Talk:Palestinians

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Removed footnotes

1) Can someone please tell me what page this quote appears on in the book cited? I have removed it for now because I cannot find it and its main subject matter is Islamist organizations, not the cultural, ethnic or national composition of Palestinian society at large. Tiamut (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC) Tiamut (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It's in the conclusion chapter NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

2) There are two problems with this footnote. First, it is describing only Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, excluding the half of the Palestinian population who lives in exile. Second, it is from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, an Israeli thinktank founded by the IDF which has a securitized perspective and is not an appropriate source on the ethnic/national composition of Palestinians. Tiamut (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

an Israeli thinktank founded by the IDF Source..?

This source is good for expert opinion (idk if this is what was cited though) NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ethnonational in the lead - on what basis?

I see one source citing that terminology in the footnotes. And I cannot find the discussion that led to its use. The more salient description used by Palestinians themselves, and international legal institutions, as well as in scholarship is "national group": national group

• "The emergence of Palestinians as a national group [... cannot be solely based on biological roots or continuous habitation of their homeland, but primarily on when, and how they began to imagine and articulate themselves as belonging to a national group. At the same time, such imagination ought to be considered within the historical context in which it developed. In other words, the fact that the people whom we call Palestinians today are the descendants of the various groups that inhabited Palestine throughout its history is not enough to unpack the history of their national identity.]
• "The question of whether there was a Palestinian identity prior to Zionist colonisation in the late nineteenth century has been examined at length, and it is clear that the Palestinians identify themselves as a national group."
• "The Palestinian people constitute a national group for the purposes of the Genocide Convention. The Palestinians of the Gaza Strip constitute a substantial proportion of the Palestinian nation.

I would like to change "ethnonational" to "national" to reflect the scholarship and discourse used by international institutions, and respect Palestinian self-identification. Tiamut (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No one has any thoughts, objections, additions, modifications? Tiamut (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

How are you identifying what Palestinian self-identification is?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been thinking this matter over for the past week, but remain unsure so I'd like to ask, why do you believe the term "ethnonational group" is an inaccurate description?

I ask because, Palestinians being a distinct national group isn't mutually exclusive to them being an ethnonational one, as ethnonational groups are themselves a type of national group. If the contention is related to the quote from your first source, specifically the matter of genetics &/or the Palestinian diaspora though, I'll note that ethnicity refers to a group's shared culture, history, & language. Also I think it's important to be clear here that, despite their similar names, "ethnonational group" ≠ "ethnic nationalism". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

First, its not a commonly used or understood term. Sources are much more likely to use "nation" or "national group", and this term is used international law, and has important rights associated with it, including self-determination. Second, it evokes pejorative secondary meanings, as you pointed out, which while may not be intended, are still there. One of the associated meanings it conjures is too close to ethnocracy, which scholars have used to describe Israel's narrowly defined nationalism. Third, it flattens Palestinian ethnic diversity. There are many different Palestinian sub-ethnicities: Palestinian, Armenian, Samaritan, etc. They may be small, and culturally Arabized in many cases, but slso retain their own distinctive histories, kinship patterns etc. And are not less Palestinian for that either. Tiamut (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Scholarly literature identifies Palestinians as a people, a nation, and an ethnic group; these are not mutually exclusive. The term "national group" is inherently ambiguous, as it conflates civic and ethnic definitions. Using it without clarification is misleading. In this context, "ethnonational" is the precise term that accurately captures the overlap of ethnic and national identity for Palestinians.

2. "Ethnonational" is a neutral, standard sociological term, not a pejorative one. It describes a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and national identity, like the Kurds. Please note that "ethnonational group" is distinct from "ethnic nationalism" or "ethnocracy"; conflating these concepts is inaccurate.

3. The current text already defines Palestinians as an "Arab national group." If the concern is that "ethnic" flattens non-Arab minorities, the word "Arab" already does that by definition. Also, being an ethno-national group does not mean you cannot have internal sub-ethnic divisions.

"Ethno-national" or "ethnic" are significantly more precise descriptors that prevent the erasure of the group's specific ethnic identity. Spooky1235 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As I explained in the response to your edit request below, you are not permitted to engage in talk on contentious topics until extended confirmed. Also, your argument provides no new sources to evaluate and weigh against the ones above.

For others joining the conversation, I reverted this edit because it used the sources I added to change the text to a redlink ethnonation, and was made by an editor who chose not to participate in this discussion, and instead invoke "no consesnsus". That is not how things work here actually. Waiting for your engagement. Tiamut (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Linguistics means language.

So we don't need to mention language twice in one sentence twice.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this in the lrad, if that is what you are talking about. Languages like Arabic have dialects. Palestinian Arabic is the particularly Palestinian one, even though it overlaps sometimes with Lebanese Arabic, Egyptian Arabic, Syrian Arabic, or Levantine Arabic in general depending on region. Tiamut (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The spoken variety isn't a defining characteristic of Palestinians. I don't see what it adds to the lede. And since linguistic connections is mentioned, the link to Palestinian Arabic seems unnecessary.

Also, your third source seems suspect. Who would describe Palestinian Christians as "politically insignificant"? They've been an important part of PFLP and several other important parties. Edward Said among many others.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

How is Palestinian Arabic not one of several defining characteristics of Palestinians?

Also the footnotes here are extremely suspect. That is why I removed them from the article. (See Talk:Palestinians#Removed footnotes. Tiamut (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that having a distinct dialect is definitely one of the characteristics of Palestinians, and there is significant literature on that. Zero^talk 13:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic is the dialect, with Palestinians speaking a few different varieties. So I don't know what you mean by "having a distinct dialect is definitely one of the characteristics of Palestinians" when they exist on a language spectrum. I'm interested in what literature you are referring to, since in linguistics they wouldn't use terms like dialect so loosely.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabic consist of several sub-dialects and types, many of which share similarities with Levantine speakers (in the urban and bedouin dislects for example). However, there are distinct rural dialects, unique to Palestinian Arabic. This is recognized in the scholarship here. As described here, Palestinian Arabic dialects are influenced by migration and contact. It is however recognized as a distinct subgroup. Tiamut (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your second source groups "The dialects of Palestine and Jordan (including the Horan region)" as a single "grouping" within Levantine Arabic. Note that Horan includes parts of southern Syria. So that particular academic paper doesn't group things neatly into national lines. Your first source also makes clear that the Palestinian Bedouin "dialect type" associates more with other Bedouins and urban varieties with other cities in the Levant, since "Palestinian Arabic is part of the Greater Syria dialect area, encompassing multiple regions."

But let's get back to why I started this section. Because Palestinians have "close linguistic and cultural ties" explains enough about Palestinian speech. At least for the lede.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

It does that because there are Palestinian refugees in those areas, and the contact produces a merging in inflections. This does not obviate the existence of Palestinian Arabic, nor does mentioning it exists means it has to be homogeneous. Every colloquial dialect has variations/sub-dialects. Someone who speaks British English in one part of Britain differs from those in another. It doesn't mean we don't mention that they do. Tiamut (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the existence of Palestinian Arabic as a type of speech. I made this section to explain why I removed it from the first paragraph of the lede. We already mention linguistic ties.

As your sources point out, Palestinian speech exists on a spectrum, and isn't used to identify who is or isn't a Palestinian. Many Palestinians don't speak Arabic. So their particular variation or sub-dialect or whichever (of many) terms linguists choose to use doesn't belong in the lede.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war over it, but given there is a section about it in the article, and it is the actual native language of Palestinians (who still know their mother tongue, many don't because of displacement) it does seem pertinent to mention in the lead. Tiamut (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Linguistic ties is already mentioned once. Why twice? A lede should have brevity.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Because its vague, and does not even include a wikilink to either Levantine Arabic or Palestinian Arabic. Leads are a concise summary,.not a set of generalities. Tiamut (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, I added wikilinks here that help the reader understand what is being referred to. Tiamut (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 25 May 2026

Description of suggested change: The term “ethnic and national group” is more precise. The academic literature frequently describes Palestinians in both ethnic, national, and ethnonational terms. This reflects the overlap already present in the sources more precisely than “national group” alone. This change prevents the potential erasure of the group's distinct ethnic character and aligns the article with academic scholarship and discourse.

−

Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab national group

+

Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون, romanized: al-Filasṭīniyyūn) are an Arab ethnic and national group

Spooky1235 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done:

One of the sources you are seeking to reinstate was removed because it is not a reliable source on Palestinian peoplehood or nationhood (See section "Removed footnotes" above.) I also explained why ethnonational was removed in the subsection above and your response there was not compelling (providing no new sources to consider, only your opinion). I also did not respond, as you are not extended-confirmed and should not be engaged in commentary here until you are (see notice at the top of the page). Tiamut (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

You clearly don't have consensus for this change, TIamut, so I went ahead and reverted it. (t · c) buIdhe 22:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I proposed the edit before making it in the section Talk:Palestinians#Ethnonational in the lead - on what basis?. I waited several days, and when no one answered after I again asked if there were any objections I made it. Others came then to discuss. No one reverted the edit. Only you now, based on this edit request. I encourage you to engage in the discussion there if the subject interests you and not make edits on behalf of others invoking nebluous claims of a lack of consesnus. Tiamut (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Broad reference most often describe Palestinians as a people, a nation, or an ethnic/ethnonational group. Governmental, census, and demographic sources classify Palestinians as an ethnic group. Multiple other fields of literature explicitly use "ethnonational group". In legal discourse, it is “the Palestinian people”, very few sources referencing “nation” or “ethnicity". I am not sure on what basis you identified "national" as the more "salient" descriptor.

Since academic literature frequently describes Palestinians in ethnic, national, and ethnonational terms, and because “ethnonational group” is an established descriptor for a population understood as both an ethnicity and a nation, it appears to reflect the overlap already present in the sources, this does not violate WP:NOR as reliable sources already explicitly use the term for the same reasons. But to find middle ground, describing Palestinians as an "ethnic and national group" instead of "ethno-national" would also be accurate and precise, because it is reflective of the range of terminology used. Again, this wording "Arab national group" omits and underrepresents the distinct Palestinian ethnic character and might cause confusion among readers.

P.S. Your other claim i.e. the term “ethnonational group” carries pejorative “secondary meanings” is not supported by reliable sources and appears to conflate three distinct concepts: ethnonational groups, ethnic nationalism, and ethnocracy. The relevant Wikipedia articles I linked are useful for background on these concepts. I am also not sure whether I’m allowed to reply to you in this section or not so please let me know if I should not be replying here.

Spooky1235 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC) Spooky1235 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

With respect, only one of the footnotes your provided uses "ethnonational" and one discusses "ethnonationalism" among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Neither refers to Palestinians as an "ethnonational group". "Ethnic" is also a very vague problematic term, even when used to describe Arabs, especially Arabized Arabs like Palestinians who are Arab primarily int he sense of constituting an ethno-linguistic group, with Arab nationalism and Arab identity playing a big role in their identity formation. In any case, there is no need to say "ethnic and national group", when it already says "Arab national group", Arab here serving as the "ethnic" descriptor. If you review the main body of the article, which spends much time explaining the mixed "ethnic" contributions over history and the development and interplay of Arab and Palestinian national identities, I believe the current wording is the most accurate description (in addition to the many sources that clearly and overwhelmingly use "nation"/"national group"). Tiamut (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not an uncontroversial edit request, which is what is permitted under WP:ECR. See Wikipedia:Edit requests, which states that edit requests to extended confirmed restricted topics by editors who are not yet extended confirmed are expected to be uncontroversial without requiring further discussion. This has been contested, and so isn't uncontroversial. XC editors can discuss elsewhere. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Original research?

The source cited to support this deleted edit says: "The distinguishing feature of genocide is that the perpetrator commits the specific underlying acts of the offence with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. The Palestinian people constitute a national group for the purposes of the Genocide Convention. The Palestinians of the Gaza Strip constitute a substantial proportion of the Palestinian nation. The ICJ is concerned that certain statements by senior officials and politicians in Israel disclose evidence of what may be characterised as intent to destroy Palestinians of the Gaza Strip."

Please explain how this is original research. Perhaps you mean something else? Tiamut (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Referencing the International Committee of Jurists makes it seem like they are a UN body or something similar. They aren't even that prominent of an organization. The sentence stood out to me as pushing a narrative. And since it concerns a current event, we should be especially sensitive about how things are worded.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

So your issue is that they are not an WP:RS? It is a 70 year old organizarion of jurists and lawyers committed to human rights. Tiamut (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Also following your deletion, there is no mention of the Gaza genocide in the article. Given it affects a significant part of the Palestinian people its exclusion is POV by omission. Tiamut (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Why reference the ICJ though? Is it because UN bodies have not found it to be "genocide" so you are using a different source to make that statement?

Of course current events can be discussed, but it must be done properly. The way it was before was sloppy and confusing.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

What was sloppy or confusing? I chose that reference because it ties the genocide explicitly to Palestinian people, as a national group, which is a key prerequisite for the Convention's application. Do you have any constructive additions of your own you would like to suggest. There are several well-sourced statements to the UN at the Gaza genocide. If there one you prefer? Tiamut (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The International Committee of Jurists isn't a well known enough organization to have its name thrown out like their opinions are definitive.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Your initial objection was OR. Don't teally understand what it is now exactly. Not an WP:RS because it says a genocide is happening? Shall we ask WP:RSN? Tiamut (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to remove reference to any ICJ that isn't the International Court of Justice.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be a personal opinion rather then an objection based in any policy.

Why did you initially cite WP:OR in your removal despite not once referencing it in this discussion, let alone acknowledge the repeated requests for you to do so?

Regardless though, OR clearly doesn't apply here as the material was both well-sourced & clearly attributed. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, so I have undone the edit. User:ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen: please get consensus on talk, before you remove a sourced edit, thanks, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on my concern that referencing the International Committee of Jurists is confusing with the International Court of Justice?

I feel like you didn't join the discussion, but rather decided to render a verdict.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Its wikilinked. And the ICJ has also called on states to prevent genocide in Gaza. So I don't understand the concern. Tiamut (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

User:ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen: since you are the only one who have problems distinguishing International Court of Justice from International Commission of Jurists; sorry, no, I don't see this as a great concern, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The ICJ has not rendered a decision on the question of genocide in Gaza. So instead of mentioning the ongoing case, a similarly named NGO's voice is being used to assert the genocide. Please don't just ignore this concern.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The ICJ has also called on Israel and other states to prevent genocide in Gaza: In February 2024, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both released statements declaring Israel had failed to comply with the ICJ's 26 January ruling to prevent genocide by blocking aid from entering Gaza. And that is what the text I added says, that states have been called upon to prevent genocide. Tiamut (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Tiamut (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

So can we remove the counterfeit ICJ and just stick with major groups?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen many innovative reasons put forward for removing text, but asserting that an eminent organization can't be cited because it has the same initials as a different eminent organization takes the prize. Congratulations. Zero^talk 11:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what use this kind of language serves.

But if you'd return to good faith, are you saying there isn't a tendency for readers to assume the International Commission of Jurists is associated with the UN or the ICJ? And are you sure they are "eminent"? They have a staff of 60.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's our responsibility to be clear, which in this case we satisfy by spelling out the name and wikilinking it to the article on the organization. It is generally regarded as eminent, yes, as it has a remarkable collection of judges, lawyers, and academic experts in international law and often works in collaboration with bodies including UN bodies (see here for example). Many of the members would be fine to cite by themselves. Moreover, a quick look at their website shows they are very far from being concerned mainly with Israel-Palestine. Zero^talk 14:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

So why not give the opinion of the International Court of Justice, instead of an NGO that sometimes works with UN bodies and doesn't have near the name recognition of a group like Amnesty or MSF?ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in your comment. Both organizations are citable. Zero^talk 04:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, but one is obviously more notable.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Origin of the Palestinians

AfD might be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the Palestinians BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)