Edit warring

With this edit, editor @Pyramids09: reverted stable material with claim "Removing misleading information from lead and formatting", was reverted but repeated the revert without initiating any discussion, which I then reverted as tendentious.

Then @Shoogiboogi: reverted arguing no consensus and that in turn was reverted.

I trust that there will be a discussion before any further reverts, which judging by This RFC and the talk section #Indigeneity above, appear to have no valid basis. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The indigeneity section of this talk page was begun after similar edit warring by two accounts later found to be socks of banned accounts. And round and round it goes!Dan Murphy (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also very concerned that information with respect to Palestinians being native or indigenous keep getting removed. Bogazicili (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put together one of those giant multirefs for "indigenous", which should put that to bed; as far as I can tell that is the word used by every single scholar in this field (that I've checked so far). Also as far as I can tell, the only accounts that have challenged "indigenous" in recent years are the User:ABHammad sockfarm accounts (now globally locked). Levivich (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue with "indigenous" is that it has different definitions depending on the field, such as [1].
"Native" is far less likely to be challenged in the lead.
I'll also be improving the Genetics section in the coming days and weeks. Bogazicili (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, though, because if all the RSes use "indigenous" and none use "native", Wikipedia's hands are tied on this. We can't OR our way around it by picking a word we think will be less likely to be challenged (even though I agree, it's less likely to be challeneged). We can't rewrite history for the sake of bringing stability to our articles, V and NPOV means using the same word the RSes use. I think when we're looking at a list of dozens of sources that includes every historian we can think of, we'll all "get it." Levivich (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by field. Historians may say "indigenous" but from international law perspective, it might have a more narrow definition. Maybe you can add a qualifier. Something like:
"Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab ethnonational group native to the region of Palestine. Historians see Palestinians as indigenous to their lands". Bogazicili (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain it's about sources. We don't need to look up the definition of "indigenous" and then decide if it applies to Palestinian--that would be WP:OR. If the sources for this article says "indigenous," then this article says "indigenous," and that's it, even if we (or some of us) think the label doesn't apply. The sources are who decides if the labels apply. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Levivich who added this to begin with, before the above mentioned RFC and when we were still collecting sources but it seems to me that the matter has been resolved in favor of indigenous now, no reason to use an inaccurate wording. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili, I think you're possibly confusing Indigenous (narrow definition; often capitalised as a result) with indigenous (broad definition; uncapitalised). The former is certainly more debated but the latter is broadly accepted when it comes to the Palestinians. We aren't capitalising indigenous so we aren't claiming the narrower definition. So Levivich and Selfstudier are right. Furthermore, when uncapitalised, native can refer more broadly to anyone born in a location ("an LA native"), so is broader than indigenous (which implies a connection to the land which preceded the age of European colonialism and imperialism – which is certainly accurate for the Palestinians). Uncapitalised indigenous is therefore preferable, and doesn't require minority status, settler colonialism (though many academics also argue for Zionism as settler colonialism), etc, as with capital-I Indigenous. Lewisguile (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile: you may be totally right! I don't claim to be an expert on this, I just suggested dispute resolution such as an RfC. Bogazicili (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. However, this is very much wrong. If we go by the common definition of indigenous, which states "Inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists", then the Jews would be indigenous, as Jews (or, in this case, their Israelite ancestors) are the first recorded people to inhabit the land of Palestine, being recorded in the Merneptah Stele.[1][2][3]. Expulsion does not remove the status of indigenous. Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs came from Arabia during the Muslim conquests of the seventh century.[4] Although some claim descendants from the Canaanites, this has been throughly disproven via archeological evidence, as well as testimonials from Palestinians themselves.[5]. Therefore, a more accurate lede would go something like this: Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an ethnonational group descending from inhabitants of the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who are culturally and linguistically Arab. This was the lede for a while, being accurate and well sourced. I restored this lede in a recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinians&oldid=1265135214), which was then reverted without a stated reason along with a sockpuppet accusation. I believe that we should return to this correct lede, or at least hold a new RFC about this topic. Cheers. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If someone could collapse the references that would be nice. Pyramids09 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to RfC on this. The sources are clear. For example,
There was no Anglo settler colony style population replacement in Palestine:
  • Dowty, A. (2023). Israel / Palestine (5th ed.). Polity Press. ISBN 978-1-5095-5483-6., Chapter 3: The Arab Story to 1914:

    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

  • Chapter 10: The Perfect Conflict:

    Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

  • Genetic studies also seem to confirm this. For example, The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant: People related to these individuals contributed to all present-day Levantine populations. Especially note Figure S4. Megiddo in the link refers to samples recovered from Megiddo, Israel. These samples: "most of whom date to the Middle-to-Late Bronze Age, except for one dating to the Intermediate Bronze Age and one dating to the Early Iron Age" Bogazicili (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I definitely want an RfC on this. This content seems to be subject to long-term abuse, so I'd like a Wikipedia consensus on this. Bogazicili (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could, although as I said above Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RFC Palestine is already determinative, the close "Editors in favour of inclusion have provided sources that consider the situation in Palestine one that is relevant to this article. Those opposed have failed to challenge the significance of this view, or the reliability of the sources.", in addition the plethora of available sourcing also seems conclusive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be considerate about how much community time we consume in these RfCs, but I definitely think we should proceed with an RfC if the edit war continues. Bogazicili (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the available evidence suggests Palestinians are indigenous to the land, and are related to Jews and Samaritans, and others in the Levant (the links upthread to the study on Iron Age Canaanite populations is useful). If Arabisation removed indigeneity, then the Egyptians wouldn't be indigenous either. And would Hellenisation have the same effect, too? Incidentally, many undisputed capital-I Indigenous groups did arrive after/replace other groups – take the Kalinago, who reportedly replaced the Igneri and much of the Taíno, or the Inuit who reportedly replaced the earlier Dorset culture. So that's evidently not a deal-breaker, even if it did apply. But what we're learning more and more is that many of these cultures didn't so much invade and replace older cultures but were subsumed into them. Clean breaks are relatively rare. Which is why British people today still have genetic continuity with bodies from 40,000 years ago, despite all the different people – Picts, Celts, Romans, Danes, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc – who have lived on the British Isles. Lewisguile (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the edit war by another account continues. I'm considering the recent single change as part of a multi-account long-term edit war. We can proceed to RfC. Or perhaps we can put the claim that Palestinians aren't native to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do anything just yet, let's wait a bit, see what happens.@Levivich:, are you still with the idea of just going with indigenous? Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd recommend some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Articles in Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict seem to have constantly spawning socks: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Makeandtoss
For those that cannot constantly spawn, if you don't want to end up like this in a future arbitration case, I'd recommend dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First we need to resolve the indigenous thing, I already said above I would prefer that, do I have a dispute with you tho? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I just want you to keep the reality of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict in mind. My recommendation is:
1. Gather the sources and quotes from sources.
2. Proceed to dispute resolution.
Bogazicili (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on WP for a while and am familiar with dispute resolution and source gathering, thanks for the heads up tho. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I specifically mean by number 1 is that we can make a Talk:Palestinians/Indigineity page or a template such as Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate with the sources and quotes. I like the formatting in the template, because it also shows the expertise area of authors. Bogazicili (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A template would be really helpful. Lewisguile (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with a template, I just don't see why it is necessary when it has already been demonstrated, namely by adding the Palestinians to the article Genocide of indigenous peoples and having that confirmed in an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's helpful to avoid future edit wars. I agree it's fine to include the language now, too, though. Lewisguile (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I still think it should say "indigenous". Levivich (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili:, forgetting about templates for a minute, when you restored a version earlier, you reintroduced "native" and have made further comments about that since, so my question is are you also on board with "indigenous"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted back to native because that was the stable version following discussion here: Talk:Palestinians/Archive_27#Indigeneous
I am not sure of "indigenous" without any qualifiers. There is no consistent definition of "indigenous" to begin with.
In human rights, it seems to be used something like minority rights, such as indigenous people living as minorities in colonized countries. Palestinians would be the majority in Palestine, even though it's currently occupied.
For fields such as history, or settler colonial studies, indigenous seem to be used. For science fields such as genetics, scientists usually avoid statements with 100% certainty [2].
If you say "various experts described Palestinians as indigenous", there would be no issues. My own writing could be too cautious though, it was called "wishy washy" before. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me put it another way, do you disagree with the Palestinians being included in the Genocide of indigenous peoples list? Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Within the scope of that article that also includes Irish, Slavs, etc, no. Inclusion doesn't necessarily mean text in wikivoice by the way.
Instead of getting stuck on one word, we can also expand the first paragraph. This quote from the first source explains everything concisely: "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". We can just reword some of this and add it into the first paragraph? Bogazicili (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea being that descended from Jews, other Semitic groups, and non-Semitic groups such as the Philistines are qualifiers? Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No something like: According to Alan Dowty [or various historians with multiple sources], Palestinians descend from the indigenous people from the Palestine area. Vast majority of Palestinians speak Arabic and they are mostly Muslim.
This is actually a rephrase of the second quote. "According to" part is the qualifier. Bogazicili (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's attribution, usually used when there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing so as not to allow a statement in Wikivoice. Is that your position? Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I wanted to see more sources to see if "there is sufficient disagreement in sourcing". I only covered several sources sources so far myself, I didn't go through the entire literature. So the answer to your question is that I don't have a fixed position. My position depends on the sources provided.
Currently, there is definitely enough for content with in-text attribution or saying "various experts" Bogazicili (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We only say "various experts say X" if other experts say not X. So far I am unaware of any historian or other scholar who says Palestinians are not indigenous, and absent a showing that there is a significant number who say this (as significant as the number who say they are indigenous, which is certainly more than 10, I'm not sure exactly how many), I'm not convinced about attribution.
@Bogazicili: I understand what you're saying about not having gone through the entire literature and not wanting to stake a wikivoice statement on a small number of sources. How many sources saying "indigenous" would convince you that it's the mainstream view and should be said in wikivoice? Levivich (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find several review articles and say "Historians consider Palestinians as indigenous."
Again, in science fields, you won't find that 100% certainty, they may say: "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region." (from Origin of the Palestinians)
Do you see the difference between an arts field and a science field? Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should talk to Harry Ostrer, a geneticist without any doubts whatsoever. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can also argue the term "indigenous" is more appropriate for historians, and genetics is not a relevant context. That's another reason why I don't have a concrete position.
Bunch of ethnicity articles in Wikipedia use "native" though, so it seems easier to use. For example, Irish people, who are also in Genocide of indigenous peoples Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would need sourcing for that instead, so same problem, maybe worse problem because I think that might be quite a bit harder to find. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is another reason why I suggested an RfC after gathering sources.
I know it's extra work, but something like Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate could be very useful. This is a core area of anti-Palestinian racism [3]
RfCs seem to be useful even when there are a lot of socks. The second RfC at Genocide of indigenous peoples seems to have settled to issue, even though some socks were later identified. Bogazicili (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Day (2005), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 47.5 [48] 'In this sense, the emergence of ancient Israel is viewed not as the cause of the demise of Canaanite culture but as its upshot'.
  2. ^ Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012). Western civilization (8th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-495-91324-5. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes
  3. ^ Thompson, Thomas L. (1 January 2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources. BRILL. pp. 137ff. ISBN 978-90-04-11943-7. They are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.
  4. ^ Hertz, Allen (2014-02-18). "Aboriginal rights of the Jewish People". Times of Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  5. ^ Katz, Samuel. Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. p. 126. ISBN 978-0933503038.

Edit request 16 February 2025

Description of suggested change: The current article does not include the updated number of Palestinians living in Germany. According to a 2024 report by *Frankfurter Rundschau*, there are now over 200,000 Palestinians in Germany.

Diff:

−
The article currently states a lower number or does not include this statistic.
+
Laut der Frankfurter Rundschau lebten 2024 über 200.000 Palästinenser in Deutschland.

87.78.71.70 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Palästinenser in Deutschland – „Das ist nicht mehr mein Land"". fr.de. 2024-02-12. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinians
No tags for this post.