Page move-protected

Talk:Palestinians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requesting addition to bottom of section: DNA and genetic studies[edit]

The following paragraph:

According to a study published in June 2017 by Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, and Eran Elhaik in Frontiers in Genetics, "in a principle component analysis (PCA) [of DNA], the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins..."[1] Additionally, in a study published in August of the same year by Marc Haber et al. in The American Journal of Human Genetics, the authors concluded that "The overlap between the Bronze Age and present-day Levantines suggests a degree of genetic continuity in the region."[2]

  1. ^ Das, R; Wexler, P; Pirooznia, M; Elhaik, E (2017). "The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish". Frontiers in genetics. 8: 87. doi:10.3389/fgene.2017.00087. PMID 28680441.
  2. ^ Haber, M; Doumet-Serhal, C; Scheib, C; Xue, Y; Danecek, P; Mezzavilla, M; Youhanna, S; Martiniano, R; Prado-Martinez, J; Szpak, M; Matisoo-Smith, E; Schutkowski, H; Mikulski, R; Zalloua, P; Kivisild, T; Tyler-Smith, C (3 August 2017). "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences". American journal of human genetics. 101 (2). doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013. PMID 28757201.
Seems fine to me. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Wishful thinking but it's not the case, I had read over a 100 of genetic studies since that one which came out in 2000, all of them point that the "palestinians" (I won't ever let go of the quotation mark as it wasn't their name till 1964 and while the British Mandate of Palestine existed they claimed to be "southern syrians" - ask philip khury) - despite the current tone of the genetics section in this article - do not cluster with the Jews, Samaritans or even with most of the lebanese. this is because of the fact that they're just MUCH later migrants than the ones who did originate in the Bronze Age Levant.-User:Wolfman12405 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not even true. Also why would you try to refute a proper and concrete genetic study that uses ancient DNA samples as a reference by then comparing it to more vague studies that use DNA samples from modern-day populations? The study based on ancient DNA samples makes no assumptions meanwhile you are automatically assuming with no real basis that modern-day Jews and Samaritans are indigenous to the land going back to the period of the Bronze Age. Also the Lebanese have become mixed with many Armenians so modern-day DNA samples of Lebanese are also not as accurate. Seems like what you are saying is nothing but a desperate politically motivated attempt to forge history and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.133.88.177 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is honestly provably false info .. you posed the DNA study that ties them to the LEVANT that was denied as good research by the majority of geneticists and other DNA researchers have come out and denied he knew what he was talking about and said he had an anti-Jewish bias. He also published papers saying Jews are really Khazars and Yiddish has ties to Turkish. He is also blasted by those in Linguistics ..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers/#2bb5c7b428bc "While Elhaik’s work has provided ideological support for those seeking the destruction of Israel, it’s fallen flat among established scientists, who peer reviewed his work and found it sloppy at best and political at worst.

“He’s just wrong,” said Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, a leading researcher in Jewish genetics. “If you take all of the careful genetic population analysis that has been done over the last 15 years… there’s no doubt about the common Middle Eastern origin,” he said. He added that Elhaik’s paper “is sort of a one-off.”

“It’s an unrealistic premise,” said University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer, one of the world’s top Y-chromosomal researchers.

Discover’s Razib Khan did a textured critique in his Gene Expression blog, noting the study’s historical fuzziness and its selective use of data to come up with what seems like a pre-cooked conclusion. As Razib writes, it’s hardly surprising that we would find a small but sizable Khazarian contribution to the “Jewish gene pool”. In fact the male line of my own family traces to the Caucuses, suggesting I’m one of the 20 percent or so of Jews whose lineage traces to converted royal Khazarians. But that view is widely acknowledged by Ostrer, Hammer, Feldman, Michael Thomas and every major researcher in this area—as summarized in my book, Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People."

Seriously, it just shows how biased Wikipedia is that you lock a section only containing propaganda that has been found fraudulent around the world by known and respected scientists. The multiple research actually found Druze are the longest genetically uncompromised group in the Levant, and that Jews are their closest relations. (and you don't need me to site the source. It's on the wikipedia page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.77.248 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

These objections to the scientific findings are futile. Going into the individual studies you can find the precise locations where the ancient samples were taken from and these samples are from locations throughout the land of Palestine and Southern Lebanon which is then more broadly described as the Levant. Also these scientific facts are completely independent from your opinions of the researchers or what they claim about the origins of Jews, whether those are accurate or not. What you are attempting here is to discredit the character rather than the objective scientific findings. 219.75.5.54 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Germany[edit]

There are not only 80.000 Palestinians living in Germany. The number of Palestinians in Germany must be more than twice as many. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/palaestinenser-in-deutschland-da-kommt-etwas-hoch-a-190097-amp.html This is an article is from 2002 and the number of Palestinians were estimated at 200.000. Ok, I think 200.000 in 2002 is a little bit exaggerated, but referring to today it is not an unrealistic number so I would replace 80.000 with 200.000 and link the Spiegel article as the source Jnnc19 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In 2010, the number of all Palestinians living in Germany is estimated at ca. 200,000 people.[1][2][3] Jnnc19 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

References

"Israeli passport" for Muslim Arabs...[edit]

Is there an "Israeli passport" for Muslims who wish? ... for example with the note on professed religion so that even individuals of other religions can access it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not the right place for such question. Try websites such as Reddit or Quora.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


False use of a citation[edit]

This section has a serious problem. I tried bringing this up previously, but the discussion got hijacked.

>Inscriptional evidence over a millennium from the peripheral areas of Palestine, such as the Golan and the Negev, show a prevalence of Arab names over Aramaic names from the Achaemenid period,550 -330 BCE onwards.[105]

However the text being cited "Palestine in Late Antiquity" covers the period of period 300-650 **CE** not BCE

This is a (probably) just a minor typographical mistake, but it has a large impact on people's understanding of the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talkcontribs) 12:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The underlying source says “Perhaps the most interesting conclusion of Zadok’s survey is the predominance of Arabic names over Aramaic names in ‘peripheral areas’ namely the Golan/Hermon and the Negev already from the Achaemenid period (p.22).” The Achaemenid period was BCE, not CE. So the article is right. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)