Talk:Anti-Palestinianism

Why is this article called "sentiment" instead of "racism"?

If you're going to keep that title that you need to demonstrate why using solid secondary sources.

--Bob drobbs (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

might be better.Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and moved it to that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That does seem better and it is used in a few sources. The much more common term seems to be 'anti-Palestinian racism'. Are you avoiding it because it's misleading, and this bigotry isn't exactly based on race? I have a slight preference for sticking with the term in common usage, but won't push hard for it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainly because there is a current debate around this term, the idea being to give this particular version of bigotry a name. Bigotry need not be based on race (or religion). It can just be bigotry based on identity, idk, because you are a Goth for example. Same sort of thing as hate speech, it's the speech itself as much as who it is directed at.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As there's debate about this term, and it's not the generally used term, here's what I'd suggest:

1. Move this page to "Anti-Palestinian racism" or mirror the short title "Bigotry against Palestinians"
2. Create a new section in this article about the term "anti-Palestinianism" regarding the debate/discussion about it
3. If and when anti-Palestinianism becomes the predominant term, move it back

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Palestinian racism is not the same thing as Anti-Palestinianism so that doesn't work (ie it's not a common name question). The intended scope is not racism, I think that's why the creator avoided the use of that term, maybe @Bohemian Baltimore: will comment? I think the word racism shouldn't be used in the article at all but I am stuck with 1RR at the moment (I would put prejudice, say, or you could do that.)Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that racism is a misnomer. That's why I also suggested "Bigotry against Palestinians" as an alternative. You were the one who defined the scope of this article that way. It seems to work as the title too. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob drobbs I chose the term "sentiment" because it the term used for most similar articles concerning anti-national sentiment. Examples: Anti-Albanian sentiment, Anti-Greek sentiment, Anti-Filipino sentiment, Anti-Chilean sentiment, etc. I don't really care what the article is titled. "Anti-Palestinian sentiment", "Anti-Palestinian racism", and "Anti-Palestinianism" all seem to connote the same phenomenon. Palestinians aren't a race (or a color), but one could still talk about systemic racism in Israel against Palestinians, so I suppose it can be said that the applicability of the term "racism" is arguable. I think the current title is fine. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

From the article on Palestinianism: "Palestinianism is term occasionally used to denote the national political movement of the Palestinian people. It is a relatively recent coinage whose origins are disputed."

Unless the scope and purpose of this article is going to be changed to discuss the term, and only the term, like the other page, it seems it needs to be moved again. The phrasing used elsewhere seems to be "Anti-Palestinian bigotry", which I strongly suggest and it seems like an improvement over the original title. -- 18:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing used elsewhere seems to be "Anti-Palestinian bigotry" Where is "elsewhere"? Up above, you said the more common term seems to be 'anti-Palestinian racism'. Now, you are proposing a title that no-one else seems that interested in? Is this just a case of "not invented here"? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On looking further, I actually found another example where "sentiment" is used, Anti-Irish sentiment, and an example where Anti-Muslim bigotry is used (though that's a redirect). It's now my opinion that either of these are perfectly fine, and far better than mirroring a page which discusses a little used term. Why shouldn't we just put it back to the title before you boldly jumped forth without waiting for any input? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole idea of a bold edit is you do it without input and see what happens? How about you get any other editor to agree with you? I have added a ref so now the lead says it's a form of racism and also a form of bigotry as well as addressing anti Muslim/anti Arab sentiment. So by all means add tags to the article if that pleases you but enough with the wordsmithing. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The creator of this page had no objection to this additional move. I saw no arguments why the anti-Palestinianism was better and there seem to be clear reasons why it's worse than the other choices. So I went ahead and did it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrative reversion requested. Editing in a minority of 1 in the middle of a discussion is disruption.Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had absolutely zero consensus when you did your move, and the conversation had just begun. The creator of this page expressed absolutely zero problem with the page being moved again. How is this change any different than any other edit or revert? And if the admins do chose to intervene I hope they revert it all of the way back to the original title so we can work on achieving the consensus on the best title. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 editors here, 2 of whom were quite happy with the title. We were in the middle of discussion. You have completely ignored refs in the lead, provided none of your own and enforced your own opinion. That's known as disruption.Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To overturn this title, either continue discussions and see whether any new consensus will develop or begin a formal RM.Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your options are moving back to sentiment, leaving it here, or starting an RM. nableezy - 20:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Palestinianism page is clear that Palestinianism is an ideology and anti-Palestinianism is a rejection of that ideology. This is inherently different than bigotry. The correct analogy is that anti-Palestinism is equivalent with anti-Zionism, not antisemitism. The reference supporting the current title, is an opinion piece, in Jewish Currents which I'm not sure is a reliable source. This opinion piece pulls the definition from a tweet. Come on? Really?

Is there any objection on it's merits to either "Anti-Palestinian sentiment" or "Anti-Palestinian bigotry"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

' Palestinianism is an ideology and anti-Palestinianism is a rejection of that ideology.' Stone the friggen crows! That it is weirdest reading of any page I can remember. Translation. For you, the page tells us that the pursuit of national rights by Palestinians is an 'ideology' and opposition to those rights (i.e. Zionism) is a matter of some rejection of ideology.!!!! Perhaps I should rewrite the page if that absurd deduction can be drawn from it. (alert: the term is examined in several senses, one of which takes it to be an ideology, whilst others take it to be a designation for Palestinians seeking their human rights as a people under occupation or in enforced exile).Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, I have contested your request and explained why. Per procedure as stated there "If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here." Kindly follow that procedure.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding procedure, okay. But then, do you have any response to my above comment on the following:

1. Your argument for using this title came from a tweet
2. Palestinianism is an ideology; Anti-Palestinianism is the opposition to that ideology.
3. Opposition to an ideology is not necessarily bigotry.
4. Any objections on it's merits to either "Anti-Palestinian sentiment" or "Anti-Palestinian bigotry"

Thoughts? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You continue to argue at Technical requests in breach of process, basically trying to say that my move was bad and your reversion of it was good, which is an entirely ludicrous inversion of the situation. I will continue to develop the article, contrary to your unsupported opinion, there are many sources. If I put the question to you, what do you think the current title means, what is your response? Now I am actually asking you for your opinion, no references needed, not that you have provided any up to now.Selfstudier (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems that a single person, Mezna Qato (who is not notable) is responsible for the definition you're using. I see zero evidence of widespread use of it. The Palestinianism article says "Palestinianism" isn't used much, and the inverse of it is used far, far less.

My thoughts, which I've repeated 3 different times now is that Palestinianism is an ideology, and that anti-Palestinianism is opposition to that ideology. Anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitism; likewise anti-Palestinianism is not necessarily bigotry against Palestinianism. The net-result here, intentional or not, is to conflate all criticism of Palestinian Nationalism with bigotry. Here's the classic example from Moshe Dann from the main article of anti-Palestinianism:

"The ideology of Palestinianism is that Israel is a “settler, colonial state .. Palestinianism has two goals. Its immediate goal is a Palestinian state under the PLO, Its long-term goal is the elimination of Israel"

That quote is very clearly anti-Palestinianism. Is it bigotry? Unclear. At bare minimum, it's super confusing to know if someone is speaking about opposition to the Palestinian Nationalist movement or bigotry against Palestinians. I have not heard a single reason why this term is better than the more clear alternatives. Can you explain why you think this current term is better than the two other options? I've respectfully answered your question, now please show me the same respect by answering mine. -- 01:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts is that it is just as it says in the lead, it is a form of racism, a form of prejudice, anti Palestinian sentiment etcetera etcera and why do you want to pick just one of the meanings? Bigotry, or the article name as was initially, going by your move acrobatics. Idk from where you get the idea that it is an ideology (is anti-Semitism an ideology??) It is the simplest, shortest and most obvious way of describing what it is.Selfstudier (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving on, this looks quite good, surely anyone can agree with this (other than Anti-Palestinianers, new word alert):

Anti-Palestinianism refers to a language and practice that directs discrimination, racism, hatred or violence against the Palestinian people. This abuse can be verbal, explicit or implied, or reflected in violence. At its worst it denies the existence of the Palestinian people, an erasure that facilitates the perpetuation of violence against them and the denial of their right to self-determination.

Selfstudier (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Or simpler:

Anti-Palestinianism is hatred towards or prejudice against Palestinians as Palestinians.

Selfstudier (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What are the sources for those definitions? I'm looking at the lead:

* An opinion piece that quotes a tweet

* A passing mention in a student rejection of bigotry

Seriously man? You've condemned the use of sources elsewhere, now your pulling the absolute, absolute bottom of the barrel? -- 02:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is "man" supposed to be me? I did not put those definitions in the article, why are you addressing yourself to me? This article was created on the 5th and since then you have done nothing except cause disruption, see your talk page for details. If it continues, there will be consequences.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Origin

It would be useful, if it is possible, to ascertain the origin/earliest usage of this term. So far I have a 1999 book ref. Any advance on that? Selfstudier (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this an article about the term? Or is it an article about bigotry against Palestinians? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an answer to the question I posed here ie earliest usage of the term.Selfstudier (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Page title - Anti-Palestinian sentiment vs. Anti-Palestinianism vs. Anti-Palestinian bigotry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The short description for this page is "Bigotry toward Palestinians".

The most appropriate title for this page is?

1. Option A: Anti-Palestinian sentiment
2. Option B: Anti-Palestinianism
3. Option C: Anti-Palestinian bigotry

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Requests to move the title of an article should be listed at WP:RM and made using the associated template. BSMRD (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Closed and moving Okay, and thanks. Closing this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australia

The entire major section of this article is based on two primary sources, and a questionable secondary source which just reposted the statement.

Please fix, so I don't have to.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There are two secondaries including a detailed critique from your side of the aisle so Idk what you mean here. Care to elaborate? Selfstudier (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources Paragraph #1:

1. Pearls and irritations - John Meandue's Public Policy Journal

This has been added, it's an op-ed stated as opinion, and I don't object.

Sources Paragraph #2:

1. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council - A primary source that should not be referenced.
2. Arab Australian Federation (AAF) - A primary source that should not be referenced.
3. Australian Muslim Times - Possibly a secondary source, but it seems they're just repeating the press release from AAF verbatim.

How does this meet WP:DUE? If it doesn't this paragraph should be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In the first place citing a primary is actually allowed. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Please explain why Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council review is a primary source? (every source is primary for something so what is this primary for?). And a secondary source verifying a primary is described by you as copying a primary. And it's all due because it is obvious that it is relevant for Australia (and possibly elsewhere) in the context of this article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

These are not news agencies. These are activists groups, or questionable news sources republishing the press release from the activist group verbatim. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You know where RSN is. And you didn't answer the questions, wonder why? Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

While we are discussing the primary tag re Australia (for which I have added another secondary), there is one for Austria as well but there is a secondary source there. So waiting for these tags to be removed (+ the undue tag as well), please? Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The BDS movement is used as the reference for the claim that the BDS movement condemns something. Seems like a blatant misuse of primary and totally undue. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the secondary source. "The Palestinian-led boycott movement has slammed a motion passed by the Austrian parliament that singles out the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign for criticism." If you want MEMO attributed, that's fine but what you are saying is just false.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So, in addition to the primary source (which should just be removed at this point), you've added a source that seems to have consensus that it's unreliable[1]? At bare minimum, it seems that needs to be attributed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the whole section should be removed those sub par sources are clearly WP:UNDUE as I see it there is no consensus to use them Shrike (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary is there to verify the secondary, not a problem. Ask at RSN if MEMO is reliable for what is said in this section ie that BDS condemned.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2021 (1)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - No !votes in favour of moving have been cast during the seven days this has been up. Policy/guideline reasons were cited by the three !voters against moving, including instances of reliable sources using the term that is the present title, and consistency. Some other instances of the proposed title were also cited by the nom, but not as many, not were they picked up by any other editor as a reason to move. I considered a re-list but given that no !votes have been cast in favour of moving nor have any comments been made by neutral parties, there seems little point in stretching this one out. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

.

Anti-Palestinianism → Anti-Palestinian bigotry – This term is barely used and a misnomer. Palestinianism is a description of the national movement; yet "anti-Palestinianism" as defined here is bigotry. The lead's supporting references for this definition are an op-ed pulling the definition from a tweet[2], and a passing mention in a primary source saying it's one form of racism[3]. This seems like a POV attempt to push a barely used term into common usage and perhaps to intentionally conflate opposition to a national movement with bigotry. "Anti-Palestinian bigotry" is clear, it precisely matches the article's short text ("Bigotry toward Palestinians"), and doesn't push any POV. Bob drobbs (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing for the below. Can add that other title as an option. nableezy - 16:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Undoing. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps as a mistake, you closed the wrong one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, maybe dont ABF and consider I thought you wanted the second one open? Since you made that one after this? Maybe dont open an RFC and then two requested moves and then get upset at somebody trying to clean up your mess?nableezy - 18:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Nom attempts to rubbish sources used to support the current title and suggests another with no sources or anything else to back it up except an unfounded allegation of POV with the weasel words, "perhaps to intentionally conflate", and no source for that either. So this move request is founded on nom's opinion and nothing more. As can be seen from the talk page, it seems that for nom, any title except the current one will do. Whether one considers the current title as a particular term in use or as a description, the meaning of it seems clear. Yes, it includes "a form of" bigotry but it also includes "a form of" racism, it includes "anti-Palestinian sentiment", the original page title, and prejudice and discrimination and..., nom just wants to pick one particular form and ignore all the others, for reasons that are entirely unclear. The obvious comparitive would be Anti-Semitism. Should I go to that page, allege POV and that it should just say bigotry towards Jews? I just looked at the short description there, "Hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews". Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the stated reasons are to be blunt nonsense. "Anti-Palestinianism" is not defined by a Wikipedia editor, but rather by sources. The op-ed (note, not an op-ed, Peter Beinart is actually the editor of Jewish Currents, and is a perfectly useable expert source, but it does not even matter as there are plenty of other sources that support that "anti-Palestinianism is bigotry towards Palestinians, and its use spans literally decades, often in the context of Lebanese antipathy to Palestinian refugees. Examples:
  • Sayigh, Rosemary (2013-11-01). "On the Exclusion of the Palestinian Nakba from the "Trauma Genre"". Journal of Palestine Studies. 43 (1). Informa UK Limited: 58. doi:10.1525/jps.2013.43.1.51. In many Western academic circles today, anti-Palestinianism is a permissible form of racism, one that underwrites a continuing politics of exclusion.
  • Schulze, Kirsten E. (1999). "Minority Alliances". Journal of Palestine Studies. 28 (2). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 98. JSTOR 2537939. Retrieved 2021-12-08. By 1982, anti-Palestinianism was a common thread in Israeli and Maronite policies as described in this account{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • Sayigh, Rosemary (1995). "Palestinians in Lebanon: Harsh Present, Uncertain Future". Journal of Palestine Studies. 25 (1). [University of California Press, Institute for Palestine Studies]: 37–53. JSTOR 2538103. Retrieved 2021-12-08. Concerning the two sectarian communities that have at different times resorted to violence against the Palestinians-the Maronites and the Shi'ites-some softening of anti-Palestinianism has been discernible among the Maronites with the growth of hostility between President Hafiz al-Asad and Chairman Arafat. Confronted by a more powerful force-Syria-part of political Maronitism has come to view the Palestinians as the lesser evil. Yet mainstream Maronite leaders still exaggerate the size of the Palestinian community and still use the question of Palestinian settlement to brandish the specter of partition{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • Haddad, Simon (2004). "The Origins of Popular Opposition to Palestinian Resettlement in Lebanon". The International Migration Review. 38 (2). [Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc., Wiley]: 470–492. JSTOR 27645386. Retrieved 2021-12-08. Intense anti-Palestinianism is dis cernible in the case of Christian groups, namely in statements like "Usually, we don't care about them. Sometimes we feel pity for them because they are poor. But we don't think that they belong here"ontact with Palestinians significantly explains attitude toward resettlement. Intense anti-Palestinianism is discernible in the case of Christian groups, namely in statements like "Usually, we don't care about them. Sometimes we feel pity for them because they are poor. But we don't think that they belong here"{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Since the basis for this move is entirely OR, with a dash of ABF, and it is directly refuted by reliable sources, oppose. nableezy - 19:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The page on Palestinianism written by Nishidani says that that term is only "occasionally used". This term is even less used. Yes, you can find a couple of sources over the past few decades that use this term, but it's exactly that. A few sources.

  As for Peter Beinart, whom you are claiming is an expert on these topics. He pulled the definition from a tweet: "In a tweet last fall, Mezna Qato, a historian of the Middle East at Cambridge University, defined “anti-Palestinianism” as “Prejudice, hostility or discrimination against Palestinians."

  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Palestinianism is not the antonym of Palestinianism, just as anti-semitism is not the antonym of semitism. That you dont seem to understand that "anti-Palestinianism" has been used for literally decades to describe hostility towards Palestinians is not really relevant here. That you think you are more qualified than Mezna Qato is likewise not relevant here. nableezy - 15:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Nableezy claims Peter Breinart is an expert in these matters. Six months ago, Breinart wrote an op-ed entitled: "It’s Time to Name Anti-Palestinian Bigotry."

I think we can use that as evidence, from an expert, that "anti-Palestinianism" was not in common usage as of July 2021. Based on the title, I think that there's also evidence this expert sees "Anti-Palestinian Bigotry" as the commonly used term.[4] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ive shown several sources that use the term stretching back decades. The OR inherent in your argument, that anti-Palestinianism is anti-Palestinianism, is not something that merits any response besides saying that your misunderstanding of the definition of a word has no bearing on our article title. You are also fairly obviously distorting Beinart, he gives that as one example definition, and that tweet is from Mezno Qato, a historian at the University of Cambridge. We use scholarship around here, not random personalities on the internet. nableezy - 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your nom makes no assertion about commonname, correctly because there is no commonname for what is described by the sources in the lead and this attempt to raise it now is quite irrelevant since the scope is obvious by itself as well as the sources provided. The sources predate Beinart so that's neither here nor there, I would call his definition just one definition, there is not any 100% agreed by all definition even as there is no universally agreed definition for Anti-Semitism. If these are your only arguments, you might as well just put this to bed.Selfstudier (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're making my point for me: "there is no commonname for what is described by the sources in the lead ... I would call his definition just one definition"

By comparison "Anti-Palestinian bigotry" is clear, there's no confusion about definitions, and it 100% matches the intended scope of the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The scope is defined by the title and what's in the lead, not what you think it is. It includes "a form of" bigotry amongst other things.Selfstudier (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm defining the scope by the short text, which you wrote: "Bigotry toward Palestinians" -> diff.

You seem to be implying that when you changed the title from "Anti-Palestinian Sentiment", with no discussion, you also changed the scope of this article, and it's now about something other than "Bigotry toward Palestinians"? Is that correct? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The short description is a short description not the scope, I just changed it to prejudice and it is still a perfectly valid short description. I am not implying anything other than what is in the article right now. You first implied (see top of page) that this should be anti Palestinian racism, then you argued it should be bigotry and then you argued it should go back to sentiment and now you want to go back to bigotry again. And there are now 4 editors in agreement with the current title. This persistent arguing against consensus based on nothing except your personal opinions is becoming quite tiresome.Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding evidence the current title is POV pushing vs the original "Anti-Palestinian Sentiment": Beinart's op-ed entitled "It’s Time to Name Anti-Palestinian Bigotry" seems to sum that up. Beinart, as an activist, is calling for people to start using a little used term. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Are you referring to WP:NPOV? There is a discussion about that down below in relation to the article wide tag.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you think any of us is Peter Beinart? Again, I have shown the term has been used for literally decades. Your absurd personal attack is noted, but if you continue to repeat it I will be asking for administrative action here. Beinart is also not an "activist". Kindly read and internalize WP:BLP. nableezy - 18:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

All I've said is that this op-ed should serve as evidence of the existence of a POV attempt to push a little used term into mainstream usage. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Youve accused editors of a POV attempt to push a barely used term into common usage and perhaps to intentionally conflate opposition to a national movement with bigotry in the move request. And, again, you are ignoring the sources that refute your claim that it is a "little used term" or that it was not already in "mainstream usage". What POV is expressed by using the term anyway? One more time, Palestinianism is about a national movement. Anti-Palestinianism is the characteristic of being anti-Palestinian, not the antonym of Paletinianism. I dont understand how you dont get this, you keep harping about a "national movement" as though that appears in this article anywhere. nableezy - 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose "Anti-Palestinian bigotry" makes as much sense as "Anti-Palestinian feeling" or something like that. No articles with similar scopes use this word, so this breaks WP:CONSISTENT. If the proposed move was "Anti-Palestinian sentiment", it'd be different. Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 December 2021 (2)

• @Bob drobbs and Selfstudier: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Palestinianism → Anti-Palestinian sentiment – this move was made as "bold" with absolutely zero discussion. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - that isnt a reason for a move. Why sentiment over this title? nableezy - 16:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I will try to assume good faith, but I question your motives for closing the move request where the reason was spelled out in detail, and leaving this one open which was a technical move based on Selfstudier making a move with _zero_ prior discussion. The claiming I didn't spell out a good reason for "sentiment". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the first part of the sentence is kind of blown away by the second. Maybe try harder. nableezy - 19:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Move request discussion

• A consensus exists for the current title, see article talk page. Editor should start an RM or continue discussions, at the moment he is in a minority of 1 and attempting to enforce his view of the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Selfstudier made the change with zero discussion, and that is not in dispute. He is alo completely misrepresenting consensus. The page creator has stated they fine with any of the three choices. I've disagreed with the current title as the term is not just little used, but also it's a misnomer. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made a bold move...and the article creator, who I later asked for comments, agreed with that move. Both he and I commenced editing the article on that basis as well as adding appropriate references, references that the editor here completely ignored and continued to suggest various alternatives on the talk page, based only on his opinion and without any references in support. After I suggested that were was a consensus, he simply made a page move against it, which I contested and explained why, resulting in the page move being reverted, quite correctly. Now he seeks to undo that, it seems he does not care what the title is as long as it is not the current title. An RM is the right way to proceed.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• You made a move that's too bold. You made a move based on a "guess". You should have had more patience before jumping in with something that's not easy to undo, especially as there was obviously the possibility of disagreement. I do have opinions about the title of this page: "Anti-Palestinian bigotry" is best, "Anti-Palestinian sentiment" is fine, and "anti-Palestianism" is way off base. Come on, you pulled it's definition indirectly from a tweet. If I had been aware of this page, I would have started here instead of doing a 2nd move. I will never repeat that behavior. However, your move made with no discussion should be reverted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Per what it says above, you need to delete this request here and commence an RM as has been suggested to you at the article talk page by both myself and another editor. Wikipedia goes by sources and consensus not the unsupported opinions of one editor.Selfstudier (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ive sectioned this off as unrelated to the actual move request. nableezy - 16:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Two RM's?

@Anthony Appleyard: The recent back and forth has now resulted in two RMs, the immediately above being what editor Bob drobbs said he wanted at Tech reqs and now another above that one with a different request (having started his foray into this page with a question about why it isn't titled Anti-Palestinian racism (see the first section on this page).

It seems that the one immediately above should be closed? Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I have a busy day and don't have time right now to figure out how to do it myself, but I have no objections to anyone else closing it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Article Neutrality tag

No current discussion, tag will be removed without one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia section is enough to carry the tag there are subpar sources that gives undue weight to WP:SPS and various fringe outlets. Shrike (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If the objection is to a section, then that section should be tagged, not the entire article.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stuart Rees is an expert in the field, so that's a non-objection.Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe this page is intentionally promoting a POV through the use of the name:

* See the request to move.

* See the Breinart op-ed - "Its Time To Name Anti-palestinian Bigotry"

The later is as an example of activism where he's actively encouraging people to use this little used term instead of the term in general use. This page seems to be that same activism. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Those arguments do not address WP:NPOV, they are just your opinion. Policy arguments, please. Also you are free to bring contradictory sourcing, do you have any? Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You have a move request for the name. That will be settled by consensus. The tag is superfluous to the move request. If you continue making absurd accusations about "activism" I will be reporting you to AE. You may not repeatedly cast aspersions without evidence. nableezy - 18:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They're not at all duplicative, as the move request doesn't indicate (on this page) any hint there's a POV problem. Please restore. --Bob drobbs (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

why is the Israel section blank

except for pointing to the "racism in Israel" page that deals with any racism in Israel not specifically against Palestinians. If anyone is stuck for content the recent (Jan 2022) allegations by Danny Danon and Gilad Erdan that Emma Watson's support for Palestine is anti-semitism might be a good example of anti-palestinianism especialyl given that both those ambassadors openly deny Palestine's right to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Add after the first sentence in the second paragraph: In 2022, the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association released a report called "Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framing and Manifestations". The report can be found at www.canarablaw.org.

The report describes anti-Palestinian racism as: Anti-Palestinian racism is a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives. Anti-Palestinian racism takes various forms including: denying the Nakba and justifying violence against Palestinians; failing to acknowledge Palestinians as an Indigenous people with a collective identity, belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine; erasing the human rights and equal dignity and worth of Palestinians; excluding or pressuring others to exclude Palestinian perspectives, Palestinians and their allies; defaming Palestinians and their allies with slander such as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer or opposed to democratic values.

Add additional source to footnote 1 (anti-Palestinian racism): Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, (2022)"Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framing and Manifestations" www.canarablaw.org. CanArabLaw (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have added a link to the site/report in the External links section. We could include a reference to it in the article body if we can locate a reliable secondary source discussing the report. Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the update! There are a few scholarly articles coming out soon that will reference the report. Here are some articles and statements that were released after the report's release.

https://canadatalksisraelpalestine.ca/2022/08/01/is-anti-palestinian-racism-a-real-thing-a-report-by-the-arab-canadian-lawyers-association-explores-the-issue/

https://www.cjpme.org/pr_2022_05_18_anti_palestinian_racism

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_227 CanArabLaw (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2023

In "See also" block, please change Characterizations_of_Zionism_as_racist to Characterization_as_colonialism,_ethnic_cleansing,_or_racist 牢记使命 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Non justifying inclusion of Austria

This entry from Austria in this article is completely ridiculous. This "BDS movement" is not fighting for the rights of Palestinians, but is simply an anti-Semitic movement that calls on people not to buy products from Austrian Jews who themselves have nothing to do with Israel. This is a clear form of racism against Austrian Jews and is frighteningly reminiscent of the Nazi calls in 1938 - 1945 in Austria to boycott the products of Austrian Jews as well. This is the reason why all 5 parties in the Austrian National Council, even the party considered pro-Palestinian, "The Greens", voted to condemn the anti-Semitic "BDS movement". There is no anti-Palestinian racism or oppression in Austria. The only "racism" that can happen to Palestinians in Austria is, unfortunately, the xenophobia propagated by right-wing/radical right-wing groups through false lies. However, this unjustifiable xenophobia is not only directed at Palestinians individually, but against all Austrian citizens or people with a migration background living in Austria. This condemnation of the Austrian National Council is not directed against Palestinians in Austria, but solely against the "BDS movement" in order to condemn their anti-Semitic slogans.

Here the Resolution of the Austrian National Council back then: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/A/141 Austria Football 02 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable secondary sources for these statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As is stated in the title 2600:1017:B836:44E3:D9FD:2F57:95B1:EAB1 (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)