This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Arctic List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The reference is here: ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Aramean people are the indigenous people of Syria/Lebanon (Aram) and Mesopotamia (Aram Naharaim, Paddan-Aram, Tur-Abdin).

The intended purpose of this listing is to provide a survey and overview of various distinct peoples, communities and societies who may be referred to as an indigenous people, even if some other terminology may be in more common use (for example, Native American).

Not every ethnic group article or stub will warrant inclusion in this listing. The term indigenous peoples has a distinct meaning as per the main indigenous peoples article, which is more specific than the general sense of "a people or group considered native to, or originating from, a given place".

The following are criteria suggested as guidelines for determining whether any particular people or group ought to be listed here. These criteria are put forward as an attempt to forestall any need for POV-based inclusion (or exclusion), particularly in cases where the claim to identity as an indigenous people may be contentious, inconsistent or unclear.

• an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either:
  1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or
  2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or
  3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or
  4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

That source should naturally be cited on the relevant page (and perhaps here on the listing, also). Where there is (independent) contention about identifying any particular group as an indigenous people, the contention should be noted in the relevant article along with the cited reference(s) in which this contention appears. See Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some further discussion. --cjllw | TALK 04:16, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Please discuss all topics from archives on current talk page.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005-2007)

Archive of past discussion (2005-2007)

• 2 Current listing
• 3 Sorbs (Wends) do not identify themselves as an "indigenous people"
• 4 What should be listed under "Circumpolar North"
• 5 Are Copts considered a people
• 6 Are the Jews an indigenous people? also Talk:List of indigenous peoples/Comments
• 7 No more Ainu on Sakhalin island
• 8 Indigenous Finns?
• 9 Tongans: A problematic inclusion
• 10 Removal of two sub-lists
• 11 Palestinians are indigenous

Archives

Archive 2 (2007-2008)

Archive of past discussion (2007-2008)

I recently took the time to weed out all Somali clans out of the list but i have an objection to the inclusion of the Somali people to this list. In my view we somalis are not an indigenous people. Indigenous people are defined in the main article as “a politically underprivileged group, who share a similar ethnic identity different to the nation in power, and who have been an ethnic entity in the locality before the present ruling nation took over power” (Greller, 1997). Somalis do not fit this description, we have our own country in which we are the overwhelming majority. That is why i took the Somali people of this list.Emperorgrey 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However much I fear stepping into this discussion I think that it is a bit amusing that the Aymara (and for that matter the Quechua...and the various Kichwa speakers if you want to separate them out) have not made it onto the list or discussion in some form. However much I think this whole discussion is incredibility silly (to the degree that I am completing a PhD on it...which I should be working on now), it surprises me that the group that Bolivia's "first indigenous president" belongs to is not on the list. Indeed the UN Declaration of the rights of Indigenous People party took place in Bolivia at the archaeological site of Tiwanaku with Rigoberta Menchu (who gets to be indigenous according to this list) in attendance along with President Morales. Perhaps this absence stems from the completely laughable and contradictory criteria that an indigenous person must belong to an oppressed minority group within a modern state. Bolivia's indigenous majority and indigenous president, on those terms, makes everyone not indigenous any more. Does self identification win against political and cultural majority? Because indigenous Bolivians sure THINK that they are indigenous and have been feeling pretty good about that lately. According to this list, that probably doesn't matter...unless you are from Tonga.

I am curious: were the Aymara de-listed after Morales was voted in? Politics, politics.

Anyhow, I am loath to debate this so do your research and change what you will. I think lists like this wrongly simplify the fluid nature of cultural identity and allow non-indigenous people to use the concept of indigenousness for their own purposes. Heck I have a phd thesis on Bolivian indigenous archaeology to write. Radiotik (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Palestinians and cited a number of sources for their inclusion. I'll list each sources under the relevant criterion below but before I do I want to address the matter of WP:RS. The guideline says, in part: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I make no claims, pro or con, about the general reliability of the sources I cite for criteria 1, 2, and 4 but I do assert the sources are reliable for the specific context for which I cite them here. Regarding criterion 3, the two sources I cite are books published by well-established, mainstream academic publishers. I cannot say for certain that the books in question have been subjected to "peer review" but I am confident they have been subjected to professional in-house editorial review. Also, the criteria for inclusion are "suggested as guidelines," they are not rigid requirements. I submit that Israel/Palestine and the Encyclopedia of Diasporas satisfy WP:RS and criterion 3.

• Criterion 1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or

United Nations (30 June 1978). The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 5 April 2011.

• Criterion 2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or

Minority Rights Group International (1997). World Directory of Minorities. London, UK: Minority Rights Group International. ISBN 978-18-73194-36-2.

According to their web site, MRGI has "consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights".

• Criterion 3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7.

Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (2005). Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Vol. 2 Diaspora Communities. New York, NY: Springer. ISBN 978-03-06483-21-9. OCLC 315151735.

Alan Dowty's scholarly credentials are discussed in his Wikipedia bio. The Embers and Skoggard don't yet have Wikipedia bios but they are cited numerous times as sources in Wikipedia.

• Criterion 4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

The Local Preparatory Committee of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (Undated). Statement submitted to: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Haifa, Israel: Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. Retrieved 6 April 2011. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (June 2006). The Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel: Status, Opportunities and Challenges for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace (PDF). Haifa, Israel: Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel. Retrieved 6 April 2011.

DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding consensus at Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2#Request_for_Comment:_Palestinian_indigeneity and Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2#Proposal_for_inclusion that there is no consensus to add "Palestinians" to the list, for the reasons listed above. Please don't re-add it without gaining consensus to do so. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Third Opinion: Dispute with Plot Spoiler

On 5 April 2011, I added Palestinians to the List of Indigenous Peoples of Southwest Asia. Plot Spoiler, six hours later, reverted that and several intermediate edits. On 6 April, I restored the deleted texts and added additional sources. I also left the following message on Plot Spoiler's Talk Page: "... before you again revert my addition of Palestinians to the List of indigenous peoples please explain on the talk page what criteria you feel Palestinans do not meet for inclusion." I also explained on this Talk Page how the references I provided satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of Palestinians. Nevertheless, Plot Spoiler reverted my edits without discussing them on any Talk Page. Plot Spoiler's edit summary simply says, "per longstanding talk page consensus".

I have reviewed this Talk Page and its archives. It's not clear to me that there was any consensus to exclude Palestinians from the list when this was last discussed in 2007. In any case, to quote WP:CCC: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding."

As an alternative to an edit war I will be requesting a Third Opinion. DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed due to the lack of sufficient discussion about the dispute. As stated at the Third Opinion project, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." You are to be commended for taking this matter to dispute resolution rather than prolonging the conflict. If you still feel that you need dispute resolution for this matter, you might want to consider taking it to the content noticeboard or doing a request for comments. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria has been met

I believe the new sources provided meet the criteria outlined and indicate that an entry for Palestinians on this page is appropriate. I should disclose that I tried a number of times to include an entry for Palestinians but voluntarily desisted after the difficulty I met with in trying to do so. The input of longtime editors to this page on this issue, which was given in the past, would be appreciated now. In the last discussion with some of you before giving up, I sensed that some felt the burden of proof may have in fact been met, but there was hesistance because of the edit-warring that tended to take place when Palestinians were listed, and that there was a desire for more unequivocal proof. Could we hear from you all again now in light of the new material provided? Tiamut^talk 19:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Plot Spoiler: Concerning Consensus

As I wrote above, I have reviewed this Talk Page and its archives. It's not clear to me that there was any consensus to exclude Palestinians from the list when this was last discussed in 2007. Also, here is a longer excerpt from WP:CCC (emphasis added):

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2011

I've added Palestinians and cited a number of sources for their inclusion. I'll list each sources under the relevant criterion below but before I do I want to address the matter of WP:RS. The guideline says, in part: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." I make no claims, pro or con, about the general reliability of the sources I cite for criteria 1, 2, and 4 but I do assert the sources are reliable for the specific context for which I cite them here. Regarding criterion 3, the two sources I cite are books published by well-established, mainstream academic publishers. I cannot say for certain that the books in question have been subjected to "peer review" but I am confident they have been subjected to professional in-house editorial review. Also, the criteria for inclusion are "suggested as guidelines," they are not rigid requirements. I submit that Israel/Palestine and the Encyclopedia of Diasporas satisfy WP:RS and criterion 3.

• Criterion 1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or

United Nations (30 June 1978), The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988, Part I, New York: United Nations, retrieved 5 April 2011

• Criterion 2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or

Minority Rights Group International (1997), World Directory of Minorities, London, UK: Minority Rights Group International, ISBN 978-18-73194-36-2

According to their web site, MRGI has "consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights".

• Criterion 3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7. 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.

Farsoun, Samih K. (2005), "Palestinian Diasporas", in Ember, Melvin; Ember, Carol R.; Skoggard, Ian (eds.), Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World, vol. 2, New York, NY: Springer, ISBN 978-03-06483-21-9, OCLC 315151735, The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.

Forman, Geremy; Kedar, Alexandre (2003), "Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 4 (2): 491–539

Peled, Yoav (2007), "Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime", Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8 (2): 603–628, Israel is the effective sovereign in the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and it has incorporated the indigenous Palestinian population of this area into its control system in two different ways: some as second-class citizens of Israel, but most as subjects devoid of rights living under military rule.

Alan Dowty's scholarly credentials are discussed in his Wikipedia bio. The Embers and Skoggard don't yet have Wikipedia bios but they are cited numerous times as sources in Wikipedia. The two journal articles are both peer-reviewed and from Theoretical Inquiries in Law.

• Criterion 4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

The Local Preparatory Committee of Palestinian NGOs in Israel (Undated), Statement submitted to: World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Haifa, Israel: Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Palestinians are also an indigenous group entitled to the recognition of their historical claims and the receipt of compensation, as outlined in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (June 2006), The Palestinian Arab Citizens of Israel: Status, Opportunities and Challenges for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace (PDF), Haifa, Israel: Mossawa Center - The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel, retrieved 6 April 2011, Consisting of those who remained and were internally displaced during the creation of the state and their descendents, Palestinian Arab citizens are an indigenous population to Israel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DieWeisseRose (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 April 2011

Why are Palestinians included and the Old Yishuv ignored? DionysosElysees (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)talk[reply]

I have removed a lie inserted by a self-identified Palestinian Arab from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgandz (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not remove any lies, you removed sourced facts and added unsourced text instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I removed sourced lies. How can Arabs be indigenous if Jews lived in Palestine before them? Have you never heard of the Kingdom of Israel? As you can see from that page, there were multiple kingdoms of Israel before Arabs invaded the region. Even if Palestinian Arabs somehow are indigenous, which is logically infeasible, how can Jews not be indigenous? Tgandz (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources show Palestinian are indigenous: Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7. "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.", Peled, Yoav (2007), "Citizenship Betrayed: Israel's Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime", Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8 (2): 603–628, "Israel is the effective sovereign in the entire area of Mandatory Palestine, and it has incorporated the indigenous Palestinian population of this area into its control system in two different ways: some as second-class citizens of Israel, but most as subjects devoid of rights living under military rule." The text you added is unsourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question: How can Arabs be indigenous to Palestine if Jews lived there before them? Tgandz (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have showed two reliable sources that show that Palestinians are the indigenous people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the first Kingdom of Israel (1020–931 B.C.), Northern Kingdom of Israel (931–722 B.C.), the Kingdom of Judah (931–586 B.C.), the Hasmonean/Maccabee religious Jewish religious kingdom (140–37 B.C.), the region of Judea, and the Roman province of Judaea never existed? Interesting how Arabs can several centuries later invade Judea in the seventh century A.D. and somehow become indigenous.

Here are the origins for the name of the so-called "Palestinians": H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 334: "In an effort to wipe out all memory of the bond between the Jews and the land, Hadrian changed the name of the province from Iudaea to Syria-Palestina, a name that became common in non-Jewish literature."

This describes how the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs invaded from Mecca and elsewhere in the Arabian peninsula and conquered Judea from the Byzantines (Greek Romans), who in turn had conquered the land from the Jews: Gil, Moshe; Ethel Broido (1997). A History of Palestine. Cambridge University Press, pp. 634–1099. ISBN 978-0-521-59984-9.

Clearly, the references cited by the Arabs on this page are inaccurate and not reliable. If indigenous peoples are the first known inhabitants of a land, then "Palestinian" Arabs are clearly not indigenous to Israel, unless the authors of the cited works are applying to "indigenous" a completely different and non-standard meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgandz (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People source doesn't contradict that Palestinians are indigenous as the Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. ISBN 978-07-45642-43-7 source says: "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.". Your Gil, Moshe; Ethel Broido (1997). A History of Palestine source, is not a quote, but your own commentary about it, so cant comment on it, bring quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"descendants of all the indigenous people"? That means they themselves are not indigenous. If I have some Indian blood in me, that doesn't make me a Native American. Is it so crazy to leave politics off a reference article like this?

We don't list people like Syrians or Jordanians. Mentioning Palestinians is done for politics. Mentioning Bedouins of the Negev is another loaded addition. They aren't really different from other Bedouins, but some people want to hammer in a point that there were Arabs living in present-day Israel.

Duh

No need to mention Jews or Palestinians. The whole Middle East is a bunch of colonial maps hammered out by the French and British. Indigenousness in that region is swampy. Nobody knows what a Babylonian was, or a Canaanite or a Phoenician. Bedouins, sure they're indigenous. Marsh-dwellers... um, ok. But no controversial statements masquerading as scholarly fact.

Adding four references to something, I think, is an admission of guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.43.101 (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess. The inclusion of Palestinians and making sure to mention that indigenous Jews are "Pre-Zionist" reeks of politics. Why are Palestinians included...are Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc. not indigenous to their regions? Jews are, whether it's politically convenient or not, a Semitic people and also indigenous to the Levant, specifically Israel/Palestine. Why not take out Jews AND Palestinians, since the issue is so hotly contested? 76.99.54.147 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Pribumi of Indonesia, I can fully understand if my ethnicity is included in this indigenous article, since we were colonized for centuries and have no great empires, but Han Chinese? They are not colonized and have great empires in the past. Please be objective while including ethnicity to be indigenous one. Thank you! 114.59.2.251 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I have removed that perverting information. Thank you for your awareness toward that. Calvin Lourdes He ^discussion 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Han Chinese are obviously indigenous to China, since they were the first ones there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmholds (talk • contribs) 07:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have gone ahead and removed (again) Jews - and Han Chinese was already removed ...would be best if people would read the definition of Indigenous pls.Moxy (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(banned user's dictionary def removed - banned users don't get to see their comments visible here per WP:DENY)

Some issues are too complex for a simple dictionary definition to cover it.©Geni 13:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To our disruptive editor please read the following if you have the ability to see the book - that in no way describes Jews as indigenous people. Moxy (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Abraham Malamat; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (1976). A history of the Jewish people. Harvard University Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780674397316.

Due to excessive sock puppetry, I have full-protected the article. Users who wish to request an edit will need to use the {{Request edit}} template on this talk page to do so. Sorry, folks, –MuZemike 04:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this might have to be indefinite.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I echo MuZemike as well. --Bsadowski1 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

Could someone please fix the formatting of the Bahraini people section under List of indigenous peoples#Southwest Asia? It looks like the bolding has not been closed properly. Prioryman (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So — white people are indigenous nowhere? From a different planet? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't know where exactly they're indigenous to, simply put. But I'm not an expert on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the following portion of this article be removed from the Southwest Asia subsection of indigenous peoples: "Palestinians – The predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking people inhabiting Israel and the territories nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority." It is historically inaccurate to define Palestinian Arabs as being an indigenous people. While Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula, they are not indigenous to the Levant, where Israel, Lebanon, and Syria are located. The advent of Islam in the 7th century CE resulted in the Arab expansion out of Arabia and into the Levant, Mesopotamia, North Africa, and other parts of South and Southwest Asia. Equating Palestinian Arab identity to that of ancient Canaanites or ancient Egyptians (as opposed to modern Arab Egyptians) is not based on fact but rather a political agenda. Please remove the quoted portion above to preserve the accuracy and integrity of this article on indigenous peoples. Thank you. Senator86 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Shouldn't the Old Yishuv be listed as an indigenous people of South-West Asia though?

DionysosElysees (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited support the inclusion of Palestinians here. Can you explain why those sources should be disregarded in favor of your unsourced opinions? please read WP:V before responding. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the definition of Indigenous peoples can be elusive. The United Nations has never adopted a single definition, and generally recommends self-definition. The most commonly used analysis is the 1982 report of U.N. Special Rapporteur, José Martínez Cobo, which specifies that:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system."

The "non-dominant" aspect has been a subject of much discussion. However (at least according to the U.N.), the general rule of thumb has been self-definition. In other words, especially in consideration of the worldwide incentive of colonial/settler cultures to dismiss or deny indigenous identity of the peoples inhabiting the regions of their settlement, it is very important to allow indigenous peoples to define themselves, as long as the very basic elements of understanding agreed upon by collective worldwide indigenous understanding exist. The description on the IFLA site may also be of use. I hope this helps! Mahalo, --Laualoha 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: There appears to be a lack of consensus for this change. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to know a little bit more about which of the sources citing Palestinians that actually apply one of the International definitions and are not just applying the commonsensical sense of "indigenous" as "endogenous". The 1978 UN reference does not apply the contemporary concept of indigeneity that should be the basis for this list - because that concept wasn't developed at that point. I am somewhat skeptical that all of the other sources support the definition under the international definition as well. Also which organizations of indigenous peoples have representation of Palestinians? Which works about the concept of indigenous peoples include Palestinians as such? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Dowty quote quite obviously uses the commonsensical definition and not the international one. The local preparatory committe statement only supports the claim that they want to claim rights as indigenous. (South African Boers have done the same thing) The Peled source also uses the commonsensical definition. The Mossawa advocacy site is not a reliable source and also only amounts to a claim of indigeneity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The minority rights group today distinguishes between "minorities" and "indigenous" peoples - it is not clear what they consider to be the status of palestinians. It is not useful to take the evidence of the inclusion of palestinians in the 1997 volume as evidence of inclusion as such today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I must admit that I don't know if Palestinians are commonly included in international political definitions of indigenous peoples,and I am willing to learn - but I am reluctant to accept their inclusion on the kind of dubious evidence that has been amassed here. Especially because including them is clearly controversial for a number of reasons, and therefore should be supported by really watertight interpretations of good sources employing the standard definition. And secondly because if we widen the criteria to include also populations that qualify as indigenous under the commonsense definition of "first known inhabitant" then we will have huge problems managing the list and basically all nationalists will be competing to insert their favorite nations. We had this problem with Georgians at the main article for Talk: Indigenous peoples a few weeks ago, and we can foresee the same kinds of problem with populations from Afrikaaners to Han Chinese (and the problems when people start removing recognized Indigenous peoples with historic migration histories will be even worse). So basically I ask this - either demonstrate that Palestinians are generally considered to fall under the definitions of Indigenous peoples in international law (with better sources than the ones used now), or please remove them from the list. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maunus. Please see this source [1]. Does this address your concerns? Tiamut^talk 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2] . Note too that an Indigenous Youth Delegation from North America visited Palestine to meet indigenous youth there as reported here, though this is not an RS. Tiamut^talk 07:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no. It is not clear from either of those sources that it is the international definition that is being employed. The source mentions "indigenous palestinians" - that can mean either the commonsensical definition (indigenous to palestine) or even suggests that not all palestinians are indigenous (just like we couldn't use a mention of "Indigenous Canadians" to)include "Canadians" in the list. The best source would be one that clearly discusses palestinians in relation to definitions of indigeneity - I realize that is a high bar that we wouldn't be able to meet for all indigenous peoples, but I think that the fact that Palestinians are obviously more controversial to include than many other groups justifies setting a higher requirement for sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut has brought some important links. They should be reviewed. They show that it is common for politically-motivated nationalist groups to claim to be indigenous. They claim it is a natural fact that they grew out of the land, in the way that an extreme pro-lifer claims that orgasms are signs of new life.

The UN is involved in this game. The "who's on first" game. There is a pervasive conflict called the I-P Conflict. Picking a side is in violation of WP:undue weight. The Israelites being forced out by the Romans (a definitively Imperial power) would make them indigenous. But mentioning the Old Yishuv on this list, as has been mentioned in this thread and before, would show WP:Balance, but it is better to leave off the parties of conflicts in areas of demographic ambiguity like Palestine. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political game - it is a question of using a definition that is manageable and sticking to it. The international definition of "indigenous" is not about "who was first" - and that is the exact reason that we are using that definition, because that question is meaningless also outside of the Middle East. If any sources refer to Old Yishuv as "an indigenous people" within the definitions of any of the international organizations that work with that concept (not just UN, but ILO, world Bank and several NGOs) then we will include them also. No such sources have been presented so far. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the issue of the Palestinian indigenousness, there are four sources currently employed. None represent a clear UN concensus, nor an academic or International Community definition. This is enough RS to make a statement like, "Palestinians claim indigenous rights" appropriate in WP's voice. But to include the Palestinians unqualified, is to use WP's neutral voice to advocate for the P side of the I-P Conflict. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this is not comprehensive but its a start) Kurd (Sorani, Kurmanji, Gorani, Laks, and Zaza) Lur Gilaki Mazandarani Tat Judeo-Tat Talysh Azeri Baloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.199.232 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble making an edit request, so I'mposting this in the regular format, instead. Based on the articles own definition of "indigenous People", Palestinians should not be Included! "....peoples who inhabit a geographic region, with which they have the earliest known historical connection." Many other people have historical connections too their present territory. Something , either in the Article's definition, or in the inclusion of the above-mentioned people needs too change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.134.11 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Southwest Asia section has "Tribal Arabs," which links to Tribes of Arabia, a different thing. This should be changed to Bedouin and include mention of the Negev and other areas. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the first objection earlier up made to the "Palestinians" being on the list a pro-"Palestinian" activist editor claims that "Palestinians" allegedly are descendant from all the indigenous peoples of that land mixed with the invading Arabs who settled the land. According to that logic White Americans should be listed as indigenous to North America because some where around 1/3 have Native American ancestry. The "Palestinians" should be deleted as well for the very existence of the Old Yishuv completely proves the "Palestinian" indigenous myth a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to push this aggressive attack on Palestinians, you will be reported for incivility. Many editors have tried to warn you over the last couple of days, but you appear not to be listening.Oncenawhile (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This not attack an editor put his view about notion of "Palestinian" people.For example former Israeli Arab MK Azmi Bishara [3] said there are no such such nation and many Pan Arabist support it actually--Shrike (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attack. I'm clearly pointing a campaign to create a fictitious history. Why aren't Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Emiritis, etc. listed as indigenous peoples? There is clearly an overly pro-"Palestinian" bias that is going to the point of creating a completely false history. Notice how I added the Old Yishuv NOT Israelis as an indigenous people? I think the fact that you're dedicated to trolling articles as to cover up numerous massacres consolidating in a genocide is something far worse that should be investigated.

DionysosElysees (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Face it. Norwegians are native to Norway. Albanians are native to Albania. Greeks are native to Greece. Etc. Why is saying this so taboo? 71.212.230.89 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being native to a place and being an indigenous people are two different things. Please read the inclusion criteria and the article on indigenous peoples. Everyone is native to somewhere - that is why we don't have a list of Native groups. Not everyone is a member of an indigenous people. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people are the indigenous people of Northern Ireland (UK) as well as The Republic of Ireland. They were present pre-colonisation. In NI they are also surrounded by a dominant colonising culture. Can somebody please explain the dubious methods of inclusion that seem to exclude them (and indeed some others I can think of)(Stpaul (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

If you read the discussions above and the inclusion criteria of the list I think you will find the answer to your question.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussions and can see no reason for non inclusion of Irish people. I will include them unless there are objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read them again. The Irish, like all other ethnic groups who have their own nation state, do not fall under the international definition of indigenous peoples. It could be argued that they are an indigenous group in Northern Ireland, but I have never seen that claim being made. You would have to support the inclusion with a very good source. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I'm new at this. But I think the various Jewish groups from the diaspora who have been shown to have substantial genetic ties to the Levant (i.e. European and Middle Eastern Jews) should be included under this. I really don't care for the politics surrounding this issue.

Edit: Actually never mind, this distinction between "native" and "indigenous" is confusing the hell out of me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evildoer187 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I had to remove those additions because they were unsourced, and because they applied the commonsense definition of "indigenous" which for reasons stated in the FAQ is not the one we use here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds do not even have a direct lineage on their language, which is a mix of Parthian dialects infused with other languages.

where as the Persians can trace modern Persian directly to the Old Persian spoken by Cyrus.

why are they not indigenous, but Kurds, Bahrainis and even Palestinians are ?

what a joke this website is, laughable.

--99.231.215.49 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the definition of "indigenous people" which has nothing to do with lineage. Iranian Persian is the majority culture of Iran and is therefore not an indigenous people even though they are native to that territory. Also your theory of Kurdish as a mixed langauge is laughable - come back when you have basic knowledge of linguistics, history and culture.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the idea that Han Chinese/Japanese/Korean people, ethnic Scandinavians, Russians, etc etc, are not indigenous is incredibly offensive.

I understand that this article is working under a very limited (and in my view ignorant) definition of the word indigenous and I propose that it change in order to include majority groups that are indigenous.

--Savakk (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is the result of an RfC a couple of months ago that can be seen in the archive. You will have to file another RfC, preferably with some new arguments. That you're offended by the standard definition used by internaitonal organizations isn't a valid argument. Note that the issue is that there is a difference between "an indigenous people" and "a people that is indigenous to some place" (which is all peoples) - it makes no sense to have a list of the latter because it would just be a list of all ethnic groups. All ethnic groups are indigenous to somewhere, but they are not all indigenous peoples. Ignorant is who ignorant does. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the fictitious "Palestinian people" from this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.65.46.71 (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would make more sense because the majority of Jewish groups throughout the diaspora are, in fact, part of the Old Yishuv, but scattered throughout the world. How do you file a request for change?69.248.98.23 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Many Jews are not indigenous people in southwest Asia, but are really foreign to the area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would only apply to Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, and recent converts. Every other Jewish group has been shown to have origins in South West Asia.69.248.98.23 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, many Jews are from Europe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And those Jews largely trace their origins to the Levant, as shown by genetic studies, historical, and linguistic evidence.

Here's my proposal for the change. Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.69.248.98.23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. Many Jews are foreign in the Levant and therefor they as a whole group can not be claimed to be indigenous in southwest Asia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only Ethiopian, Indian, and converted Jews have no links to the Levant, although even the first two are debated. The rest are very much indigenous. Is there anyone else here I can talk to?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Jews "are foreign to Levant" is POV. Scientific studies carried out by world leading genetic institutions, (I have posted few as reference), have confirmed the common and Middle Eastern genetic origin of all major Jewish groups.--Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclusion of any Jewish group will require a source demonstrating that they are considered an indigenous people under international legislation. All people are "indigenous" to somehwere, that is not what this list includes. Jews have their own nation state and members of the diaspora are not generally classified as indigenous peoples where they live, so inclusion will require very good sources showing the applicability of the international definition. Genetic studies and status as foreign in the levant are irrelevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Supreme Deliciousness, you are wrong. The truth is that Jews are indigenous to Israel, and the Arabs that call themselves "Palestinians" are colonists from Egypt and Arabia that are bent on usurping Jewish history and brainwashing the world with their anti-Semitic propaganda. We were ethnically cleansed from Judah by the Romans and forced to go to Europe. So we are not actually from Europe; we are from Israel. Wikipedia would do well to remove the lie that the Muslims have added to the article that says that "Palestinians" are indigenous, or else Wikipedia will seem like a joke, like some absurd Iranian newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidej9e (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jews- an ethno-religious group who trace their origins to the Ancient Israelites and Hebrews of the Levant. Outside of the Jewish diaspora communities, Jews have maintained a presence in what is today Israel and Palestine throughout the Roman conquest and Muslim Arab rule.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Do it yourself. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that everything under the South West Asia category has disappeared and I can't bring it back. If there's anybody here who is more proficient with the coding and could fix it, that would be great. However, in order to avoid an edit war, please leave everything in the South West Asia category as it currently stands. Under the parameters of the UN definition of indigenous peoples, Jews and Druze should be included.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show a source that Jews fall under the UN definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaleakalAri (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I completely understand the need for two more categories, but it will do for now.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the same reason that multiple Arab-Speaking groups are listed under there. There are many different kinds of Jews. ari (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ad any unsourced peoples into the article. I just removed to newly added both unsourced. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced now.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources are valid. They are genetic studies that show that jewish people originated in the Levant, not that they fall under any of the contemporary international definitions of indigenous peoples. For a statement to be "sourced" the source has to actually support the claim.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Jewish diaspora - not sure the WP:SYNTHESIS of genetic information says anything about them being indigenous - In fact this should be clear by its title "Jewish diaspora".Moxy (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. And if it did it would not be the definition of indigeneity this list uses.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics do prove that they have roots in the Middle East. So in that sense, they are indigenous. However, that definition apparently doesn't apply here.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sugges we exclude Jews and Palestinians since this is a hotly contested and politicized question that is not obvious and which depends entirely on the authority asked. Including one and excluding the other will be an eternal source of political discussion on the talk page, and inclusion of neither group is currently supported by any high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions. We could include a note in the introduction explaining this decision and using it as an example of why being indigenous is not a matter of objective fact, but of socio-political circumstances.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this would be the third time we have gone over this in the past year.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Support - We would have to remove 90 percent of the page if we used this definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not follow since this proposal has no effect on other groups. The inclusion criteria are already given and any group that does not explicitly have sourcing supporting the inclusion under the definition can and should be removed. This proposal is only regarding jews and palestinians and is about whether these two groups should be included on general principle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if we apply this definition across the board, then the majority of the groups included do not really belong on this page. So then what are we left with?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the inclusion criteria here. They are already established by a broad consensus, if you want to challenge those file another RfC such as the one previouslyheld this year at Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Here we are discussing whether to foreclose any further editwards regarding the includability of Jews and palestinians specifically. Also it is not a problem to restrict the article to only cover those groups that specifically meet the criteria, that is an advantage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave it for now. It's not worth getting into an argument over. However, I am curious as to why Bahrani people are included, since they have a state of their own (Bahrain).Evildoer187 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I have read criticisms of the "indigenous peoples" concept as applied to all of Asia, where continuous migrations and displacements have made such claims murky and endlessly disputable. The only clear-cut application of this concept might be to the Americas, or possibly to Africa vis-à-vis white people. But then again, the idea behind apartheid Bantustans was that the Bantu-speaking people were ultimately not indigenous to South Africa, so you even see a politicization of indigeniety there. Also, Indonesia disputes allegations from New Guinea separatist groups that, say, Sundanese people are less indigenous to the island than Dani people are. Tibetan-Bhutanese argue that they are indigenous and so have the right to force their dress on and deny citizenship to "illegal immigrant" Nepalese-Bhutanese, who marshal history and law to make their own counterclaims of indigenousness. Since indigenity has been the basis of the ideology of Malay supremacy, it has been disputed by local Chinese and Indians; this too around the world where the status has implications for land redistribution and secessionist movements. So this British National Party-type behavior ("we were here first; get out, foreigner scum") happens all over the world, and the "FAQ item" which asserts that Europeans are disqualified is suspect.

I anticipate that Maunus will respond by saying that none of my above doubts are relevant, since we are talking about certain "high quality sources that explicitly define them as falling under the international definitions". In that case, Maunus should produce exactly which sources he is talking about. Does this page rely primarily on one or two authoritative sources? The presence of that group in the preponderance of reliable sources? A lack of disputability of the claim in outside sources as well? I am sympathetic to the idea that we should exclude both Jews and Palestinians in order to stop endless disputes, but I am suspicious of the idea that "indigenous peoples" is an objective concept that is only or primarily politicized in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shrigley (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making the claim that the palestinian/jewish case is exceptional except in the degree to which it attracts controversy. Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations. If we want to have a list of indigenous peoples we must have criteria for inclusion that are well defined and sourceable. I personally think the best solution would be to not have such a list because it makes indigeneity look like something that has objective existence, but since many people here love lists I dont think that is a viable solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say. If we apply such a narrow definition to indigeneity, it would be an arduous task proving that even half of the groups currently listed should stay. This is why I suggest using the Dictionary.com definition of indigenous: "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to )". Under these parameters, obviously Jews and Palestinians should be included. Also, it would be naive to expect this to stop the disputes, because Palestinians and Jews/Israelis will just attach themselves to Bedouins and Samaritans, respectively.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That definition is nonsensical since all peoples are indigenous to somewhere. It would just be a list of ethnic groups then. Or it would lead to nonsensical conclusions such as calling Cherokee non-indigenous becausde they were forcibly removed from their ancestral lands, etc.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree its hard to define as seen at =Tony Simpson; Forest Peoples Programme. Indigenous heritage and self-determination: the cultural and intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. IWGIA. p. 22. ISBN 978-87-984110-3-1.. But that seen no one calls Jews indigenous peoples not even within there community. However - Palestinians have declared they are indigenous - its just not recognized by the international community -Amal Jamal (17 March 2011). Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-136-82412-8.. So thus should not be included. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like an objective source, to be honest. Simply because someone refers to themselves indigenous doesn't make it so. Furthermore, many Jewish diaspora people and especially Israelis have in fact considered themselves indigenous. And this is with justice, as cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence has repeatedly shown that Palestinians and Jews are in fact very closely related. Either way, neither are recognized internationally as indigenous peoples, nor do they fit the UN definition of indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy's point was exactly that only Palestinians themselves and their political allies claim status as indigenous, whereas Jews generally do not even claim the status. except in the literal (non-political) sense. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, because the same can be said of Jews and their political allies. I can provide examples if you'd like, but I'd probably end up flooding the talk page if I did. Besides, do you really think they would have put their state in Israel if they didn't believe they had any ties there?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mixing up the definitions and contradicting yourself, they claim to be indigenous to Israel but they do not claim to fall under the international legal definition of an "indigenous people".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got it!! they have not "applied" for indigenous recognition - And correct again - they do claim to be the first of the nomadic peoples of the area to culturies the land of Canaan (a point of contention).Moxy (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Jews have made all of the same claims Palestinians have. As far as I know, neither Palestinians or Jews have made recourse to the international definition of indigenous people to support their claims, for obvious reasons. In most cases, claims of indigeneity are usually employed as a weapon to convince the other side that they have no moral right to be there and that they should leave. But since you accused me of mixing up definitions and contradicting myself, I'll make myself as clear as possible.

The internationally recognized definition of indigenous Nobody from either group (to my knowledge) has made any explicit claim that they are indigenous under this definition. Under this definition, neither can claim indigeneity (Jews also claim Canaanite descent).

The "we're indigenous because we say so" definition of indigenous Both groups have claimed this, in one way or another.

The common sense/dictionary definition of indigenous Ditto. Under this definition, both claims are justified.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your point then your point is wrong. Jews have not claimed status as indigenous people under the UN convention of indigenous peoples rights. Palestinians have. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some proof for that. In any case, Palestinians are no more indigenous than Jews are.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy posted the source that shows that Palestinians have claimed to fall under the international definition above. Your personal opinion on the matter is not really of any weight.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no need to be rude. Second, it's rather ironic that this petition for excluding Jews and Palestinians was meant to curb the dispute, when in reality it just revived it.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, especially since none of those who actually post here bother to read either the inclusion criteria or the wording of the RfC.I am regretting I filed it, but thats too late now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And before I forget. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-sham-postcolonial-argument-against-israel/ Like I said, Jews have made the same claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically said that Jews haven't made such a claim. And the blog you provide does not say that they have, but that they could.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said "to my knowledge". That article came up after a quick Google search. He may not have lobbied for their inclusion, but he did still make the claim.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course a qualitative difference between a Jewish person making a claim on a blog and a Palestinian political body filing for recognition with the UN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have they succeeded?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jews and Palestinians should be removed UNLESS there are sources which label one or the other as indigenous under the use of the term in this and the other article. I note that very few of the entries are backed up in this way; however, as these two groups are likely to be the subject of further disagreements in this article, it would be worthwhile to declare that there is no consensus to add them to the article, unless and until that consensus changes (whereas there may be consensus about other groups, even if the sources are lacking). I'd be very opposed though at a declaration that a permanent consensus has been reached about their inclusion which pretends to bind future discussions. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jews From what I know it's genetically proven that the Jews came from the midddle east (at least that's what I read about Ashkenazi Jews), and historically we know that the place where they lived and had a kingdom was Israeli (see Kingdom of Israel, so I think the Jews do belong here. If you write "jews indigenous" you will find quite a lot of references.

About Palestinians, from what I know they are not an ethnic group, they are a nationality, which is a different thing. The Arabs living in Israel were not called Palestinians until Britain came into Israel and called the place Palestine (a name originally used by the Romans after some old nation which used to live in Israel simply to piss off the Jews after the revolt).

In fact, the whole reason why the Arabic countries are not one state is colonialists who created countries and gave it old romantic names like Egypt (name after the Egyptians, today an opressed minority called Copts), Syria (after another opressed minority called Assyrians), Jordan (after the river of Jordan)... During the Caliphate times they were all one country.

Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians... those are not ethnicities but nationalities. The ethnicity is Arabs. The origin of the Arabs was in Saudi Arabia (which makes it hard to describe them as indigenous in Israel), from where the Caliphate spread and reached as far as North Africa in the west and Iraq in the east. The Arabs who came to those lands mixed with the local populations. I read a book by Winston Churchill when he was talking about the big immigrations of Arabs from Iraq, Syria and Egypt into Israel, the question is, how many of the Arabs in the area are from those immigrants? When exactly did the Arabs come to Israel? I'm sure it was not before the Jews were expelled by the Romans from Israel. Those things are important when talking about such stuff! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep Jews" is not an option untill someone shows conclusive evidence that they fall under the criteria of the list which noone has been able to do so far. 1. You are wrong about the proposed distinction about ethnicity and nationality - there is no such distinction apart from the one that makes an ethnic group a nationality when it constitutes its own nation state 2. if such a disctinction existed it wouldn't be relevant for this list which is about indigenous peoples. 3. your reason to vote keep for jews is invalid given the current inclusion cirteria fort the list which is not about being original inhabitants of a place, but about being an Indigenous people under international legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ʍaunus, and there aren't any arguments or references to evidence in this comment which is relevant to the question. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and provisory Oppose. This is a fuzzy area and no easy solution is available. Denying both Jews and Palestinians 'indigeneity' rests on the dubious principle that, since this is politically contested territory, claims by either party cancel each other out. Because Jewish self-representations do not think in terms of indigeneity, but of reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors, we are, pari passu not to use the word of Palestinians, who have no such self-representation. The logic is, if a definition does not apply to the Jews, then it mustn't apply to the other population of Palestine. That means we are striving for balance by reciprocal exclusion from the topic area in obeisance to political sensitivities, rather than simply looking at the concepts.

Putting it in terms of "reclaiming a homeland once inhabited by distant ancestors" is stretching it, because that is, in fact, where the Jewish diaspora (or Jewish nationhood, at least) originated. I fail to see how Palestinians are "more indigenous" than Jews, or vice versa.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know the facts are that the diaspora is central to most of Jewish history, that it took place extraterritorial to Palestine. We have substantial bodies of evidence that there is a substantial continuity in the population now called Palestinian, which however has no ethnic or national identity. Of the Palestinians, we admit to the page Bedouin, who form a significant if distinct ethnos, and those who are not Israeli come under under Palestinian identity. We admit Samaritans who are part of the Biblical Jewish world, yet have Palestinian identity. I.e., the text as it stands is saying some Palestinians are indigenous people, as long as they have a sub-identity which separates them from the civic or national identity of a de facto state, or national administration (PNA).

I don't personally agree with the idea that indigeneity has an expiration date, that if you've been away from your historical homeland for long enough, you're no longer indigenous. Afrikaners for instance have been in Africa for centuries now, but nobody in their right mind considers them indigenous to Africa. I would also argue that Palestinians don't have a sub-identity any more than Jews/Israelis do. Further, I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say that Samaritans have a Palestinian identity, because as far as I know, they do not.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Tibetans, who are as autochthonous and indigenous as the Basques, are missing from the page. Is this because of a political veto, or because no international legislation recognizes their obvious qualifications for such a definition. It is not, I believe, as subjective a definition as Maunus is arguing there. If indigeneity rests on international recognition, then a whole fresh can of worms is opened. That is as subjective a criterion as self-definition, because it rests on the throw-weight of major political powers in the appropriate international bodies. I'd prefer to live with the problem, rather than sweep it under the carpet.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All above sounds reasonable to me .... just need a ref saying Jews are indigenous - not our place to guess at definitions - all we can do is regurgitate what is out there in reliable sources.Moxy (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, we must think in parallel terms, on the premise: If Jews, then Palestinians. If not Jews, then neither Palestinians (and vice versa). That will never work. There are two ways out of this. Maunus's proposal to elide both (the despair option), or a two line neutral thumbnail summary of both claims. Palestinian indigeneity and its claims withub Israel's Arabic minority are surveyed in Amal Jamal's recent book Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel:The Politics of Indigeneity, Taylor & Francis, 2011. No comparable book is available for the Jews, because the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population made aliyah, which excludes indigeneity. The generic Jewish claim is a particular one, based on an identity related to cuiltural and ethnic ME roots.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but could you please clarify how making aliyah = non-indigenous? And how does writing a book make claims of indigeneity stronger?Evildoer187 (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we need a compromise, that difference and the two claims could be clarified in two short sentences, preferably with a source for each. This is, I am suggesting, a diplomatic solution. I don't believe indigeneity applies to the Jews generically, and I think it does apply to the paleo-Christian community, the paleo-Arabic/fellahin communities and the Jewish Musta'arabim for instance, which hung on as religious minorities, conserving a distinct identity over thousands of years. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Palestinians should be included, if Jews are not. Neither group is more qualified for inclusion than the other. In fact, Palestinian claims of indigeneity are predicated on the idea that Jews are a foreign/colonial presence, with no real roots in Israel/Palestine (which is obviously not true, but still propagated nonetheless). Conversely, Jews claim indigeneity on the basis that they are a diaspora population initially stemming from the indigenous Israelites/Canaanites, and who in turn predate any Arab presence in the region (even though Palestinian and Jewish genetic similarity is largely a result of shared Canaanite/Hebrew roots). Include one and not the other, and it's just open season for more bickering and agitprop, which we all agree is something we would like to prevent.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it seems odd that Assyrians and Kurds are allowed to stay, since neither category is even sourced at all. We know with about as much certainty that the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians have roots in the Middle East going back thousands of years. The only real reason I can think of for excluding them would be that they have their own nations with their own majorities (Israel and Palestine, respectively), which is absurd criteria if you ask me. However, Kurds have their own Kurdish majority nation as well, but are still included. Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. To those who are against using a less narrow definition of indigenous on the grounds that it would simply lead to a list of ethnic groups....isn't that what this page already is? Just take a good look at the article and you'll see what I mean. Besides, not every ethnic group would be included in the final list anyway, since Afrikaners, non-Amerindian Americans, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, etc are clearly not indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the article has no sources to show that any of the groups are indigenous under the definition which is supposed to be used. Unless this can be fixed, the article should be deleted or merged with a list of ethnic groups. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Support. The criteria for inclusion in this article have been previously defined and agreed upon by consensus. This definition appears in the lead section of the article Indigenous peoples and should also be included in the lead of this article. In this lengthy exchange no-one has presented a reliable source that indicates that either of these groups meet this definition of indigeneity. They should be removed. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below. I'm petitioning to use a more literal definition, because the current one is confusing and neither useful or accurate.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, hardly any of the groups listed are sourced at all. So it makes no sense to exclude Jews, Palestinians, or anyone else on these grounds.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not follow. It is not a valid argument to say that because some entries are unsourced all unsourced entries should be tolerated. Policy is that contested material must be sourced or excluded. If you feel that there are unsourced entires that do not meet the criteria then you should remove them. Both Jewish and Palestinian inclusion has been frequently and vociferously contested and thus requires, not just a sourced but a source of the highest weight and quality possible (following the extraordinary claims policy). Other unsourced entries have not so far been contested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would need exceptionally good sources to assert that it is an exceptional claim to assert that the Palestinian population was not indigenous to Israel/Palestine, in the sense that they are the lineal heirs overwhelmingly of the demographic majority in that country at the time of the imposition of the League of Nations Mandate. The League of Nations mandate, assigned Palestine a Class A mandate, meaning legally that they were regarded as having reached ‘a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized. A line of polemic owning much to Joan Peters ' notorious book From Time Immemorial did make the extraordinary claim that the Palestinians were not 'indigenous'. No one takes it seriously. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so then it is highly surprising that no one up untill this point has been able to provide any source that has been generally accepted to show the indigenous status of Palestinians in such a way as to preclude further disputes. (The reason is of course is that not everyone accepts the mandate of league of nations as being the cut-off point before which status as 'indigenous' (in the ordinary sense) is ascertained)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is phrased in such a way that it precludes any acceptable argument. generally accepted . .in such a way as to preclude further disputes. That condition subordinates RS to an impossible demand. It is impossible to 'preclude further disputes' on any issue regarding ethnicity and especially anything touching on the I/P area because everything is utterly politicized. Give a source, where the obvious (as above) is stated (see the succession of quotations in the lead of Palestinian people, which were bitterly challenged for a long time), and you will get persistent challenges. But wikipedia is supposed to rely on RS.

'Even the United Nations partition plan of November 1947 recognized the Palestinians as a people not only entitled to self-determination but also to genuine recognition as indigenous inhabitants of the land.Amal Jamal Arab Minority Nationalism in Israel Taylor & Francis 2011 pp.48-49

Main indigenous and minority groups: indigenous Palestinians 3.9 million (89%), Christians (most of whom are Palestinians) 200,000 (4.5%), Jews 500,000 (11.4%), Jewish settlers (a subset of Jews) 364,000 (8.2%), Samaritans 400 (.009%)World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine : Overview.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is extremely difficult to find any scholarly support for the view that the Palestinians are not 'indigenous' to Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, what I said is that noone has provided sources that have been considered to be sufficient to establish that palestinians are generally considered to be an indigenous people. There is nothing unreasonable in this. According to the UN all nations are entitled to selfdetermination, not just indigenous groups so the 1947 declaration has no bearings , since the contempoorary concept of an indigenous group did not exist at that point.

On the other hand IWGIA, one of the largest and most well established indigenous rights groups, quite explicitly do not treat "palestinians" as an indigenous group in their treatment of indigenous groups ion Israel and Palestine.[4][5][6][7]. I am in fact not aware of any major indigenous rights group that accepts Palestinians as an indigenous group. Book treatments of indigenous peoples also tend to not include them. And quite frankly I think the reason they don't would quite likely lead to the concept it self being delegitimized entirely in international politics, and the struggles of actual indigenous peoples who share a number of political concerns that are very different from those of the Palestinians would be eclipsed by the Israel/Palestine conflicts to the detriment of the causes of these peoples (exactly as it is happening on this page, in which quibbling over the world's favorite political conflict is overshadowing those peoples who have suffered graver injustices than both Jews and Palestinians for a much longer time). Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you tried to keep dismissive ejaculations like "nonsense" out of our exchange. I have no idea contextually what you specifically intend to dismiss by that.

Indigeneity is not an objective concept under any circumstances, but is always determined under socio-political negotiations.

Almost true. There are two forms of representation in these contexts. One is self-representation, the other, recognition of that representation by the prevailing national or political power, or by some supranational body. To say that the former must negotiate its self-representation with the latter before it can gain conceptual legitimacy is dubious.

I have absolutely no problem with your definition to which we are referred, where one reads:-

The other specialized meaning used by international organizations like UNESCO, ILO, WTO, IWGIA and by disciplines such as sociology and anthropology is about ethnic minorities within nation states of another dominant (often colonial)ethnicity

As I understand it, you have dropped the second part, and zeroed in on the first part referring to the definitions as given in international political bodies and institutions, definitions that are subject to the pressures of international politics. You freely allow that Palestinians may tend not to be included because their inclusion might delegitimize the quest of other indigenous groups for recognition of their rights. Well, we are talking of a concept, and if the criterion for inclusion in a concept is political, then you are right. I don't think that way, and I don't believe sociologists or anthropologists do either. There, analytical adequacy to a given or set definition, whatever the political fall-out, determines the case. There is a substantial literature on indigeneity in the Palestinian definition of themselves as 'an ethnic minority within a nation state of another dominant ethnicity.' It is a commonplace of the academic literature on the subject.

it is important to note that the idea of the indigenous group as a key component in analyzing the politics of Palestinians in Israel is not a new trend, as it is a core component of the basic assumptions of the many previous works.' See As’ad Ghanem 'The Victory of Discourse vs. the Retreat of Politics,'in The Middle East Journal,Volume 66, Number 2, Spring 2012 pp. 361-368, p.364 (which contains an extensive bibliography on the issue)

I provided what you requested, i.e., the data from the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, which includes the Palestinians. You don't answer but simply state that the IWGIA only classifies, among the Palestinian population, their Bedouin clans as indigenous, like the Jahalin tribe which is now being relocated to dwell on the Abu Dis rubbish dump. According to IWGIA, Israel refuses to recognize the Negev Bedouin as indigenous, but IWGIA does, despite that. Yet IWGIA Indigenous peoples in Tibet at the same time includes Tibetans. The Tibetan experience is perfectly parallel to that of the Palestinians. So that august body's taxonomy exhibits an idiosyncratic randomness that reflects political fears rather than analytical cogency, and I see no reason why your preference for political authorization over academic analysis is persuasive. To the contrary, where political pushing messes conceptual clarity, I retreat to scholarship, where of course politics plays some part, but peer review tends to spot it on sight, and adjust our categories to fit definitions and evidence, wherever they lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to use scholarship, in place of politics, as the basis for inclusion, then we would have to include Jews too, which you seemed to argue against in one of your comments above. Analytically speaking, Palestinians are no more or less indigenous than Jews/Israelis (except foreign, non-Jewish migrant workers from China and whatnot). Palestinians do not predate the Jews in any meaningful way.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and "Avoid personal attacks": Maunus has breached these rules more than enough times over the course of the past few days. Mind your manners. I will take the appropriate action necessary if you do not your attitude in here does not improve.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring everything else (which I've argued in the section below), I have to agree with Maunus here. Palestinians do not fit the international definition any more than Jews do.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean something if you had any other evidence than your personal opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definition: "those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of". So as far as that definition goes, Jews and Palestinians are in the same boat. They both inhabited the area prior to colonization (you can check the Wiki articles on them if you want proof), and yet neither are ethnic or cultural minorities in their respective territories/nations. Given everything you've stated above, you know this, but insist on being combative for no apparent reason.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think you have wasted enough of my time with your blather at this point. Get sources to support your views or stop wasting our time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we use a less narrow and more literal definition of indigenous for this article. The current one is nonsensical because it rests on the idea that indigeneity evaporates once an ethnic group achieves a nation state and majority status. I mean would you argue that a Persian or a Malay who has lived in their respective territories since the beginning is not indigenous just because they have a flag and international recognition? Of course not, but that's what this article seems to convey. My suggestion is to include all of the original peoples of a given continent or sub-continent. I also don't agree that this would simply result in "redundancy" or a repeat of the "Ethnic groups" list, as it would still exclude all post-colonial groups like the Afrikaners, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, non-Amerindian Americans, Cajuns, and so on.

Under the definition I just proposed, obviously Jews and Palestinians would have to be included, as both ethnic groups/nationalities stemmed from, and are a continuation of, the original inhabitants of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a bad idea as I think the common meaning of indigenous will be what readers will tend to understand, and not understand that it's being used in a special sense. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you base inclusion on? Since most sources that deal with "indigenous peoples" use the internaitonal legal definition. Also see this RfC from 10 months ago Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Those arguments will have to be addressed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the definition is one which is used by international organizations. That's only a good definition if sources can be found which can label groups as indigenous or otherwise based upon this definition. At the moment, this article is very poorly sourced, so it's not surprising that readers don't understand how the term is meant and why some groups are listed and others (e.g. Jews, Palestinians) are not. True, most of the entries have not been contested, but if more of them were backed up, it would be more apparent what the criteria for inclusion were. Otherwise, this issue will keep on coming up, with discussions which are completely irrelevant to the main question: can sources be provided to show that this group has been categorized as indigenous by relevant international organizations. So until such sources can be found, I think it would be better to merge this article with a list of ethnic groups or the indigenous peoples article. But there is definitely a problem with editors continually challenging the scope of this and the other article, and I'm not completely sure how to stop this. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that can be used as sources for status as indigenous peoples under the international definition. There is in fact a very large body of academic literature on the subject. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So source them then. Otherwise, it will continue to confuse people and attract the kind of bickering we've seen an endless amount of on this page and others pertaining to it. I get that this is politically contested territory, but we have to look at facts here.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason or motivation to do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you reasons. You argued that sources exist which can be applied to the indigenous peoples currently listed. So why not just do it, and end the debate? Your attitude here is not particularly helpful.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you could also add 'evasiveness' to that.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't work for you, I don't have to do anything at all here unless I choose to. If you want to challenge particular entries add a "citation needed" tag and I'll decide whether to source it or remove it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will decide? As far as I can tell, you do not own this page, nor are you any more of an authority here than myself. Please get off your high horse.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being obtuse. Yes, I will decide what I do with my time - I do not take orders or advice from you. And frankly I don't think I will spend more time talking to you, either since you are incapable of making a rational argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so." You'd be wise to take your own advice here. I have addressed all of the points made on this page as clearly and pragmatically as humanly possible. Since you've made it abundantly clear that you don't agree, I will simply wait for someone else to chime in.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will edit the article in the manner that I have envisioned, and see what everyone thinks.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not, untill there is a consensus to do so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is commenting here anymore, so what now?Evildoer187 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. For the record, I concur with Maunus's remarks. You have not made a case for your proposal, so it's in dead water.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. This section itself IS my case. It's not my fault that not enough people agreed with me.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I might need some help, as I'm only proficient with what I am (South West Asian).Evildoer187 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless to keep talking if no reference is provided.Moxy (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as follows: "Note: Even though Palestinians and the various groups of the Jewish diaspora are indigenous in the literal sense of the word, neither group falls under the scope of the international definition of "indigenous peoples"." It is meant as an explanation as to why neither Jews or Palestinians are included as indigenous South West Asian peoples (although it seems that someone else went to the liberty of including Israelites and Arabians anyway), and thus put a stop to the confusion, outrage, and edit warring that said exclusion has lead to in the past.

Although both the Jewish diaspora and Palestinians undeniably have roots in the Levant, neither group is indigenous under the parameters of the UN definition, as both groups already have their own ethnic majority state. Please do not attempt to argue otherwise, because it's a dead horse and it's probably best that we do not go down that path again.Evildoer187 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a)Your edit violates WP:NOR. (b) It flies in the face of the ongoing argument on the talk page (c) and since this is under discussion, you are not allowed to assert as given in the article, what is still considered dubious on the talk page. Read the rules.

Where is your source for the edit summary that 'Palestinians are not indigenous under international law.

Where is your source for the statement that 'Palestinians already have their own ethnic majority state'?Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. Nothing in my edit constitutes original research. It may not be sourced, but it's by no means original. B. In what way? C. Fair enough. D. Read the definition at the top of the page. Palestinians do not apply. E. It was just recognized a few days ago. Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people. Evildoer187 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short you can't supply the information I requested, and blather as a substitution. 'Palestinians are an occupied nation, not an indigenous people' is a meaningless, (and unsourced) opinion. I am interested in sources, not your opinion.

I am not trying to push the Palestinian agenda. I don't, as opposed to some here, edit in a point of view under challenge. I note that there can be a source-backed claim for the Palestinians as 'indigenous', but none, as far as I can see, for the Jewish population of Israel, which is a nation predominantly of settler immigrants. The only productive difference here is between Maunus and myself. He takes the narrow reading of indigenous per international organizations that deal with the question, I take a larger one, because the concepts is notoriously labile, and results from political interests (the UN distinction urges some groups to define themselves as 'indigenous' in order to acquire international legislative protection. All bureaucratic definitions are however fuzzy. See Will Kymlicka, 'The internationalization of minority rights,' in Sujit Choudhry (ed)Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration Or Accommodation?, Oxford University Press, 2008 pp.111-140, esp pp.120ff.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm going to ask that you refrain from WP:INSULTS and debate respectfully.

Second, you clearly did not read the definition: "indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of". This is the definition we are using here, and so long as the Palestinians have an internationally recognized state, they are not an indigenous people under international law. It's the same reason Persians, Turks, Jews, and Syrians are not included.

DEFINITION The definition used here "indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of" can't be right because that would make Thais for example non-indigenous to their own country! This definition also assumes that indigenous populations will never regain their lands, but the ongoing indigenous conflicts world-wide and success of some suggest this not to be the case.

There is also the issue with the List of extinct peoples, i.e. those populations which were either destroyed or assimilated by the new arrivals which then re-settled the forcibly vacated lands. The process of conquest repeated many thousands of times around the globe over several thousand years of archaeologically recorded history, and there is no option than to accept the claims of the conquerors as being indigenous settlers, settlement being the best proof of possession. The question is who can substantiate the claim of settlement and which of the conquerors can enforce their claim. The last to claim the lands under question as occupied territories were the Royal Jordan Army after ceasing it from the British Administration following its post-Mandate withdrawal. Israel, in

Third, Jews are an ethnic group with roots in the Levant that go back thousands of years. It is true that they are also non-indigenous under the UN definition, seeing as they have a state now, but your insinuation that modern Jews do not have origins in, or historical ties to, the Levant is flat out wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make an inference from a definition on the page, and using that inference, to edit in new material, is WP:OR. We go by sources,not by editors' personal deductions. Your thinking is so totally irrational, and therefore it's pointless to reply. On the one hand, Palestinians (those in Israel?) have an internationally recognized state and therefore are not indigenous (part of that 'state' is under military occupation and has no borders, one of the keynote definitions of a state). On the other hand Jews have a state in Israel, and are at the same time 'indigenous' (and are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state, Israel, that they are a apart of!!!!!!!!'). With that aliceinwonderland logic, I doubt you could fight your way out of a paper bag. Try it elsewhere, not on wikipedia. You are editing for a POV. Since you refuse to provide sources for the inclusion of Jews that fits the above definition 'indigenous to a territory prior to be incorporated into a nation state etc', you are, by logic, obliged to remove any material that goes in the face of that definition, including that by your new ally, crock. You revert my edits, and not his. He maintains the Jews are indigenous, you maintain the Palestinians are not. Ergo, POV-pushing, without sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Jews were indigenous under international law. I merely asserted that Palestinians weren't either. Please don't put words in my mouth. Under the literal definition that I proposed earlier (i.e. the dictionary definition), I surmised that Jews and Palestinians could (and frankly should) be considered indigenous. As for Crock, I initially deleted his additions (as his first source seemed Biblical in nature, although he maintains it isn't), but I wanted to give him a chance to defend himself, and his sources, in here first. I have not deleted any of your edits, but merely reverted your deletions of my own.

In addition to the assumptions you've just made about me on here, I also discovered this little nugget on your talk page: "In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above"

This is an outrageous (not to mention offensive) accusation, as well as one that is not in line with the assume good faith rule we have here. Just for your information (although I'm sure you'll say I'm lying), I am opposed to the settlement project in the West Bank, and I support the Palestinians aspirations of nationhood. None of this is particularly incompatible with acknowledgement of the fact that Jews have firm roots in the region.

You seem to be getting very emotional over this, which is completely unnecessary. I really do not want to have to report you. However, I will not hesitate in doing so if you leave me no other choice.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, sir, your aggressive attitude here tells me that you are the one who is POV pushing. It's pretty well known by this point that the historically revisionist "Jews are just foreigners" argument is merely a rhetorical device meant to discredit Israel's right to exist. Nobody who has done any serious research on Jewish origins can claim with a straight face that Jews are not an aboriginal/pre-colonial population of the Levant.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TLDR Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're too stubborn to read and absorb what I'm saying, then that's not my fault.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it there still is no references - thus it should still not be added. Just need a ref...not guess work.Moxy (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misconception here.

In the first place the Biblical citations I gave are not references to my edits, but point to where the sub-group divisions in Israelite religious rituals originate.

I have provided two sources, one by an academic non-Jewish author, which confirm that within the indigenous culture "Jewish" does not exist, and is an imposed diasporic identity, and which was never used within the culture regardless of the location of the community.

Secondly, the United Nations is not the sole determinant of the indigenous status of the population. Even the Wikipedia article provides for two other international organisations.

However, the recognition of "Jewish" claims to the British Mandate of Palestine by the Balfour Declaration, and later the UN Special Committee on Palestine (1947) that confirmed this, by default assure confirmation of the claim, including that the state which was created, was named State of Israel, and not the "State of the Jews".

I note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?Evildoer187 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less, I am happy to discuss the ways in which you think Israelites do not conform to definitions of indigenousness, UN or otherwise.Crock8 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted numerous genetic studies stating that all major Jewish group have common Middle Eastern origin. As the nativity is genetically related and as there is clear genetic factual evidence that all Jewish groups are originating from Middle East (as it is directly written in Hammer and al, originating from ancient Israelites as it is wrriten in Behar and al I will revert any removal of this facts as they are sourced with the names of leading population genetic experts---Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I just had a look at your most recent revert, and your edit summary was "Revert POV pushing and WP:OR violations for which there is no consensus on the talk page, nor support in sources"
I'd like to note that my editing: a) lacked any expression of my point of view, b) does not contain any original research, c) was never previously discussed, so d) could never have gained consensus a prori, and e) included no less than four sources all of which conform to Wikipedia standards.
I would therefore suggest that all you did was "good faith" vandalism.
Please desist from further such 'participation'.Crock8 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in self-interested assertions, i.e. pontificating, but in relevant sources on topic. a prori is a priori. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are very interested since it is you who made the revert, the utterly misleading edit summary, and had been an edit warrior and disrupting editing of the list article. I suggest you look up what a priori means. I have read the talk page before editing. I put it to you that you have a political agenda that won't let any cultural sensitivities stand in the way, which makes you abusive of identity of Arabs and Jews alike, so long as you can have your way here, keeping the subject "controversial" Crock8 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from a recent work on the subject which I think takes a better approach to the issue than Sanders.

This notion of 'cultural security and continuity' is a central aspect of Indi- genous peoples' relationship with their territories. As summarized by members of the former Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)5: the land is the basis for the creation stories, for religion, spirituality, art and culture. It is also the basis for the relationship between people and with earlier and future generations. The loss of land, or damage to land, can cause immense hardship to Indigenous people.

(ATSIC 1997: 5)

The recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does recognize Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights. Article 25 of the UN Declaration affirms that: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Hence, based on Indigenous peoples' holistic approach to land rights, the UN Declaration recognizes the cultural inter-generational approach to land rights. The holistic nature of Indigenous peoples' attachment to land is also reflected in the different legal attempts to define who Indigenous peoples are. While there are no agreed international legal definitions on who Indigenous peoples are, the different existing definitions agree on the specific territorial attachment of Indigenous peoples to their lands.

William Logan, Máiréad Nic Craith, Cultural Diversity, Heritage and Human Rights: Intersections in Theory and Practice, Taylor & Francis, 2010, p.33

It seems to me the list needs to be based on the establishment of existing or claimed land rights of the various entities in the list or those not in the list, but which ought to be included. Crock8 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I see that dispite the talks above this is still being added. The references do not say a thing about them being indigenous. Can anyone provided a source that says the people are indigenous and not just as synthesis of what the books says. At this point I belive we need a thrid party involved before blocks for disruptive editing are handed out.Moxy (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moxy that you hadn't actually read the sources because they explicitly say exactly that! Crock8 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Russell "More recently, scholars have emphasized the local archaeological data from Israel, which show clear continuity between Late Bronze Age "Canaanite" forms and Iron Age "Israelite" ones. These data suggest that Israel was indigenous." Crock8 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOOOoo i see - that quote is from a different page then is quoted in the ref... Stephen C. Russell (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Walter de Gruyter. p. 197. - page 279 is the index of the book. As for the other ref "Spielvogel" is it in volume 2 or what ISBN # - because again I think its the wrong page ...as page 27 is about women Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Cengage Learning. p. 27. Lets fix these so the next person does not make the same mistake as I did thinking they were BS refs. Do we have any source that say indigenous under the current terminology? As can be seen by the recent revert - the type of source is being questioned. Moxy (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have and will continue to remove all material that attempts to insert a thesis that has no basis on the RS literature on indigenous peoples. The several attempts to do this with 'Israelites' (ancient tribe) to make modern Jews 'indigenous' to Palestine is a blatant case of non-sourceable wp.editorializing or theorizing or wp.synth. It's a thesis with no support. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He provided sources that meet all of the criteria for this article, and the sources he provided (in addition to common sense) all say that Israelites and their descendents (i.e. Jews) are indigenous to Western Asia.Evildoer187 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either study policy or keep off the page. I can have excellent sources on astronomy for a geology page, but it's the wrong page for that RS, such excellent RS are irrelevant to the topic. No sources have been given in his essay for the theory that the Israelites are 'indigenous' in the sense given here. No reference on indigenous peoples includes them. This is a list, not a place to make an argument as crock is doing. It's wildly WP:OR. Crock is publishin g his own short essay on wikipedia, and that's not allowed.Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy and paste this argument between Crock8 and yourself from the formers page, and post it here. This is so none of us have to repeat ourselves.

"== List of indigenous people - Israelites ==

(Moved after deletion by Nishidani from his talkpage) − I'm not sure why you reverted my edit last week, as you left no explanation.

− However, I noticed that I had made a mistake in any case, so I had placed it back in the corrected form.

− I might note, reading the extensive discussion in the talk page, that it seems Wikipedia editors involved lack cultural awareness enough to edit this article since you have been discussing the wrong subject!

− Please discuss before taking any further action. Crock8 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

I gave an explanation: 'reverted crock'. Crock may be your handle, but the word, among other meanings, signifies 'nonsense'. I reverted a crock of crap, which you have now restored with this edit.

−

You are rude as well as ill-informed and tending towards being misleading. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

• Arabians – a Semitic people who live in a tribal societies and maintaining ancient tribal affiliation, customs and culture. Found in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Israel (Negev),^[2] Sinai (Egypt), Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (Beka'a valley), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

−

• Israelites – An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon, that had been mostly exiled from their tribal lands. Subsequent exiles and cataclysms created a global diaspora. Since the creation of the state of Israel, its government enacted the law of the Right of return which anticipated the principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora.

− It's all a motherlode of crap because:-

−

• (1) Replacing Bedouins with Arabians consists in eliding a specific tribal group with an extensive page about it, by an indefinite term linked to an ostensible synonyn, on a new page that has no content other than a brief lead saying Arabians is the general term for a people sometimes called Bedouin. The page has no references save one, to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Arabia, which talks of ethnic Arabs. Thus the Arabians are 'ethnic Arabs', but you don't even link to Arabs. The POV strategy is obvious.

−

The article is a list of indigenous peoples. Had you looked at the Arabs article, you will have seen that it, like the Arab people deal with the entirety of the global Arab populations. Arab tribes doesn't help much either. I would suggest, if you are so unhappy, to propose a merger of the four articles in whatever way please you, but Arabians, despite the obvious shortcomings of the article, suits the purpose of the list best. The use of Arab when referring to Bedouins is appropriate, while the reverse it seems is not, within the culture. Perhaps you can expand the Arabians article to a better standard? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

• (2) Israelites. You haven't apparently even clicked on the link. The article is about 'indigenous peoples'. You have introduced a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term to smuggle in the POV that the Jews are indigenous to Palestine, which the talk page is undecided about, and thus are acting objectively on behalf of User:Evildoer187, to push this POV.

−

"a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term"? Israelites appears to be the correct plural adjective form in English of a member of any given ethnic group with a known place of origin, in this case Israel. Israeli, is not the correct grammatical adjective that would be Israelian, but Israelite is still a correct, though more archaic usage form. The people of Israel, Kingdom of Israel, and Israel as individual and community identity seem to have been fairly well established in history, Western and Easter, and supported by archaeology and linguistics among others. You may think its a 'myth', but its a fairly consistent 'myth' that the "Jews" preserved for over 2,000 years given the Greeks and Romans certainly believed it. But then, other cultures have myths also, right? So why don't you bring this up in other Wikipedia articles. If you are going to start debunking cultural myths, you may as well do a thorough job. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

• (3)Israelites, in biblical lore, are an historic congeries of peoples, ancestral to the Jews, and neither in prehistory nor today an indigenous population. They are registered in ancient records in Egypt, the Sinai, in Syria and many other places, where biblical lore sets them. In the Biblical account they are nomadic tribes who invade Palestine and wrest it from the indigenous Canaanites. Secondly, the page lists contemporary peoples who are listed as 'indigenous' minorities. It does not list ancient peoples who may have been indigenous to a country. Thirdly, you provided no source saying these Israelites are listed as a (contemporary) indigenous people. There are no such sources.

−

Within the culture, the record (Torah) shows that the progenitor of Israelites, Abraham, purchased land in the Canaan. Lore to you, but cultural property to others. I think you are trespassing! It also details that he settled in the land, engaging in planted agriculture. That Israelites were nomadic is a theory. However, I would be happy if you enlightened me as to where in the Torah it says the Israelites were 'nomadic'. A subsequent invasion was in fact God-directed, so not really a subject to modern ethical analysis.

−

There are many contemporary indigenous people that are not minorities. In fact the largest indigenous people are the [Han Chinese|Han]] who are the majority in the Peoples Republic of China.

−

All indigenous peoples are 'ancient' by definition since most non-indigenous populations date only to early medieval (European) period, for example the Franks reaching the Pyrennes in the early 6th c. by displacing and assimilating the Gaulic Celts, or the Arabs (from 7th c.). The "Jews" however are fairly unique in that they have claimed a place of origin from the ancient times which comes with perhaps the best ancient identification of individual tribal lands and borders in existence.

−

Do you know what you are talking about in seeking a source for a "(contemporary) indigenous people"? If they are not 'contemporary', they are extinct! There are many such ethnic groups, and if you agree with the Nazis, Israelites also would have been "non-contemporary" along with Levites and Kohens. It seems to me that no sources are required to establish this fact. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

• For these and many other obvious reasons, your edit was a 'crock', and will be reverted, I hope by neutral third parties who can see that your behaviour constitutes an intrusive attempt to tagteam and get round the objections on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

My avatar in Wikipedia is crock8, so I like to play with words just like you Glen, Glen West is it? However, it does not give you the right to sling personal abuse by converting my avatar to something entirely unsavoury.

−

As for tagteaming, cute try, but I had never heard of Evildoer187 until I started editing this list. I think this would be obvious from the edits.

−

Nor am I 'getting around' the objections raised in the talk page. Its just that the subject of the objections was wrong in the first place, as I informed when I began editing. Its called re-framing the question. I note that you make your entry there citing Tibetans and Basques, who are in fact Bodpa[ites] and Euskal[ites]. I therefore quoted John Trudell for your benefit. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

• You are with this second edit further trying to game the process. The citation from Scharfstein reflects a religious POV, and happens to be controversial, not a statement of fact. The distinction between the ostensible self-defining ethnonym Israelites, and the putative foreign ethnonym, imposed on the Israelites by outsiders ignores the fact that the Hasmonean state used as its official term 'Judeans' to self-define, and used ḥever hayehudim on its coinage. Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus use 'Israelites' for the Biblical era, and 'Ioudaioi' increasingly for for the post-biblical era, and their contemporary fellow Jews. and they are in this 'self-identifying'.

−

Of course Schaferstein is reflecting a religious point of view...its a book about religious rituals in Judaism!!! Doh! However, he doesn't seem to be the User:Schaferstein participating in the editing of this article. In what way is it controversial and not a fact?

−

The Hasmoneans were out to restore independence of Judea! What else would they put on the coins?! This did not overnight cause the Levites and Kohens to become 'Yehudim' from the date of minting!

−

You want to get into the analysis of why User:PhiloofAlexandria and User:Josephus switch between these terms? Are you saying that either of them made a difference to the self-identification of the millions of non-Levites and non-Kohens in their times? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

−

In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above:

−

'An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon.'

−

Actually, I reflect a plethora of maps way before any record of 'Palestinians' emerged in the 20th century which show Israelite tribal lands. Judea happens to be a reference to the tribe of Judah, and Samaria was the claimed capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That you' read political overtones into the editing only says something about you. Most "Jews" appear to have a fairly good case of claiming for their land rights that geographic toponym from which the "Jew" is derived, but which only became "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" in 1950. So to be utterly consistent, those that live there are Gharbiyyalites, and I may well question their indigenousness. Instead perhaps you can find some sources of the Filistin indigenousness claims and claims of land rights in the Ottoman and earlier records? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

Modern Israel does not refer to Judea or Samaria (the West Bank) which is where the Jewish people of high antiquity were concentrated. In leaving that obvious fact out, you are openly insinuating that Modern Israel includes the West Bank. I.e. you are pushing the settler POV of Eretz Israel.

−

The "West Bank" is not a recognised geographic toponym. The "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" was created only to distinguish the 30 deputies in the Jordanian Parliament from the "al-Ḍiffah al-Sharqiyyal", or "The East Bank" deputies. Since the west bank of the Jordan is not a useful geographic identifier of an area (being limited to a linear feature), I used more common and familiar identifiers. Is it my fault that the king of Jordan had no other Arabic name for his newly annexed territory? So what exactly do 'settlers' have to do with my editing? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

− −

Why do serious editors have to keep AGFing this continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia by prevaricating blowins, who make their usual dozen edits in other articles and then zoom in on the only area that interests them as POV warriors?Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

Since apparently you think my editing is "continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia", I will not give you the benefit of "AGF".

−

You accusations is striking though, as I have not edited so frequently in Wikipedia as you had, nor for so long, and this is my first dispute, which is more it seems than you can say.

−

I'm curious why you think that this "area" is the only one that interests me? Admittedly it is an area of interest, and it was only when I was wronged in a conversation, and informed that Wikipedia does not list "Jews" as indigenous that I was forced to wade through the "incremental thrashing of POV bullshit" in the talk pages before editing. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but facts are facts. Most "Jews" that care anything about their cultural practices know if they are Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishadani, As I said above the population genetics fully support the common Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups, as "originating from ancient Israelites" (Behar and al 2010) Any attempt to censor well established genetic facts, supported by numerous scholarly material will be reverted by myself.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with genetics. This page lists people recognized by RS on indigenous peoples as indigenous peoples. If none of you can come up with a source for that, then refrain from messing up the page with this absurd POV pushingNishidani (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can provide credible evidence that his sources are not RS (i.e. reliable sources), then the article stays as it is.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-

Nishidani, you are clearly POV pushing. It is common knowledge that the Jews, as an ethno-religious group, have their roots, both culturally and genetically in the MidEast, more specifically in Israel-Palestine. Jews have had an uninterrupted presence in the region (as Mizrahim especially), regardless of waxing and waning in their population. This is clear to everyone involved in this absurd back and forth, except you. Further, to accuse others of pushing their POV while a very significant portion of your contributions to wikipedia center around the Israel-Palestine debate, working from a solely Palestinian and Arab Nationalist POV, is disingenuous, unintentional trolling at best. Most involved in the discussion regarding this issue, have been fine with including both Jews (or Israelites) and Palestinians (or Arabs) as indigenous to both Israel-Palestine and the greater Middle East, the fact that you are only concerned with removing references to Jews (or Israelites) as indigenous, belies your clear bias.User:HaleakalAri (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the page. There is a very specific definition of indigenous people. There are organizations that discuss, list and determine who qualifies. No one has shown that 'Israelites' figure in these lists. Crock invented an argument, that is not grounded in any relevant source on indigeneity. I'm not interested in your various opinion. I am waiting for someone to come up with a strong academic source that says that the modern Israelis and Jews are indigenous to Israel/Palestine in the face of what history tells of the formation of that state's demography, and in the face of the standard meanings of the word 'indigenous'.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[8] [9]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[10] --Tritomex (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Israelites – an ethno-religious Semitic tribal group of the Middle East with the oldest surviving settlement record^{[citation needed]} in the area of modern Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon,^{[citation needed]} that had been mostly dispersed from their tribal lands. ^{[citation needed]}Subsequent exiles and cataclysms created a global diaspora,^{[citation needed]} who then settled mostly in Europe, North Africa, and other parts of the Middle East. This resulted in different diasporic names being imposed upon the populations: ^{[citation needed]}Jews in English speaking countries,^{[citation needed]} the Ashkenazi (Hebrew for Germany),^{[citation needed]} Sephardi^{[citation needed]} (Hebrew for Spain), Mizrahi (Hebrew for Eastern),^{[citation needed]} Yehudi (Arabic for Judah).^{[citation needed]} Since the creation of the state of Israel, its government enacted the law of the Right of return which anticipated the principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any descendant of the Israelites, Kohanim or Levim the right to return to, and re-enter Israel as their historic homeland. This principle was reflected in Israel's considerations in immigration laws (called "repatriation" or aliyah) which facilitate or encourage the reunion of the diaspora allowing entry to populations that had not resided in Israel for thousands of years, such as the Yemenite Jews. Nevertheless, large diasporic populations of Israelites currently reside in the United States, France, Canada, United Kingdom, and Argentina as a result of the fleeing the Holocaust and Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. A large remnant population also remains in Russia.^[3][4] The common native Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups is supported by population genetics.^{[5][6][7][8][9]}

Apart from bad writing, this is an essay constructed to make out that Jews are an indigenous people in the sense 'indigenous' is defined in the literature on that subject. There has been zero efforts to show they fit the definition.

• Indigenous people regards native peoples of the modern world. No ancient indigenes are listed.
• The Israelites were an ancient group in the ancient world
• To get round this, the author says that the real name of all modern Jews is 'Israelite', hence they are identical to the indigenous population of the Middle East. All names like 'Jews'/'Sephardi'/'Ashkenazi' have been imposed on the Jews by foreigners. No proof, required for the general proposition (challenged in RS I mentioned on my page), exists for the idea that in each of these several populations the outsiders imposed the respective designations.
• No academic evidence has been given to show that the Israelites/Jews are regarded as 'indigenous' to the Middle East as opposed to hailing in part from the Middle East.
• The genetic evidence has no validity for indigeneity.

Israelite indigenousness is to the Eastern Mediterranean (Near East) is widely accepted in the academia, and is confirmed by a variety of data from multiple disciplines.

None of the modern indigenous lists include the Israelites. You cannot engage in 'original research' in order to smuggle in an idea unattested in the relevant literature. None of the RS above bears on the question of indigeneity. It's a personal construct with no foundations in RS. I shouldn'teven be required to argue this, the abuse being so patent. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The idea is clearly expressed in a variety of relevant academic texts. That section is thoroughly sourced and you are simply melting over the fact that you're the only one who is taking serious issue with it. It is not at all a personal construct. Further, the study referenced on Samaritan genetic relations to various Jewish groups also supports the genetic link, and quite relevantly, the Samaritans not only consider themselves to be Israelites, but are recognized by a wide variety of reliable sources as indigenous to Israel-Palestine. The same can be said for Jews (and especially the Mizrahi variant). Lastly, your claim that genetics have nothing to do with indigeneity is patently false. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani you violated 1RR, which could lead to block from further editing. More so, you have violated this rule 2 times. If you further continue with edit warring regarding this issue I will have to report you. The question of nativity is solely genetic question and if you did not read population genetic studies, please avoid commenting. Behar specifically states " Jewish genetic origin is consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from the ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World"-

I've warned him repeatedly over the past week about the rules he's broken, which just resulted in him deleting the warnings. I am considering reporting him, but I have not decided yet.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Tritomex reverted me before I could self-revert. This doesn't resolve anything of course. No one has produced any RS that Jews/Israelis are 'indigenous' to Israel/Palestine. In fact it defies all uses of the word, and all official cites dealing with indigeneity.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes we have. Numerous reliable sources that you are either ignoring or choose to disregard because you disagree with them. There are several components to indigeneity, chief among them; genetics, culture and a historical connection to and/or presence in the land. All 3 of these criteria are clearly met by the vast majority of Jews.HaleakalAri (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the source that defines Israel's population as 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FOR NISHIDANI - you seem to have a problem. Your problem is that you have no respect for culture. Anyone's culture. I appreciate that Wikipedia does not accept the "Bible" as a reliable reference source, but the TaNa"Kh happens to be a number of cultural property texts, cultural property, that define the Israelites as a culture. Aside from this important fact, which can not be disputed, it also provides one of the few sources of knowledge about the Eastern Mediterranean indigenous milieu over a period of over a thousand years for which there is only scant support from other sources. If not for the Torah, almost nothing would be known about the very early processes of regional tribal relationships and interactions. One of the very VERY interesting things about the Israelite text is that it clearly states the progenitor of the Israelites came to the region from elsewhere, bought land for a ritual burial, and took land that was apparently undisputed to commence settled agriculture. During all this, including a temporary departure of the descendants due to harsh environmental factors, there wasn't any dispute to the Israelite claim to the land. The Canaanite tribe details given in the Torah are the best detail records of the regional culture available, and no one would dispute the Canaanites were indigenous to the region, which makes Israelites their contemporaries.
• Israelite is not a reference to an ancient 'biblical' population, but is the reference to an ethno-religious group that has an extensive cultural practice spanning over 2,500 years of referring to themselves in this collective term Yisrael, which best translated to English as Israelites. "Jews" is about as accurate a term to apply to these people as calling all Europeans 'ferenji' (from French) in Arabic, or for that matter Europeans calling all Arabic speakers 'Arabs', though within the culture tribal identities have community, society and even international implications.
• Ethno-religious means that the culture determines individual's membership in the community by mechanisms other than blood relationships. Genetics research is therefore fairly useless in identifying who is an Israelite, though more so where Kohens are concerned. Wikipedia 'doesn't have a say in cultural practices of any one culture on this planet. It simply records the facts.
• Clearly you don't like these particular facts. You seek for example some mythical "definition of indigenousness" although none exists. Wikipedia for example questions the claim by the Kelts that they are indigenous to Europe, but include Crimean Karaites who were not recognised as being of Semitic descent only by the Nazis. I think there is something seriously wrong with this list article. Crock8 220.238.42.127 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are right in front of you.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for an outsider, could you give me a quote or two? For contemmporary Israelites of course. And hopefully something that matches with the way the lead describes the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from population genetics experts

1. Behar and al 2011 [11]

An illustrative example at K58 (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Note 3) is the pattern of membership of Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi), north African (Moroccan), Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) and Yemenite Jewish communities in the light-green and lightblue genetic components, which is similar to that observed for Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, suggesting a shared regional origin of these Jewish communities. This inference is consistent with historical records describing the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World.Our conclusion favoring common ancestry over recent admixture is further supported by the fact that our sample contains individuals that are known not to be admixed in the most recent one or two generations."

"Our PCA, ADMIXTURE and ASD analyses, which are based on genome-wide data from a large sample of Jewish communities, their non-Jewish host populations, and novel samples from the Middle East, are concordant in revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant"

1. Hammer and al 2001

"The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."

1. Atzmon and al 2010

"Jewish Populations Form Distinctive Clusters with Genetic Proximity to European and Middle Eastern Groups In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry."

1. Nebel and all 2001

[12] Nebel and al 2001 "Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000). Of those Palestinian chromosomes, approximately one-third formed a group of very closely related haplotypes that were only rarely found in Jews. Altogether, the findings indicated a remarkable degree of genetic continuity in both Jews and Arabs, despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews. " "

1. Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA by Tony Nick Frudaki

[13]

1. Campbel and al 2012 [14]

"Jewish groups generally demonstrated closer relatedness with other Jewish communities than with geographically near non- Jewish populations...These findings demonstrated that the most differentiated of the North African Jewish populations was Djerban. The smallest FST was between Greek and Turkish Sephardic Jews (FST = 0.0024), who were close, in turn, to Italian, Algerian, Moroccan, and Ashkenazi Jews. The second smallest FST observed was between Algerian and Moroccan Jews (FST = 0.0027). As a point of reference, the average pairwise FST between Jews and non-Jews (excluding African and Asian reference populations) was 0.019. Thus, North African Jews were identifiable as a third major group along with Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews, albeit with a higher degree of relatedness to European Jews

Of course there are many additional material as well--Tritomex (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are you implying (inferring) that the genetic data says they are indigenous because I dont see that term used anywhere. In fact its states clearly they are decedent of a Middle Eastern ancestral population that is related to others in the area. Moxy (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you are not seeing obvious facts-all this genetic studies clearly confirm " shared Middle Eastern origin of Jews" This is a quote-and beyond any reasonable question. Originating from Middle East, being native to Middle East or indigenous to Middle East are exactly the same terms.Of course I did not copy/pasted whole studies, yet this are terms usually used--Tritomex (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The data does not imply what your assuming at all - your guess that they mean Native or indigenous - infact your quote above proves this "shared" this means from the people before them for more info on this topic see Genetic studies on Jews (note how old the y-DNA types are).Moxy (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tritomex of course the Ashkenazi population has ME genetic markers, so do Italy's Tuscans. On how many pages do you have to hammer at the obvious? This has nothing to do with the concept of indigeneity which the page defines as

"those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of".[

How do Israelites fit that definition? I.e. how were 'Israelites' the indigenous population of Canaan, then incorporated into a nation-state, presumably the The United Monarchy of Israel, who then remained 'politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are (present tense) a apart of.' How are, again, the Jews or Israelis the indigenous population of a nation-state (Mandatory Palestine or Israel as the case may be) who were incorporated into Israel, and remain separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state of Israel, which is a Jewish state? I mean, really, this is utter garbage.Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy I am very much familiar with the article to which I was one of main contributor. The word "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" is directly taken from Hammer and explains that all major Jewish groups have shared and common Middle Eastern origin. If you insist I can find you 20 identical quotes, from another studies, yet you can do it for yourself by simply reading those genetic studies. If your allusions have to do something with racial purity, genetically there is no a single ethnic group on planet without genetic admixture from outside.--Tritomex (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is good turn of events - as a geneticist I take it your fully aware that Jews are not used in studies of indigenous populations at all. So why would you assume that "shared Middle Eastern ancestry of all major Jewish groups" means indigenous? Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona does not make this indigenous claim - its you assuming that "shared and common" means indigenous in someway - pls see THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE - As a someone who also writes articles like Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas I am concern with interpretations over stating what is actually said.Moxy (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific definitions of indigenous people. I just red that article and I have to inform you that what is written in the lead (was a working definition proposal never accepted ) is misleading disinformation which has to be removed.[15] [16]

"In the thirty-year history of indigenous issues at the United Nations, and the longer history in the ILO on this question, considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body. One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of the indigenous was given by Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in his famous Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations.[1] Significant discussions on the subject have been held within the context of the preparation of a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[2] by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations since 1982. An understanding of the concept of “indigenous and tribal peoples” is contained in article 1 of the 1989 Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, No. 169, adopted by the International Labour Organization....Similarly, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary. So to use one proposal which was not adopted by any UN or other international body (but by some Labor organization) is unacceptable and has to be changed. As a reliable source for this question any dictionary can be used. Indigenous or Native people represent peoples belonging to, or connected with a specific place or country by virtue of birth or origin.[http://www.thefreedictionary.com

We could work on the definition - but will have to pass on any definition by a dictionary - would be best to use proper ref like Wilhelm Kirch (24 July 2008). Encyclopedia of Public Health: Volume 1: A - H Volume 2: I - Z. Springer. p. 741. ISBN 978-1-4020-5613-0..00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy I am medical doctor, pediatric geneticist. The person named Ellen Levy-Coffman is charlatan. She never carried out any genetic study among Jewish people, nor she ever participated at any, she is not geneticist, her article is self-published website, and full of major errors which no one familiar with population genetics would made. You have some 20 genetic studies carried out by world leading geneticists like Hammer, Behar, Shen, Semino, Atzmon, Harry Ostrrer, Thomas, Campbell, Kopelman, Nebla and others to name some of the most important names. To quote Hammaer "Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non- Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." Read our article mtDNA studies carried out by Behar and autosomal DNA studies. All this studies confirm the Middle Eastern origin of all major Jewish groups and what is "shared" is their common origin. Off course as all peoples, Jewish people also underwent admixture, however their Middle Eastern origin is scientifically undeniable. Considering the term "indigenous people" geneticist use usually other wording,(geographic place+origin) and as this term ("indigenous people") is not defined through universal definition, we can see why. Today I will be absent, tomorrow I will be back.--Tritomex (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good point, Wilhelm Kirch book seems very good as a source for the definition. I will work on lead from tomorrow--Tritomex (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The error here is, the page has a definition which excludes the inclusion of material you favour. Hence you procede to change the definition in order to make it compatible with your proposed edit. That fails all basic methodology.

Your second problem is is you are mixing a selection of stray remarks in genetic papers written by geneticists with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship concerning the origins of Jewish male populations as often as not, with a concept of indigeneity that has nothing to do with genetics, and the result is WP:OR. You may or may not be a geneticist, but you show no understanding of historical method, nor of what the phrase ‘the paternal gene pools’ implies. The male gene pool shows ME origins, the female gene pool is far more heterogeneous (Genetic studies on Jews). It is totally arbitrary to make conclusions from one of several data. If someone is of mixed Irish and Japanese descent, (s)he could claim Irish, while ignoring the other side, or claim Japanese descent, while passing over in silence the Celtic factor. People are profoundly irrational when their identity, which is a cultural construct, is mentioned. Logic says mixed descent implies mixed origins, not one origin, and this is the case in all of the genetic papers you marshall. The point was well point by Halkin recently:-

'And who is we? Each of us has had many thousands of forebears, and each of those had many thousands in turn. The traces of millions of human beings are in our minds, our hair, our eyes and noses, our inner organs, the shape of our toes, our trillions of cells. By pure chance, two of these trillions are passed on unchanged and can be given labels like R-M117. Instructive as they are, we needn’t make too much of them.' Hillel Halkin Jews and Their DNA at Commentary, September 2008

In Jewish law, descent is by the matrilineal line, not the patriarchal line. This is in conflict with the geneticists who casually assert that the ME descent evidence is proven from the paternal gene pools. There is a fundamental conflict between identity as a religious concept, and identity as a genetic concept. The selective use of sources to prove a theory is not proper to Wikipedia, which must simply survey the state of opinion. There is no source for your repeated use of the concept of consensus on any of these questions. As with Ashkenazi Jews a very large body of historical, linguistic and cultural work has arrived at no consensus, despite you insistent defense of passages which assert that. That page looks irretrievable now because of the confusion caused by loose use of genetic papers that appear to assert what the relevant scholarhip (Jacobs, Wexler and many others) say is a theoretically unresolved question. My position has consistently been to survey the variety of theories on this issue, never to take sides, as you and evildoer are consistently doing. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking sides? I offered to include both groups. You haven't. If anyone here has a bias, it's probably you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have included neither, but shown that in the indigeneity literature, there is support for the Palestinians as indigenous, but no mention of the Jews. Therefore these edits are anomalous. I certainly am not going to introduce the Palestinian material, though it might squeak through. I oppose any attempts to finangle the evidence in order to argue that the Jewish population of Israel is 'indigenous'. Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straight up lie. I saw your argument with Maunus, you did lobby to get Palestinians included and not Jews. Both are equally qualified for being considered indigenous.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again - how a culture identifies itself has nothing to do with the genetic data that can be gathered on it. In Judaism in particular the maternal identifier prevails, and inclusivity is a part of the legal lore of Judaism, with both the Christian and Islamic religions borrowing the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah. Many Israelites are virtually indistinguishable from their diasporic host populations, for example the Yemenite community, so what are you going to do, institute a DNA test for the test on who is a "Jew"? That would be telling the state of Israel how to identify its demographic, which is way more of a responsibility than the job of an encyclopaedia. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'the concept of conversion which didn't exist until the Torah.' What's that got to do with the price of fish? This is not a forum for discussing Judaism. It addresses a specific question: are the Israelites of the Ist millenium BCE to be included, uniquely, in a list that deals exclusively with contemporary indigenous peoples. The anomaly of this position is blindingly obvious, as is the POV pushing behind it.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of indigenous we use here does not say anything about "contemporary" or "ancient" peoples, so your argument isn't valid.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani Although you have showed that you are totally unfamiliar with population genetics you keep commenting on this issue, even making certain claims and mixing religious law with the science-To claim that some of the most notable scientists and population geneticists are " with no grasp of up-to-date historical and linguistic scholarship" is not just WP:OR it is unbelievable that you entitled yourself to such remarks, maybe because you see yourself as " up-to-date historian and linguistic scholar"

For your knowledge, although I cant spent here my time explaining you the basis of population genetics ,the Middle Easter origin of Jewish groups is both paternal and maternal. Humans have 44 autosomal chromosomes and 2 sex chromosome X or Y. 23 chromosomes are inherited from mother, 23 from father. Autosomal genetic studies confirmed the Middle Eastern orgin of all Jewish groups. The same is truth for Y chromosome. Concerning X chr. Behar and most of recent studies confirmed also the Middle Eastern origin for at least 40% of Jewish females.--Tritomex (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question of indigenous status does not directly relate to genetics. It relates to whether a group of people inhabiting a defined territory have been subjected to oppression by a superior entity constituting a nation state and marginalized in their own territory.

That's odd, because I could have sworn this also applied to Jews in relation to the Romans. So I guess the Jews just forfeited their homeland to the Romans willingly?

The Palestinians clearly fit the description, whereas the Jews were themselves usurpers of territories of the Canaanites, which in turn is irrelevant as they were groups contesting the territory and of cultural parity. That is ancient history, and has nothing to do with this article. In fact, as I have stated below, the Jews were newcomers to the territory in question which has a history of many thousands of years before Jews came into existence. The Canaanites, like the Israelites, are groups that exist only in the distant past in history.

Ubitwik, this is some of the most mind-numbing and self-defeating logic I've ever read in my life. So Jews were usurpers of the Canaanites, so what does that make the Arab tribes from whom Palestinian Arabs descend culturally and genetically, whereas the Jews, Samaritans, Druze, and others who lived there much earlier don't? It is true that they also have Canaanite/Hebrew ancestry (hence their closeness to the Jews), and this is why they are indigenous along with the Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics holds no sway over the fundamentally anachronistic thrust of the arguments being made by those in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis/Israelites" on this list.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Genetics is one of the chief components of indigeneity, along with culture, and historical connection. It seems that you just wish to ignore it because it's inconvenient.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that claim about genetics? You make a lot of assertions and provide no sources to support them. I consider it to be a waste of my time to have to repeatedly ask you for sources.

See the criteria in the UN document Defining "Indigenous Peoples". As the document in question can only be viewed by downloading it, a quick word for word copy of the criteria should suffice.

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;
b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
f) Other relevant factors."

I would also recommend doing a quick Google search of UN Indigenous Definition. TL;DR version: Genetics, culture, and historical connection are all there. Jews fit the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've also added "culture" and "historical connection" without sources defining the relationship or supporting your claim, whereas I have already provided several sources relating to historical connection as well as the modern historical context. The has been much discussion in relation to "contemporary status" on this Talk page, and the concensus would appear to be that we are not talking about ancient history, no matter where anyone chooses to arbitrarily start.

There is nothing, anywhere, in international law, or in the definition at the top of this page, that excludes indigenous groups on the grounds that their connection is "ancient". In fact, it does the opposite.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you examine the UNPFII page on thematic issues, for example.

I've already posted the link to this UN document once, but I'll do it again here, with emphasis on the modern historical context, for your consideration. I would imagine there will be aspects that you could try to appropriate and apply to modern day Jews, but note that the discussion addresses colonization and the USA, Canada, etc., not the Assyrian or Roman empires of ancient times. And the indigenous peoples of those countries were not driven into a diaspora, just segregated, etc.

State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, p.1

For centuries, since the time of their colonization, conquest or occupation, indigenous peoples have documented histories of resistance, interface or cooperation with states, thus demonstrating their conviction and determination to survive with their distinct sovereign identities. Indeed, indigenous peoples were often recognized as sovereign peoples by states, as witnessed by the hundreds of treaties concluded between indigenous peoples and the governments of the United States, Canada, New Zealand and others.

--Ubikwit (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I see nothing that denotes "indigeneity starts here, at this point in time" or "ancient peoples or tribes excluded", either explicitly or implicitly, in any document pertaining to indigeneity, including the one you just linked to.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is the definition stated in the lead, and the definition includes the term "national state", which refers to a modern construct, i.e., the nation state. This is not about ancient history, but the current state of affairs between peoples and the polities in which they live. It is not about when it starts, but that it has a start and continuity; most of the people in question are the only people known to have inhabited the lands in which they are recognized as being indigenous. They were primitive peoples that were "discovered", as it were.

Wrong. Nation states have existed since antiquity. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, to name a few. Until you show me a clause that explicitly or implicitly states "ancient peoples need not apply", then there's little reason to take your mental acrobatics seriously. As I have demonstrated earlier (see UN document "Defining Indigenous People", Section 2, which I have quoted above), Jews fit the criteria for indigeneity, as do the Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Israelites, that was not the case; in fact, they took over the land of a group of peers with whom they were forbidden to intermarry. Furthermore, with regard to continuity, only 4% of the population of Palestine was Jews in the mid 19th century, for example, even though there was nothing preventing them from living there. They were a diaspora people, not indigenous to anywhere. Contrast that with the Ainu of Japan, for example.

"those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of"

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

There is a consensus based on archaeological findings that Jews/Israelites stemmed from a Canaanite source population. There weren't any invading Babylonian hordes that subjugated the native Canaanites and established a kingdom. Those who established the Kingdom of Israel were Canaanites, basically. You keep ignoring that point, and I don't know why. I never said anything about Jews being excluded from living in Ottoman Palestine (Roman Palestine is a different story), although they did at one point institute strict policies against letting non-Sephardic Jews live in the area, if I recall correctly.

Regarding your quote, neither Jews or Palestinians fit that criteria as both have nation-states now. The only difference is that one is occupied by the other.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit Biblical narratives and other religious texts are not RS, for Wikipedia. There is almost unanimous agreement among historians and geneticists that ancient Israelites developed as a people from what we use to call Canaanites, through social and religious revolution and without the well known biblical stories about the exodus from Egypt or the conquest of Canaan.Please familiarize yourself with this issues.--Tritomex (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tritomex,while Wikipedia may not recognise religious texts as reliable sources, because the Torah is a central source of identity of the Yisrael, to deny it means to they identity to the cultural heritage and entire of the entire ethnicity. This is NOT within the providence of an encyclopaedia. It is the culture's own choice what it regards as a 'reliable source' of it's own practice, given the source was from God. You may be an atheist, but denying the use of the text to this culture IMPOSES ATHEISM, which is actually a denial of human rights according to the UN universal charter. Based on this I will seek to take administrative action against you and any other editor that takes the same line of 'argument' in disrupting editing Crock81 (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tritomex, I'm familiar with the version of the origin of the Jews from the Canaanaites, or the so-called "friendly infiltration" version, as I believe someone has put it. But that simply leads to the conclusion that the Jews and Palestinians, whom I believe are also said to be derived from the Canaanites and share genetics characteristics, both arose from the same population base and are separated now on the basis of religion and history. That history encompasses the Jews going into diaspora while the Palestinians remained in Palestine continuously during the approximately 1800 years or more after the destruction by the Romans to the return of significant numbers of so-called Zionist Jews starting from the mid 19th century.

"So-called"? What are you trying to suggest here? That the Jews who made aliyah from the 19th century on were fake? Correct me if I'm wrong.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews accomplished that with the help of the British empire, which had adopted the notion of British Israelism, as it had proved a doctrine useful in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries, etc. It is by and large a historical fact that the British helped the Israelis colonize Palestine, and then relinquished their mandate, effectively abandoning the Palestinians before an international consensus could be reached as to what was to become of the territory in terms of it administration and existence as a polity. According to that interpretation, Zionists were colonists, basically, backed by an empire that was sympathetic to their religion and hostile to the religion of the Palestinians.

You really need to check your facts. Britain was not sympathetic to the Jewish people. Rather, they were at war with the Ottoman Empire and believed the "international Jewry" would be a great asset to them.

"Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context." http://books.google.com/books?id=y0tJgT37PIQC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20balfour%20declaration&hl=sv&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

You also neglect to mention that the British back-pedaled on their promise to the Jews, a result of Arab uprisings, and for years blocked Jewish immigration into British Mandate of Palestine, arguably when Jews needed it most (see: White Paper of 1939). I could go on, but I'll stop there for the time being.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, the continuous inhabitants of Palestine were marginalized on their own land, and all of the core factors of the definitions of indigenous apply to the Palestinians, while only a couple apply to the Jews, whereas a number of the defining traits of an oppressor of an indigenous people apply to the modern state of Israel.

Show me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Because all of the criteria I've seen, and posted in various places on this talk page, show that Jews are an indigenous people.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of genetics, it would seem to be obvious that admixture among Jews returning from diaspora would make them less ethnically homogeneous than the Palestinians. The Jews returning from the diaspora did so from diverse locations and cultures. I believe that someone cited genetics data stating that only 40% of Jewish women have the corresponding DNA markers. Genetics does not seem to be of primary importance in this debate.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Palestinians are definitely not homogenous. They have substantial ancestry from Arab, European, and Sub-Saharan African sources. And yes, genetics are of significant importance according to the UN document on defining indigenous peoples.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit Wikipedia can not be used as political battle ground and for taking sides in certain political conflicts in this way. If you belive that "Israelis colonize Palestine in the colonial enterprise involving Christina missionaries" you should avoid editing Wikipedia because this kind of unbalanced ideological POVs,personal political attitudes are not allowed in Wikipedia. To claim that "Zionists were colonists," and similar unbalanced POVs which are insults against an entire nations, is something that you can do in political organizations (if you live in democracy) bit not in unbalanced objective sites like Wikipedia is.--Tritomex (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note copied from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#

There is currently an edit-war here about the inclusion of Israelis and to a lesser extent Palestinian people. There have been a few references provided (see below) - however some editors believe they do not qualify as proper references under the current inclusion criteria for the page as defined in the lead AND/OR that the conclusions inferred by the genetic and biblical references are original research. Looking for outside input on the situation that has lead to an ongoing edit war.Moxy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen C. Russell (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Walter de Gruyter. p. 197.
• Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Cengage Learning. p. 27.
• http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full.pdf+html
• http://bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Behar2010.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/
• http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/43026_Doron.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/

Moxy, at no time did I edit anything to do with the Palestinian people, so that would be no extent.

Biblical references were NOT provided, and I said so again in talk, yet this was ignored.

NO references dealing with genetic research were provided, so 'some editors' invented this...a sort of edit-OR.

Its a rather one sided edit war because I had not been reverting anyone's editing, given no one had actually edited anything other than myself!

So exactly what would you call your comment? <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that there are other people involved and the comments above we not specifically directed towards you. As seen in the conversations above we are talking about genetics and some biblical references have been introduced during this topic of conversation.Moxy (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Moxy, until I edited (added content) to the relevant section it had been frozen through pointless discussion. The 'biblical references' you speak of were used by myself, but not as refrences but rather pointers to source of the cultural practice in the relevant text of the Torah, the core texts of the Isralites. No other 'people' were involved until I was summarily reverted with little explanation or summary, so I had to put all that in for a certain single user. Please kindly stop "flaming the fire" where there wasn't even a 'smoke' <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that the assertion of Israelis or even Israelites as indigenous people is anachronistic and incorrect.

The Israelites either emerged from within the population of the Cannanites according to one theory, or took the land of Canaan by force from the Cannanites according to another theory. In either case, they do not fit the definition of indigenous.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel", subverting the UN process to set up an inclusive modern pluralistic polity in the former UK-administered territory, which had come into existence in Roman times, as I seem to recall.

Waiting for some input on the question of the Palestinians, and any counters on the Israelites/Israelis.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I have just reverted your edit (it's been 24 hours, I believe), because your justification for it is nonsensical. Your post provides nothing in the way of evidence that Israelites are less indigenous than say, Arabians, which you did not delete. Furthermore, Palestinians have a state, as do the Jews/Israelites. I don't even know what to make of the rest of your reasoning. Somehow, a group that predates any Arab presence in the region is less indigenous than the Arabs? Correct me if I'm wrong here.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ubikwit - Yes, how dare a people retain their identity for over 3,000 years where other tribes around them disappeared! Making a mockery of the English Wikipedia that uses two different words to describe the same people. The cheek! I say remove all mention of the "Jews" from Wikipedia. That will make life much easier for so many, right <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make them "indigenous" to lands that were lost during ancient times in a region where civilization predates their coming into existence by thousands of years.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

And here-in lies the true reason the editing of this list is so controversial - "The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been subjugated in their own land since the unilateral recognition by Harry Truman of a "Jewish state of Israel"". All indigenous people have one single denominator, the claim to land rights. You say that the Palestinians have such a claim and the "Jews" do not. Yet the Torah describes both the Israelite coming to, purchase and settlement of the land, its eventual reconquest and resettlement, and the creation of a tribal federation, a united kingdom and two Israelite states before any presence of Arabs in the area.

Where does the Palestinian land claim originate from? They are undoubtedly Arab ethnically. Is there a Banu Filistin in the Arabic, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek or Latin sources? Is there such a people even in the Islamic texts? Is there a defined land claim that can be identified through land marks in the way the Israelite texts describe theirs? Has there been a continuity in the Banu Filistin land claim against conquering Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Caliphate, Ottoman and British empires? I look forward to references 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)<Crock8>[reply]

This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I just saw this now. If it isn't already completely over the line, it sounds dangerously close to an antisemitic conspiracy theory. This sort of thing has no place on Wikipedia. Take this Orientalist horseshit back to Stormfront, where it belongs.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a number of points and ask some convoluted questions, but I'll try to address the briefly.

First, The Wikipedia page on Arabians is under construction and has almost no background information, and I don't have any expertise in that area. You may be correct that the modern kingdoms/sheikdoms of Arabia are also recently established polities (mostly after WWI?), but the Arabs, in particular, the Bedouins and the Palestinian Arabs in Israel are mentioned in a United Nations document on Indigenous people's issues, so they are not anachronistic: see first two references on p.151 <Ubikwit>

I don't have time right now. I'll take a look later.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Found the references, although it's also worth mentioning that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. So it seems that Jews are indigenous under international law as well.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not seem that "the Jews are indigenous under international law", you are arriving at that conclusion through POV analysis which is, as far as I can see, erroneous and based on false conjecture. It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness".

Ubikwit, these are some fairly outrageous accusations, certainly more fitting of being designated as POV analysis than what I have written. You would never have accused Bedouin from the Negev desert, who were also initially excluded from the conference, of trying to "hijack the forum". Nope, it must be those wily, conniving, manipulative "Jews".Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

And what "unfolded", Ubikwit, was that Jewish groups are allowed to attend the forum, and continue to do so to this day. You are correct that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza (or what was officially recognized as Palestine about a week ago), but I'm not seeing how this proves Jews are not indigenous. Two states for two peoples has always been the official policy, but extremists on both sides of the fence want the entire thing.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those references would seem to make it somewhat problematic as to how to characterize "Arabs" on the list, but it seems that they belong there. <Ubikwit>

I agree that Arabs belong there, but so do Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel, on the other hand, is listed as the opposite of indigenous in the UN document with respect to Palestinian Arabs residing in Israel and attending public schools. That would seem to make the categorization of Israelis as indigenous problematic. You make the contentious claim that the Palestinians have a state, but even if that were the case, they are still considered to be people indigenous to that region, whereas the Israelis are a recent influx, and it would seem that the "Israelites" ceased to exist when the Jews were dispersed into the diaspora, approximately two thousand years ago. I don't think that there is anything errant in characterizing their inclusion anachronistic in that sense, at any rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, you will note that when the "Jews" began to lobby for the re-creation of Israel with the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century, and simultaneously with the European powers that the "Jews" be allowed to migrate to the Ottoman-held lands, they did so under the name Israel. There are ample records of various organisations and funds existing in different European states, all using various forms of Israel, that supported the return of "settlers"

I can't find any references to Jews as non-indigenous. Either way, this argument that Jews are a "recent influx" does not follow because Jews have had an uninterrupted and unbroken presence in the area since ancient times, predating any Arab presence (in the Levant, at least). Regarding the diaspora, they are confirmed to be closely related genetically and culturally to the Jews who remained, as well as the Palestinians, which is why I consider both to be indigenous. Maybe a more modern terminology is required, but I don't see how you can consider Jews non-indigenous as they are also one of the original peoples of the area.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews were certainly one of the early peoples of the area, but that is an invoved issue, as the region had been inhabited (by Canaanites?) for thousands of years before Judaism came into existence, as attested to by Egyptian and Hittite sources. I was under the impression that very few Jews resided in Palestine, until the 20th century. <Ubikwit>

P.S. Do not break up my edits here in a manner that obscures who write them and when.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

The Canaanites are a people from whom both Jews and Palestinians claim descent. For instance, there has been archaeological evidence that Israelite culture evolved from Canaanite culture, and Jewish presence in the area only declined significantly (but not completely) following the Jewish-Roman wars in the first millennium AD. Given the genetic closeness of diaspora Jews to Palestinians and Samaritans, it seems clear that all three are about equal in terms of descent from the Canaanites.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israelites do not claim descent from Canaanites. In fact there was a prohibition to intermarry with them due to their religious practices. <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more relevant to this article are the two sections in the Palestinian people article, "Politicized lineages" and "DNA and genetic studies". --Ubikwit (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I personally believe that, if either Palestinian Arabs or Jews are included, that we must handle it as delicately as possible. And also, we should add references to the various genetic, archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and historical evidence that links both groups together. This way, neither group is unfairly or inaccurately painted as "colonizers" or "aliens" in what both consider to be their historic homeland.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "fairness" based on your emotional proclivities, the Jewish state of Israel is recognized by the UN and under international law as illegally occupying Palestinian territory. The Palestinians are the indigenous people according to those current circumstances, and that doesn't even address the Arabs (Bedouin and Palestinians) in Israel.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

It's actually a matter of being objective and not favoring sides, but I can see you're interested in neither of those things. I don't think you recognize how easy it is to turn your own flimsy logic against you. For instance, the Jews in Arab lands who lived there for centuries, long before it ever had any Arab identity. This would apply to the Mizrahim, the Samaritans, and yes, to the so called "European settlers" in Israel/Palestine whose culture is widely agreed upon to be an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanite culture and were themselves colonized by the Romans. As far as I know, nobody contested Bedouin indigeneity. We're saying Jews and Palestinians also meet the criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should note that denial of "Jewish" indigenous origins did result in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws. Israeli representatives continue to attend Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Evildoer187 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you repeat this false assertion again?

Because it isn't a false assertion. It happened.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my response. Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

In order to avoid repeating myself, I will just redirect you to my response to these same points above.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what the argument is that requires inclusion of Palestinians in the article IF the "Jews" are included. The entries need to stand on their own referenced 'legs'. No other entry is based on the inclusion of some other peoples as a compromise <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see an end to the edit war....thus have requested the page be locked (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection).Moxy (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. I suggest we revert the page to what Maunus suggested i.e. leaving both Jews and Palestinians out.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, you INVENTED the "edit war" and so your request for page protection has no basis of fact <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an edit war about the inclusion of Israelis and Palestinians. When it comes down to it, 'Israeli' much like 'Palestinian' is for the most part a nationalist identity. What this edit war revolves around, is the inclusion of Jews / Hebrews / Israelites (or specific variants thereof) as indigenous to the Middle East. Much like Arabs, they are by and large a Semitic people, who have uncontested origins in the Levant, with an unbroken history of residence in and connection to the greater Middle East. Originally, I opted for the inclusion of Mizrahi Jews specifically, which seems to have developed into the larger argument you are seeing now. Need I remind all of you, the section that we are arguing about here is Western Asia, and it would be just as foolish and incorrect to exclude Jews (or at-least Mizrahi Jews) from this category as it would be to exclude Arabs or Samaritans.

In regard to Palestinians, much like Israelis, they are an extension of the nationalist aspirations of Arabs and Jews, respectively. If we are nitpicking, the list should simply include Palestinian Arabs and Mizrahi Jews. To avoid further edit wars, simply 'Arabs' and 'Jews' could be included (or excluded), as any argument for one and not the other, is clearly POV pushing and coming from a place of bias or political motivation. There are a wealth of academic texts and genetic studies supporting a variety of views on the topic, amongst them are many that conclude both Jews and Palestinians to be indigenous to Israel-Palestine and obviously, the greater Middle East. In conclusion and in the interests of promoting the neutrality that wikipedia strives for, I suggest that both Jews (or Israelites / Hebrews) and Arabs are included on this list. If not, they should both be excluded. Anything else would be a victory for partisanship and bias.

TLDR: This is a discussion about indigenous peoples of Western Asia, NOT Israel-Palestine in specific. Clearly, both Jews and Arabs, two semitic peoples who have uncontested roots and uninterrupted history in Western Asia, should be included on the list (or excluded) and then the page should be protected.HaleakalAri (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, and I agree completely.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one problem though. I think adding Mizrahi Jews, Samaritans, and no one else would still give the foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics what they want. Their main target for exclusion has always been the Ashkenazi Jews who pioneered the Zionist movement and who largely continue to be the centerpiece of the anti-Israel propaganda war. If our goal is to remain neutral, then we should just leave it as "ethnic Jews" (with a paragraph clearly stating that Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Italqim, etc all have roots in the Middle East) and "Arabs". Either that, or we exclude both.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction - Israeli is not a "nationalist identity" in the 19th century political sense. Israeli and Israelite are two forms of writing Yisrael in English. It is a cultural identity recorded in writing for over 3,000 years. In this it is nationalist as defined in the article, since "Jews" take the patriotism literally as fatherland, i.e. the land of the forefathers commencing with Abraham.
• Only Arabs can claim descent from Abraham, but none had ever claimed land rights north of Arabia, and Islamic conquest of former Byzantine territories do not claim reconquest of previously lost lands. Bani Yisrail were accepted as the indigenous population of the land formerly known as Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. It says so in SURAH 17: AL-ISRAA (THE NIGHT JOURNEY, OR BANI ISRA'IL, OR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL), VERSES 001-111. Judaism's own texts acknowledge Arab travellers in their own lands from very ancient times, but never as residents <Crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Double Correction - Israeli is indeed a "nationalist identity" ("Of or relating to the people or the republic of Israel" -Merriam-Webster). That is how it is used now. That is what it means. It is absolutely not the same as 'Israelite'. Also, the Qur'an and any other religious scriptures have no place in this discussion. Also, Also, in the candyland of Abrahamic-Religions, Jews are indeed the descendants of Abraham, just like Muslims. Thanks for the weird etymology and Islamic scripture lesson though.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Evildoer187 about breakage of the WP:1RR restriction on this article. My proposed remedy is to put List of indigenous peoples under full protection for two months. During that period, any changes would have to be made through edit requests after getting consensus here on the talk page. If you have an opinion on that proposal, or other ideas on how to limit the edit warring on this article, you can comment at WP:AE#Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. However, it is best that we leave the West Asian section as Bedouin, Marsh Dwellers, and Samaritans for now. We should wait until we reach an agreement before going any further than that. I would also counsel against reverting to the older version you recommended, as it contained various inflammatory adjuncts such as "pre-Zionist", and I can not see that ending well. At the very least, we should exclude the Old Yishuv, Mizrahim, Israelites, Jews, Palestinians, and Arabian categories.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I suggest simply leaving the page in its current state.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This is a suggestion devoid of any basis! The Israelites are indigenous though a continuous land claim to the region over three millennia, yet somehow their inclusion in the list is linked to the 20th century political conflict. Only in Wikipedia! Crock81 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, since there would seem to be a majority of editors here in favor of including "Jews" or "Israelis" on this list, several basic aspects of the definition of "indigenous people" should be clarified. Generally speaking, the concept is applied to minority groups of people that were inhabiting a territory prior to the incursion into that territory by a culturally more advanced external power in early times (such as the Ainu of Japan), or a modern nation state/empire (e.g., the Australian Aborigines, the Maori of New Zealand, the American Indians of the USA).

And this would apply to Jews.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the following discussion of demographics in Palestine that there were very few Jews in the region prior to the Zionist movement, which was backed by the British Empire. That would seem to make it clear that the territory of Palestine has been subjected to colonial or neo-colonial oppression. Furthermore, the majority of the Jews that migrated and settled in the region were from Europe. demographics since late 19th to early 20th century

It is clear that the Palestinians and Arabs belong on the list, as they were the indigenous inhabitants prior to the disruption instigated by the British Empire, partly at the behest of British Zionists.

Had you been referring to the period between the Roman colonization of Israel and the British Mandate of Palestine, then you would be correct. However, you have failed to make that distinction here, so you are rightly being called out on it. Furthermore, if the Jewish people are somehow not indigenous because they wrested the territory from the Canaanites (despite archaeological evidence to the contrary), then by that logic it would appear that Palestinians are not indigenous either, since they are ethnically Arab.

As far as your claim that Zionism was a project of "settlers from Europe", it was more accurately the project of an indigenous group returning from the diaspora. In addition, the majority of today's Israeli citizens (or "settlers", according to you) are actually Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from Arab and Islamic countries. There are also smaller numbers of Jewish groups from India, Africa, and even China, but genetics does not support a Middle Eastern origin for these groups.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The establishment of the Jewish state of Israel is now a fact and its existence is recognized under international law, and the fact that there are oppressed minorities of indigenous people, i.e., Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, within Israel is addressed in the UN document cited above.

Palestinians have a nation-state, albeit an occupied one, so they do not apply any more than Jews do. Although various Jewish and Palestinian NGOs attend forums on indigenous rights, as I have shown you before. And once more, you are ignoring the remnant Jewish minority that inhabited the region up until the British mandate. Now they're apparently not indigenous because A) they're no longer a minority and B) they're not being oppressed.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References to religious documents, such as the Torah, and characterization of Jews as "one of the original peoples of the region" are not only inapplicable in the above-described context, but irrelevant and unsourced POV based on emotional proclivity, not reason.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

They most certainly do not belong on the list any moreso than Jews do. I will respond to the rest of what you have written to me later. I just woke up. Evildoer187 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a factual basis for making such an assertion, it might be better to wait until you do.

I think that the sources I've cited make it clear that Jews and Palestinians are separated more by religion and history than genetics, and with respect to history, they represent a group of people that should be characterized as indigenous according to the criteria of this page and the UN, whereas the Jews have a "Jewish state of Israel", and have no claim to being indigenous to anywhere at present--having returned to Palestine from Europe--though they can trace their origins to the same land of Canaan as the Palestinians.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Need I remind you, again, that Jews have maintained a continuous and uninterrupted presence in the area from the age of the Canaanites (from whom the Jews branched off) up to the British Mandate. Further, you make it sound as though indigeneity is something that can just evaporate over time, over circumstances beyond their control. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. If it did, then the Palestinian refugees dispersed all over the world (in a similar fashion to the Jewish diaspora) would have no basis for their claims of "Right to Return". And again, what of the Palestinians who descend largely from invading Arab tribes (whereas Jews mostly don't) during the Islamic conquest?Evildoer187 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, you will note that my edit stated the Israelites are an ethno-religious indigenous population, where as the same can not be said for the Arabs who have a pagan pre-Islamic history the evidence of which has largely been destroyed, as are the early Islamic sites. Therefore genetics will not mean much given the Torah explicitly states there were a large number of non-Israelites that accompanied the people from their Egyptian exile, and that provides for accepting converts, including as detailed in later texts, into the royal family. Any statements made by geneticists about the current genetic data of the population therefore will not reflect the historical land claims to the region by all representatives of the population, those that remained in the land, and those in the diasporic communities. In fact I would suggest to you that your suggestion of basing membership in the Israelite nation on genetics may be quite insulting to a large number of its members, most notably Beta Israel. The UN does not have a definition that can in any way be interpreted to deny Israelites an indigenous status. The Filistin can not trace their origins to the same land of Canaan, because they never conducted a Conquest of Canaan after which Canaanite city states ceased to exist.Crock81 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, why hasn't anyone included the Kurds on this list?--Ubikwit (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Given the criteria of the definition of indigenous peoples as defined under international law, particularly "Defining Indigenous People" Section 2 which I will explain in a moment, it would be inaccurate and an exercise in historical revisionism to include Palestinians in the list and not Jews. Here I have produced a word-for-word copy of the criteria, lifted directly from the document, as it is download-only and cannot be linked to on here. However, a quick Google search of "UN working definition of indigenous peoples" should lead you directly to the document itself.

Now without further ado...

"This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

   a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least part of them;
   b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
   c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
   d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
   e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
   f) Other relevant factors."

Reading this, it should be apparent to anyone with extensive knowledge on Jewish history that Jews fit the bill to a tee. All of this is roundly supported by genetic, historical, linguistic, archaeological, and cultural evidence. There is also a consensus based on archaeological and other findings that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of Canaanite culture, and are thus not foreign conquerors from Babylon as has been posited by less than reliable sources. The idea that Palestinians are indigenous, and the Jews are not, is not supported by the facts on the table, especially considering Palestinians are ethnically Arab/Muslim, who are arguably even more recent than the Roman colonization of the Levant. It's also worth mentioning that denial of Jewish indigeneity resulted in charging Chandra Roy-Henriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States anti-discrimination laws. To this day, Israeli and Jewish representatives continue to attend the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, as is shown here: http://firstpeoples.org/wp/tag/american-jewish-world-services/

Another UN definition of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

"Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following: • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities."

With the exception of part 6 (i.e. "Form non-dominant groups of society"), according to which Palestinians (whose culture and ethnic identity is that of the Arab colonists from the 7th century) and Arabs in general would also be excluded, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed. I will also add, since I'm sure it will be brought up again, that there is no clause or provision whatsoever in international law that excludes, either explicitly or implicitly, ancient and long displaced peoples like the Jews from recognition as an indigenous people.

One last thing, I would also like to charge Ubitwik of promoting some rather crass antisemitic conspiracy theories on the talk page, as evidenced here:

"Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

And here....

"It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". Chandra Roy-Henriksen was not "charged" by a prosecutor, but charges were leveled against her by the Jews organization that is filing a civil suit, apparently. The last sentence in the article states: "There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous." That is obviously not the case, and what unfolds in the civil suit should be relevant regarding the disposition of Jews to claim indigenous status. The modern state of Israel is considered to be illegally occupying Palestinian territory, in case you need to be reminded of that salient fact.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit"

Evildoer187 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an even shorter criteria for defining indigenousness

1. a priority in time

2. the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness

3. an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession

4. and self-identification

and

"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."

In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.

It seems the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis fit this criteria in their own right.

1. There are no regional populations with older claims to the lands as outlines in Judaism's core cultural texts

2. It seems there is a wide range of sources that support Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis history of perpetuating cultural distinctiveness even during attempts to suppress them

3. There are many sources for supporting the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession several times in the region and in the diaspora

4. With the exception of the Kohen and Levi, there is a continuity in Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis self-identification as such and with the Land of Israel

5. Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis continue to use distinctive clothing found in their foundational texts such as Tzitzit and Tefillin which are distinctive to their culture regardless of the period and circumstance. In terms of behaviour, Tefillah as a ritual and time-specific community behaviour is also unique to the people; a practice attributed for its origin to the fore-fathers. Other objective and observable traits include specific age of 'adulthood', dietary practices, the obligatory writing of sacred texts and observing a work-free day of the week.

6. Distinctive cognitive and normative cultural aspects to the Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis communities and societies exhibit continuity in adherence to their sacred texts written in own language, which are a large body of legal concepts and rituals extended by the oral tradition that had been used as a benchmark by the Christian and Islamic cultures, and extensive use of cultural symbols, including as the emblem on the coat of arms of the state of Israel.Crock81 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Palestinians fit the criteria that defines indigenousness, e.g.

• a priority in time
• the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness
• an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession
• and self-identification
  

and
"...the objective and observable traits (from clothing to behaviours) that conform to the dominant definitions of what it is to be Indigenous."
In terms of a distinct culture, there are two aspects

• culture provides a stock of knowledge – a cognitive component – that is a basic foundation for social behavior; it includes cultural symbols and language
• culture provides elements necessary for the maintenance of integration and conformity in society – a normative component - ways of specifying the correct ways of thinking and behaving and of defining morality; it includes values, Norms (Folkways/conventions & Mores/laws) and their social sanctions.
  

1. There is no claim by the Palestinian population to existence prior to the creation of the Roman Syria Palaestina province in 135 CE following the defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt

2. The modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab with no perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, and indeed the celebration intended to showcase this was called the Al-Quds Arab Capital of Culture and not Al-Quds Filistin Capital of Culture

3. There is no record of the Filistin experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession prior to the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine, also known as the Arab Peasants revolt because until then under the Ottoman Empire, the Southern part of Ottoman Syria's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects.

4. Earliest national self-identification is suggested by a modern Israeli scholar as coming from Khayr al-Din ibn Ahmad ibn Nur al-Din Ali ibn Zayn al-Din ibn Abd al-Wahab al-Ayubi al-Farooqui c. late 17th century. The city's construction where Khayr al-Din al-Ramli was born dates to the turn of the 8th century, its name derived from the Arabic word for sand, and was began by the descendants of the Caliph with origins in the Arabian region Najd, literally Highland, from the central region of the Arabian Peninsula. Although al-Ramli does mention in his al-Fatawa al-Khayriyah the concepts of Filastin, biladuna (our country), al-Sham (Syria), Misr (Egypt), and diyar (country), in senses that appear to go beyond objective geography, they do not clearly state a claim to land, nor the identity of the claimants, nor the basis for such possible claim, or even the borders of Filistin beyond those imposed by the Ottoman rule.

5. To quote Wikipedia's own article on the Palestinian people Ancestral origins section "Like the Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Maghrebis, and most other people today commonly called Arabs, the Palestinians are an Arab people in linguistic and cultural affiliation. Since the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, the Palestinians, a Hellenised people, came under the influence of the Arabic-speaking Muslims, whose culture they adopted. This confluence was historically formative for modern Palestinian culture as we know it. Genetic research studies suggests that present-day Palestinians have roots that go back to the ancient inhabitants of the area.

George Antonius, founder of modern Arab nationalist history, wrote in his seminal 1938 book The Arab Awakening: " The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times, for the term 'Arab' [in Palestine] denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from the Arabian Peninsula who occupied the country in the seventh century, but also the older populations who intermarried with their conquerors, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently arabised." Antonius, a descendant of the Greek population in Lebanon and Egypt, neglects to mention that Yisrael/Israelites/Hebrews/Jews/Israelis were also among the "older populations" subjected to Hellenization, but who did not become either completely Hellenised, or later Arabised, and while adopting some aspects of both cultures at various times, preserved their own rather than completely assimilate. Subsequently the claim to the "earliest historic times" is an empty one given there are no objective and observable evidence to support the claim.

6. I am unable to establish any distinctly Filistin cognitive or normative traits or behaviours Crock81 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been fully protected two months under WP:ARBPIA per a decision at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The complaint stated there was a dispute about inclusion of either Israelites or Palestinians as indigenous peoples. The best way to resolve this is probably a WP:Request for comment. In your reasoning, please use reputable scientific findings and (if you can) international law. Citations to the holy books of various religions and to religious tradition may not be found credible. You can use {{editrequest}} to ask for changes to be made during the period of full protection, when such changes are either uncontroversial or are supported by consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will post my response to Ubitwik's response to me on here instead.

Accusations of collaboration and misrepresenting facts aside, which I will address in a moment, I feel that Ubitwik's persistent historical revisionism and twisting of facts is detrimental to the process of resolving this dispute. It is also inherently harmful to Wikipedia's stated goal of creating a high quality, well-rounded, and neutral encyclopedia.

First, Ubitwik's claims that Jewish NGOs attempted to hijack the forum, that the UN forum blocked both the Bedouin and Israeli NGOs for this same reason, and that the Israeli government was using the Bedouin to force themselves on the agenda seem to be little more than original research and POV analysis, both of which are forbidden on here. As is indicated by the quotes Ubitwik himself provided, these same organizations were present at every conference prior. The official story is, in this order:

1. Two Jewish NGOs, including the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (or OFICL) were barred from attending a United Nations Permanent forum on Indigenous Issues (or UNPFII) conference.

2. "OFICL investigated the issue, and subsequently discovered that another organization called the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, an Israeli Bedouin rights organization, was also barred from attending the same conference."

3. Said organization believed that something was amiss, and subsequently sent out a number of faxes, letters, and e-mails to the UN. They received no reply.

4. OFICL takes legal action, and charges Chandra Roy-Hendriksen, Chief Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, with violating provisions of Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People and Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention of the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and other UN and United States antidiscrimination laws.

5. OFICL chairman Dr. Michael T. Snidecor: “We attended last year’s conference and actually floored 12 Representatives during the Conference, I don’t have access to the actual records, but our Secretary was told that we had the largest number of representatives from outside North America at the conference.” Clearly, these same groups never faced any trouble attending prior conferences, and OFICL stated that it had stayed active with the Forum following that conference.

6. Quote from OFICL director Mark Kaplan: “The Special Rapporteur for the region said that for years the Forum had tried to obtain information from the Israeli Government about complaints regarding issues with Bedouin in the Negev. The government has never responded. So, we were able to forward a report by another organization about the situation containing studies about the serious ecological damage posed by illegal Bedouin construction and proposals on how to work with the Bedouins to solve the issues. Dr. Snidecor also created a simple online system for anonymously filing complaints of indigenous rights violations. So, we have remained an active NGO in the forum.”

7. The organization also explained that the legal action is required since, as Dr. Snidecor explained, “we were not given any reason for rejecting us other than saying we are ineligible under two resolutions—one of which has nothing to do with NGO qualifications. We see nothing that disqualifies us, and no one will take responsibility for the decision to reject our application.”

8. Another quote from Kaplan: “The sad thing is that the indigenous tribes who attend the conference are not guilty, it is the UN employees. Unfortunately, our taking this action may tarnish the reputation of the forum. This is not something we want to do. These are wonderful people, and they are not connected to the anti-Israel governments and policies of the UN. However, had there been a valid reason to exclude us from the conference, the UN powers-that-be should have been able to cite what the disqualifying issue is. If they cannot cite the criteria we do not meet, then it seems rather suspicious that there is something else going on here. There is no question that the Jewish People meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous."

That is the official story, and as you can see, I have paraphrased the article in its entirety. Extrapolating any further than what I have laid out is guesswork at best, and deliberate misinformation at worst. Ubitwik rightly notes that the Bedouin have been included on the agenda for years (see http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf p.151). However, he subsequently performs a massive leap in logic and postulates that their exclusion must have been part of an insidious Jewish plot to hijack the forum and promote their agenda, using the Bedouins as a proxy. Not only is this pure conjecture, not supported by facts, but it is an expression which contains clear antisemitic "Jewish plot/conspiracy" undertones. I will refrain from making assumptions about his character, but I would advise that the appropriate administrators keep this in mind in future dealings with him.

"The attempt to claim retroactive status of indigeneity after more than a thousand years of no historical continuity with the land in question is anachronistic, and represents an effort to mask the actual status of the Zionist returnees to Palestine, which is that of “settlers”. In a sense, the Zionist settlers can be seen to have served as a proxy for the colonization of Palestine. Meanwhile, the definition of “indigenous peoples” has been put forth mainly with respect to tribal minorities an aboriginal peoples that have been subjugated on their lands by modern nation states. There is a definition that contrasts “setters” to “indigenous” from a relevant reference below."

The fly in the ointment here, as I have explained to him on the talk page, is that there is nothing in international law on the definition of indigenous peoples that explicitly or implicitly excludes ancient peoples who have been displaced from their historic homeland for centuries. It's not there. I repeat: it's not there. Furthermore, in addition to a continuous Jewish presence on the territory from the age of the Canaanites (from whom they branched off sometime in the 2nd millennium BC) to the present day, Jews meet virtually all of the criteria listed in international law in regards to what constitutes an indigenous group.

"First, here are definitions from the article Indigenous peoples:

The political sense of the term defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation and oppression by nation states. As a result, a special set of political rights in accordance with international law have been set forth by international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank.

The status of the indigenous group in this relationship can be characterized in most instances as an effectively marginalized, isolated or minoritised one, in comparison to majority groups or the nation-state as a whole. Their ability to influence and participate in the external policies that may exercise jurisdiction over their traditional lands and practices is very frequently limited. This situation can persist even in the case where the indigenous population outnumbers that of the other inhabitants of the region or state; the defining notion here is one of separation from decision and regulatory processes that have some, at least titular, influence over aspects of their community and land rights."

I cannot find this quote anywhere on the Indigenous peoples article. You are going to have to link to it yourself. In any case, with the exception of the part about nation states and minority status (which isn't of vital importance, according to this quote), I see nothing here that excludes Jews. Furthermore, Palestinians would also be excluded under this criteria, given that they also have a (occupied) nation-state where they make up the majority of its inhabitants.

"The claims to land based on their religious documents, which contain a large proportion of fictitious material, are put forth as superseding the exigencies of historical reality in terms of seeking to retroactively assert an anachronistic claim of indigeneity, on the one hand, while on the other hand, it has been admitted that the tale of Moses leading Israelites out of slavery in Egypt was a fabrication in order to claim direct genealogical connection with the Canaanites, whose kingdoms and cultures the Israelites usurped. It has also been claimed that Israelites were prohibited from intermarrying with Canaanites, further complicating the convoluted assessment by the introduction of unreliable sources in the form of religious documents."

I have not made use of the Torah or any other religious text even once in my defense of Jewish indigeneity. Further, archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites are an outgrowth of the ancient Canaanites. There were no invading Babylonian hordes from the East that subjugated them. Ironically, that in itself is a myth from religious texts, which you claim (and I agree) has no relevance here. So why do you contradict yourself in promoting this POV?

"It could be said that those attempting to push these views are attempting to assume the mantle of Canaanites in a manner that monopolizes such an anachronistic claim for the Jews and excludes the Palestinians, who in fact have historical continuity in the land of Canaan, whereas it would appear from a cursory assessment of the history of the region that the Jews were completely absent for centuries on end before the modern era, with a mere 4% of the population of Palestine consisting of Jews in the mid-19th century."

How do you reconcile the idea that the Jews (who, again, are an outgrowth of the Canaanites) have no historical continuity in the land of Canaan, yet somehow a group that ethnically and culturally identifies with the Arab conquerors from the 7th century AD does? This is some of the sloppiest and most broken reasoning I have ever read. If there was even a tiny Jewish presence in the region, then it does not follow that the Jews were "completely absent", as you put it. And I'm not trying to say that the Palestinians have no continuity with the Canaanites (they do), rather I'm trying to point out the contradictions in your arguments.

"In another sense, neither the Jews nor Palestinians would need to be considered as indigenous if not for the intervention of Britain and Zionist colonization, because nether population emerged as the original occupants of the land, and even the myths of the Israelites describe them as migrating from Egypt. However, because the Zionist colonization has resulted in oppression of people that had unbroken historical continuity in inhabiting Palestine, discussion has taken place in UN forums relating to the plight of Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin Arabs in Israel.

"In short, the discussion of religious references and genetics are largely irrelevant to the immediate exigencies of modern history and the plight of the Palestinians, which are simply glossed over by the pro-Israel contributors.

There is a fundamental contradiction between an “indigenous community” and a “diaspora”."

If what you say is true, then why do Jewish rights/pro-Israel groups continue to participate in these same conferences? Genetics are certainly relevant, according to the UN document "Defining Indigenous Peoples". Further, archaeological and historical consensus has described the Israelites/Jewish people as having continuity with the ancient Canaanites. And concerning his last two cited definitions of indigenous, Palestinians would also be excluded given that criteria.

Now regarding the accusation of "collaborating with other individuals with a blatant religious bias", I assume he's referring to Crock8, whom I have criticized for this very reason. Ubitwik's claims that I have a pro-Israel bias are also baseless, as I have repeatedly opted to include Palestinians and Arabs as well in the list.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]