly, the comment you made at the end of your post is strange, now it becomes "absurd" that Palestinians can also claim Israelite origins? Where is the coherency in all this. JJNito197 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinians and Canaanites - to me, if something needs to be stated, it's not obvious. Without genetic studies, I see no reason at all to think there's any meaningful connection, given all the population movements (e.g., the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans exiling much of the local population at one time or another). Three millennia separate the Canaanites and modern-day Palestinians. Still, something being "obvious" or not is subjective, and there's no point arguing about it.
The source itself speaks of the people currently residing in the region, and makes logical choices. Frankly, I give the researchers' choices much more weight than the opinion of a random wiki editor. Regarding the Druze - they separated from the rest of the Arab population about a thousands years ago (in 1043), and have only been marrying within the group since. That means their genetic makeup is going to be slightly different to the other Arabs, even as they reside among them, similar to Jewish communities in the diaspora (perhaps even more so, since one can convert to Judaism, but no conversion to the Druze faith is allowed). As such, they're an interesting population to explore.
I think I need to clarify a bit - one of my objections to the current sentence is that it is inserted in a chronology that mentions each people at their correct historical times, when such a group was recognized as a people or nation. Canaanites, Israelites/Jews (just a different name), Romans, Arabs and so on. There were no "Palestinians" as a distinct group in those times, and so mentioning them in the middle of a chronology is simply jarring and misleading (leaving the impression that there was such a people at those times). Nations develop out of other groups at different times; Palestinians, as a nation, are a young group, and so any discussion of them in ancient times is a-historical. It would be like trying to talk about Americans when discussing North America in 1000 BC. Americans are a nation, but only became one in the 18th century. They descend from many other nations, so we can talk about all their origins, but they did not exist as a group until quite recently.
You misunderstand my final comment. I am not saying that Palestinians don't have a connection to Israelites. I am saying Israelites were not Palestinian. That is, the demonym "Palestinian" cannot be appropriately used at that point in history.
Now, to move forward - I take no issue at all with discussing genetic connections, but it needs to be done appropriately, and not in the middle of a historical chronology. I think the current chronology paragraphs are good and appropriate - they reasonably describe many of the population movement to the area, that each seems to have contributed to the makeup of modern Palestinians. I propose to remove that sentence - right now it's more confusing than helpful (e.g., says nothing of connections to non-Canaanite populations). If there's consensus about adding a few sentences regarding genetic studies, they should be sourced by multiple studies, which would provide a clearer picture of what genetic evidence tells us - alongside strong link to Canaanites, Palestinians are also strongly connected to other Arab peoples, such as Saudis and Syrians, as would be expected given the Arab conquest and subsequent empires in the area. Such a short paragraph can come right at the end of the current section - then the existing paragraphs introduce the reader to the various populations in the area, and then the genetic paragraph shows how modern Palestinians relate to those various groups. okedem (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 @Okedem I think it would be good to get another set of eyes on this discussion as this has been going back and forth now for some days, and in order to avoid WP:BLUDGEON I want to highlight below what I think the main arguments are for someone else to view:
1) This article is about Palestinians - we don't want to detract from that
2) In saying that, we can't "cherrypick" what we want from the source or misrepresent it - this source [2]
3) The sentence in the article in question: The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region is not mentioned in the source and is misleading - recommend to delete this sentence leaving the sentence pertaining to the source Palestinians have a strong genetic link to the Canaanites
4) An important sentence in the source's discussion that would need to be added is: "This does not mean that any of these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalco-lithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East." Could be included in a section on genetics?
5) The comparison shown in figure 5 is not showing direct ancestry, meaning it's not a tree that shows the trajectory of the populations history. The researchers would need to do much more research to figure that out. The lower ancestry in the other Jewish populations could be due to them intermixing more with their surrounding populations, such as Europeans - from a genetics view point this is important
I hope I have summarized sufficiently but would be good for someone else to view. Thanks for taking the time to view my edit request. Chavmen (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197, as there are 3 editors discussing this topic my request for WP:3O was rejected. However, I am hoping that after a 4 day break from discussions we can achieve a consensus. After re-reading the discussion I have two proposals for comments, let's try to keep it simple:
1) The sentence I requested edited is:
Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites. The Israelites emerged later as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region.
The source given here [3] does not state anything about Israelites, and I am not sure why this follows on from the above sentence considering the Israelites emerged from the Canaanites and not the Palestinians. So the sentence is out of sync chronologically and is unsourced. I also find the paragraph odd that we jump straight from the genetic links of Palestinians to a number of sentences about the Israelites and Jews - seems out of place to me.
I propose a change to this sentence with a clarifier - Palestinians share a strong genetic link to the ancient Canaanites despite the movements of peoples in the region. The ancient Israelites emerged as a separate ethnoreligious group from the Canaanites and Jews eventually formed the majority of the population in Palestine during classical antiquity.
I feel this flows better and is more clear.
2) Expansion of genetic studies (however not essential).
As I said genetic studies are hard to reference without using WP:SYNTH or WP:OPINION. Hence why it's either important to quote them thoroughly or paraphrase them in full. Cherry picking only gives us half the story.
Hence the sentence in the discussion of the paper: "This does not mean that any of these present-day groups bear direct ancestry from people who lived in the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age Levant or in Chalco-lithic Zagros; rather, it indicates that they have ancestries from populations whose ancient proxy can be related to the Middle East."
As I said, up to you if you want a section on genetic studies in this article - my main concern is item number 1.
I hope we can reach an agreement here. Chavmen (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit seems to follow the source well. I think its a good edit request. Well done for researching the source and taking the time to request. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the edit request :). Please tell me if its satisfactory. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted. Looking now I see that its considered contentious. However since the edit request simply asks to follow the source as accurately as possible I did and do not understand why its contentious. I hope other editors will comment here and explain. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chavmen, yes thanks for your effort. That sentence about the present day groups bearing direct ancestry is pertinent, although like you said bringing genetics into it takes aways from the paragraph slightly. I think possibly "Modern-day Palestinians are genetically related (or share genetic affinity) to the ancient Canaanites who inhabited Palestine after the Natufian Neolithic culture of the Levant." or along the lines is a better fit, as we are including an equally important historical part of the region, also tied to the Palestinian people, but giving it WP DUE WEIGHT. This is if we want to inlude genetics in the paragraph. We should mention the Natufian culture regardless. JJNito197 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 Sure, but again, the source doesn't state it exactly as so.
But I agree it should be a simple statement "Modern day Palestinians share a strong generic link with ancient Canaanites."
But to follow with the suggestions I made regarding the Israelites. Chavmen (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelite distinction was made as a segway to the Jews inhabiting Palestine, giving the reader context about this part of history. If we don't mention Israelites we shouldn't mention Jews as these are inextricably related, especially in understanding fully the origins of the Palestinian people. But we do need a source for this. JJNito197 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 Yes, I understand that. Do you have some suggestions how to restructure?
Because I want the article to share the genetic link between Canaanites and Palestinians, but not to the detriment of misusing sources.
If we are to omit the Jewish link with the Canaanites in this article, then best to state clearly how Israelites also emerged from the Canaanites as the paragraph does go on to talk about the Jewish people. Chavmen (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something how, specifying Palestinians,
"The genetic relationship between modern day Palestinians and the ancient Canaanites has been corroborated with shared ancient links between neighbouring populations in the Levant."
Israelites emerging later suits this in terms of continuity, highlighting the unique origin and history of the Jews, in contrast to the others, expanding on the previous wording "neighbouring populations". JJNito197 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JJNito197 Hi JJNito197, if you can find a source that directly states that, then that's okay. The genetic study isn't sufficient for that conclusion. All we know from this particular study is that the peoples of the Levant share a genetic link with the Canaanites.
There's no chronological continuity mentioned and terms like "emerging later" aren't appropriate.
I don't want to push my non-EC edit request. Thanks. Chavmen (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can change that with "branching off the Canaanites" or similar, but the separation between these 2 groups should be articulated. But yes, with additional sources as long as WP SYNTH doesnt apply, to enlighten the presumably unaware reader of this split. JJNito197 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to be brought to a close, the requesting editor is non EC, WP:ARBECR refers.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier Hi Selfstudier, as a non EC that's what I requested an edit per protocol. Seems odd to shut down a discussion regarding misuse of source/omission of content in source. Should be a concern for all editors. Chavmen (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be concluded, either as not done or with some edit. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand what is the problem with the edit request. Chavmen made an effort and read the source and asked for a correction. I don't think its correct to close the discussion, especially considering the effort the editor made. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not closed, it needs to be, one way or another. A non EC editor cannot monopolize the talk page with ongoing argument and editors responding need to make a decision. Selfstudier (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier Hi Selfstudier, I didn't think I was monopolising the discussion - Okedem, Homerethegreat, and of course JJNito197 all had equal parts.
I was merely trying to achieve some rectification over the source use and sentence structure.
Up to you all now what to do with it. WP:LETITGO Chavmen (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Rephrase sentence

"In 1919, Palestinian Muslims and Palestinian Christians constituted 90 percent of the population of Palestine, just before the third wave of Jewish immigration under the British Mandate after World War I.[53][54]"

This gives the misleading impression that Muslims and Christians would have regarded themselves as "Palestinian", while Jews, having arrived later, would have seen themselves as "Non-palestinian" at the time. The term "Palestinian Muslim" is redundant as the sentence is about inhabitants of Palestine. However, according to the cited source, at the time there were roughly 80 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian and 10 percent Jewish people living in the area, and the Muslims considered themselves to be "Arabs". The second half of the sentence is redundant too, since the time (1919) is stated at the beginning. If needed, the specification "before the third wave of immigration..." could be a second sentence, but should also mention Muslim immigration between 1920 and 1938, otherwise the reader gets the impression that only Jews immigrated into the area of Palestine (same source, page 49, top). Suggestion:

"In 1919, Muslims constituted 80 percent, Jews 10 percent and Christians 10 percent of the population of Palestine. [53][54]. Following immigration of mainly European Jews and fewer Arabs would change that to ..." JacobK (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Arabs

Is it necessary to add this in the led? I mean that there are no other groups bearing the name. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are, there are Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Druze, etc. Andre🚐 09:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has to do with religion, not ethnic. In the end, they are all Palestinians with all their religious affiliations. I have never heard the word Palestinians associated with religion or language. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians&oldid=1188582970"