Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Either include both Jews and Palestinians, or neither

It's time we made a final decision regarding this matter. The quest for obtaining consensus for including one group and not the other has only resulted in endless arguing and controversy. We can't even agree on which definition we should use and whether or not these groups fit the definition. I suggest, for the sake of maintaining peace and neutrality on this page, that we either include both of these groups or neither of them. According to the definition at the top of the page, both are equally eligible for inclusion. However, consensus had been reached earlier that we should exclude both, and now I'm beginning to think that it was probably for the best.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per usual, I lend my support to including both or excluding both.HaleakalAri (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since 2006? Yikes.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an absolutely unprecedented proposal within ethnography or anthropology. Please show evidence where one group's indigenousness is evaluated based on inclusion of another group. Crock81 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree

There is no evidence to support the claim to include Jews, whereas there is substantial evidence to support the inclusion of Palestinians, much--but not all of which--has been produced since 2006. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the inclusion of one group based on the exclusion of another; there is no grounds for making such an anomalous assertion.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

You keep asserting this, but thus far you have shown nothing that excludes Jews and favors Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection

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)

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)

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)

 Done page locked.Moxy (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009?

Should Palestinians be placed on the list in accordance with tacit UN recognition as per official publication by Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues publication “State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples”?--Ubikwit (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit In "CHAPTER IV: CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION”, the UN document State of the World's Indigenous Peoples contains the following references to Palestinian as well as Bedouin Arabs living in Israel, State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, p.151:

Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2003. “Bedouin Arabs in Israel. Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Education as a Foundation for Survival and Development” in The Future of Indigenous Peoples: Strategies for Survival and Development, ed. Duane Champagne and Ismael Abu-Saad. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA American Indian Studies Center.

Abu-Saad, Ismael. 2006. “Identity Formation among Indigenous Youth in Majority-Controlled Schools: Palestinian Arabs in Israel” in Indigenous Education and Empowerment: International Perspectives, ed. Ismael Abu-Saad and Duane Champagne. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

The following description, which directly corresponds to the content of the above-described reference to the Palestinians, is found under the section heading of “Thematic Issues” on the website of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: UNPFII - Education

Loss of identity, caught in no man’s land. When indigenous school children are introduced only to the national discourse at the expense of their native discourse, they are in danger of losing part of their identity, their connection with their parents and predecessors and, ultimately, of being caught in a no man’s land whereby they lose an important aspect of their identity while not fully becoming a part of the dominant national society.

--Ubikwit (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The Palestinian researcher Nadia alZahery admits Palestinians are Southern Semite (indigenous primarily to Saudi Peninsula) and Jews primarily have the native (WESTERN Semite=Levantine) DNA (source: HPGL AJHG 2004, vol 74 pp. 1023-34 ...for Jews' genetic roots, see also Hammer et al 2000, & Kohan Modal Haplotype studies & too many more to list), so their "indigenous" status (which I take to mean having PRE-HISTORIC roots in a region) would appear to be a political truthiness rather than scientifically "indigenous". You say the UN "tacitly" said they're indigenous: does that mean the UN isn't even making a firm political statement about their "indigenous" status? Obvsly, everyone is indigenous to somewhere, but for Palestinians, both genetically & culturally, their primary pre-historic roots are "indigenous" to the Saudi Peninsula. 72.48.252.105 (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Support Jews have roughly the same level of UN recognition and meet all of the same criteria. To include Palestinians and not Jews would be POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single UN source demonstrating that Jews have any form of UN recognition as an indigenous people whatsoever.

You have made a controversial assertion with no sources to support, whereas I have issued an RfC with respect to two official UN sources, and you call that "POV pushing".

Call this RfC, which is based on two official UN sources, "POV pushing" is nothing but a duplicitous response aimed at obstructing the exercise in consensus building.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Having Jewish organizations recognized as Indigenous Peoples Organizations and attending UNPFII conferences isn't tacit recognition of status as an indigenous people? I have provided sources for it as well, and all I got in return were conspiracy theories about hijacking the forum and using the Bedouins as proxies to bolster Israeli claims of indigeneity.

Regarding the sources you posted here, one of them is about Bedouin Arabs, a group we already recognize as belonging on this list. Nevertheless, recognition of the Bedouin as indigenous has virtually nothing to do with whether or not the Palestinians are eligible. The second reference, although valid, is not sufficient for the inclusion of Palestinians in the list. I am also opposed to including them on the grounds that they are on equal footing with Jews in terms of meeting the criteria for recognition as indigenous. Both are national entities with their own respective states (even though one is occupied by the other), and neither are fully recognized by an official indigenous body. Moreover, you know full well that your proposed edits are controversial, and your arguments for them thus far have essentially amounted to little more than partisanship, conjecture, and aggressive POV pushing. Consensus had been reached earlier that both should be excluded, and I now believe that would be the right thing to do.

From what I can gather, you seem far more invested in furthering your political cause than actually improving the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, there is no equivalence between being recognized as an organization that seeks to participate in conferences and being recognized as an indigenous people. The OFICL is not an organization that represents Jews as an indigenous people, though they are trying to argue for such recognition, as Moxy has emphasized above. Again, your assertions are duplicitous, requiring repeated rebuttal of already addressed matters. The OFICL appears to have been representing the interests of the Israeli government over and against the Bedouin. The fact that they are permitted to participate in the conference has no bearing on the status of the recognition of Jews as an indigenous people.

Secondly, the reference to Bedouins appears in the same reference as the reference to Palestinian Arabs in Israel; in other words, they are from a single reference, with the second reference being the UNPFII on Education. The gist of the references to Bedouin Arabs and Palestinian Arabs in those references is that they are being addressed as indigenous peoples whose rights may be being transgressed by the nation state of Israel, a relatively recent creation.

You assertion that Jews are on "equal footing" is unsubstantiated and false. Palestinians and Bedouin Arabs are officially recognized in the above-references official UN sources from the UNPFII. Your assertions represent a non-neutral POV that is not supported by sources.

According to Moxy's comment of yesterday, recognition by an official indigenous peoples organization was the agreed upon prerequisite for inclusion of either the Palestinians or Jews since 2006. That recognition is present at hand for the Palestinians, and that is not the case for Jews.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ok I wrote the UN the other day to explain our problem (have a few friends that work there). Got back many positions and told its very complicated (as if we dont know this) - however was given a link World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Palestine. Do we have them listed anywhere on an indigenous list?.Moxy (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see in that source (RFC starter) an explicit description of Palestinians as indigenous people. Using a definition to come up with a new statement is excluded in WP:OR: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". I did a quick search and found this document which does say Palestinians are indigenous, but the page explicitly states this isn't a UNHCR publication, so this can't be used as an indication of a UN view. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit, he (Moxy) also acknowledged that an NGO would not have been able to attend the conference if they were not recognized as an IPO. However, they were recognized as an IPO. That implies equal footing, at least relative to the minimal recognition Palestinians have, between Jews and Palestinians. Thus, the recognition is not there for Palestinians any moreso than it is for Jews. Your claims that I am being duplicitous are baseless conjecture (again). In any case, I am tired of discussing this over and over again with you. I am bowing out of this conversation.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said this - We seem to have a problem with people making assumptions and synthesis of material. At this point if multiple refs cant be-found for either position then there should be no inclusion - If "good and reliable" published sources do not include information that is available through one source, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. No more guess work. Done here till we get real refs involved.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You said this "You got it!!!!!!!!! - they did not get recognized and is why there application was rejected this year - UN Fighting Indigenous Status for Jews. I agree 100 percent with the quote "the Jewish people meet the UN Criteria for being considered indigenous" - but they have been blocked at every turn thus far. In time this may change - but thus far there not recognized as being "native"."

This is despite the fact that they were recognized as an IPO.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I imply or say they were there because they were now indigenous.Moxy (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but you did say that being recognized as an IPO requires meeting the criteria for recognition as an indigenous group. Clearly, they were recognized as an IPO, so......Evildoer187 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

'Implies' is original research - you can suggest it here but we can't use it as a basis for any edits to the article. Ditto 'tacit' which to me means there's no reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I was not trying to say we should include Jews based on that one reference. I was just trying to say that Jews have about equal "recognition" of indigenous status under international law. Personally, I am just about done with this debate. I can no longer accommodate the headaches and stress this topics brings.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy and Dailycare, there is useful information in those sources, even if not official UN publications. Perhaps the group that has the copyright on those documents, Minority Rights Group International should be checked out.

I don't know if associating the two correlated sources I offered for consideration in this RfC constitutes synthesis under WP:OR, but it might. I took their correlation to be tantamount to representing official recognition of the status because the The following are the six mandated areas of the UNPFII:

• Economic and social development
• Culture
• Environment
• Education
• Health
• Human rights

correspond to the Chapters I-VI of the SOWIP report. Furthermore, the source on the List of References in the chapter on education corresponds to the descriptive paragraph quoted at the start of the RfC. At any rate, it is not a direct description, so tacit seems to fit as a characterization.

As to the aside issue, that is to say, with regard to the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL), there is a "Search" field on the page that enables you to search the database of registered Indigenous Peoples' Organizations (IPOs). I have just entered that name of OFICL and received a negative result. The organization does not appear to be registered as an IPO on the basis of that search. Maybe someone else could try the search operation to confirm that result.

Though it is not clear from the IPO application page what the precise criteria are for becoming an IPO, the application page includes the following three fields:

Areas of expertise of your organization in the broad spectrum of issues relating to the situation of indigenous people:

Indicate which indigenous peoples (including names of specific indigenous peoples and their communities, territories and sub-groups) are represented in your organization (provide relevant information on their situation, geographical location and demographic data)/ Affiliation with other organizations / Publications / Purpose of the organization:

Please provide a brief description of your work in connection with indigenous issues / Mission statement / Organizational structure:

The news media article here simply describes them as a "Jewish NGO" and "an Israeli legal action organization", not an IPO.

The OFICL website page here, however, states

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law has become what is believed to be the first Jewish organization to become a UN recognized Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO)..."The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law will be sending a delegation in April to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous People’s. We are working with the local regional councils in Israel to have their communities register as these IPOs. It takes eleven IPOs to be able to introduce motions at the conference, and we are planning on introducing motions that will help us secure our rights in the Jewish National Home."

Meanwhile, they also have a mission statement page for PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS JEWISH PEOPLE, which lists one goal of

The development of educational programs to assist others in understanding the unique indigenous culture within the Jewish People of the Holy Land.

--Ubikwit (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Jews have been indigenous to Middle East for more than 2500 years. [1] Contrary to Palestinian people whose national identity separate from the rest of Arab populations was formed in 20 century, Gelvin, 2005, p. 92–93. Jewish identity as separate ethnoreligious community existed through ages.[2] The common national ethnic origin of Jews is essential part of Jewish heritage and believe, while the common genetic origin of Jews was confirmed by over 20 genetic studies which I stated above. The persecution of Middle Eastern Jews which led to the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in 20th century,[3] and exists still. Although Jewish people consider itself a single nation, Middle Eastern Jews today represent over 50% of Israeli Jews.

Therefore it is clear POV pushing to try to exclude Jews from indigenous people of Middle East and to include only Palestinians. Also, the current definition of indigenous was contrary to what has been written in lead, never accepted by any UN body and there is no consensus about this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree - no consensus about this issue in the real world at all - thus neither should be included here. Very rare to see others with a higher degree here - would love to talk to you about other topics besides this when you have time.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, although I would like to add that Jews have been indigenous to the Middle East for well over 4000 years when one takes their Canaanite source population into account. Consensus is that the Israelites separated from the Canaanites around 3,500 years ago. However, I agree that political partisanship has no place on Wikipedia.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point for both Moxy and Evildoer187 For further reading.- [4]--Tritomex (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen. The Israel/Palestine conflict is rife with fanaticism, which has evidently spilled over onto this article and its corresponding talk page. This, among other reasons, is why I believe that both Jews and Palestinians should ultimately be excluded.Evildoer187 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This RFC is about whether the Palestinians should be added, not whether Jews are indigenous. Concerning the Palestinians, they're described as indigenous at least here: Bedouin Palestinians and this document (THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE) seems to repeatedly refer to the Palestinians as a whole as the indigenous population of Palestine. Based on these sources, I'd say that the UN does consider the Palestinians indigenous, which seems to be even a slightly obvious point. --Dailycare (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,YEM,,49749c7dc,0.html[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jews are also described by UN paper as indigenous people of Middle east, although this refer in this specific issue only to one Middle Eastern country, [5] Considering the papers above, it clearly refer to Bedouins, not to all Palestinians. There are other sources which do consider Jews as indigenous people of Middle east. However, it is clear that the exclusion/inclusion of one of two people currently engaged in political conflict based on historic rights would have unbalanced the neutrality of this article. Therefore and as there are currently two RFC, this two issues can not be wived objectively and separately.--Tritomex (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's good work Dailycare, and those are very strong sources, being official UN publications.

Tritomex, it would appear that you are misconstruing the issue of article neutrality, because this article is not even about that political conflict per se, though it's content might be affected as a result of circumstances owing to that conflict. Moreover, I don't see how that would bear on the status afforded by official publications of the UN.

But I understand your concern, which in and of itself seems to represent a non-neutral POV, being biased against the Palestinians without reason. In addition, the reference that you provide regarding Jews is not an official UN publication.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

From when United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees publications are not official UN publications?--Tritomex (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you must lead a busy life--like most of us--but it would be helpful if you could try to follow discussion and check the sources cited by others participating in the discussion here.

Yesterday there were two sources from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees cited in this RfC, but it was noted by one of the contributors that there is a disclaimer accompanying those documents, because they are not publications of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, just references provided on the site that are copyrighted material belonging to Minority Rights Group International. The disclaimer reads as follows

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

--Ubikwit (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

It appears that the UNISPAL document relating to Palestinian indigeneity is an official UN document, whereas the other one clearly pertains to Bedouin Arabs. However, I am still wary of including them without also including Jews, as they too meet all of the same criteria for the definition of indigenous peoples (see below) and face very real threats regarding preservation of their culture, identity, and way of life in their historic homeland (which is Israel/Palestine, as consensus would have it), even if the UN doesn't currently recognize it officially for reasons we cannot ascertain for ourselves. The ramifications of implementing these edits runs the risk of implying that Jews are purely a foreign, colonial presence with no real roots in the region, which is demonstrably false and flies directly in the face of neutrality and facts, and is something that we on Wikipedia are compelled to avoid. This is especially relevant when one considers that there has been, and still is, a Jewish minority in what is now recognized as the Palestinian state before the initial wave of Jewish returnees to Palestine, as the UN document in question has recognized. Moreover, from what I can gather based on what is written at the top of the page, we are only using the definition of indigenous peoples posited by the UN as a blueprint for deciding for ourselves who to include. In that respect, the goalpost has clearly shifted from "meeting the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro paragraph to the article...

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "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"."

This is the definition we are using for this article, agreed upon by way of consensus back in March 2012. And as you can see, there is some criteria that they, along with Jews, do not meet (not being a national entity, for one). I feel that if the sole determining factor for deciding who to include on this list is "recognition as such by an official UN body" (which is obviously not what it says at the top of the page, nor have we used it as a basis when including any other group), that we should make that clear in the intro paragraph to the article and adjust the rest of the page accordingly. At least this way, we can help to curtail further controversy and biased interpretations.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it would also appear that the UNISPAL document in question is outdated. It is from 1981, more than a decade before the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established.

Not that it matters either way, since UN recognition is not a prerequisite for inclusion, as per the agreed upon definition.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the Bedouin Arabs are Palestinians, as described in the document, on what grounds do you challenge their political status?

Please do not include any more WP:OR POV on the status of Jews/Israelis under this RfC. You have not, to my recollection, provided a single reliable source to support any of your assertions, and this RfC does not addressed that issue. I believe it has been established that none of the organizations you list has officially recognized Jews as indigenous peoples. That is the criteria that Moxy has indicated was agreed upon in relation to the controversy surrounding the inclusion of either Palestinians or Jews.

The dating of the document would appear to be irrelevant. Granting that the sources are reliable, there would appear at present to be not a single criteria for excluding the Palestinians from the List, provided that the sources are official UN publications. In fact, the inclusion of the Palestinians would appear to be long overdue.

Moreover, these two sources established that the UN officially recognizes the Palestinian populations in both the nation state of Israel and the Palestinian territories as indigenous peoples.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

And you accuse me of duplicity?

First of all, you're latching onto the comments of one Bedouin resident of the West Bank and applying it to all 40,000 of them. How do you know they all think the same way? I could just as easily point to Ismail Khaldi and claim that because he considers himself a proud Israeli, that all Negev Bedouin must have the same attitude (they don't). Moreover, it says "“We are part of Palestinian society, and if our economic situation is affected, so is that of all Palestinians.” You really don't think he could be saying this because he lives in the West Bank (which is now Palestine), and so considers himself a Palestinian citizen? This is unsound, fallacious, and unreasonable thinking which constitutes WP:ORIGINALSYN and is expressly forbidden.

Second, it would appear that you didn't even read my post. As much as I hate repeating myself, you have made it necessary.

"In that respect, the goalpost has clearly shifted from "meeting the international definition of indigenous" to "being officially recognized by the UN as indigenous", which is problematic in its own right. From the intro paragraph to the article...

"Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank, i.e. "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"."

This is the definition we are using for this article, agreed upon by way of consensus back in March 2012."

Now then, as for the criteria...

• "Indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state."

Jews meet this criteria. Not only is there a wealth of genetic and other evidence which re-affirms Jewish origins in the Levant , but also historical, linguistic, and archaeological evidence that the Jewish people are an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites. Since then, there has been a continuous, unbroken Jewish presence in the region up to the present day. There remains a Jewish minority in Palestine.

"Politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a apart of."

Considering both Jews and Palestinians are national entities (one is occupied by the other), both are out. Yet just as there is a Palestinian minority in Israel, there is also a Jewish minority in Palestine, not including those in settlements.

I see nothing here that says "must be recognized as an indigenous group by an outdated UN document from over a decade before the founding of UNPFII" or even "must be recognized by a UN body as indigenous". If you want to revise the definition we use to include that, you must file another RfC and gain consensus for it. Until then, stop moving the goalposts and learn to debate like a rational human being and not a crazed fanatic.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Duplicitous" is the word.

At least you have been compelled to make a defacto admission that there is no recognition of "Israelis/Israelites" as indigenous by the UN. In fact, let's just put that into focus in view of the forgoing discussions. The OFICL organization you have introduced was founded after the issuance of the SOWIP report of 2009 in which the Bedouin related issue was referenced, and claim to be providing information to the UNPFII in relation to Bedouin issues because the Israeli government had refused to provide any information for many years.

This raises two points. The first is that, as far as the UN is concerned, the state of Israel is a nation state that is discriminating against indigenous groups of its population. The second, which is still slightly unclear, is that the OFICL appears to have been acting in a manner such as to represent the interests of the Israeli government over and against the indigenous Bedouin population of Israel.

With respect to "Jews", which are not addressed by this RfC but have been brought up repeatedly, since Tritomex has introduced a reference that facilitates examination of one aspect relating to the prevailing criteria for indigeneity, the Jews living in Yemen about whom that document was about have historical continuity with the land of Yemen, and therefore would not likely have a problem in garnering official recognition from the UN if there were grounds for the UN to address their rights in an international forum over and against those of the government of the state of Yemen. That has not, however, been the case, whereas it has been the case with respect to the Palestinians. That is to say, the UN is the authoritative international body that facilitates the redress of the actions of individual national states in an international forum. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

To begin with there is no official definition of indigenous people by any UN body, therefore although Jews are native people to the Middle East, this nativity, in the same way as in the case of Palestinians, can not come from the body which do not have any official definition for this subject (so there is no inclusion or exclusion per UN).--Tritomex (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The question does not relate to an official "definition", but to official recognition by the UN.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Then file an RfC and request that the criteria for inclusion be revised. Either do that, or stop wasting our time.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The only one here being duplicitous is you, Ubikwit.

My comments were that since OFICL had been recognized as an IPO (Indigenous Peoples Organization) and subsequently attended UNPFII conferences, that this would constitute tacit recognition of Jews as indigenous. However, there is no official recognition, nor have I claimed that there was. On the same token, Palestinians have no official recognition as an indigenous group that is both legitimate and more recent than the founding of UNPFII in 1993. Furthermore, as per the definition at the top of the page, which I have now quoted twice in this same thread, recognition as indigenous by the UN is not a prerequisite for inclusion on this list. It is obvious that you disagree with this definition, so I would suggest filing another RfC instead of repeatedly trying to manipulate this one to your liking.

Otherwise, as I have demonstrated, Jews meet all of the same criteria that Palestinians do. Palestinian is a national identity, just like Israeli, and both have nation-states of their own, even if one is being occupied and threatened by the other. As per the definition, this makes Palestinians an occupied nation, not an indigenous group.

Your post is laden with conjecture, WP:SYNTH and original research. I will not ask you again to stop.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have too much time on your hands. Why don't you look for a job, instead of trying to impede progress of the universal consciousness raising exercise in which we're engaged here?

There is no established relevance for the date of establishment of the UNPFII in 1993, for starters.

Moving right along, the Israeli NGO you have introduced into this conversation would appear to be a nationalistic 'Israeli' organization recognized by the nation state of Israel and so far removed from having any semblance of a status that would be related to the granting of even tacit recognition to 'Israelis' as indigenous that it doesn't merit the electrons expended to display this text.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated a relevant connection between the OFICL and "Jews" with respect to the question of (the recognition of) indigeneity in Palestine (or was that Israel?), so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous dissimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it, just like those NGO directors, right?!

The administrators can determine during arbitration what relevance the definition you have littered this RfC with has or has not.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

No relevance? You are claiming that Palestinians are officially recognized as indigenous based on a document from more than 30 years ago, whereas the official forum for Indigenous Issues didn't come into fruition until 12 years later. I'd say that's relevant. Now obviously, if Palestinians officially had any substantial recognition as indigenous, you'd be able to produce another, more recent document easily. Furthermore, I have already consulted several administrators on this matter, and at least one (EdJohnston) agrees that unless the criteria is revised, neither Palestinians or Jews are eligible for inclusion.

And this quote "“However,” he added, “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.”" would indicate that the OFICL has very much to do with the Jewish people.

The rest of your post appears to consist of little more than ad hominem attacks, willful ignorance of relevant points, and further distortion of my arguments. I see no reason why I should even dignify it with a response, let alone take it seriously.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that an official UN publication from 1981 is not qualified as a source because it predates the establishment of the UNPFII is without basis. Just because "you'd say" it was relevant doesn't mean it is. Where's your source?

As per my discussion above, it has not even been confirmed that the OFICL has in fact been registered as an IPO, let alone the question of the criteria for becoming registered as such. I may try and contact the UN to check on that myself, since no one else has confirmed the result of entering their organization name in the Search field on the webpage to which you provided the link.

You continually attempt to conflate the terms "Israeli" and "Jew" or equivalences thereof, whereas citizenship in a nation state and ethnicity are not equivalents, rendering such a false equivalence irrelevant in the current context where indigenous peoples are counterposed against the nation state within a context having an international law framework. That should be clear in lieu of my discussion of the Bedouin above. The fact that the directors of the OFICL try to represent themselves in terms of being "Jews" instead in terms of being "Israelis" is immaterial. That is due to the fact that they are acting in a capacity of citizens of the nation state of Israel, not as representatives of an indigenous people; in other words, there has been no recognition by the UN of Jews in Israel as an indigenous people. But I digress.

No need to bother yourself with trying to "dignify" it with a response. Thank you.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The definition of indigenous we are using here is "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". The source for said definition is this, which dates to 1999 and is taken from the articles intro paragraph. This is the criteria agreed upon by consensus back in March 2012, and nowhere does it say that UN recognition is a prerequisite for inclusion in the list. If you want to revise the definition, file an RfC and gain consensus for it. But for the sake of argument, let's say that UN recognition is required for inclusion. If Palestinians are still officially recognized as indigenous, you should have no trouble providing a current, up-to-date UN source that proves it. It shouldn't be that hard, if they are an officially recognized indigenous group.

Here is the link to the application page for IPO status, http://esango.un.org/event/ngo.html?page=profileForm&form=ipo&language=english. It says under step number 2 "We will process the information about your organization that you provided us. This information will enable us to determine whether your organization is within the categories (Indigenous Peoples' Organizations or Academic) that can attend the UNPFII session. This process may take up to two weeks." According to OFICL, it has succeeded in acquiring recognition as an IPO, and has attended several UNPFII conferences. However, you are right in that we have no way of knowing this for certain. I will check it out as soon as I done typing this up.

Your third paragraph is muddled and confusing, but I will try to address it anyway. As per the OFICL's webpage (http://www.justicenow4israel.com/about.html), and its statements regarding its recognition as an IPO (see the OFICL quote from my last post), the OFICL does appear to represent itself as an organization for Jewish (not Israeli) indigenous rights. In that respect, your accusations of conflation are both irrelevant and misguided.

I will continue replying to you because it is my duty, as well as my right, as a Wikipedian to make sure this article maintains a balanced and neutral POV. Your conduct on this page has been the polar opposite of that, and so I cannot let it go unchallenged. You are making the goal of reaching an agreement far more of a headache than it needs to be.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Evildoer, I think you are missing the wood for the trees. If you open your mind to understanding the following two topics: (1) Palestinian people; and (2) List of converts to Judaism; you will see that your technical advocacy position is absurd in the face of overwhelming common sense. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here. When editing the article, I've always listed Jews as Jewish diaspora and framed the description in a way so as to clearly limit the scope to those who are Jewish by descent. Of course, this was at a time when I believed the definition should be less narrow, and proposed a more literal definition that would include both Jews and Palestinians. My attempts to revise it went largely ignored, and were thus unsuccessful.

So in light of the definition we are utilizing now, as agreed upon back in March 2012, Palestinians and Jews are to be excluded as neither of them meet the criteria for inclusion. There have been a number of attempts on this page to force Palestinians on the list, largely on the basis of a document from 30 years ago, predating the UNPFII establishment by more than 10 years and the aforementioned criteria for inclusion by over 15 (see the link above), while simultaneously ignoring other relevant criteria.Evildoer187 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your irrational harping about the previously agreed upon definition is becoming a bit of a drone. There is nothing, incidentally, in that definition that would preclude inclusion of the Palestinians and not the Jews/Israelis. You are the one trying to use force instead of reason and sources to persuade other contributors of the validity of the position you have taken.

You have again ignored a reliable source, which is dated to 2011, that has been presented by Dailycare. I have quoted the same text in the following section, but this discussion belongs under the RfC.

One of the two sources repeatedly refers to "Bedouin Palestinians" as shown in the following passages

“

Bedouin Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank were in dire need of access to their traditional natural resources — rangeland and water — as well as basic health and education services, denied to them since their forcible displacement from the Negev Desert in 1948

Those and other rights of indigenous peoples living under occupation must be recognized and protected, said Mr. Korshan, one of the 40,000 Bedouin Palestinian residents of Area C of the West Bank, one of three such areas created by the 1993 Oslo Accords. Unlike Areas A and B, Area C is controlled and administered by Israeli authorities.

Today, the Bedouin faced a number of problems, Mr. Al Korshan said, explaining that lands which they could have used as rangelands and sources of water had instead been filled with settlements...

“We are part of Palestinian society, and if our economic situation is affected, so is that of all Palestinians.”(my emphasis)

Asked whether Bedouin rights had been denied by both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities, and if he agreed with the Israeli Prime Minister’s comments that the West Bank was experiencing an economic boom, Mr. Korshan said the Israelis had forbidden the Palestinian Authority from providing any services to people in Area C, despite its wish to support them. However, occupation rules prevented it from doing so. It would be understandable if areas under Palestinian control were seeing an economic boom. “We are under Israeli control,” he said. “It is not the same for us.”

Responding to a question about the Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations, he said that, as Palestinians, the Bedouin wished to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours.(my emphasis)

”

The source would seem to make it clear that the Bedouins under discussion are Palestinians, for starters; furthermore, that is supported by the declaration of their representative. And your point was what?

You didn't make a point, in fact, just broad unsupported assertions presented in a somewhat obsessed manner.

But maybe what you are trying to do is to deny that the Bedouins are Palestinians in order to avoid having any mention of Palestinians on the List, as you seem to think that you have enough support to prevent the inclusion of Palestinians that are not Bedouins.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

• What we have here is editors that are learning as we go. You guys are trying to solve a real world debate that not even scholars agree on.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, I may be a relative newcomer to Wikipedia editing, but what do you mean by "scholar"? In any case, scholars are not necessarily authoritative on this, regardless of their comprehension of the field. They may, for example, represent competing schools of thought or ideology. The UN, however, I believe you will agree, represents probably the world's preeminent authority on indigenous issues. What I really would like to ask you is the basis for the following statement you made about a week ago, and how you evaluate the sources presented by Dailycare, one of which I've quoted from above.

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--Ubikwit (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What I was trying to say its clear non of us are experts in this field what so ever (including me) - I am geneticist and musician - not an indigenous expert. As for Dailycare refs above they do not implicitly say they are indigenous as in they have indigenous rights recognized by any third party. As for my position from 2006 - still no consensus among scholars, indigenous bodies or the general public as demonstrated here in this talks - thus we here cant make a conclusion.Moxy (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "explicitly" instead of "implicitly"?

Also, what do you mean by "third party"?

I think that most would agree that the UN, through the Workgroup and PFII, represents the preeminent official indigenous rights organization in the world at present.

The document is an official publication of the UN, and the tile of the document includes an explicit statement recognizing the Bedouin Palestinians as "indigenous", as follows

PRESS CONFERENCE ON PLIGHT OF INDIGENOUS BEDOUIN PALESTINIANS(my emphasis)

Your statement preceding the introduction of the sources presented by Dailycare, "until recognized by an official indigenous body" makes no mention of a "third party" or the "general public", and your other statements regarding experts is somewhat opaque. --Ubikwit (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ubikwit, the definition we're using clearly excludes both Jews and Palestinians, and you have yet to provide a compelling case to convince us otherwise. You continue to ignore relevant points, while defiantly attempting to mold the criteria, without consensus (which is required), so as to achieve your POV. It is clear that you do not agree with this definition, so file an RfC if you want to change it. You can't just bend the rules to your liking, and expect nobody to resist you. That's not how this site works.

The source on Bedouin Palestinians, as I have explained above, contains a quote from one Bedouin resident of the West Bank (i.e. Palestine) who considers himself "part of Palestinian society". And from there you assumed that, based on his comments alone, that Bedouin and Palestinians are one and the same thing. Not only is this an exercise in confirmation bias, but the possibility (if not probability) that he refers to himself in this way because he is located in Palestine, under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and thus considers himself a Palestinian citizen has not entered into your thinking whatsoever. I could point to quotes from Bedouin located inside Israel proper (Ismail Khaldi for example) who similarly consider themselves Israelis or part of Israeli society. Your attempts to conflate Palestinian identity with Bedouin identity constitute (you guessed it) conjecture, synthesis, and original research.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It is becoming more apparent that you are simply in denial of the facts.

The source document is an official UN publication of the UN, not OR.

The title of the document is explicit, and other passages I've quoted clearly demonstrate that the Bedouin making the statement lives in an area (Area C) subject to Israeli administration, stating, “'We are under Israeli control'”. I don't want to debate you in a manner that would give credence to the double standard you attempt to apply, but let me simply point out a statement in your edit that amounts to "conjecture"

Not only is this an exercise in confirmation bias, but the possibility (if not probability) that he refers to himself in this way because he is located in Palestine, under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and thus considers himself a Palestinian citizen has not entered into your thinking whatsoever.Evildoer187

Your ignoring the fact that the UN refers to Mr. Korshan as a "Bedouin Palestinian" and an "indigenous Palestinian" represents a blatant misrepresentation of the content of the source.

The source clearly indicates that Mr. Korshan self identifies himself as a member of an indigenous people that is recognized by the UN in an official publication of the UN.

I don't know what is behind Moxy's apparent backpedaling on the issue "recognition by an official indigenous organization", but hopefully he will follow through with something more cogent and in accord with his previous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk •--Ubikwit (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Your coping what to where? YES (as stated before) there are documents that used the term indigenous for both Jews and Palestinians by the same publishers, however neither group as a whole cultural entity have been recognized by theses organization as being indigenous. They do not have indigenous rights as demonstrated in the links you and all of us have provided . What the links (references) provided (tell us) is information on the ongoing debate about recognition and the rights that would come with that. Members of both groups are fighting for the same recognition and thus the land rights that come with it. We here cant pic a side in a real world debate that is in many forums be it legal or historical. Would also like to correct the assumption that only indigenous peoples attend the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues - pls read over this - how would it be helpful to have a forum on solving world wide problems if only the indigenous peoples of the world attended? Moxy (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, this discussion belongs under the preceding section under the RfC I filed. I will copy this there so please respond under that section.

The sources (not simply references) provided by Dailycare are official publications of the UN. The reliability or neutrality of those sources is not subject to debate.

You are incorrect to assert that the Palestinians are not recognized as an indigenous people whose lands are under occupation. That is to say, the land rights you refer to are already recognized under international law as Palestinian lands that are illegally occupied by the state of Israel. Israel refuses to cooperate with the UN PFII, not even providing information. The fact that Israel does not recognize international law does not change international law or the status conferred by recognition by the UN to the indigenous Palestinians.

You are picking a side in this "real world debate" by failing to recognize the official UN sources. --Ubikwit (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Now it is even clearer to me that your unyielding desire to have Palestinians included on this list is so strong that you will go to any length necessary to force consensus in your favor. This includes, but is certainly not limited to, taking documents, distorting its contents, and extrapolating conclusions from it that simply aren't there.

The document itself is not original research, and I never said it was. However, the conclusion you drew from it, namely that Bedouins and Palestinians are the same people, does violate WP:NOR guidelines. First of all, how do you know that he didn't simply mean to say that, because he was a resident of Palestine, that he was a "part of Palestinian society" in the sense of citizenship, and not ethnic affiliation? The truth of the matter is we don't know, and certainly can't prove, what he actually meant. Either way, it wouldn't matter because A) it was one random citizen and B) there is no consensus, anywhere, that says Bedouin and ethnic Palestinians are the same people. I also get the feeling that, if the document really meant to imply that Bedouin and Palestinians are the same people, it would have read "Indigenous Palestinian People" and not "Indigenous Palestinian Bedouin". And at the end of the day, Palestinians are still a nationality, in an internationally recognized state (although it is currently occupied) where they comprise the majority of its citizens.

So yeah, it's original research, and it sure as hell doesn't warrant implementing such a controversial edit. Seriously, how long are you willing to keep this up? Just let it go already.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent the source insofar as you fail to acknowledge that it is the UN that has recognized "Indigenous Bedouin Palestinians". That is to say, the official UN source explicitly recognizes "Indigenous Bedouin Palestinians". Are you attempting to contest the official status of the source and the verity of its contents? You surely can't imagine that your inane statements will divert everyone's attention from the facts at hand.

It has been noted that Moxy has called into question your competence level, in a post to your Talk page here which you deleted two minutes after it was posted.

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I can see where this is heading, so I'll just post the document here in its entirety and let everyone else judge for themselves.

Bedouin Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank were in dire need of access to their traditional natural resources — rangeland and water — as well as basic health and education services, denied to them since their forcible displacement from the Negev Desert in 1948, community representative Mohamed Al Korshan said at a Headquarters press conference today.

Those and other rights of indigenous peoples living under occupation must be recognized and protected, said Mr. Korshan, one of the 40,000 Bedouin Palestinian residents of Area C of the West Bank, one of three such areas created by the 1993 Oslo Accords. Unlike Areas A and B, Area C is controlled and administered by Israeli authorities.

Today, the Bedouin faced a number of problems, Mr. Al Korshan said, explaining that lands which they could have used as rangelands and sources of water had instead been filled with settlements, nature reserves and military facilities. The vast majority of Bedouin in Area C lived in semi-permanent dwellings made of wood and metal, he said, adding that the Israeli authorities had issued eviction and demolition orders.

Furthermore, they continued to build their separation barrier, which had cut people off from badly-needed trade, he continued. Bedouin who had sold their livestock were now in deep unemployment. Their aim was to return to their tribal territories in the Negev Desert, he stressed. “We are part of Palestinian society, and if our economic situation is affected, so is that of all Palestinians.” While the Bedouin were not against the idea of settling down, any plans to do so must be made “by our own choice”.

Asked whether Bedouin rights had been denied by both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities, and if he agreed with the Israeli Prime Minister’s comments that the West Bank was experiencing an economic boom, Mr. Korshan said the Israelis had forbidden the Palestinian Authority from providing any services to people in Area C, despite its wish to support them. However, occupation rules prevented it from doing so. It would be understandable if areas under Palestinian control were seeing an economic boom. “We are under Israeli control,” he said. “It is not the same for us.”

In response to a question about whether the Israeli-Palestinian peace process should be premised on the pre-1967 borders or the Oslo Accords, he said he was present to discuss the humanitarian situation, not for political reasons. The humanitarian and economic situation had grown “quite serious” for the Bedouin, and they were facing very difficult times.

Responding to a question about the Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations, he said that, as Palestinians, the Bedouin wished to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours. “Peace is asked for by them. Peace is asked for by us. Peace is asked for by the whole world,” he pointed out. “I believe there will be an opportunity for us to live in peace together.”

Asked which rights must be recognized, and what the Israeli and Palestinian authorities could do to ensure them, Mr. Korshan said Bedouin Palestinians were displaced indigenous refugees living under occupation and, as such, they must be guaranteed access to natural resources for their livelihoods. “We are suffering a great deal and our economics are collapsing,” he added, emphasizing that the Bedouin right to free movement and seasonal migration must also be protected. They had Palestinian identity cards and birth certificates, he added.

Asked whether it was realistic for the Bedouin to be herders in the modern Palestinian era, he explained that herding had been their traditional livelihood even before 1948. However, life had grown harder under the occupation and they wished to join the developing world. “We know it’s 2011, but we don’t have alternative coping strategies right now,” he said. “We’re not against development. We would like education and alternative skills, but currently no one is helping us access those tools.”

It says "Indigenous Bedouin Palestinians", not "Indigenous Palestinians". If Bedouin were really just Palestinians, then why would the document even make such a distinction between the two? The rest of the article seems to follow the same pattern. As far as the community leader interviewed in the document is concerned, it's hard to tell whether or not he considers himself Palestinian in the ethnic sense or in the national sense. It sounds to me like he's leaning towards the latter, but we don't know for sure, and there is no consensus, in the UN or elsewhere, that Palestinians are ethnically Bedouin or vice versa. In any case, nobody has contested the indigenous status of Bedouin. However, there is still no consensus or official recognition (including in that article) of Palestinians as an indigenous group. Not only that, you are ignoring (again) the definition of indigenous peoples we are using for this article, which Palestinians do not meet.

On an unrelated note, are you monitoring my talk page? I find that rather creepy, to be honest. I'm going to ask you to stop. As for why I deleted Moxy's post on there, it's because I knew someone like you would seize onto it and use it to rally people against me. Especially considering how you tried to form an alliance with Yuvn86 to get me blocked from editing.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have some restrictions on watching User Talk pages that I'm not aware of? If not, what is the basis of your demand?

It still seems to be that you are questioning the authority of the source by attempting to problematize the legitimacy of its contents, but I have requested outside comments.

I'm not an ethnologist, so I won't address the UN experts that have created the content of the document; however, the self-identification of Mr. Korshan is made with respect to "Palestinian society".

The document does describe the Bedouin Palestinians as refugees, but the question of their political status is clearly as "Palestinians".

The point is that the experts have spoken, as the source represents and officially published statement of the world's preeminent authority on indigenous issues--the UN.--Ubikwit (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Clear there is no consensus at all for inclusion of either - as for picking a side - I pick no side at all - because both groups can find refs from official UN sources that say indigenous - But as mentioned (and referenced above) many many many many times - neither have been recognized by that body and both are in the middle of trying to be recognized as indigenous to the same area. What should have happened is a request for comment were noone here writes a wall of text that deters others from participation. So here we are with RfC #4 on the same topic in 2 months - still no consensus - so at this point I would say we all need to slowly walk away from the horse carcass. Moxy (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, if you have official UN publications that recognize Jews in any country anywhere as indigenous why don't you produce one? No such sources have been produced, so I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you assert that they exist in the first place.

Meanwhile, though you assert that there are official UN publications that recognize Jews as being indigenous without producing any such sources, you've yet to comment directly on the sources produced by Dailycare or the content thereof.

I would agree with your wall of text that deters others from participation accusation regarding contributors that are saying a lot about nothing, or the wrong topic, or simply repeating the same thing over and over "many many many many times", as you put it. I think I've seen a reference to WP:Stonewalling that might apply to this situation.

This discussion is trying to transform me into an attorney, not something I'm interested in becoming.

Again, I'm going to copy this under the RfC.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Omg - I just saw "if you have official UN publications that recognize Jews - produce one" At this point I am out of this conversation as its clear people are not even looking at the sources provided before making comments. - Side note pls stop copying and pasting my comments all over - I will reply were I like.Moxy (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Moxy. This debate is not going anywhere, and it is clear that no matter what any of us say to him, he isn't going to give this up. It's best that we just ignore him.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're your comments! By all means, post them where you please. It's a free world.

Incidentally, you left out a key phrase that relates directly to the narrow internationally recognized definition of indigenous peoples" with respect to which I wrote that question.

It's a bit curious that a geneticist scientist such as yourself would omit such pertinent details.

I'm going to have to re-quote the statement including that phrase, for those trying to keep track of this labyrinth of contorted expressions "official UN publications that recognize Jews as being indigenous"

Why don't you ask Tritomex, he might have the answer, since he was at least able to produce a reasonably close source hosted by the UN as a reference describing the situation of Jews in Yemen, or didn't you see that discussion?--Ubikwit (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Some Bedouins might identify as Palestinian, but not all Palestinians identify as Bedouin. This further exemplifies how 'Palestinian' is much more of an ethnically charged Nationality (like Israeli) than anything else. Trying to conflate All Palestinians with All Bedouins, or Vice Versa, is disingenuous shoehorning at best. This is the last thing I will say on the issue, as you seem to be doing a fantastic job of sullying your argument on your own. HaleakalAri (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not tried to "conflate All Palestinians with All Bedouins", so that is yet another misrepresentation of what I have said.

The UN source, in the title of the article pertaining to a UN press conference refers to Indigenous Bedouin Palestinians" is about the extent to which I have addressed the issue. The point being that it is much easier to address the very well crafted and most recent official UN publication at hand than address the much more complicated issues addressed in the publication from 1981.

I would paraphrase the publication in terms of saying that the UN source at hand recognizes the person being interviewed as an indigenous Bedouin Palestinian that is serving in the capacity as a "community representative" to the UN on behalf of the group of indigenous Palestinians that are Bedouins living under the conditions described in the body of the publication in an Israeli controlled area.

One point that perhaps should be indicated explicitly is that the above-mentioned reference in the SOWIP report refers to "Bedouin Arabs in Israel", while the 2011 press conference publication refers to "Palestinian Bedouins". The press conference publication does not refer to "Bedouins in Palestine", which is the naming convention applied to other Bedouin populations here Bedouins#Bedouins_in_different_countries. Those are meaningful distinctions. The situation is obviously complicated, but the UN is at the forefront of indigenous rights and that is the reason that the UN is considered a reliable source on indigenous rights issues. It is not up to you or me or anyone else here to determine who the UN recognizes as an indigenous Palestinian, whether they are Bedouin or not.

Again, I'm going to copy this under the RfC, where it belongs (it does not relate to the unreliable source), but I'll leave it here, too, where you put it.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Unreliable source

Because the RfC above has been bombarded with material peripheral to the focus thereof, I've opened this section to discuss one unreliable reference that has been cited repeatedly and erroneously in an effort to assert that the UN has granted tacit recognition to Israelis/Jews as an indigenous people.

The organization concerned is the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL). Although the organization claims on its website to be registered as an Indigenous peoples organization, it is in fact merely an NGO, as per the following webpage on the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) website.

Seeing that the Office of Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL) is not only not an IPO but is a nationalistic organization that misrepresents itself on its website, one would have preferred it to have been cited with caution. The news media article that Evildoer cited initially does not refer to the NGO as an IPO, and that raised my suspicion, which was subsequently confirmed by the fact that a search of the UN IPO database for that purported IPO produced a negative result.

As a result of the false source, a lot of time and effort were expended on discussions that were largely unnecessary. --Ubikwit (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Ok, a few things...

1. Did this really need its own section?

2. From what I can see, it does not appear to say anything regarding whether or not it is an IPO, or simply an NGO. Although to be fair, it is possible that I am missing something. I am not particularly adept at reading small text.

3. It says on its resume that it did attend one of the conferences. You need to be recognized as an IPO to do that. However, it seems to have been revoked, as they have not attended a UNPFII conference since. And, as you have said, and I just confirmed, they are not registered as an IPO on any UN site.

It seems to me that you are more interested in painting me as some kind of fanatic, than actually working to improve the article. You are right in that I should have been more careful in citing my sources, but I seriously recommend that you adjust your attitude on here.

In the meantime, Palestinians and Jews are to remain off of the list, as per the definition at the top of the page.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not make the decisions here, it is done by consensus. We are in the process of building consensus to possibly include the Palestinians on the list, as there would appear to be ample evidence that they shoud in fact be required to be on the list.

You can post any further obstructionist rants you have here, not under the RfC.

Yet again you return to the habit of making unsubstantiated assertions, this time about IPOs, requirements to participate in conferences, etc.

First, on the above cited UN ECOSOC webpage, the letters NGO appear in brackets directly under the name of the OFICL. Since you have confirmed that they are not in the IPO database and you yourself provided the link to the entirely separate website under DESA, then you are obviously aware of the fact that the IPOs are maintained on a webpage unrelated to other NGOs. But you would have us believe otherwise, apparently.

Second, under the section "CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION" is states that the OFICL participated in the Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 19 - 30 April, 2010.

Therefore, you are again making an unsubstantiated assertion that "You need to be recognized as an IPO" to participate in PFII conferences is obviously incorrect. And you claim that you can't read small print?

Furthermore, to make it easy to see how fallacious your previous assertion that the OFICL was acting on behalf of the interests of the Bedouins, here is a quote they have posted under the "ABOUT US" section on the above-cited UN ECOSOC webpage.

In 1922 Britain in violation of the Mandate for Palestine gave 78% of the Jewish Tribal lands to include almost all of the lands of the Tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Ruben to a non existent entity. They rubbed Aladdin?s Lamp and poof out came a make believe King without a Kingdom and so was Jordan created at a great loss to the tribes. Later when the State of Israel invaded southern Lebanon it captured some of the Tribal lands of the tribe of Asher and Naphtali. These same lands had been promised to the Jewish National Home, but bad people in France holding the Mandate for Lebanon refused to release the lands south of the Latani. France?s Mitterrand apologized to the Jewish Tribes for this act in the nineteen-fifties. A Prime Minister named Barak abandoned Southern Lebanon and so the promise we thought to have there evaporated. Later in 2006 another Prime Minister Sharon abandoned Gaza and so we lost much of the Tribal lands of Dan. Today we face new dangers and the Palestinian Arabs who are not indigenous to the Holy Land are trying to convince the world that they are, who they are not, and any peace agreement that involves a two state solution will result in the loss of more Tribal lands.

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Who said I'm making the decisions? I'm just reminding you of where consensus currently stands i.e. both Jews and Palestinians are to be excluded from the article, as per the criteria at the top of the page. As other editors have observed, it would appear that based on your earlier outbursts, as well as your sheer determination, that you are not interested in building consensus so much as you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your proposed edits. However, I can see that you're not going to give this up, so it's worth nothing that it doesn't matter how long you persist in this crusade. If you cannot provide a compelling argument for your requested changes, it's just not going to happen. That's how this site works.

In any case, if you felt the need to create this section because you thought it would keep those of us who disagree with you (oh, the horror) out of the way, then you are sorely mistaken. I'm still going to participate in the discussion, if I have something to say on the matter. I'm also going to do my best to make sure nobody loses sight of the criteria at the top of the page, and that any edits carried out on this article are 100 percent compatible with both the agreed upon definition and Wikipedia's stated goal of maintaining a balanced and neutral point of view.

Now then, the following link is the application form for recognition as an IPO (Indigenous Peoples Organization). http://esango.un.org/event/ngo.html?page=profileForm&form=ipo&language=english

And here are the steps, quoted from the article....

Please follow these steps in order to register to attend the UNPFII Sessions.

1. Please fill in the Online Pre-Registration Form 2. When you click on Add Organization. We will process the information about your organization that you provided us. This information will enable us to determine whether your organization is within the categories (Indigenous Peoples' Organizations or Academic) that can attend the UNPFII session. This process may take up to two weeks. 3. If your organization is within the categories that can attend the UNPFII session, you will receive a login name and password which will enable you to add the names of your representatives. 4. Within a 5-10 days of adding names, confirmation letters will be sent to all those listed under your organization. Please make sure you clear your mailbox so that you are able to receive emails with attachments. You may use the confirmation letter to apply for a visa. You must also bring this letter to the registration desk at UN Headquarters, New York in order to complete your registration process to attend the UNPFII session.

5. If your organization is not within the categories to attend the UNPFII session, you will be advised accordingly.

Take note of the bolded portions. It is rather clear from these passages that recognition as an IPO is required to gain access to an UNPFII conference. The OFICL, according to the link you posted, has attended one of the conferences. So it follows that the OFICL were at one point recognized as an Indigenous Peoples Organization, only to later have that status revoked.

That page you cited does not mention anything about the Bedouin, as evidenced by a quick Control+F search. It is certainly possible, even likely that I misread the earlier article (I am only human, after all) relating to the OFICL and Bedouin NGOs exclusion from the UNPFII conference, but this does not appear to confirm anything either way. Mind you, it is likely that I was wrong, and even more certain that the OFICL is a religious fruitcake organization. However, this does not change anything regarding consensus on excluding Jews and Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page that states that only IPOs-and not other NGOs-can attend the conferences if they apply; therefore, you are again making an erroneous assertion without adequate support, because you have failed to look into the matter thoroughly.

Here is a link to the UN ECOSOC webpage for Participating in a UN event. The page includes the following text

...the Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN Forum on Forests, and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, are open to NGOs in consultative status.

Here is a link to the UN ECOSOC webpage listing the upcoming conference 7-18 May: Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 11th session.

Here is a link to the webpage where NGOs can apply for "consultative status" How to Apply for Consultative Status.

The Negev Coexistence Form for Civic Equality has been registered as an NPO since 1997 The Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality (NCF), so it would seem likely that they attended the conference in that capacity.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Those are very helpful links. However, I don't recall anyone ever saying that Bedouin were not eligible for inclusion. Palestinians are not Bedouin.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, your choice of expression "relligious fruitcake organization" is colorful, but probably portrays that group of sociopaths in too benign a manner. A more appropriate description would be "religious extremist group". Of course, they are fairly sophisticated, Zionist nationalists flying the duplicitous banner of "Constitutional law" whilst spewing biblical literalist interpretations to support their claims to Palestinian lands. --Ubikwit (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

You seem to have a very deep emotional investment in this conflict, for reasons I do not know or care about. Either way, you're going to have to try to keep those feelings in check if you want to participate here. As far as the common sense interpretation of indigeneity is concerned, both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the region, even though neither of them meet the criteria for inclusion in this list. Evildoer187 (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you again to stop trying to assume a tone of authority here. Your appeal to common sense is has no place in this discussion. Either produce sources to support your assertions, or stop your disruptive comments.

Your irrational ignoring of the sources that have been presented by Dailycare would tend to indicate that it is you that has a "very deep emotional investment in this conflict", as you put it.

One of the two sources repeatedly refers to "Bedouin Palestinians" as shown in the following passages

“

Bedouin Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank were in dire need of access to their traditional natural resources — rangeland and water — as well as basic health and education services, denied to them since their forcible displacement from the Negev Desert in 1948

Those and other rights of indigenous peoples living under occupation must be recognized and protected, said Mr. Korshan, one of the 40,000 Bedouin Palestinian residents of Area C of the West Bank, one of three such areas created by the 1993 Oslo Accords. Unlike Areas A and B, Area C is controlled and administered by Israeli authorities.

Today, the Bedouin faced a number of problems, Mr. Al Korshan said, explaining that lands which they could have used as rangelands and sources of water had instead been filled with settlements...

“We are part of Palestinian society, and if our economic situation is affected, so is that of all Palestinians.”(my emphasis)

Asked whether Bedouin rights had been denied by both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities, and if he agreed with the Israeli Prime Minister’s comments that the West Bank was experiencing an economic boom, Mr. Korshan said the Israelis had forbidden the Palestinian Authority from providing any services to people in Area C, despite its wish to support them. However, occupation rules prevented it from doing so. It would be understandable if areas under Palestinian control were seeing an economic boom. “We are under Israeli control,” he said. “It is not the same for us.”

Responding to a question about the Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations, he said that, as Palestinians, the Bedouin wished to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours(my emphasis).

”

The source would seem to make it clear that the Bedouins are Palestinians, for starters; furthermore, that is supported by the declaration of their representative. And your point was what?

You didn't make a point, in fact, just broad unsupported assertions presented in a somewhat obsessed manner.

But maybe what you are trying to do is to deny that the Bedouins are Palestinians in order to avoid having any mention of Palestinians on the List, as you seem to think that you have enough support to prevent the inclusion of Palestinians that are not Bedouins.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

• What we have here is editors that are learning as we go. You guys are trying to solve a real world debate that not even scholars agree on.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, I may be a relative newcomer to Wikipedia editing, but what do you mean by "scholar"? In any case, scholars are not necessarily authoritative on this, regardless of their comprehension of the field. They may, for example, represent competing schools of thought or ideology. The UN, however, I believe you will agree, represents probably the world's preeminent authority on indigenous issues. What I really would like to ask you is the basis for the following statement you made about a week ago, and how you evaluate the sources presented by Dailycare, one of which I've quoted from above.

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--Ubikwit (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What I was trying to say its clear non of us are experts in this field what so ever (including me) - I am geneticist and musician - not an indigenous expert. As for Dailycare refs above they do not implicitly say they are indigenous as in they have indigenous rights recognized by any third party. As for my position from 2006 - still no consensus among scholars, indigenous bodies or the general public as demonstrated here in this talks - thus we here cant make a conclusion.Moxy (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "explicitly" instead of "implicitly"?

Also, what do you mean by "third party"?

I think that most would agree that the UN, through the Workgroup and PFII, represents the preeminent official indigenous rights organization in the world at present.

The document is an official publication of the UN, and the tile of the document includes an explicit statement recognizing the Bedouin Palestinians as "indigenous", as follows

PRESS CONFERENCE ON PLIGHT OF INDIGENOUS BEDOUIN PALESTINIANS(my emphasis)

Your statement preceding the introduction of the sources presented by Dailycare, "until recognized by an official indigenous body" makes no mention of a "third party" or the "general public", and your other statements regarding experts is somewhat opaque.

Since we are addressing the RfC issues, I'm copying this discussion there, so we can continue it there rather than here in the section on the dubious source.--Ubikwit (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Your coping what to where? YES (as stated before) there are documents that used the term indigenous for both Jews and Palestinians by the same publishers, however neither group as a whole cultural entity have been recognized by theses organization as being indigenous. They do not have indigenous rights as demonstrated in the links you and all of us have provided . What the links (references) provided (tell us) is information on the ongoing debate about recognition and the rights that would come with that. Members of both groups are fighting for the same recognition and thus the land rights that come with it. We here cant pic a side in a real world debate that is in many forums be it legal or historical. Would also like to correct the assumption that only indigenous peoples attend the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues - pls read over this - how would it be helpful to have a forum on solving world wide problems if only the indigenous peoples of the world attended? Moxy (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, this discussion belongs under the preceding section under the RfC I filed. I will copy this there so please respond under that section.

The sources (not simply references) provided by Dailycare are official publications of the UN. The reliability or neutrality of those sources is not subject to debate.

You are incorrect to assert that the Palestinians are not recognized as an indigenous people whose lands are under occupation. That is to say, the land rights you refer to are already recognized under international law as Palestinian lands that are illegally occupied by the state of Israel. Israel refuses to cooperate with the UN PFII, not even providing information. The fact that Israel does not recognize international law does not change international law or the status conferred by recognition by the UN to the indigenous Palestinians.

You are picking a side in this "real world debate" by failing to recognize the official UN sources. --Ubikwit (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Clear there is no consensus at all for inclusion of either - as for picking a side - I pick no side at all - because both groups can find refs from official UN sources that say indigenous - But as mentioned (and referenced above) many many many many times - neither have been recognized by that body and both are in the middle of trying to be recognized as indigenous to the same area. What should have happened is a request for comment were noone here writes a wall of text that deters others from participation. So here we are with RfC #4 on the same topic in 2 months - still no consensus - so at this point I would say we all need to slowly walk away from the horse carcass. Moxy (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, if you have official UN publications that recognize Jews in any country anywhere as indigenous why don't you produce one? No such sources have been produced, so I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you assert that they exist in the first place.

Meanwhile, though you assert that there are official UN publications that recognize Jews as being indigenous without producing any such sources, you've yet to comment directly on the sources produced by Dailycare or the content thereof.

I would agree with your wall of text that deters others from participation accusation regarding contributors that are saying a lot about nothing, or the wrong topic, or simply repeating the same thing over and over "many many many many times", as you put it. I think I've seen a reference to WP:Stonewalling that might apply to this situation.

This discussion is trying to transform me into an attorney, not something I'm interested in becoming.

Again, I'm going to copy this under the RfC.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Some Bedouins might identify as Palestinian, but not all Palestinians identify as Bedouin. This further exemplifies how 'Palestinian' is much more of an ethnically charged Nationality (like Israeli) than anything else. Trying to conflate All Palestinians with All Bedouins, or Vice Versa, is disingenuous shoehorning at best. This is the last thing I will say on the issue, as you seem to be doing a fantastic job of sullying your argument on your own. HaleakalAri (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not tried to "conflate All Palestinians with All Bedouins", so that is yet another misrepresentation of what I have said.

The UN source, in the title of the article pertaining to a UN press conference refers to Indigenous Bedouin Palestinians" is about the extent to which I have addressed the issue. The point being that it is much easier to address the very well crafted and most recent official UN publication at hand than address the much more complicated issues addressed in the publication from 1981.

I would paraphrase the publication in terms of saying that the UN source at hand recognizes the person being interviewed as an indigenous Bedouin Palestinian that is serving in the capacity as a "community representative" to the UN on behalf of the group of indigenous Palestinians that are Bedouins living under the conditions described in the body of the publication in an Israeli controlled area.

One point that perhaps should be indicated explicitly is that the above-mentioned reference in the SOWIP report refers to "Bedouin Arabs in Israel", while the 2011 press conference publication refers to "Palestinian Bedouins". The press conference publication does not refer to "Bedouins in Palestine", which is the naming convention applied to other Bedouin populations here Bedouins#Bedouins_in_different_countries. Those are meaningful distinctions. The situation is obviously complicated, but the UN is at the forefront of indigenous rights and that is the reason that the UN is considered a reliable source on indigenous rights issues. It is not up to you or me or anyone else here to determine who the UN recognizes as an indigenous Palestinian, whether they are Bedouin or not.

Again, I'm going to copy this under the RfC, where it belongs (it does not relate to the unreliable source), but I'll leave it here, too, where you put it.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Bot archiving temporarily disabled

On 15 December User:Wwoods set up MiszaBot archiving for this page with a 90-day timeout, which sounds reasonable. Recently Evildoer187, 72.74.59.228 and Ubikwit have been feuding over the timeout. One of them reduced it to only 15 days, which makes no sense when there are active RfCs that could take as long as thirty days to finish. Since the last bot run took away one of the RfCs, I have undone the last archiving and I'm turning off MiszaBot until the RfCs have been settled. Long term I suggest that the 90 days be restored, but this is up to editor consensus. Evildoer187's statement when he reduced the timeout was "Undid revision 529129762 by Ubikwit (talk) This horse is on its last breath. You have 15 days to present a solid, rational argument for your proposed edits." I think this is on the border of disruptive editing and urge all parties to leave archiving alone for the duration. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo - a apart

"the state that they are a apart of" s/b "the state that they are a part of" Chris the speller ^yack 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was added with this edit; but it's in a quote - does the original contain the same error? If it does, we should not "correct" it. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not correct it? I don't have the printed copy, or access to then full original article, but until one can be found, I think this should be treated as a minor typo that should be fixed to spare our readers the distraction. Per WP:QUOTE, "Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected or may be retained and marked with '[sic]'". This is not a historic misspelling like the alternate spelling of "PENSYLVANIA" on the Liberty Bell. Chris the speller ^yack 15:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove Israeli Arab conflict tag

No reason for it to be here. Only a weak connection between the two. It is impractical to tag it as such.Pug6666 02:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could we get you to read a few section above.Moxy (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not my point if you need to protect this page do so in a way that isn't a POV push. Pug6666 19:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure you understand what the tag means - noting to do with a POV - has to do with editing behavior - specifically about multiple reverts.Moxy (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)