The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. By about 2 to 1, people here think that this theory should not be covered in its own article. As concerns the strength of the arguments made, I think that it is not very high on both sides. The "keep" side rather perfunctorily asserts that sufficient sources exist, but mostly without discussing them or their merits. The "delete" side mostly argues that the theory has no merit, which may well be the case, but is not relevant for its notability: we have many articles about notable pseudoscience or fringe theories. This seems to be a bit of a borderline case. But I'm most persuaded by the comments by Buidhe, who it seems has been one of few editors to examine the sources in some detail. They first advocated keeping this article, and then, after some reflection, advocated deleting it, concluding - without being rebutted - that "sources discussing this aren't even talking about the same thing, making it very difficult to write an article". On that basis, I think we can find consensus to delete both on grounds of numbers and strength of argument. Sandstein 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe theory with no support among scholars. Might be worthy of a line or two in the main article on Jesus. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From WP:NFRINGE:

  The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• The subject meets GNG considering only independent sources that do not support the theory. In addition to the sources cited in the article, see also [1], [2] , [3] (non-opinion news article), [4] (column by the leader of Facts and Logic About the Middle East). Hen Mazzig claims that "Every year, in the days leading up to Christmas, the “Jesus was a Palestinian” talking point surfaces off- and online." buidhe 22:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added content from three academic sources that have significant coverage of the topic:^[1][2][3]
    On the other hand, I'm not seeing a good merge target. I don't think Race and appearance of Jesus would be a good fit because the debate is not about Jesus' race or appearance, but his nationality and religion. And this is a fringe theory confined to a small part of the Christian world, so it wouldn't be suitable to cover it much at all in the main article on Jesus.
    buidhe 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about merging it into Pallywood, as an example of anti-Israel propaganda? Scaleshombre (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      I think Pallywood refers to something different, photoshopping images to make it look like Israel has committed war crimes. I don't think any of the sources I've read on Palestinian Jesus even mention "Pallywood". Temple denial is closer, but I don't see how this could be merged there either. buidhe 07:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      All editorials have been removed except for Al-Jazeera's which is cited to prove that the newspaper published an article supporting the theory. buidhe 12:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can be covered elsewhere without its own article. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Irreparable rubbish. The whole article and many of its "sources" rely on the false assumption that one can't be both Jewish and Palestinian at the same time. This is not the view of any major Palestinian organization past or present. Actually the claim "Jesus was a Palestinian" means "Palestinians have deep roots here", which is exactly why the claim is upsetting to people who deny that Palestinians exist and have a past. As it stands, this article is just an attack on Palestinians sourced to their enemies, without any sign of balance. A lot of the sources are unreliable opinion pieces presented as facts. Zero^talk 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Buidhe has added some decent sources. Merge would probably be better if someone can find a good target. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not like it but Keep -- If this is the propaganda that prominent Palestinian politicians are propunding, it needs an article, which should end off with a rebuttal explaining the orthodox Christian response.

Galilee is part of the area claimed by the Palestinians as Palestine and was so called for many centuries. Some of the Galileans may not have been ethnic Hebrews, but converted under the Maccabees. However the testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus was a Jew and descended from King David. In saying anything else, those Muslims claiming otherwise are propounding an unhistorical view.

The view ultimately depends on how you identify someone as a Palestinian in the period when there were still Jewish states in the region. This is perhaps derived from an ancient Muslim equivalent of WP:OR. I may add in passing that Palestine is cognate with (and perhaps derived) from Philistine, a pagan nation occupying the southern coastal plain of Palestine/Israel, including Gaza. The expansion of the scope of the name is probably a result of the removal of the Jewish population after the last Jewish rebellion in about AD 135. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've checked all the sources that had links, but only one source actually had the term "Palestinian Jesus". It was Will Stalder's source from Google books. I need special access to Fishman-Duker, Rivkah source (I think it was written by Susannah Heschel), so I can't verify it. The article seems to be built mainly upon a compilation of different news sources that basically argue the ideal Jesus was a Palestinian, but it never discusses the term itself, history or its use etc. Rather, some of the sources are supporting different events under the "Proponents" section of the article, but Wikipedia is not the news per WP:NOTNEWS violation. And WP:HEY is neither policy or guideline. Jerm (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is not about the term, it is about the theory or idea about Jesus' nationality. buidhe 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a theory, then it would have been supported with reliable sources. Or even better, mentioned @Jesus. Not some stand-alone article being supported by a bunch of news articles. It still violates WP:NOTNEWS and now WP:NFRINGE for not using reliable sources from mainstream views. Jerm (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, not fringe. Even if scholars don't support this, other notable people do. And don't worry, soon enough some Islamic "scholar" will come along. Some names come to mind. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am undecided here, as I have always enjoyed the rather absurd debate around this question. I suggest we decide on the basis of the WP:THREE criteria. If we look past all the POV sources here, what are the three high quality sources that the proposers intend this article to be based upon? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Onceinawhile, they're listed right above your comment. buidhe 22:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But these are two books on modern Anti-Zionism (Meir Litvak and Gershon Nerel [the latter is being quoted by Stalder]), and one junior lecturer in a book review? For this to be a credible article, we need to use scholars of Jesus (e.g. Jesus#Bibliography) and scholars of the name Palestine (e.g. Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Bibliography). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the topic isn't a notable facet of biblical scholarship. The debate is whether it's a sufficiently notable part of modern Anti-Zionism. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaiderAspect: agreed. Per footnote 1, it's entirely normal course to use the term Palestinian for Jesus in biblical scholarship. This article however appears to be entirely focused on attacking Anti-Zionism, as are the proposed three key sources, such that all three neglect to mention the normal course nature of the term in biblical scholarship. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: you're right about the usage of Palestinian in biblical scholarship as shorthand for "First-century Levant". But that's not a difficult problem to fix; we can hatnote it, or footnote it, or mention it in the test, or rename this article. The question is whether the underlying topic discussed in the article is notable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. I also have to bang my head at lines like "Some Galileans may have been converts under the Maccabees". Besides the fact that this would contradict the Davidic descent of Jesus documented in the New Testament, it also strikes me as confusing ethnicity with a much more modern idea of race. Jesus may well have had some ancestors who only coverted to Judaism at the time of the Maccabees, he does have documented convert to Judaism ancestresses (Ruth and Rahab). However even if 90% of his ancestry converted to Judaism under the Maccabees that would not change him from being a Jew. This is a new variation of antisemitism, and while it might be a documentable phenomenon, it is clearly not one that merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a Fringe theory. In the time of Jesus, residents of historic Israel were described as Galileans, Samaritans, Romans, Jews, Greeks and so forth - but there was no evidence of anyone being called a "Palestinian" in that era. Occassionaly, FRINGE political activists and anti-Israel politician do use this phrase. But I agree with User:Johnpacklambert that There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. NotButtigieg (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotButtigieg: see Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Roman_Jerusalem_period. Many of Jesus's contemporaries, including Jews (Philo and Josephus) used the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have demonstrated only that Romans used Palestine and Palestinian to refer to a geographical region. This is NOT the same as using it as an ethnonym, as is done in the term "Palestinian Jesus."NotButtigieg (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid is recorded using it more than once as an ethnonym around 8 AD. Later Greek authors did too (e.g. Zosimus, and the great Suda encyclopedia). None of this changes the underlying debate here; I am setting this out just for the record. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid, like other writes in the Roman period, used Palestinian to identify the geographical region of origin , not the ethnicity of individuals.NotButtigieg (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid, Metamorphoses: "Latin: occidit et Celadon Mendesius, occidit Astreus matre Palaestina dubio genitore creatus" (translation: "There fell also Mendesian Celadon; :::::::::No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that , too, whose mother was a Palestinian, and his father unknown") in Book V, 144-145

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that is that Astreus' mother was form Palestine. It is as though I stated that your mother was European. Such information would accurately tell us where your mother is from, but not whether she is Pomak, Fleming or Catalan, Roman Catholic or Lutheran.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are off topic, but for the record, the language and grammar used by Ovid is exactly the same as that used by classical authors to describe all ethies. And ethnies (modern or classical) are imagined communities; to use your example, some people do consider themselves to be of "European ethnicity", just as members of the same family could reasonably choose to consider themselves "Yoruba" or "Nigerian" or "African". You seem to be applying double standards to Palestine. And we have strayed well into WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly novel or original to state that a Palestinian ethnie first came into existence in the 20th century. And that there is zero evidence of such an ethnie in the 1st century, when the Roman province of Palestine had Samaritans, Jews, Greeks, Romans - but no Palestinian ethnie.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NotButtigieg (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Contributors to this discussion have mistaken the geographical descriptor "Palestinian" for an ethnic descriptor.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Palestinian Jesus" is an incoherent term that has been used intermittantly by activists and politicians to claim that "Jesus was an Islamic martyr" [5], that Jesus was a Muslim Palestinian [6], or that he was in some sense an ethnic Palestinian (although "Palestinian" is an ethnonym and ethnic identity created in the 20th century.) These claims are ill-defined, contradictory, and lack historical support. Scholars of early Christianty regularly use phrases like "the Palestinian Jesus movement." This sort of reference dominates wearches for "Palestinian Jesus". NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palwatch is a racist website that can't be trusted for the time of day. Zero^talk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, it confirms my assertion that sources for "Palestinian Jesus" are very low quality.07:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs)

• The topic barely even exists. I'll take the topic as defined by the first sentence: "Palestinian Jesus is the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but instead a Palestinian Arab." The first thing to make clear is that neither the article as it stands, nor any of sources given in the article, actually quote anyone claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish. In other words, the article hasn't even established that it is about a topic that exists. The actual story is that some people deny that Palestinians can be Jewish, so when Jesus is called Palestinian they claim that his Jewishness is being denied (even when he is explicitly called a Palestinian Jew). Of course there probably have been people making the stupid claim that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but by now someone ought to have found at least one example significant enough to support notability. Zero^talk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFRINGE, even though I strongly disagree with this nonsensical theory. It looks balanced enough with both proponents and criticism sections too. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section called "proponents", but no proponents are given there. Zero^talk 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the problem is that sources discussing this aren't even talking about the same thing, making it very difficult to write an article. buidhe 10:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also, in source #2 ( Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.), leading source for this page, "Palestinian Jesus" as a phrase, "Palestinian Jesus" does not even come up in a word search on this book or in the pages that I am able to accessonline. What does come up is a discussion of the several ways in which various political actors and activists have produces unsupported historical narratives involving Jesus and the inhabitants of the area in the 1st century in and attempt to deny "the present Jewish-Zionist claim of descent" from the ancient Judean people, efforts that include assertions tha tJeesus was a Palestinian. A page about a WP:NEOLOGISM requires sources that actually use the NEOLOGISM at issue.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We're filled with strange articles and fringe theories, but all articles must have reliable sources, which this lacks. This little more than an anti-Zionist soap box. Palestine didn't even exist 2,000 years ago as a concept, and modern Palestinians didn't exist until the late Ottoman Empire. As noted in Palestinian law, such is an anachronism. I got a lot of crap for creating Palestinian law 11 years ago, and have shown my bona fides on the topic. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Race and appearance of Jesus. We have managed to find a balancing scholarly source, and had some healthy discussion on the talk page. The question that this article addresses is not going away any time soon. But I do not think, at the moment, there is quite enough to pass all the WP:GNG tests. I suggest a redirect, so that we maintain the page history and talk discussion, and if the subsection on the Race and Appearance article is built out over time, it can then be considered again for a separate article. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounded plausible so I gave that page a careful read. Race and appearance of Jesus is a pretty rational discussion of race and appearance, focused on things like skin color, beards, and depictions that show East Asian features. It is not about claims of ethnic identity as this mess of a page is, and it is well sourced, not a farrago of inchoate assertions, as this mess of a page is. I just do not see material on this page that belongs on page Race and appearance of Jesus.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article would need to be cut down in order to fit there, but it seems a waste to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at al clear what you are agreeing with. My point is that nothing here belongs on a page about Race and appearance of Jesus, which is a rational page whereas all that we have here is an array of unsupported assertions.NotButtigieg (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.