Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

reference 213

The 213 (Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine) ref isn't a true dead link, it can be correct

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c!OpenDocument

must became

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c

without "!OpenDocument" (many document hosted on UN web site have this link problem). It's exist also with the correct link as ref 173 so a "ref name=" can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.7.151 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nehemiah

Greyshark - can you please provide sources for your assertion in your revert? There are hundreds of sources attesting to the text (see a simple search here[1]), so we would need to see some pretty strong evidence supporting your claim that he is fictional. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the leader of Judean revolt against Heraclius was Benjamin of Tiberias, whereas Nehemiah was a character from 6th or 7th century fictional Messianic book named Apocalipsys of Zerubabel or Book of Zerubabel, which is a primary non-reliable source. You can see mentioning of this here [2]. Except this, I find no reliable sources on naming of Nehemia as a real figure, only some cut-n-paste blogs. Do you have another secondary source, which quotes something except Book of Zerubabel?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see anywhere in the source you provided suggesting that that part of the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel is not taken seriously by historians. I have seen many sources which treat this story as true, and none which question the story itself. Do you have any sources which say clearly that the story is not deemed historical by scholars? If not, I suggest we keep the text but caveat it with "According to the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel..." Oncenawhile (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me clarify - the link i provided is the ONLY credible source i found, which relies on the Book of Zerubabel as a factual basis. I didn't find ANY OTHER sources, dealing with Heraclius - Khasrau war, which discuss Nehemiah. I must admit this is the first time i hear that Nehemiah might have been a real person, because i remember the Book of Zerubabel describes a period of return to Zion in 6th century BCE (not 7th century CE, which is the timing of Jewish revolt against Heraclius) - in a kind of Would have been prophecy about Messianic Davidic kingship in past Judea (because David's offspring never took kingship again after destruction of 1st Temple, but rather Hasmoneans, Herodians and finally Bar Kosiba for short 4 years). I want to read more on this interesting issue, before we change anything, so please do not change anything for now. I will provide you all relevant sources i find, and please do the same, so we can decide what is the best version (if at all it is relevant). Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
OK i'm with you. It's also worth noting that there are at least four overlapping articles - this article, Jewish revolt against Heraclius, History_of_the_Southern_Levant#Byzantine_Period_330.E2.80.93638_CE and History of Jerusalem - and they all say different things (or say nothing) about exactly what happened in 617 AD. This is not well covered on the web, but some interesting sources I found are here [3] and [4] and [5] and [6]. Interestingly none of these sources give any clue as to where the non-Zerubbabel details in the story originate.Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the four overlapping articles do not mention anything other than Benjamin of Tiberias, but that doesn't matter - wiki isn't a source by itself. Regarding other sources:

  • Eretzyisroel hosts an article, which mentions a very complete story integrating both Nehemiah and Benjamin of Tiberias during the revolt against Heraclius. It is a very interesting piece, I will read it through, though it might not be the an ideal source, as i didn't find any info on its authors, and they don't appear on any academic journal citations. However, the text seems relatively credible, and it think we might be able to use it.
  • Jewishhistory mentions breifly of Benjamin of Tiberias, but info seems cut-n-paste - not a good source.
  • The Apocalipse tells general details on the Book of Zerubabel, but little on its contents. Anyway it seems the book is related as messianic fiction, inspired by Revolt against Heraclius.
  • Book of Zerubabel translation is not of much use, because it is a primary source. Yet, it is interesting to see it mentioning Nehemiah ben Hushiel. Perhaps Nehemiah indeed was a real person - Jewish exilarch in 7th century Persia, according to Abrahamson and Katz.
  • Another source i found - The Reign of Heraclius: 610-641 crisis and confrontation by G.J.Reinink et.al tells a good review of events on pp.103-109 here [7]. It tells that everything which happened between 613-617 is only due to Jewish sources (the Talmud and Book of Zerubabel i assume), and cannot be verified, as other sources do not exist (p.103).

Herewith, i propose to build info from Rainink and add all relevant details from Abrahamson and Katz (Eretzyisorel article) with a pretext according to Jewish sources....Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

However put your attention that the role of Nehemiah is not very much significant. He was put in charge of recruiting jewish militia, but didn't have actual commanding rank. He also appears to die shortly after the capture of Jerusalem, and the de facto leadership was later performed by Benjamin of Tiberias and Persian warlords.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Great work Greyshark - the Reinink source you found seems to be the highest quality source yet. It's good to see him confirm how meagre the information is about this period - no wonder we've found it so hard to find concrete information. Sounds like we're now ready to go and clean up those articles with these sources - I guess the best ones we have are Malamat, Eretzyisroel and Reinink. Do you want to go first or shall I? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to insert the information and citations, based on Rainink, Abrahamson & Katz, Himmelfarb (The aplocalypse: a brief history) and Malamat. We should insert the most comprehensive info on Jewish revolt against Heraclius page, with better info on the pages of History of the Southern Levant and History of Jerusalem, linking it with Book of Zerubabel, Heraclius#To the brink of defeat, Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628#Capture of Jerusalem, Siege of Jerusalem (614) and perhaps creating pages for Benjamin of Tiberias and Nehemiah ben Hushiel. I shall help you out and much thanks for you cooperation here!Greyshark09 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice work on Nehemiah ben Hushiel, i made some changes however. I also linked the page to Siege of Jerusalem (614) and to Jewish revolt against Heraclius. Found another source on archaeology of this period with relation to 614CE Revolt, here [8]. Lets keep on this.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Greyshark, I hope to get round to this in a few days Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Palestine region

The region Palestine defines not any Land which is based on ideologies or geographic placment of Israel. There is neither any reference or logic in existence to support this idea. The terms "holy land" and "Zion" are related to Israel and do not belong to any terms that include Palestine or a region related to it. The meaning of Palestine is based on an ancient group called Philistines. These Philistines and Regions related to them always shew opposition in history to ancient Israeli or Israel as a region itself. The idea of Palestine beeing the name for the entire region including Israel is not supported or sustained by any means. This sounds more to me like wish-thinking or altering truth in presence, to granting Palestine territories a benefit by naming them over the identification with the term Palestine the real "owners" of the region and land. --Santiago84 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as it looked like a POV based disruptive edit with no backing, and now that I look further, I still can't find anything that agrees with your edit. The 'other terms for the same area' you deleted all seem quite fine to me, and you present no evidence contrary. Passionless -Talk 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The article is about the geographic region called Palestine, which has also been called Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), Zion, and the Holy Land. The sentence has a source at the end of it. Unless you can provide a different source that says otherwise, I think the article should stay as it was. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I rely on logic itself! If i show you a reference you would still ignore it like the entire explination of mine why Israel does not belong to a region called Palestine. It would be the same idea of saying that Russia belongs to the "Chechnya" region. The source itself is even unserious. "de Geus, 2003, p. 7." No one has easy access to varify the truth of the information. I insist hat the content of Israel belonging to Palestine is removed. --Santiago84 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the others that you back your assertion with sources. The source that you call "unserious" is most probably http://books.google.com/books?id=IoT6zimQOXMC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=de+Geus,+2003+israel&source=bl&ots=TBAwM8smvN&sig=nRhzNzjjTglAaLHIPmDkRdBQxFI&hl=en&ei=rPOFTbqnIo2zhAfqsenDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=de%20Geus%2C%202003%20israel&f=false. I disagree with "No one has easy access" since it took me less than 30 seconds to find it, without knowing the reference beforehand. It may well be that this book was considered by the editor to be well-known enough not to give more information, a mistake from my point of view, but now we clearly have a scholarly source supporting the current status (and easy to find). Could someone please put it in the "Bibliography" section? I cannot right now. Davidsevilla | Talk 13:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Santiago, please read Timeline of the name Palestine before commenting further. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

'1948 - Present' - Settlements and Palestinian 'residents'.

Re. the last section of '1948 to Present', the Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank are referred to as 'officially recognised'. This appears to mean that they are accepted by some formal body or bodies. This requires amending to take account of the lack of international or local (Palestinian West Bank) recognition of their status as legal or (potentially) permanent. If the purpose is simply to define their existence separately from the surrounding areas, 'Jewish entity' may be more accurate. (To be sensitive to any religious qualms, this description would naturally be inaccurate if the entities were open to all residents of the area).

On the matter of the Palestinian 'residents' of the West Bank, it needs to be made clear that resident figures do not include the millions of people classified as 'refugees' in the area. This fact is accentuated in Lebanon, where the Palestinians are clearly not recognised as 'residents' of that country. Therefore, the refugee population needs to clearly be subtracted from the 'resident' figures and mentioned as a separate population.

Many thanks.87.81.118.72 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is referring to settlements officially recognized by the State of Israel (like Ariel, Ma'aleh Adumim, etc.), to differentiate them from hilltop outposts and camps, which are considered illegitimate even by Israel and are often demolished. The sentence in question cited a Haartez article, which in turn cited a report by the Israel Defense Forces Civil Administration; the Israeli government would obviously differentiate between Israeli citizens in settlements recognized by the Israeli government and Israeli citizens living in outposts that it had not recognized. If you would like to change the sentence to "... in the 121 settlements recognized by Israel in the West Bank..." that is up to you. See Wikipedia:Be_bold.
I'm confused about your second paragraph. The section discusses that there are roughly 4 million people who identify as Palestinian, Arab, Bedouin, or Druze in the West Bank and Gaza, and later states that roughly 2.4 million of these live in 4 blocs in the West Bank. Are there "millions" of refugees in the West Bank or Gaza who are not included in this number? This article is about the geographic area of Palestine; residents thereof who are now refugees and their descendants who no longer reside in this geographic area do not belong in this article. The article already links to Palestinian exodus. -Zarivri (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You are mixing up things - there is not such a classification as Palestinian, Arab and Bedouin (this is like saying Black, African and Nigerian). Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin Arabs are sub-divisions of the Arab peoples by ethnicity and cultural - linguistic definition. Druze can also be considered as part of Arab cultural - linguistic denomination, even though many Druze consider themselves a separate ethnoreligion. All peoples, who lived in Mandate Palestine 1920-1947 defined themselves as Palestinians, including Druze, Circassians, Jews, Samaritans and Arabs (whether Bedouin or Fellakhin). Currently Palestinian in ethnic sense applies to Fellakhin Arabs almost exclusively (Christian and Muslim). Yet, some Bedouin Arabs and Samaritans also hold Palestinian Authority IDs, thus can be related as Palestinians by nationality (political belonging).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a total figure of 500,000~ to the demographics section for jewish dwellers of both "settlements" and "outposts" on lands occupied during the 6 day war. The section seems to be tiptoeing around such obvious and easily confirmed stats.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ariel and maale edumim ARE permanent settlements and they will not be evacuated... and olmert's partition map (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205010) should be mentioned too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.203.116 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mesha Stele

There is a better photo located here on the Mesha Stele [via the tetragrammaton wiki article]. Someone may wish to change this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre_042010_01.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Region Palestine

There is no evidence nor valid sources for arranging the State of Israel into a Region Palestine. Israel is an own Region. Just because supporters of palestinian methods of terrorism, in form of violence and attempts to manipulate the view of historical events does not mean that they are right. Just because the logic and facts of history is unpleasent, or would have a negativ outcome for the own attitude or believing, doesnt give anyone the Right to contest the sovereignity of the state of Israel. Israel and Jews themself are ongoing attacked by rockets and other form of violence. But to argue that it is the right of palestinians to defend themself against Israel, and to support this view by categorizing Israel into a Region Palestin,e and a term of occupation, is far away from reality. The Region palestine is restricted to parts of the Gazza Strip and the West-Bank. During history the original Home of Jesus, Judaism and Jerusalem was sieged and occupied. It was originaly Jewish. The Palestinians today lived in a small place adjacent to Israel, nowadays know as the Gazza strip. Nowadays Jews have freed the region from occupation. But because the last occupants of Israel were Moslems, grants the Islam and palestinians the right to claim the Country by relying on the argumentation that Israel is part of the Region Palestine? It is the same when 5 persons are voting against the truth, one votes for it, but the 5 persons are right because they are more? The view of history is not based on democracy, but on truth. Again, do not alter my edits, i simple erase POV, conclusions without any sources and historical incorrect informations. --Santiago84 (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The name "Palestine" has different meanings, such as the proclaimed state. Palestine, as a region, is commonly defined as to include Israel. This is especially true when also seen in a historical context. There is a multitude of highly reliable sources which says just that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing opening parenthesis

"in the Greek form, Παλαςτίνη), it is used by Josephus" Please correct. -- 77.187.59.4 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

20th century

"According to American Ambassador Morgenthau, Turkey had never been an independent sovereignty"

Morgenthau was a known turcophone. Judging from this statement his knowledge on history wasn't also the best. The Ottoman Empire was established in 1299 and expanded for centuries, I wonder who limited its "independet sovereignty" for all these centuries, especially in its high time? Just because it wasn't a national state but a heterogenous Empire (multinational state) to deny that it was sovereign is plain wrong.

The capitulations of the empire were at first bilateral treaties signed from a position of strengh and just later on in the decline of the Empire "misued" / forced on by foreign powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxFrisch85 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

question

I don't know if this is the correct place, but the image of "Palestine" in all green, which is cut off at the borders of modern day Israel, is both innacurate and offensive. One must read further down the article to see the actual region that the Romans names "Palestine" . It would be more accurate to show the image of Palestine, without the context of the modern state of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.248 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

History section

The history section is much too long in the article. I propose to summarise it, and ensure that all extraneous detail finds its way into History of Palestine. Anyone disagree with this plan? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started the process. Since as always this topic can be sensitive, I propose to carry it out slowly to allow all editors to contribute. The first step is to ensure that no good information is removed from wikipedia - i.e. any information in the History section here which is not already in the History of Palestine article needs to be added in. I have compared the two and carried this out for the period up until the start of the Byzantine era. Grateful for any comments / additions. I will then start on the next part from the Byzantine era onwards. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for undertaking this mammoth but necessary project. Could I ask that we use the headings in the history section as outlined here? These are based on scholarly naming conventions laid out in RS' quoted in this article and differ from those used in the History of Palestine article, particularly as regards the ancient history period where naming empires is a tricky business given the lack of conclusive archaeological and textual evidence regarding the identity of the inhabitants. Tiamuttalk 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut, my pleasure - hopefully i can do this work to the satisfaction of all sides. On the subtitles, I understand your point but i'm not sure I fully agree as (i) the existing structure has a number of imperfections, e.g. the dating of the start of the chalcolithic period is wrong, the persian period should not be in the iron age, and the ayyubids are missing; and (ii) I propose the section will become quite a lot shorter so will have quite a few less subtitles. I'll have a think about it some more and hopefully my proposed version will work ok re your point. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Update on this - I have now finished a couple more eras, so about two thirds done. Comments gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed all the way up to the British Mandate period. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review History of Palestine

After more than a week of effort i have finished merging the history section of this article with History of Palestine. I'll hold off before starting to summarise the section in this article to give editors a chance to review first.

In the meantime, a question for other editors - how short should the "shortened" version of the history section of this article be?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Summarised history section

As promised, I have summarised the history section, after moving the contents over to History of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please fix the '48,000 - 60,000 BP' reference

Under the Paleolithic and Neolithic Periods section of History, there is a reference to '48,000 - 60,000 BP'. I think it'd be smart to translate that to BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.53.148 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the subsections "Additional extrabiblical references" and "Biblical texts"

In my continued drive to turn this article from an incomprehensible mess into a high quality article, I would like to suggest the removal of two subsections: "Additional extrabiblical references" and "Biblical texts". As I read it, these topics and the text within have only tangential relevance to the topic of this article, and therefore are very overweight. Any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

These have been removed, after checking that no information is being lost (see editnote for relevant other articles)Oncenawhile (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The need to keep the history section as a summary

User Xythianos, has added the following sentences in to the history section:

This is a good example of the edit-history of this article, which shows that editors have added in their personal colour around the 5,000+ year history of the region with relative freedom in the past. If we continue to allow this, the article will become unbalanced again with editors fleshing out the detail around their areas of special interest and ignoring the rest.

In cases where the additional colour is valid, it should be incorporated in to the article History of Palestine. Detail in this article's history section should be judged carefully versus the weighting given to other similar time periods.

Does everyone agree with this? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article has a reasonably short summary-style history of Palestine with a link to History of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, where should I start? First of all, it's written in this article that, "The region has been controlled by numerous different peoples, including Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, the Sunni Arab Caliphate, the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, Crusaders, Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottomans, the British and modern Israelis and Palestinians." yet editors have failed to include any of the ancient Iranian civilizations (Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids) that have ruled and influenced the area for several centuries, if not more than a MILLENNIUM. Next of all, in the Classical Antiquity section of this article, the Greek and Roman influence has been mentioned in several sentences, throughout a span of several different sections, without ANY reference to the Iranian empires once again. Heck, the only reference in the whole article that's made to ANY Iranian influence is in the line "Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II and the local leaders were deported to Babylonia, only to be allowed to return under the Achaemenid Empire." and that's just to the Achamenid Empire which lasted for two hundred years. Also when I read through the entire article, I found the word "Byzantine" in five different places, the word "Roman" in eight, and the word "Greek" in six. Even Alexander the Great has been mentioned directly (who really does not hold much significance in relation to the subject of the article.) Yet once again the editors have failed to directly mention Cyrus the Great once; a man who did something not only extrodinary for the Palestinian people, but laid the foundation for tolerance at a time when tyranny and oppression were very common. Remember, he freed the Jews as a GREAT ACT of tolerance in ancient times and has been singled out in many holy books because of his great humility. Now, are you sure I'm the one who has painted a "personal colour" on the article or are you just a group of biased editors working together and trying hard to undermine the HISTORICAL Iranian presence and influence in the region. Also, if you made some time to actually read my edits you would have learned that Palestine was actually Persian satrap (province) for centuries, but I actually would not even be surprised if you've reverted my edits solely based on my userpage boxes. So I tried my best, (spent more than a few hours on this actually) on making the article appear more informative and balanced by including a subtle mention of the Iranian influence in a few short sentences, and by a few I mean a few, (really they were only three or four in total), yet my hard work results in both of you making a big deal out of nothing, and not only reverting all my edits, but also singling me out on the talk page with what may be considered by some as personal attacks... Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and neutral in point of view, but it really seems like you have a problem with Iranians as a whole. --Xythianos (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Xythianos, I think you are reading a little too much in to all of this - I really don't believe any of the editors here are anti-Iranian. For what it's worth, I personally believe that the Achaemenid Empire was the single most important empire in the history of world civilisation, having been at the heart of the Axial Age, and that the conquests of Alexander the Great destroyed, denigrated or took credit for most of the Achaemenid achievements.
But our personal beliefs are not relevant to this debate - we are talking about writing a high quality and well structured article about Palestine. Your work was referenced, but it was written a little more "emotively" than usual encyclopedic content, and more importantly it was "overweight" when considering the length of time Persians controlled the region (see e.g. here History_of_Palestine#Graphical_Overview_of_Palestine.27s_Historical_Sovereign_Powers). Can I suggest you make your edits in the article History of Palestine (which, by the way, covers the points you make to a great extent already). Once you have finished there, there may be a case for amending some of the sentences here, with the appropriate weighting. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I decided to add in the relevant weighting re Achaemenid control of the region. I did not refer to the Sassanids, who controlled the region for only 14 years - happy to put in a reference but should be half a sentence max. Neither the Medes nor the Parthians ever controlled territory in Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I agree with you on that, I also added a short sentence on the Sassanid occupation. By the way, you seem a lot kinder than a lot of editors on here, so thanks for your cooperation on this.--Xythianos (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinians in exile

  • I think jordanians living abroud should also be considered palestinians in exile since that land was part of the region of palestine until 1929

Is there a catagory for this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Palestine is a geographical region, there are some Jews who were and are still in exile, since they choose to live outside the land from which the Romans exiled their ancestors. John Hyams (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
John, your comments are completely irrelevant, the user is asking about Palestinians in exile, not Jews in exile. Furthermore, I challenge you to provide evidence that Jews were ever exiled from Palestine.

The fact is that there are over 3 million Palestinians who have been forced out of their homes and effectively forced to live in exile outside of Palestine because of Israeli persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

read historical books,such as Joshepius Plavious' books.

read the bible for god sake! most of it might be not true,but at least it's clear that there were some jewish state, in your "palestine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.160.81 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews have lived in Palestine thousands of years ago, they also lived in other parts of the Middle East, Europe and Africa. They were a scattered group of people who believe in Judaism. A "Jewish State" never existed in the area called Palestine, but Jews did.

I encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Hasmonean_dynasty_.28140_BC.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah . If you want to go into details of what state did or did not exist in that area - you should say that a "Palestinian State" never existed in that area, mainly because the notion of a "Palestinian People" or "Nation" had only risen in the 20th century, when the area was under Ottomman, British and Israeli/Jewish rule (and the West Bank was also under Jordanian rule). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.44.102 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Attacking the origins stories of other groups whether Jewish or Muslim is classic racism and pointless. The important point is to describe accurately the history and current state of the Palestine area. Who was there first or longest or who was in charge is important to describe but not to wet one's pants over --Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

currently there isn't such thing as the 'state of palestine' and nobody used the term palestinians before 1967 and it should be mentioned in the article. and there was a jewish state and kingdom in israel for a lot of years and for more than one time and it should also be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.203.116 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your own Bible speaks of the Palestinians by stating that there was a Land of the Philistines (the extent of it can be argued, but it existed nevertheless and is also mentioned in Egyptian and other historical records, so you cannot deny it). If there was a Land of a people then there must have been a people of this name on the land, right? Also, while there was not a country in the "modern sense" called Palestine, as there is no country in the modern sense called Texas or New York, there was certainly a geographical/political entity called Palestine and had I asked anyone from that area at any time over the past 2000 years or so about where he was from he or she would indicate something that has Palestine in it one way or another, be it Palestina, Jund Filistine, Wilayat Filistin, or whatever. And contrary to your belief, nowhere in actual history is it called Israel before 1948.

One would think that all religious references should be removed from the article as evidence of anything. I frankly do not care what the Torah, Bible or the Quran say about something which is supposed to be historical and factual, and certainly outside of the religious realm. Your beliefs do not matter to me and my beliefs do not matter to you. You cannot prove to me that what is in your religion is true and I cannot and do not want to prove to you that my beliefs are true. So better for all of us, and for "scientific" honesty, to leave all religious BS out of it. And that would be actually the only neutral way of approaching the subject, not by mentioning all religions' claims. Biraqleet (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it is true there were Philistine people, they have no relation to the current Palestinian Arabs. The original people are gone. The region was Jewish when the Romans conquered it, forced most of the Jews to become refugees (as celebrated on Roman coins and the Arch of Titus), and renamed the region "Palestine" as an insult. The reason it was an insult to the Jews was because the Romans renamed the region to be the same name as the Philistines (an ancient enemy of the Jews). But at that point , there were no Arabs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Above line comment - Strabo

I'm deliberately committing the minor sin of of breaking Talk page policy and placing notice of an edit above the current important thread below to avoid distracting from it. I have (a) sectioned the classical geographers into (i) Greek, (ii) Roman, (iii) Byzantine. I have also (b) added in a sentence about Strabo (the most notable of the Hellenistic arm-chair geographers) noting that he referred to the whole area as Coele-Syria + 2 refs. In context of the ancient geographers mentioned its worth noting that Strabo, like other pre-70CE Roman govt and geographers, didn't use the term Palestine much before the destruction of the Second Temple. My edit may not have made that clear and adjustments are welcome. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

“Palestine” did not come into official use until the early second century ad, when the emperor Hadrian decided to rename the province of Judaea; for its new name he chose “Syria Palaestina.”49 The new name took hold. It is found thereafter in inscriptions, on coins, and in numerous literary texts.50 Thus Arrian (7.9.8, Indica 43.1) and Appian (Syr. 50), who lived in the second century ad, and Cassius Dio (eg, 38.38.4, 39.56.6), who lived in the third, referred to the region as “Palestine.” And in the rabbinic literature “Palestine” was used as the name of the Roman province.

— The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa 2006 p37 Getzel M. Cohen

In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What topics should this article cover?

For some time now, this article has covered only four topics: (1) Etymology; (2) Boundaries; (3) History; and (4) Demographics.

I propose adding summary sections re other articles that I believe readers want to understand when they come to this page: (5) Israeli–Palestinian conflict; (6) Palestine political entities [SoP/PNA/PLO]; (7) Palestinian people.

Anyone disagree? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Bandlow (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A key issue that I have not seen defined is: "substantial independent nation-states on the land".

The chart indicates periods of local independence during 3,000 years back
to Canaanite tribes. It appears that the only substantial independent
nation-states have been Judah and Israel, and possibly "Philistine States" around Gaza.

I am no expert, but other times appear to be as provinces controlled by various empires.
And it seems that time as an imperial province would not confer nation status and rights,
nor break the rights of the last independent nation-state.
If Hitler had turned Europe into a Nazi Empire, when would the rights of the last nation-states expire ?

Historic designation of the Palestine region

What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiqity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948? I feel the correct historical term is simply Palestine. Other suggested variations include Land of Israel, Mamluk Palestine, Crusader Palestine, Ottoman Syria, Ottoman Palestine, British Palestine. This matter needs to be settled once and for all. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, generally speaking for all historical articles, doesn't it depend on what the various WP:RS for the various historical periods call it? If they are all over the place, and all use in common "Palestine" or "Israel" or "Syria" with whatever modifier, then you might have a footnote saying "various sources use various names (list) and for consistencies sake we call it whichever phrase seems most used for that time period. (Assuming of course there isn't some obvious POV drive to exclude WP:RS that use a phrase some editors disapprove of.) So I'd apply that principle here, except to be clear of change in names when you moving from time period to time period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Depends on the time period, as noted by Chesdovi's own list, so I am inclined to take a case-by-case view. However, Land of Israel is a religious (biblical/talmudic) name that overlaps, but is not exactly the same as all of the above. I disagree this needs a systemic solution (like Judea and Samara needed), simply because there would be no neutral sources calling this area anything but a variation of "Palestine" from the middle ages until the emergence of "Land of Israel" Zionism (because as we know, there were other Zionisms) in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and of course, the immediate name before the area became Israel was British Palestine. Even sources in Hebrew will say "Palestina". The only people with a problem are those who want to change history to fit current political positions. It should be trivial to keep that at bay if it weren't for the fact that everyone in WP:ARBPIA is so tainted, going to AE is usually suicidal. :)--Cerejota (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • An example of this issue is Israel ben Moses Najara. The lead stastes: Israel ben Moses Najara (c. 1555, Damascus – c. 1625, Gaza), while per WP:OPENPARA (c. 1555, Damascus, Syria – c. 1625, Gaza, Palestine), would seem more apt. Note that is very rare that we have the country preceded by the empire which ruled the region at the time. Or do we use: Gaza, Land of Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP:OPENPARA doesn't require the precision you are giving to the places of birth for anything other than contemporary and relatively modern BIOs and BLPs. The mention of Damascus and Gaza with wikilinks, alone resolves the issue in a satisfactory fashion. In any case, the most precise form would be (c. 1555,Damascus, then in Ottoman Syria – c. 1625, Gaza, then in Ottoman Syria), but that is ugly, so the first version is best. Again, what I see is that this RfC doesn't resolve a problem that existing policy cannot resolve - if people are willing to be NPOV about it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
We can not only rely on the links. Pages from wikipeia are copied elsewhere and are printed out for infomation. You cannot click a link on a sheet of paper. I would also point out that it is probable that sources which put Rabbi Najara in "Ottoman Syria" are non-existent. I would go further and state that while using the Empire+Country (E+C) may be acceptable within the main article, for the lead, I doubt that using the E+C terminology has a precedent in good articles. To be accurate, the Ottoman Emipre is classified as a county in its own right. Therefore it should be: "Gaza, Ottoman Empire". But that is rather vague. Most RS, AFAIK, tend to use modern term for ancient areas in such cases. Thats why we have Jewish rabbis from Muslim ruled Andulasia called "Spanish" scholars and mediveal scholars are described as being from Italy, while at the time, Italy did not exist, but was rather made up of many independant city-states. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The correct term is "Palestine." I don't remember exactly when it began being called by that name, but it ceased being called by that name in 1948. I agree with Chesdovi. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chesdovi too. It would save everyone a lot of unnecessary debate if we could solve this once and for all. The articles Time periods in the Palestine region and History of the name Palestine show well that Palestine is the only name used consistently throughout history pre-1948. Even the early Zionists used the name (see e.g. here First Zionist Congress). Wiki-agreement on this would allow us to streamline a number of overlapping and duplicative history articles as well, and would make the whole topic much more user friendly for readers. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I for one think it depends on what time period your are writing about. The authority and name for the region has changed many times throughout history. Maybe you should post what your going to say here in the talk section, then we can figure out what it should be called.

-Wiki_Khalil

    • This has come to fore due to some well meaning editors replacing the word "Palestine" with the word "Israel" in article about 16th-century rabbis, which is a total fallacy. Other editors prefer to use the term Land of Israel or Eretz Yisrael in articles about rabbis from the 3rd-century, etc. The question is: Can the term Land of Israel be used in a secular encylopedia, or do we use the Jewish term for Palestine in all Jewish subject matters? (This may lead to the use of other terms in "Jewish," i.e. Turkey may be called "Kushta" - it's name in Hebrew/Jewish). I am not saying it can LOI can not be used at all in such articles, but "Palestine" should be the preferable term used, esp. in the lead, as it is the common English term used for the historic region used in contemporary RS. (i.e. the official name for the British Mandate was "Palestine", not British Mandate of the Land of Israel). Chesdovi (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If your talking about 1000-586 BCE or after 1948 May 14-15, call it Israel. Otherwise I would refrain from calling it Israel. -Wiki_Khalil

  • Yes in some cases it would depend on more specific time periods, but if we are trying to give a broad title overlapping this period then I would have to agree that the most commonly used name would appear to be Palestine or small variations thereof. Might as well just use Palestine then. It should not be viewed as "lessening" in any way as regards to Israel whether it be post 1948 or pre 500 BC or so. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For much of recorded history (ie post biblical, until 1948), the correct term must be "Palestine". That this may confuse some modern readers (reading about, say, a 17th century rabbi) is unfortunate, but it's rigorous. Maybe if they're confused enough they'll click a link and learn something. I'd normally prefer to avoid any chance of confusion, but there's no better solution without dumbing down or becoming ridiculous... or worse, political. This is the term other serious RS give to this piece of land and we should do the same. I think the only period I'd be unsure about is from 586BCE until the Roman conquest, but that's probably only my ignorance of the history of that period and no doubt others would be able to clarify. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dweller, I agree. To your question re pre-Roman times, working backwards: (1) Before the Romans (63bce) were the Hasmoneans, who expanded out of the Judean mountains in 110bce and ruled almost all of Palestine for 50 years before the Romans came, giving the name Judea to their wider empire; (2) Before the Hasmoneans were the Greeks - mainly the Ptolomies and Seleucids. Greek writers called the region Palestina. There are no biblical sources covering this period; (3) Before the Greeks were the Persians (539–332bce). Greek writers Herodotus and Arrian wrote that it was called Palestina during this period. Persian sources call it Eber-Nari. Coins from this period suggest that the area of the Judean mountains was known as Yehud Medinata; (4) before the persians were the neo-babylonians and neo-assyrians (732–539bce), who also called the region Eber-Nari. The biblical Kingdom of Judah in the Judean mountains existed as a vassal state during this period; (5) before that were the independent biblical states of Ancient Israel and Judah and Philistia. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the term "Palestine" should be used in some cases, and the term "Land of Israel" in others.

This question has been the issue of many a heated debate of late, after User:Chesdovi started to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in areas where such was previously exception rather than rule. Namely articles about and related to Jewish sages of various ages.

I think there is no reason we should use one term throughout the whole project. I think it is perfectly normal that an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia is, should avoid ambiguous terms and/or awkward word combinations. The adjective "Palestinian" is likely to be misconstrued as meaning "holding Palestinian citizenship" (as in "State of Palestine"), or "being of the Palestinian ethnicity" (as in "Palestinian people"). Likewise, sentences like "Rabbi Akiva was a Palestinian sage" sound awkward. (In addition to being inferior from a strictly encyclopedic point of view to "Rabbi Akiva was a Jewish sage".)

An analogue and precedent can be found in Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Year_numbering_systems, which is the basis for the fact that most Judaism-related articles use CE and BCE instead of AD and BC.

An additional argument is the category Rabbis of the Land of Israel, which has been called so since 19 December 2006. In fact, on that same date Category:Palestinian rabbis was redirected there, and that has been so ever since.

And yet another argument is the category Palestinian Jews, which was never populated by more than four articles, about Jews who have been clearly identified as either holding Palestinian citizenship or publicly identifying with the Palestinian ethnicity.

In addition, it is important to notice that the term "Palestine" as it is used in academic English-language literature refers to an area of ever-changing boundaries, ruled by many different rulers, who used various names to designate this area. In this sense, the term "Palestine" is not preferable to the term "Land of Israel". But the term "Land of Israel" has one reason to be preferred in articles about Jews, and that is that it has been the term by which they have traditionally referred to this area themselves. Jews, through all ages, have called this area "Eretz Israel".

I would like to notice that few editors have so far replied on this Rfc. Many editors have expressed their opposition to the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles in other discussions, like an Rfc Chesdovi opened on the now deleted Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and a Cfd at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis, which was closed with a very sharp concluding commentary "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Debresser (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem is using the adjective "Palestinian", which has become ambiguous (political, ethnic, or regional sense). The phrase "Ottoman Palestine" (as in Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine, 107 pages) is unambiguous and unproblematic, and can't possibly refer to modern politics or ethnic identity. I wonder how we could extend that model without having to say things like "Rabbis of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Rabbis of Palestine under the Ayyubid Sultanate", etc. Maybe divide into Roman and Byzantine Palestine, Medieval Palestine, and Ottoman Palestine? Though "Akiva ben Joseph was a Palestinian sage" is ambiguous and peculiar, what's wrong with "Akiva ben Joseph was a Jewish sage in Roman Palestine"? --Macrakis (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
While this is off subject, I feel I must reply. There is one thing I need clarify by people who are of the opinion that "Akiva ben Joseph was a Palestinian sage" is ambiguous and peculiar. Why is the case dissimilar to “Joseph ibn Abitur was a Spanish sage”? Did Joseph ibn Abitur hold Spanish citizenship, was he of Spanish ethnicity? He was of neither, but it is deemed okay to call him Spanish, for he was indeed from Spain. So why is Palestine the only region where use of its adjective becomes ambiguous regarding its context? Does it not simply mean the guy was from Palestine? If it is indeed so problematic, why are contemporary RS using the term to describe ancient people from Palestine, be they Christian monks, hermits, historians or rabbis? Why is there only an issue on wikipedia when it comes to Palestine and Jews? There are Jewish academics, notably Adin Steinsaltz who have called rabbis such as Akiba “Palestinian.” If it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for wikipedia? Would we never be able to call rabbis Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi or Yemenite? Some may think its peculiar to call a Jew “Palestinian”, but that is only due to people’s limited exposure to the term Palestinian in the contest of the modern day conflict. The more well-read among us will know that the term is also applied to historic people of all faiths and ethnicities who came from the region called Palestine. There is in my mind no valid reason why this appellation should be disregarded in regard to Jews only. That would be totally ridiculous. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Palestine" should be consistent with the use of any other geographic description. That means, in general, that the OP is correct that "Palestine" is the correct term from the Hellenic era onwards. As would be the case with other geographic descriptors, we may sometimes need to be more specific. "Ottoman Palestine" may sometimes have a place, but overdoing it would be pushing a political POV. We wouldn't describe François Léotard, for example, as being anything other than French, although in the article detail it might be mentioned that he was born in the État Français under Nazi occupation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I don't particulary have a brief on this subject, but I can't really understand the conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis as it seems to have been concluded because of heatedness rather than actual presention of WP:RS. Just a quick glance at Google Books shows:
  • "rabbis of the land of israel" about 144 results
  • "palestinian rabbis" about 2,940 results
You'd expect JSTOR or Athens to produce similar. As for history,
  • "palestine under the" about 27,000 results
I'm not even sure what the alternative to search for would be? Geographically, between 70CE and 1948, that area is known as Palestine. What else would it be? Pre-70CE "Land of Israel under the Ptolemies," fair enough, but post 70CE?
However, out of sensitivity to the comment Macrakis makes, how about Category:Christian monks from Georgia (country) (11 P), there's no reason why 70CE-1948 Category:Rabbis from Palestine couldn't be used if there's a concern about modern association of the adjective "Palestinian" as an ethno-political rather than geographical term In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Can all respondents please be aware and stay on topic: This discussion is about "Historic designation of the Palestine region", not about designating people from that region. Once this matter is concluded, we can move onto other issues at hand. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This is basically one and the same issue. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chesdovi/Debresser I don't know if it's one and the same issue or not - sorry for responding to Macrakis' concern, but I thought it's worth noting that the adjective "Georgian" and noun "from Georgia" carry different weight in an analgous Wikipedia naming convention. The intention of the point was to make people less itchy/jumpy about if the decision goes for "Palestine" here that then the adjective "Palestinian" follows automatically - it doesn't ...which achieves the unexpected of agreeing with both Chesdovi and Debresser's comments. Only trying to be helpful, if its is isn't helpful ignore it :). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, although the question was posed in general terms, we all understand that the main reason for this Rfc is because you want to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in articles about Jewish sages. So I think we had best address the hottest item, and see if some consensus can be worked out here. I propose to not change the consensus, which is to avoid these words in Judaism-related articles, and use the equivalent (and in some respects even better) "Land of Israel". Debresser (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Can all respondents please note that deciding on what to call this specific region and the issue of how we refer to people of this region are related, but seprarate issues which will be resolved individually. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As you see, we are discussing them both. Since they are so closely related. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovi, please stop posting these annoying bold notices. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It must reiterated for the sake of those who are unclear about the nature of this Rfc: This discussion is specifically related to what to call the historic region of Israel and the PT in all articles. Respondents are kindly reminded not to go off topic. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the notices are quite annoying. --FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue is indeed related, and it could easily be considered separate, but deciding one issue can set a precedent when dealing with the second issue. this is why the majority of people here prefer to discuss both issues at once. Or so I think. Vaskafdt (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think its better to deal with one thing at a time. If however, the majority wish to discuss both issues, by all means, just add a note to the top so the Rfc subject matter is clearer to the closer and new respondants. You do realise that this will snowball into how we decide to refer to people from the political entity as opposed to the region, unless all are referred to as Palestinian, which I would support. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the two are easily divided. The geographical name normally dictates the demonym, doesn't it? For me, the fact that we wouldn't refer to Léotard as "Vichy French" or Oscar Wilde as a "subject of the United Kingdom" illustrates the main principle.
Apologies for my comment above, which may have been brusque.
I do think though, that if the RfC is about a very specific issue, as it appears to be, that should be reflected in the RfC question. I obviously haven't been understanding what the specific thing in issue is. --FormerIP (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Demonym" perfectly describes my position on the matter. Anyone from "Palestine" (we will know what tha refers to after the Rfc), should obvioulsy be called "Palestinian" (be it the historic region or modern political entity.) Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but it's not clear to me what the point of the RfC is. Replacing references to Palestine in articles would be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the complaint. I don't see why it is inappropriate for subcats to be based on historical eras. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Some editors have removed "Palestine" and left the lead like: (b. 1569 Gaza, d. 1701, Damascus). I am suggesting that we added the countries Palestine and Syria, as opposed to "Ottoman Palestine" or "Land of Israel" or leaving it sans-regional identification. Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Land of Israel" would be very wrong. But is there an example of an article where that has been done? --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Land of Israel" used at Laura of Euthymius, Yadua the Babylonian, Theophanes the Branded, Hanan the Egyptian, Simeon the Yemenite, Tachlifa the Palestinian. Left empty at Israel ben Moses Najara. "Ottoman Palestine" at Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well I've gone through and changed those first six. Let's see if it sticks. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you go ahead and change before the Rfc is closed? Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, like I say, I'm not sure I understand what the RfC is specifically about. But, in those cases, I don't think an RfC is needed. They are covered by COMMONNAME. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. But Debresser does not. Good luck. Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the word "Palestine" comes from the designation of the land inhabited by the Philistine tribes. The area called "Land of Israel", which is the area inhabited by the Israelite tribes, is larger than the area the Philistines inhabited. As the term "Land of Israel" has been in use at least since the times of the prophets (see 1 Samuel 13:19), when people still knew the difference between the places inhabited by the various tribes, Philistine and Israelite, the term "Palestine" is basically incorrect when applied to the "Land of Israel".

This is only an additional argument to prefer "Land of Israel" in some cases, specifically when referring to tis area in Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, that's incorrect. Even if you choose to take the bible literally, the Torah / Pentateuch is ambiguous as to the definition of Philistia. Only the books covering the specific period of Samuel / Judges, as also covered in Chronicles and Kings, use the definition you refer to. But putting that technicality aside, there are no historical references to Palestine referring to only the area of the biblical Philistines. Absolotely none. Archeologically and historically speaking, Palestine has only ever referred to the wider region. The egyptians and Assyrians used the word to refer to an undefined area, and from 450BCE all historical references have clearly referred to the wider region the term implies today. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Close RfC without prejudice. What problems does this RfC aim to solve? It appears to me that it is directed towards a very specific issue (regarding Palestinian rabbis), despite being framed in more general terms. This is not the right way to go about solving a content dispute of that kind. As CarolMooreDC points out above, the way to handle this is first and foremost to go by what reliable sources say. In the case of the rabbis this means secular, historical sources. If there is a disagreement between sources covering the specific topic then expand to other sources about the same region in the same time period and see what they say. If there is no consensus among such sources, then, well we can't settle this RfC in the first place, because we'd be arbitrarily deciding to use one over the other without a consensus among historians to do so. Chesdovi, I think you need to re-frame your RfC to deal only with the issue you clearly started this over, or else provide examples outside the rabbi entries where this is also a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You are right. I should have been more specific at first about what I hoped would be settled with this Rfc. We cannot have a situation where a very notable and clicked-on rabbi, Isaac Luria, has been described since December 2009 as: He was born in Jerusalem in 1534 to an Ashkenazi father, Solomon, and a Sephardic mother; died at Safed, Ottoman Empire controlled land of Israel July 25, 1572 (5 Av 5332). As far as I can tell, the vast majority of secular sources use the term Palestine/Palestinian, even when discussing historic Jewish matters. Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the changes made by FormerIP. Should we keep them, since there seems to be nothing really amiss with them, or should we blindly revert them, only because they were made before the Rfc was over? What is the correct thing to do here? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC should be closed. If there is nothing wrong with his edits then so be it. These issues should be decided on a case by case basis anyway and should reflect reliable sourcing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems the term "Land of Israel" or "Erez Yisrael" are not to be used, unless in a religious context. It also seems the demonym "Palestinian" can be used for all people from "Palestine", it not making a difference under whose rule it was during a certain period. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It was a forgone fact that you would come to that conclusion, whatever transpired here. But I see a lack of consensus on the latter part. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, this Rfc was opened less than two weeks ago, and I don't see any strong consensus yet, that would allow to close it before the customary 30 days. On the contrary, I think we need more blood here (that is to say, more and fresh input). Debresser (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good discussion (though -- and perhaps because? -- I've not taken part). I agree that there doesn't seem to be a reason to close it early (even if the result may be the same as if we were to). I, for one, think it is helpful to let editors have at it, in the thoughtful way that they are addressing it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just stumbled upon a very fine book by The Rev Dr. Abraham Cohen who states:

The concluding chapters of Genesis which we read this morning describes the closing scene in the lives of two of our great men-Jacob and Joseph…[Jacob] had just claims to be called Palestinian-to apply the modern term. But with Joseph it was otherwise…He ought, consequently, to be regarded as Egyptian rather than as Palestinian. Sabbath sermons, Soncino Press, 1960. Pg. 57.

Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi/Rav

As an issue has arisen at Yadua the Babylonian, I wish to ask for views appertaining to the usage of “Palestinian honorific” to describe the title “Rabbi” as opposed to “Rav”. We have the following sources:

Is using "Palestinian honorific" at Rabbi Yadun valid? Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Talk:Yadua the Babylonian. See there for my opinion. Personally, I think this is the wrong place for this issue. Please feel welcome to post there. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine" used in Jewish publications

For those of you who think “Palestine” was not used in Jewish publications, see the following sample:

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] and [13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

--- Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

thumb|Jewish poster From the above discussion, it is clear that Palestine/Palestinian is to be used in all relevant articles. Chesdovi (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but however much you might want that to be true, it is not. I see a distinct admission by editors that the term "Palestinian" is problematic in connection with rabbis. And I likewise see a slight preference for alternative terms, like in the edits done by User:FormerIP. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

The map showing the boundaries of Mandate Palestine is incorrect, and show be replaced with this map -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png -- which shows the correct boundaries of Palestine prior to the truncation of Transjordan and the creation of the emirate thereof. Dshravi (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As the caption says, the map in the article shows Mandatory Palestine "as defined by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum (1921)". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent Epochs

This article uses BC (Before Christ) almost as often as it uses BCE (Before the Common Era), and uses AD (Anno Domini) almost as often as it uses CE (Common Era). Regardless of one's belief in the significance of Christ, this kind of inconsistency in the writing and editing of an encyclopedic entry is just sloppy. Ideally, all instances of BC would be changed to BCE and all instances of AD would be changed to CE. But at the very least, one or the other should be used, not both. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have gone ahead and done that. --FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with the statement above; the image the swedish Palestina article use is more neutral (in it's layout) and more informative and better looking (it's with information about the climate as well).. I'll try to change to that one instead if it isnt locked.. Here is a link to that image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MiddleEast.A2003031.0820.250m.jpg?uselang=eng


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.118.217 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC) helllo whats the topography? jw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.16.78 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Map used should be that of the British Mandate of Palestine which includes modern day Jordan. That would more accurately describe Palestine as a region. No distinct Palestinian nationality, distinct language and culture has ever existed. The British Mandate of Palestine was carved out by the United Kingdom after WW1 as was were the modern boundaries of Syria and Iraq by the allied powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.99.116 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats just not true. Its a very resent propaganda statement, its invented in the 21-century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.33 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  "Propaganda?"  It is a statement of fact. Look at any map showing the British Mandate of Palestine and the formation of the State of Jordan.

First sentence

Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.

I have a problem with this description as it posits the use of Palestine to refer to a geographic region as a historical phenomenon, rather than an ongoing one. In many academic disciplines, it is still used in this way. Can we change it accordingly? Perhaps it should read something like this?

Palestine is a conventional name used since 450 BC, among others, to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.

Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The order of the sentence was better before. Just change "was" to "is" and that's it. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi both, I agree too, but think another tweak needs to made to the proposal. From memory it was written the was it was to try to stop the incessant cycle of pointless debate about what the "real name" of the region is today. To keep it balanced we shouldn't forget that since 1948 the name is only ever used to refer to the entire wider region by (1) people talking about pre-1948 history; or (2) Palestinian nationalists. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
How about we swap it round to something like:
Palestine is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands. It is primarily used to refer to the region during time periods between 450 BC and 1948 AD.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the first sentence in your proposal Oncenawhile is an improvement. I still have problems with the second. I'm thinking of the use of the word Palestine by archaeologists, botanists and hydrologists, for example. (See Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Category:Flora of Palestine for wiki examples and sources). This use is not historical, its contemporary and it is used to discuss contemporary phenomena as well. And the writers using it are not Palestinian nationalists. Tiamuttalk 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut, I know what you mean, but in common English usage the word Palestine (and the word Israel) has been a politically charged word since 1948, and since then it has become rare to use it to describe the region "today".
For example, no journalist or modern geographer would use the word in this way to refer to the region today. All the academic disciplines you mention refer to the past - e.g. botany refers to plants which originated in the region.
I agree my proposal is not perfect. Can you think of a better way to explain this nuance to people? It is a reality that you and I know to be true (even if we don't agree), but it is difficult to put in to words. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the lack of reliable secondary sources making such statements, I propose using your first sentence and foregoing use of the second. The second paragraph of the lead explains the boundary changes and current situation. And the etymology and history sections cover when the term was used and how. I don't think we can make conclusions about how frequent use of the term is now compared to the pre-1948 period. In absolute terms, its probably used more today than ever before. :) Tiamuttalk 19:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, you've convinced me with the RS point - there must be RSes out there which discuss this, but i can't find them. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sentence is historically somewhat inaccurate. Before ca. 135 A.D., the word Παλαιστινη/Palaestina predominantly meant the southern coastal plain, or "Philistia". It was only after the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province of Judaea to Palaestina in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt that the word came to commonly mean most or all of the area of the southern Levant... AnonMoos (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - the Assyrians used this term to refer to the entire region between Syria and Egypt, and so did the Greeks of the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods. PiCo (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
okay, but should this be in the lead? above, i though we had agreement to omit the sentence with dates and change the first as suggested by Oncenawhile above. Tiamuttalk 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Up to you - I don't follow this page and just stumbled across it. Plus I've seen AnonMoos around and respect his knowledge - it's just this once that I suspect he might be mistaken. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

This page is very biased and hides the fact that cananites then israeles occupied the land before palestinians. Ref. "From Time Immemorial" Harper & Row Publishers Other references furnished on request.

Note: Once the above is established the extreme bias should be self evident.

MarkEaston (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A. You dont appear to have read the History section of the article, which says that the people who controlled the land, over time, include Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, ... B. From Time Immemorial does not come close to being a reliable source. nableezy - 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A. MarkEaston, you don't appear to be aware of the consensus of Wikipedia - established over many years of Socratic and democratic debate and dialogue - that no Zionist writers or academics can be considered reliable sources. Especially one that has been so aptly criticized and debunked by his eminence, Professor Norman Finkelstein. HaHagana1948 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


"synonymous"

In the etymology section, it says "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times...". I don't have access to any of the sources, so could someone post a quote where it says the usage is "synonymous", and what definition for Palestine "in modern times" they're using?
If someone could email me this, that would be awesome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reading the articles here Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine#External_references - one of them is by Jacobson. You'll learn a lot. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The Jacobson article is what I requested someone send me, if possible. I don't have JSTOR access. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, I see you're the person who added the text to this (and other) articles. Can you please provide the requested quotes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it appears the quotes are not forthcoming, I'm going to tag this as dubious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I now have access to the sources and I don't see where they support the claim that "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times...". Could you explain before I have to do something about the multiple articles you put this in? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The word "synonymous" is not great here, but the basic sense is certainly supported by the Jacobson source. Unless there are collateral sources that say otherwise, I would "roughly the same as...".--FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
What the Jacobson source says is that this is the first recorded time the term "Palestine" is used to refer to more than the coast, or specifically "By the fifth century B.C. the term Palaistine was being used to denote the entire area of the Land of Israel, the traditional area assigned to the 12 sons of Jacob, rather than only the Land of the Philistines or the coastal strip of the Holy Land."
No mention of "modern times" and in fact the source uses traditional Jewish terminology which Oncenawhile took it upon himself to replace with his personal interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think is can be reasonably disputed that this corresponds roughly to the area defined in modern times, though. Do you disagree? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"Modern times" is ambiguous. Are we talking pre 1922 or post? Pre 1948 or post? If you read the above section, you'd see that is not something that's in agreement here. But that doesn't matter because the source doesn't say or even allude to modern times, so any such interpretation of the source is WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It don't think "modern times" is ambiguous. It is inexact, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it has much to do with 1922 or 1948. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, not that it really matters since changing "the entire area of the Land of Israel, the traditional area assigned to the 12 sons of Jacob" to "modern times" is unacceptable, but "Palestine" in normal usage pre-1922 included areas East of the Jordan River, while after it didn't. We're talking post 1922 of an area less than half the size it was before. I'm not saying the term "modern times" is ambiguous, I'm saying that "the region...[as] defined in modern times" is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I gather Oncenawhile is not going to explain his quite obvious distortion of what the source said. I'm going to rewrite that whole section when I have a bit of time, both in this and in the multiple other articles he introduced this text into. I'm also going to add some more information from those sources which he for some reason chose to ignore. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New Information!

Palestine has been recognized by the U.N. since the publication of this article (although it is not yet recognized by the United States). Please change the following sentence: "The State of Palestine is recognized today by approximately two-thirds of the world's countries, although this status is not recognized by the United Nations, Israel and major Western nations such as the United States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.82.240 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference "The Histories" does not appear to contain the specified word "Palaistinê" found in this sentence in the article: "...called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work..."

Please confirm and cite section. Thank you. Brighteou$ (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The exact spelling in English will depend on transliteration from the Greek, so it will vary between translations. Some variant appears in this translation and this one. Zerotalk 06:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Emerging economy

According to this article and this article, a sum of 5 billion euro in development aid will be going to Palestine. Due to this, and due to a recent increase in security, Palestine's economy (and in particular that of Ramallah) is on the increase. See also: Palestine's nightlife on the increase

Add a section in the article on this and also briefly mention the linked problem: given that such a huge amount of aid money is being tranferred to this region, aid money for other regions (ie North/South Africa, Asia, ...) are lower. Also, the these projects are very uncertain, and risk being destroyed with any new conflict with Israel. Hence in terms of development aid and efficiency thereof, it is very hard to justify the transferring such a huge sum to these regions. 91.182.137.94 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew and map

I restored the correct Hebrew name for the region (as opposed to a recent Hebrew name of a political entity). It's not only used in Hebrew literature throughout the ages, it was even part of the official Hebrew name of the British Mandate.

Also, I restored the map that has been in the article for several weeks, which was put in as result of the discussion above after Kalsermar made a suggestion nobody objected to. The above section is getting unruly so I think starting a new one is a good idea. Jumping into the discussion after a version has been stable for weeks and claiming something else is the status quo just because you don't like the current version just won't fly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

NMNG, there are clear objections/arguments above to the non neutral satellite map, why did you re ad it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the only one who objects specifically to the satellite map is you, you never said anything when Kalsermar was asking if anyone has objections to it, and your objection can be easily solved by you adding the line of the border for the Golan. Am I missing something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You are missing something. There are other editors above, including myself, who have objected to the satellite map. It's common sense, but WP:IRELEV confirms the point - "A map of Moldova should show its frontiers with Romania and Ukraine, so people may know where the country is located in relation to its neighbors." The map you have been trying to edit war in to the article does not provide clear borders of Palestine, whereas the original map you have been trying to remove for almost three months is very clear.
The reality of the situation here is that we could solve this easily by discussion. If you took the time to explain exactly what you believe an "ideal" map for this article would show, then we might be able to make some progress here - perhaps one of us will take the time to make up the new map. Neither you, nor any of the other editors here could possibly believe that your satellite map is the perfect solution. But your editing style is simply too aggressive and too unprofessional - all I ever see is fighting rather than constructive discussion. Unless you are prepared to start behaving more professionally, you will just continue wasting more and more of your time, and going round in circles.
In order for us to move forward, please drop this "statusquo" tactic that you have been pushing - the statusquo map was stable for a long period of time before this recent spate of edits, and the new map has simply not gained consensus (despite its 20 day stability over the international holiday period [not "over a month" as you disingenuously claimed above!]). Let's please just calm down, stop the edit war, and start talking. My open question to you is underlined above. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no "clear borders of palestine". The green map is of the British mandate of Palestine EscEscEsc (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

We did solve this by discussion. Then you came back and started edit warring. I don't know what an "ideal" map is. I do know that a POV map doesn't belong at the top of the article when the majority of editors who participated in the discussion objected to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In order for us to move forward, please drop this "statusquo" tactic that you have been pushing - the statusquo map was stable for weeks before you came here and started edit warring your POV map back into the article despite several editors objecting in a discussion you dropped out of.
How about you calm down, stop pushing a map most editors who participated in the discussion objected to and then we can talk. Otherwise I'm going to an admin board with this. Keep in mind the WP:ONUS is on you to explain why you want to restore this POV map to the top of the article when there's a perfectly good section is belongs in.
By the way, I find it hilarious that you are calling me aggressive and unprofessional when it's you who is edit warring a map a majority of editors objected to, into the article in violation of both ONUS and NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew translation / transliteration

I don't have a very strong view about the map, but translating Palestine as פלסטין is a long overdue application of NPOV. ארץ־ישראל is not a translation, it is a politically loaded alternative. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That is simply incorrect. "פלסטין" is the name of the political entity, not the region. The region has always been called "ארץ-ישראל", and if anything it was (rarely) "פלסטינה". On what basis do you make your statement? Do you speak Hebrew? Do you have any sources?
You also restored the incorrect description of the map. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"ארץ-ישראל" is absolutly NOT the hebrew world for the english "Palestine", otherwise what is the hebrew word for the english "Land of Israel"? please don't mix politics with languages, at the best we can say that "ארץ-ישראל" is a point of view for what should be the name of a region, but here in the article, it's not a matter of what is the region is called in hebrew. No, it's as simple as, in Languages Sience what is the hebrew word for the english "Palestine" and the correct answer is "פלסטין" or "פלסטינה" if you want. Pkhetan (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the purpose of other languages in the first sentence of the lead. It's not supposed to be a translation of the English name, it's supposed to be the name in another language, if it differs from the English. ארץ-ישראל is undoubtedly the Hebrew name for the region. It's not a "a point of view for what should be the name of a region". That's ridiculous. פלסטין is the name for a political entity (not to mention very recent). You're the one who's trying to mix politics with language. Even the official Hebrew name of the British Mandate was "פלסטינה (ארץ-ישראל)ת" (ignore the last ת it's just there to get the parenthesis to format properly). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
"פלסטין" pilastin (Palestine) is where the adjective "פלשתינאי" pilastinai (palestinian) come from (or maybe you will tell that the translation of "palestinian" in hebrew is "ישראלי" Yisra'eli !!!). I'm not talking politics here; "Palestine" is not "the name for a political entity", the political entity of Palestine is only one of the uses for the word "Palestine". Land of Israel "ארץ-ישראל" Eretz-Yisra'el is the religious (in Judaism) name and/or biblical name of a land that had been given by a god to the sons of Israel; so it's totaly in onther context than this page (and there is already an independent page for that context here: Land of Isarel ארץ-ישראל). If you are not mixing politics with languages, then at best you are mixing religions with languages. The Hebrew name should be removed from this page (like what we have done with the map) until an agreement is concluded by discussion. Pkhetan (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, no, פלסטניאי comes from פלסטינה (also, it's not pilastinai it's palestiani and פלסטין is palestin not pilastin). That's a somewhat archaic usage as פלסטיני is what most Hebrew speaking Palestinians would use nowadays, as in someone from פלסטין, which I challenge you to show usage from before say, the mid 1960s (and more likely even the 1980s, since, like I said above, this is political/nationalist usage). Palestine as in the region is ארץ-ישראל or פלסטינה in Hebrew. Palestine as in the political entity is פלסטין. This is the article about the region. פלסטינה should be in the lead alongside ארץ-ישראל (which has been there since 2005(!)) instead of the incorrect פלשת which isn't the same region. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An understanding of the concept of exonym and endonym might help here. The endonym is the name of a place in an official or well-established language occurring in that area. An exonym is the name used in another language for a place outside of the area where that language is spoken, and differs from the endonym. For example, Albania, China, India, Greece, Japan, and Korea are the English exonyms corresponding to the endonyms Shqipëria, Zhongguo, Bharat, Hellas, Nippon/Nihon, and Goryeo, respectively. Likewise, Eretz Yisrael (ארץ ישראל) is the Hebrew endonym of the region known as Palestine in English, i.e., the English exonym. --Chefallen (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends, when they are refering to the religious promise land, they use Eretz Yisrael. And by the way, No More Mr Nice Guy, about your argument about the official Hebrew name of the british mandate, again this page is not about Mandate Palestine, there is an independent page for that. The Histo-Geographic Palestine "פלסטינה" even it's around the same region as the religious Land of Israel "ארץ ישראל" but it has not exactly the same 'borders' and/or definitions, neither the religious פלשת, neither the nowadays political state of Israel ישראל, neither the proclamed political state of Palestine, neither the British Mendate Palestine. All of them are around the same region but not the same thing. I suggest, as we all agreed about "פלסטינה", to use it insteed of the actual debatable "ארץ-ישראל" and "פלשת". About the map I vote for the Satellite map because this seems to me to be the Histo-Geographic Palestine; the green map is the British Palestine. Pkhetan (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
My point about the British Mandate was to show the term was used in modern times in a secular context. פלשת shouldn't be there at all. Please vote about the map in the section below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You still insist for the Eretz Yisrael! The article is about the Palestine that is changing its border all over the history. Do you think that the promised Eretz Yisrael (well-defined in the mind of Judaism followers) is also changing its border all over the history? I remind you that it's you who object the green map telling that this article is about Palestine as a region that is changing it's borders continuously; why suddenly you see this "Palestine" only inside the borders of Eretz Yisrael !? Pkhetan (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I gave you an example of Eretz Israel used with borders that are different than the biblical ones and in a secular context. Here are some WP:RS that use the terms interchangeably [27]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Pages 18-19 here are also quite interesting and relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at 1926 in this article Timeline of the name Palestine - explains same point. But NMMNG, you are wrong to dismiss Pkhetan and FormerIP. You have not provided a source backing up your core argument about state vs region above. There is already an article for Land of Israel, which is clearly referred to in the lede of this article. Your argument about the history of these two terms is valid, but if you follow it through you must be suggesting a merger of this article with Land of Israel.
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The Land of Israel article is about the biblical concept. This article is about the region, which happens to have the same name but is also used in a secular context, as I pointed out above with multiple sources. None of you have provided a single source that contradicts that. Your change is unacceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with NMMNG there are plenty of source that support this and there are no reason to remove it.--Shrike (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources for NMMNG [28] and [29] - proving this is like proving the sky is blue. Now please provide the sources which unpin your arguments about secular / biblical context. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, you are arguing with at least two fluent Hebrew speakers about a word meaning in Hebrew, and you bring Google translate to support your argument? -- ElComandanteCheταλκ 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, I posted a link to a whole bunch of sources that use "Eretz Israel/Palestine", but if you like dictionaries, here are the first two that come up in google: direct link - [30], put "ארץ ישראל" in this one - [31]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Dictionary translations may provide literal translations, but not necessarily correct usage. The issue is what is the name of this region in Hebrew as used by Hebrew speakers? It is abundantly clear that the Hebrew endonym – the name of the place in Hebrew as used by Hebrew speakers – is Eretz Israel - ארץ ישראל. Thus, this definition from Hebrew wikipdia:
Palestine השם המקובל בלשונות אחרות לאזור הגאוגרפי המכונה בעברית "ארץ ישראל" הוא
Translation: The common name in other languages for the geographical area known in Hebrew as "Eretz Israel" is Palestine [32]
See also how the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel begins with the words Eretz Israel to name this region: “ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people…” [33]
A Google search for the term ארץ ישראל (in Hebrew) yielded about 3,810,000 results. It is clearly the endonym for this region in wide use in Hebrew, referring to an extensive range of topics connected to the geography, history, politics and academic study of this region. --Chefallen (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Full protection

Per the request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for 3 days due to recent edit warring. Please note that I have no idea what the debate is out, and very actively do not care--I am not interesting in getting involved in the actual content of ARBPIA issues (which, of course, means I've no doubt protected the WP:WRONGVERSION). However, I do believe that stopping edit wars just as they are starting is critical. I'm glad to see that there's an RfC running above. After the protection expires, I strongly encourage everyone to keep talking and only making edits once a clear consensus emerges. If not, I'll either re-protect the article, or see if there might be other more personal solutions that are appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I don't want to miss the change and have the article lapse to completely unprotected, I'm switching to semi-protection now. I am glad that the conversation is continuing above, though it looks (from a quick glance) like there isn't a consensus yet. So, please keep talking...and no one should change the map until that discussion has reached a consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange article

Is there some reason why all mention of Palestine post 1947 is completely left out of this article? I realize that some countries, such as the united states and israel do not recognize them, but plenty of countries do. And regardless of recognition, they are still there.97.91.179.137 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't feel I know enough to edit either page, but I'm surprised there's no mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here. It is mentioned in the see also section, but I can't see it in the text and it's certainly not in the introduction. Famedog (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article betrays a very strong pro-Israel bias, implying by way of omission that Palestine, and by extension the Palestinian people, ceased to be relevant in 1948. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have not read the entire article, but from the parts I have, my understanding is this is an a-political article focused on the (geographical) explanation of the term Palestine throughout the centuries, and not Palestine as narrowly defined in a modern political sense. And, to be technically accurate, while there are Palestinians who live in the regions of what has at times been defined as Palestine (I am being careful here on all ends; Jordan Israel, and Egypt are all in that bag, and of course the beloved west bank/occupied territories/disputed territories/judea-samaria, etc.), and while some countries do recognize a Palestinian State, it simply doesn't exist yet. Political body yes, small fractured jurisdictions that provide some services yes, country, no. I wanted to add to the etymology section, but alas, everything is locked... I also think with regards to the map image conflict, a map from the earliest period possible makes the most sense to be up at the top. The subsequent maps should depict the evolution of the geographic area defined as Palestine, and then end maps can picture the current land debates.LFevas (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation error

In Hebrew, Palestine is not translated as ארץ-ישראל meaning land of Israel. In Hebrew, it is פלסטינה. YoterMimeni (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion of this above.--Sjsilverman (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Discuss Merging Proposal

I proposed that Holiness of Palestine be merged with Palestine.

Discuss please!

CynivalThou Shalt Talk to Me 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, albeit it needs to be more balanced. Jerusalem#Religious_significance is a good precedent. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I would probably have agreed in a normal situation, except in this case the length of the Palestine article has now reached maximal reasonable size. See Wikipedia:Article size. Subarticles are now necessary. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Name or region?

Is this article about the name "Palestine" or about the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan? If it's about the name "Palestine", then the translations should include only cognates of that word, and not translations of "land of Israel".

If it's about the region, then maybe we should mention "land of Israel" as an alternate name, and include translations of that. But apparently Land of Israel encompasses the Southern Levant, which is a bigger area than Palestine, as it includes Jordan and part of Lebanon.

"The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎‎ ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is the Biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant, also known as Canaan and Palestine, Promised Land and Holy Land."
"The Southern Levant is roughly encompassed by Palestine, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, along with the modern sovereign states of Israel, Jordan and the southern part of Lebanon."

—Ashley Y 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We had a bit of a discussion about this here - Talk:Palestine#Hebrew_translation_.2F_transliteration No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about this?

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלסטינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el), though that also includes southern Lebanon.

—Ashley Y 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. "Various adjoining lands" includes southern Lebanon. In the previous discussion I provided quite a few sources that use "Eretz Israel/Palestine". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, we should drop that last clause:

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלסטינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. The region is also known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el).

—Ashley Y 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the current text? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Great. Now there's a problem. Someone who didn't participate in the previous discussion about the term Eretz Israel just tagged it as POV. Lovely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why we mention that Palestine is also known as Land of Israel TWICE in the lead (first and fourth paras)? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, I agree with your edit replacing the POV tag with a ref. Oncenawhile, maybe we can move the names to the first para? I'm not really sure of the definitional differences in the names. —Ashley Y 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I was perfectly happy with Eretz Israel in Hebrew inside the parenthesis with the other languages, and without the whole sentence about Land of Israel in the first paragraph. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
That is clear, but despite your fighting to keep it, that situation resulted in a long stream of unconnected editors questioning it over many months. I agree with Ashley's suggestion. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a good solution. Thank you Ashley. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Map

There are two problems with this map.

  • It is described misleadingly. It is not a map of "Palestine... as defined by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum (1922)". It's a map of the British Mandate for Palestine as of 1922.
  • It's a highly POV map (as evidenced by the file name).

This is a region with a long history and we can use a map that's less POV. I will restore the more neutral map that was there for quite a while before this one was introduced. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The map is not "highly POV". The other map is more POV as it shows Palestine as the region on both sides of the river Jordan, a minority POV. I could agree with changing the map, but the other map is out of the question. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's called "Historical region of Palestine (as defined by Palestinian Nationalism) showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders". That's not highly POV?
And are you seriously arguing that a map showing the area as described by Arab cartographers is a minority POV? Does anyone dispute this is how it was described at the time? It certainly covers a longer timeframe than the current, "as described by Palestinian Nationalism" map does. Anyway, feel free to suggest another map. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
1. The file title could be changed to "Historical region of Palestine showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders". Then that problem would go away. So no, it's not "highly POV".
2. The Arab map does represent a minority POV. The minority POV is that Palestine is the region on both sides of the Jordan.
3. A better map would be a map that shows Palestine as the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, with fuzzy northern and southern borders. Preferably, it should be a bit more zoomed out than the Mandate map. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The file name accurately describes what the map is. Changing it won't change the map. There should either be a map of Palestine as referenced today (which would probably be the West Bank and Gaza, as this is likely the majority POV), or a non-politically charged historic map. If you don't like the one I used, we can use one from another time in history. I just restored the map that was there before this political map replaced it. By the way, the fact that at the time the map I restored was drawn Palestine referred to both sides of the river is not a minority POV by any stretch of the imagination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Frederico. From my perspective, the most important point here is clarity for the reader - the current map gives that. The map provided by NMMNG is very hard to read, and shows a minority view. However, NMMNG's underlying point is reasonable since his view is "minority" but not "fringe". So I would be open to a map which shows dotted lines for the maximum extent of Palestine as well. But it must remain simple and easy to read. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The current map gives clarity to the reader if you want him to think that "Palestine" equals "British Mandate Palestine, 1922-1948". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG, you don't agree with the claim that "the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river" is the most common definition of Palestine as a historical region? --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
That would depend on the era being discussed. "Historic Palestine" in the nationalist sense refers to Palestine as defined after the British removed Transjordan from the Palestine Mandate in 1922. Prior to that, Palestine often (but not always) included areas east of the Jordan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this map for the reasons stated above. I won't replace it with anything else since so far we can't agree on what the replacement should be, but this map should not be the first thing the reader sees. Either use a map describing what is currently called Palestine or use something less politically charged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but obviously damaging to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's more damaging than leading the reader to believe that Palestine means "British Mandate Palestine". That map could go in the section that talks about the Mandate. The onus is on you to explain why it should be at the top of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Because that definition is by FAR the most common definition of the term. You cannot seriously be disputing that? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NNMG the map is highly POV and should be moved to the Mandate section--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you both to prove your view then. What do you believe the most common geographic definition of the Palestine region is? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am disputing that. That map is what is called "historic Palestine", usually by people who support Palestinian nationalism. Not only is it POV to put it at the top of the article, it is also inaccurately described as "Palestine" rather than what it really is, which is "British Mandate Palestine".
You should re-read WP:ONUS. It says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (bold in the original). You're the one who added and is restoring the material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that the map that is in dispute here is not the correct map to show our readers as the first image of the article. This article deals with Palestine from ancient times to modern times. The lead sentence in this article states: "Palestine (...) is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands". furthermore, the disambiguation page states first and foremost: "Palestine is a geographical and cultural region in the Middle East, today comprising primarily Israel and the Palestinian territories". On top of that there is the separate article British Mandate for Palestine. Given this, there is no way to justify insisting on a map of the Mandate area as the main image (ie. the first image our readers see). this does not even take into account that the image is not visually very appealing and yes, visual appeal is a great tool to keep holding on to readers after they first see a page.
There are other maps that could be inserted here that keep the focus on the area between the river Jordan and the sea to satisfy people who want to pretend the rest was never part of Palestine and at the same time give more information to the reader than the present map. this and this come to mind (I didn't check the whole article to see if these are already there but there are other alternatives too). Neither of these show defined borders with any meaning today. finally, this image might do very nicely as well. It is visually more appealing and the borders drawn on it are subtle and do not attract undue attention, unlike the present map. Unless I see substantive objections I propose to change the lead image with one of these after the coming weekend.
In closing, it is unfortunate to see how an editor, (NMMNG) who contributes in good faith and has excellent points to argue his side of the story, gets dismissed so easily. --Kalsermar (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Frederico1234 and Oncenawhile are quite right. The map is clear, simple and completely correct. It outlines what the borders of Palestine were ever since 1922. Paul K. (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This may be true, but it is not appropriate to place it in the lead, which should be representative of more than the last ninety years or so of several thousand years of history covered by the article (see WP:Undue). -- Chefallen (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
As per my suggestion and absent any objections I picked the satellite image as the lead image of the article. Feel free to discuss other options but relying on an image that puts too much emphasis on any one historical period is misleading in my opinion in an article that covers all of Palestine throughout known history.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The file description of the map that you added is "Satellite image of Israel in January 2003". It is hard to see that this one could replace the map the map you removed, which outlines clearly the borders of Palestine as defined in the Transjordan memorandum of September 16, 1922, mentioned in the lead just next to the map. There may be no objection to adding the satellite picture of 2003, but it is certainly wrong that the clear map was removed. I will see if I can restore this. Paul K. (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This image was recently re added to the article: [34]. It can not stay in the article as it shows inaccurate boundaries for Israel, it shows the GH as if it was part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You are right. This annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights was, of course, never recognized internationally. At the same time we should realize that Israels annexation of territory in 1949 was never recognized internationally either. The map gives the borders of Israel as perceived by Israel. Maybe we can solve this by changing the caption under the image. Now it says: "The borders shown are those of the modern nation states in the region as they existed in 2003." Maybe it could be something like "The borders shown are the current borders as they exist in the view of Israel"? (Suggestions for a better wording welcome.) Paul K. (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why would we have a map showing how Israel perceives its borders in this article which is about Palestine? The only thing we have to do here is to remove the inaccurate image and replace it with any image that actually is about Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Israel within the 1967 lines is recognized as such by most states, with the exception of maybe the area around Jerusalem. This includes agreements signed by the PLO.
Feel free to add the border at the Golan if that bothers you, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This whole discussion is ridiculous. Of course the Golan Heights are part of Israel as that country controls the area as an integral part of the country. And of course no one else recognizes this. The latter is of no consequence however. We represent the facts on the ground and in reality, not the ideal situation everyone wants to see. Do we omit maps of the Second World War that show Austria as part of Germany? No, of course not. it is the facts we give, not anyone's ideal or perceptions. This map and its caption is fine. --Kalsermar (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The "facts on the ground and in reality" is that is not part of Israel. Israel believes that and no one else, we can not follow the view of Israel in this article and disregard everyone else, reality. So this map:[35] is a clear npov violation and must be removed from the article, this article is also about Palestine, not about how Israel incorrectly believes its own country looks like. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree there. The fact that no one recognizes it does not mean it is not a fact in reality. When the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan no country other than Pakistan and the UAE I believe recognized that government. I do not recall Wikipedia stating at the time that Afghanistan did not have a government or head of government. Do not confuse international diplomatic recognition with the facts on the ground. Besides, it is not up to Wikipedia to favor one's interpretation over another's. Neutrality dictates that we present the facts as they are and explain their circumstances, ie non-recognition.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No one is saying that Israel isn't occupying it, but this doesn't mean that "its Israel". These are two separate things. Your view of what "fact in reality" and "facts on the ground." is, is not shared by the international community. So the satellite map with inaccurate borders shouldn't be used here or any other article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
A - I don't see such map in World War II. The one map that IS there just shows as one entity the "German Reich, allies and occupied zones". B - Please read [[Anschluss]] to see that Austria is a bad example. (The Austrian Nazi Party took power in Austria, then transferred said power to Germany, which was then confirmed this to be the people's choice --- yes, it was and is suspected - but never proven - that the referendum was strongly rigged.) W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance of you contribution here as it does nothing to further this particular article. I do not recall anyone saying that there is such a map on any particular article. I do see someone illustrating a point with an example. Discussing the particulars of Austria in 1938 is outside the scope of this talk page. Having said that, it is interesting to note that the one map that you are referring to clearly mentions just two words, "German Empire", to show that entity within contiguous borders including such territories as Austria and Luxembourg. I highly doubt that this was an internationally recognized situation at the time! I'm afraid you might merely be looking at the key of the map and not the map itself.
To get back to the issue at hand though, given the situation on the ground, are you denying that at the present time Israel is in sovereign, albeit internationally not recognized, control of the Golan heights and that therefore the border of Israel, again, not internationally recognized, encompasses that territory? To state, as one editor here suggests, that these borders "exist in the view of Israel" is preposterous. these borders exist today. You may not like that fact and most people may not like that fact but that does not make it any less of a fact in reality.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between a border, which must be recognized by other states as the boundary of a territorial claim by a sovereign state, and armistice, ceasefire, lines of control, etc., boundaries which are temporary and do not represent legal borders. Israel might be exercising control over the occupied territories, but that is as the occupying power and not as a sovereign.173.74.22.141 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

On a separate topic re the map, NMMNG appears incapable of recognizing a compromise proposal when he sees one. The Green map was stable for a year. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A "compromise" is something you make with other people, not with yourself inside you head. A "proposal" is customarily put on the talk page where discussion is ongoing, not edit warred into the article. Several people have objected to the British Mandate map being at the top of the article, as you are well aware. It's not a "separate topic". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, did you say edit-warred? You and Kalsermar removed the status-quo map without consensus (see above - it was 3 for status quo vs your 2 against). The original green map (a) is much clearer than the satellite image which is difficult for a reader to interpret; (b) was stable for a long period of time before Kalsermar changed it; and (c) is representative of by far the most common definition of the region (and yes, that happens to be synonymous with the Mandate borders). In addition, the definition of the region is relevant to many fields, including the definition by which the Palestinian people self-identify. I am sure you are aware that all Palestinian people self identify Palestine with the Mandate borders.
Having said all of that, I am not keen to participate in your edit war, so proposed a compromise - frankly I think the side by side looks quite good. Wikipedia is about consensus, not about fighting, so aggressive reversions of obvious compromise solutions are anathema to what we are trying to achieve here. I am unable to stop your continual aggressive behaviour, so I await your response with baited breath. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I count Frederico1234, Paul K., and you who think the Mandate map belongs at the top of the article, and Shrike, Kalsermar, Chefallen, and myself who object. So I'm not sure where you got that 3:2 from. I disagree that the green map is much clearer. That it was in a certain place in the article for a while doesn't mean it should stay there forever. Please source your claims that the green map is "representative of by far the most common definition of the region" or that "all Palestinian people self identify Palestine with the Mandate borders".
I'm glad you understand wikipedia is about consensus. It would be quite difficult for you to argue you thought your edit had consensus considering you dropped out of the discussion and returned just to edit war the map back into the top of the article, which I notice is an MO you use quite often.
By the way, while we have you here discussing, could you please answer some of the questions presented to you in the section below? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's go one by one - delighted to discuss the below in due course. Re above, your suggestion of a tactical "MO" is silly (and does not WP:AGF) - are we not allowed breaks over the holidays?! There is no time limit in wikipedia, as you know. To your questions - the self identification point is pretty simple - just look at the flags used by some of the PNA political parties: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine / Palestinian Popular Struggle Front / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. I have never seen any other definition used by Palestinians to refer to the region - have you? Frankly it's common sense - the Palestinian identity was forged during the time of the Mandate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed you violated 1RR. Please self revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - I didn't realise. Which edit are you referring to? Not on this page - it's been 2 days since my last edit? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. You did indeed wait a day before edit warring a map several people said should not be at the top of the page, back to the top of the page. My bad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, the green map represents the situation in one particular historical period with modern borders. this article deals with Palestine in all its incarnations and throughout history. When there is clearly opposition to a particular image as the lead image in an article is it not better to find an alternative. the image can stay in the article for all I care, it is just wholly inappropriate as the lead image, ie the first thing most readers see. (Not to mention that the green map is visually unappealing and totally unimaginative!)--Kalsermar (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kalsermar, thanks for your post. I continue to disagree, as do others, but I respect your position. Perhaps all involved editors should set out the arguments on both sides, and if we can't convince each other then we can try to draw a wider group of editors to comment. In the meantime, i have reverted the map to the statusquo (prior to NMMNG's first attempt to change the map in late October) and I strongly request that the edit war is stopped to allow the conversation to take place without distraction and bickering. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The green map has not been at the top of the article for over a month before you started edit warring it back in. That's the status quo. You can continue to filibuster when I restore the status quo shortly. You actually removed the satellite map this time as well. Classy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Which map should be at the top of this article? Current options are:

Option 1
Option 2
Option 3

Feel free to add more options. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)}}

  • The satellite map shows the Golan Heights as part of Israel, this is a clear npov violation, it can not be used. This article is also about Palestine, not about inaccurate state borders. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Would you support the satelite map if it had no borders or if the border at the Golan was added? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Dont see what it has to do with Palestine. Also to ad a border between Israel and Syria would still leave an inaccurate border inside Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
What it has to do with Palestine is that it shows the region historically called Palestine, while covering practically all the different areas that were included in this region throughout history, without pointing out any particular timeframe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This article is about the region, not any particular political entity. Option 1 is a map of the British Mandate which is titled "as defined by Palestinian Nationalism", it's obvious POV. I think a satellite map, or an older map that gives a feel that the region wasn't usually particularly well defined is more appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If there is a reliable source that says that Israel + WB and Gaza is how elements of Palestinian Nationalism sees Palestine, then it can be a map of that and it can be attributed to that specific pov. There can be several different all accurate maps, for example one of the Palestine mandate and it can be titled "As delineated during the British mandate for Palestine" or something like that. Roman era map etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is what map belongs at the top of the article. There are certainly many maps that could be in different sections, but that's not the issue here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness is right. The Palestinian perspective on the definition of Palestine is highly valid for this article, along with other definitions. It belongs at the top of the page. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Some good satellite images at the bottom of this page, which it says are public domain. Could use some cropping, but otherwise I think one of them could be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The solution would be an old map with no border or satellite map with no borders either.--Shrike (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Many things to say. The best is to us 'a satellite map without any border at all. The reasons are : 1/ the historical region of Palestine is cannot be defined because it changed at different time ; 2/ I point out that option 1 is not the historical region of Palestine during Mandate ; maybe in the eye of some, it is pro-Palestinian b(???) ut it is just the map of the British Mandate in 1923 and has no link to Palestinian nationalism ; image title should be moved ; 3/ satellite map is interesting because it gives some more information about the geography (fertiles lands ; deserts ; mountains ; valleys) which is important in an historical perspective ; 4/ option 1 doesn't even show the Galilee/Kineret/Tiberiade Lake and is poorly colorized. 87.66.170.243 (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • An ideal map would be a satellite map with no borders. In the absence of such a map, Option 2 or a crop of one of these images would do. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Use of two/three new images side-by-side (or a combined image similar to Tibet) - Palestine means many things to many people. It is a political as well as historical concept:
    • Palestinian people and their supporters: See flags used by many of the PNA political parties, all of which use the British Mandate borders for obvious historical reasons: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine / Palestinian Popular Struggle Front / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
    • Zionists and their supporters: From the World Zionist Organization ""The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity south of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr El-Karaon thence to El-Bire, following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El-Korn and the Wadi Et-Teim, thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity west of Beit Jenn, then eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the east a line close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the south a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the west the Mediterranean Sea." This is shown in a picture here
    • Historians and Archaeologists: Pre-20th century, the borders changed over time. This is true for every country and region in the world - shifting borders and definitions is normal, and would be odd if it had not happened. It is not a valid reason for having an unclear map, as it hasn't stopped other similar historical regions having clear pictures at the top, e.g. Greater Somalia, Punjab region, Tibet, United Armenia and Bengal
Having a satellite image with no borders is as good as having no image - it tells users nothing useful. We can make new image(s) to fit the purpose, but the suggestion of no borders would be detrimental to the high quality encyclopedia we are all trying to achieve here.
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
What Palestinian nationalists think Palestine should be is a matter for the Palestinian Nationalism article, which would be the equivalent of the Greater Somalia or United Armenia examples you gave above.
What Zionists think Palestine should be is a matter for the Zionism article (that's assuming something they said in 1919 is still relevant).
If you want a map comparable to other articles, then it should be a map of what is currently recognized by most states as "Palestine" which would be the West Bank and Gaza. It's not like borders stopped changing at the turn of the 20th century. Feel free to make such a map and add it to the options above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have forgotten to consider my core points:
  • This article is about the region of Palestine. Can you explain why you think this article is (or should be) solely about the historical concept of the region, separated from the political concept of the region? If we were to split the article into two to separate these subjects, what article titles would you suggest?
  • What is your view on Punjab region, Tibet, and Bengal, per my comment above? These are historical regions with a less obvious political focus compared with the Armenia and Somalia examples. Ignoring them in your comments is selective bias.
Your last point undermines the rest of your post - you know full well that there is a separate article for State of Palestine, which is clearly explained in the lede and footnotes. Please try to be constructive instead of combative.
Oncenawhile (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, your last point undermines the rest of your post. You say the region of Palestine shouldn't be separated from the political concept but you want to ignore the current political reality. We can have a map that shows the general area as it was throughout history, or we can have a map that shows the political reality now. You can't pick an historical era you like and use a political map that describes just that.
Punjab region has a topological map at the top of the article, so that doesn't exactly support your point. I find the one in Tibet quite complicated. Let's say that the Bengal article supports your point. Now what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The green one looks amateurishly made. It's way too schlocky. Сол-раз (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The green map shows Palestine in one particular moment of history while this article covers Palestine throughout all of history. It is therefore not the ideal image to use as the lead image in the article, ie the first thing most readers see. Other than that, it is hardly esthetically pleasing! There have been numerous objections to it. The satellite image shows the modern borders and includes the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Factually correct as that may be at the present time (the fact that hardly anyone recognizes the annexation of the GH doesn't make the fact that it has, in fact, been annexed any less factually true) there has also been objections to that image. the solution is simple, use neither. Option 3 here would be a good one or start the article with something other than a map for an image. Leaving the green map in place is not a viable option though.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Article should not have overview map A single overview map doesn't make sense for this article. As pointed out in the article, the term "Palestine" has been used in a variety of ways throughout history and, to the extent the term defines a region, did not have well defined borders until the mandate period. (For example, concept of palestine included some areas east of the Jordan River in of the 19th and early 20th century.) Since this article covers "Palestine" from Roman times to the present, any map with boundaries would mischaracterize the meaning of the term during some period. A map without borders (including the two suggested) seems somewhat pointless, if not actively misleading. As an aside, I suppose I could imagine an overview map that had information about the many different concepts of Palestine in it, but I haven't seen one and the three candidates given here aren't it.

The suggestion made above that "current" boundaries be used really doesn't work for this article. The only territory that anyone currently calls Palestine is in the West Bank and Gaza. There's no need to address the contentious question of whether a Palestinian State exists at this time and, if so, what its boundaries are, because using a map of these territories would not be helpful to the reader in understanding the topic of this article -- he region called "Palestine" as that term has been used through history. Sjsilverman (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)(revised Sjsilverman (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

The edit war is unnecessary and regrettable. The situation of 1 January was perfectly acceptable: the two maps on top of each other. Those who argued that the green card reflects the situation in modern times and is preferably not the first thing the reader sees do have a point. The only thing that might be debated is if the caption under the satellite map could be altered to explain that the (barely visible) borders do not reflect borders which are recognized internationally. Please, let us save the arguments for things that really matter. Paul K. (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The satellite map has borders (even if it barely visible), and even if we write under "borders do not reflect borders which are recognized internationally" this will increase the ambiguity because everyone will understand what he wants from that sentence. So either we find a satellite map without borders at all or I vote for option 3. Pkhetan (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a satellite image without borders would be the best solution. Unfortunately all the images I saw on the NASA site had borders. If anyone knows of another public domain source for satellite images, we could try looking there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@Pkhetan, above, under "Hebrew and map" you write: "About the map I vote for the Satellite map". And here you object to it? And so what if "everyone will understand what he wants from that sentence"? The whole idea is, of course, that Wp. just gives the information, and that every reader is free to "understand what he wants". So again, I think it is best to restore the situation of 1 January: on top the satellite map as the first thing the reader sees (gives a good view of the region), and under it the clear green card which reflects what is meant by Palestine ever since 1922. Paul K. (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the "Option 2" satellite map can not be used as it violates npov with inaccurate boundaries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think he was saying his first preference would be a satellite map without borders. There seem to be several editors who share that opinion. If we could find one I think we could easily reach a wide consensus here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the above section "Hebrew and map", I was refering to a normal satellite map (i.e. without borders. Pkhetan (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • None of the above. I agree with most of the objections made to each of these maps. There seems to be agreement that the article is about the region, and that there is no single universal definition of the region. As an American, I thought of the similar (but much less politically charged) issue of defining one region here, the Southwestern United States. The lead map for that article has different colors and shadings. It's accompanied by an unusually long caption to explain the nuances of the definitional issue. Generally I'd oppose such a detailed caption, but it seems like a good approach for such situations. Is it possible for someone with knowledge of the facts and command of image-making software to create such a map and caption that will represent (though necessarily in abbreviated form) all the major points of view? JamesMLane t c 08:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, I was not involved until now. However having read most of the discussion, the article itself, and having done some research about the subject, I came to the conclusion that there a great varying number of opinions of what Palestine means as also throughout history Palestine meant different things, it encompassed different regions. Therefore, why not to use a synthetic approach? If many different "regions" are needed to be shown in one principal map, used at top, why not to use an interactive map, like this one changing and showing diferring regions with the era included. Thus, it will be away from all political, and POV approaches and no one can object it. Because it will be based on scientific truth only, not any political territory. And it will be all-inclusive, synthetic and holistic. The only problem is that someone has to make a map like that (If I'll find some time, I might try - never have done, but not so likely these days, no time). Until then, why not to open Google Earth, remove all settings showing broders, take a printscreen or something similar and use it :) Thus we would have our satellite map, without borders, away from all political whawhawhawha...Thanks, --Universal Life (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Green Map is a modern political map, and specifically a PA political map which should not be used, just as a map that shows borders of Israel should not be used. Its seems the majority agree that this article is about a geographic region, not about political entities, or at least not the current ones occupying (no pun intended) the area. A topographical/geographical map should be used, not a political one. I found a good one if someone is willing to photoshop the messiah stuff out of the corner or if the webmaster is willing to provide it (I know people might not be thrilled about the site its from, but the map itself "aint bad.") http://israelsmessiah.com/maps/ancient_palestine.htm LFevas (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Without reading the above: none belong: the green one has little information, the satellite is about geography not a political entity, and the other is medieval. None of them belong at the top. Be——Critical 07:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the above. Since borders are disputed, find a map similar that highlights the historical and current border. These can provide possible examples of how this is done:
Gsonnenf (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Preferrably a satellite map with no borders. I also like the idea of a simple shaded map without borders like this one. Nightw 13:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That map still confines Palestine to the modern borders like the green one that was at dispute here sans borders. It would not be a good one as the lead map. Do we even necessarily need a map as the lead image?--Kalsermar (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is about a region of geography. It should have a map. If people really don't want borders, they should just put an SVG map of that region, leave current national borders and labels, and then call the entire area "region of palestine" or some such. I don't like the satellite map because its hard to tell where that piece of land is ( if you don't already know ). Gsonnenf (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Kalsermar, the borders of the former Mandate (without Transjordan) are what most people associate the name "Palestine" with, at least when thinking apolitically in terms of geography. Nightw 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gsonnenf's suggestions. I like a mixed map. It's too political to do otherwise. Boundaries older than the british mandate might be too old for the top map of the article. Going back in time to the Ottoman era leaves it less defined, as well? 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Another neat map showing how they qualify "central america". Gsonnenf (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Somemthing like this would be nice, if anyone has the skills to make one No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

break

Since this RfC is going to time out soon, I'm going to try and summarize what we have so far. Feel free to correct any mistakes.
Original options:

  • Option 1: No support.
  • Option 2: No support as first preference, a couple of editors support if no satellite map without borders is found (see below).
  • Option 3: Kalsermar, Pkhetan, Shrike(?)

Options that came up in the discussion (none of which we have actual images for at the moment):

  • Satellite map with no borders: Malik, Shrike, Pkhetan, Nightw, NMMNG, LFevas(?)
  • Composite or synthetic map: JamesMLane, Universal Life, Gsonnenf(?), Alaney2k(no sig), Oncenawhile
  • No map: Kalsermar, Sjsilverman

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's starting to look like there are two widely supported solutions. Having a map with political boundaries does not appear to be widely supported.
1. The two solutions:
A) A satellite map describing the entire region as palestine.
B) An SVG map describing the entire region as Palestine.
2. Should the map:
A) Show state borders (Modern)
B) Show state borders/regions (Historical)
C) Show no state borders
3. Should the map:
A) include a shaded relief of historical borders if a source is found or created ((see tibet for sample)
B) exclude boundary shading of historical borders?
I would be happy with option 1A or 1B, though I would like some borders and country names so people have context of the area, even states from biblical times would be ok. I would prefer a shaded relief that shows historical boundaries, though I don't think we'll end up with one for some time. So i'm going to suggest the following:

* Support 1A or 1B, support 2A or 2B, support 3A if possible. Gsonnenf (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a good map, I'm just not sure how to display the file here? Can someone give me instructions please?`LFevas (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support 1B, 2A, 3B. The lead paragraph reads "Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories." the image should reflect this. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Not to be difficult, but that lead sentence is disputed content without citation. Might be better to resolve that before basing a map on it. Also showing a map of the political state "state of palestine" was rejected by the first phase of the RFC.Gsonnenf (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@LFevas: If the map is of your own making (you own the copyright, you could upload it to wikimedia.org. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support any of the above as long as it includes the whole region as it was historically (the topic of this article) and not someone's preferred point in time. I'd prefer no borders but won't object to a good image with borders. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

break

The RFC ended. Lets go ahead and add a map. The old map in the history section looks like it meets are criterion. If someone has a better map consistent with the RFC (mainly the entire area is labeled as palestine), we can use that one too.Gsonnenf (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting to get a response as to whether the map I found is public domain and if not, if the owner is willing to let us use it. Its similar to the one being used now, but its colorful, extends from part of the Sinai to Damascus; its labeled "Natural Regions of Ancient Palestine"; shows elevations; also of higher quality than the current image (which looks like a bad photocopy, no offense.) LFevas (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On a different note, I just watched this clip about the first western travelers to Palestine - worth a view! http://www.shapell.org/journey.aspx?american-travelers-to-the-holy-land-in-the-19th-centry LFevas (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Consistent poor edit comments from NMMNG

NMMNG, please make your edit comments more constructive. You contest many edits without explaining your rationale adequately. Your last reversion is lazy - all you would need to have done to confirm it was type "philistieim palaistine" into google. See e.g. here [36]. Please self revert before I report you for your consistent aggressive and unconstructive behavior. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the source you used that supports the information you put in the article. I have the source you used as a ref in front of me and it doesn't say what you claim it does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You are behaving like this is a game. Just explain what your issue is with the interpretation, and amend the proposed text as you see fit. Please also read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and explain why you think your reversion was necessary.Oncenawhile (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
My reversion was necessary because what you included in the article was not what the source says. This is not the first time this has happened and this is not the first time you ignore requests to provide quotes and explain your addition to an article, apropos "aggressive and unconstructive". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Correct, we are editors not plagiarisers. Interpreting and summarising is what we do. If you disagree with my interpretation, the appropriate response is first to amend not revert, or at worst to revert with a full explanation. Your edit history shows "reversion without adequate explanation" is your normal modus operandi - this is poor wikiquette which impedes progress. So, are you going to explain your issue properly and propose an amendment? If you need the source, it is wiki linked in Timeline of the name Palestine under external references. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a quote that supports the text you put in the article. The WP:ONUS is on you to do so. So spare me your lecture on poor wikiquette and do what you need to do, ie provide a quote and explanation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The onus is on you to explain your issue. How can I possibly respond when I don't know what you are contesting? The sources is clear, my edit is clear, just explain your issue and I'll respond. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG's request was very clear. He used four basic English language words: (1) Please (2) Provide (3) The (4) Quote. Please discontinue this WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT coupled with ad hominems. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
What am I missing here? The source is available to all with a click of a link. Put you mouse over these words and click the left button. Is that enough to move on with this discussion? I can have it translated in braille if that will help NMMNG explain what he wants me to respond to. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for providing (only the first page) of the source. I only had to ask 3 times, so I guess that's some kind of record.
Now please show me where it says "the terms for biblical Philistia and geographical Palestine have been different since at least the second century BCE" when it quite clearly says in the very first sentence "It is generally accepted that the Greek name Palaistine derives from the land of the Philistines, the Peleshet of the Hebrew Bible", etc. Also, if you could explain how you got to "the biblical term for Philistines in Greek (Philistieim) was different to the contemporary Greek name for the region (Palaistine)" from what he says anywhere in that text, that would be awesome.
It would also be nice if you could explain, considering you have read this source and used it in multiple places in this encyclopedia, why you never bothered to mention his main theory, which is that "Palestine" is actually a Greek wordplay on "Israel". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to send the whole article of Jacobson to anyone who can't see it. Just send me mail. Zerotalk 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, thanks for writing content which I can respond constructively too. It felt like pulling teeth, but we got there in the end.
You are welcome to add Jacobson's main theory. Many scholars do not agree, so you'll need to add balancing views.
Jacobson's LXX reference is not a theory but a fact - in the LXX, the greek word used for Philistia is not the same as the commonly used greek word for Palestine. That required no interpretation by Jacobson. Jacobson makes that clear on a number of occasions. Are you contesting this fact? If not, what do you not agree with in the phrases "the terms for biblical Philistia and geographical Palestine have been different since at least the second century BCE" and "the biblical term for Philistines in Greek (Philistieim) was different to the contemporary Greek name for the region (Palaistine)"?
You are right that Jacobson says "It is generally accepted that the Greek name Palaistine derives from the land of the Philistines, the Peleshet of the Hebrew Bible", and we say the same in twice in Timeline of the name Palestine. You are right that when I copied the LXX sentences from the Timeline article (they have been there for a long time) I should have also brought the previous sentence to contextualise it properly - that was not intentional, just sloppy by me.
Now, to finish this debate, please could you try to focus directly on my question, I will respond as appropriate, and we can find a form of words that we both agree with.
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same source? Nowhere does Jacobson say that Palaistine is "the commonly used greek word for Palestine". In fact, he says "In later Hellenistic documentary sources, the area of the Holy Land is referred to as "Syria and Phoenicia," or simply as "Syria".
Regarding the LLX he says "one might have expected the translators of the Septuagint Pentateuch to have selected that word when mentioning the country of the Philistines unless, of course, there was some ambiguity in the meaning of the Greek word Palaistine by that date". Read that carefully. First of all he's not stating anything as fact (as opposed to your edit in the encyclopedia's neutral voice), and second, he's saying there was ambiguity in the meaning of the Greek word Palaistine, not that it meant something exclusively.
So, once again, neither of the sentences I highlighted above are supported by the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your point, as you don't appear to be disagreeing with the points in my post above and I don't see how the quotes you used logically contradict the text you reverted. Either way, I think there is room for improvement, so please comment on the below proposal which hopefully addresses your issues:

The word Philistia is generally accepted to be a cognate of the word Palestine. However, different terms for biblical Philistia and geographical Palestine have existed since at least the second century BCE. The Greek translators of the LXX, thought to have been completed in 132 BCE, chose "Land of Philistieim" to denote Philistia rather than the term "Palaistine" which had already entered the Greek vocabulary.

I think the language here is more clunky than in the original version, but am prepared to go with it if it works for you. On the other hand, if this doesn't work, please could you try explainging your logic in more detail? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Jacobson quite clearly says that Palaistine was ambiguous and sometimes meant just the coastal area and sometimes the whole territory, and that it wasn't the only term used for this area.
If you don't "fully understand" how the text you added does not correspond to what the source says after I quoted directly from the source (while you just asserted you are right while refusing to actually quote text to support your assertion), perhaps you should pick a less contentious topic area to be editing in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering how long you could last making constructive comments. No surprise there then.
Can I presume you are happy with my proposed redraft, or are you going to provide a redraft of your own?
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not happy with your proposed draft. Jacobson does not say that "The word Philistia is generally accepted to be a cognate of the word Palestine". It may be true that it is (I am not a linguist) but that's not what he says. He also doesn't say "However, different terms for biblical Philistia and geographical Palestine have existed since at least the second century BCE". He does say "However, such an explicit and unambiguous identification of Palestine with the Land of the Philistines is not found prior to Josephus", which is not quite the same thing. He doesn't say anything about "Greek translators" of the Septuagint (is it accepted they were Greek?) but he does say they apparently chose the term they did because "there was some ambiguity in the meaning of the Greek word Palaistine by that date".
So, instead of capturing what Jacobson was saying, which is that before Josephus the term Palaistine sometimes meant just the coast (the Land of the Philistines) and sometimes the whole territory of the Land of Israel (his terminology) which also had other names, what you wrote gives the impression that Palaistine was used exclusively to denote a certain territory (which in another piece of text you added that is not supported by the source, is apparently a "region synonymous with that defined in modern times").
I am not going to provide a redraft. I don't think it would be wise of me to encourage your usual MO of inserting text that doesn't jive with the sources and expect that worse case someone will rewrite it correctly for you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have read, re-read and re-re-read your post, but I simply cannot interpret what specific part of the text you are contesting!
  • You appear to agree with the first sentence
  • You appear to agree that the translators of the LXX were Greek-speakers
  • You appear to agree that at the time of the LXX there were two distinct terms in the Greek vocabulary, one from which we derive English Philistia and one from which we derive English Palestine
You have made a number of comments that Jacobson does not use the same exact words as the proposed text, and then juxtaposed it with unrelated Jacobson quotes. As I said, if you believe Jacobson's central theory is an important addition to this article, then you should add it in. In the meantime, please explain what you are actually disagreeing with in the text above. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you please quote the parts from Jacobson's piece you think support the text you want to put in the article and explain you think they do? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
As I have said, it is the key information in the background facts in his summary and introduction.
Earlier uses - supports (1) Herodotus' usage being synonymous with today's [separate topic you mentioned before]; and (2) supports "which had already entered the Greek vocabulary"
  • "The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in the mid-fifth century b.c., Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt."
  • "The first known occurrence of the Greek word Palaistine is in the Histories of Herodotus, written near the mid-fifth century B.C. Palaistine Syria, or simply Palaistine, is applied to what may be identified as the southern part of Syria, comprising the region between Phoenicia and Egypt. Although some of Herodotus' references to Palestine are compatible with a narrow definition of the coastal strip of the Land of Israel, it is clear that Herodotus does call the "whole land by the name of the coastal strip."
  • "It is believed that Herodotus visited Palestine in the fifth decade of the fifth century B.C."
  • "In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense."
LXX translation - two options available, supports: (1) different terms for biblical Philistia and geographical Palestine have existed since at least the second century BCE, and (2) The Greek translators of the LXX... chose "Land of Philistieim" to denote Philistia rather than the term "Palaistine""
  • "...the translators of the Greek Septuagint version of the Pentateuch chose Philistieim rather than Palaistinoi to describe the Philistines."
  • "In the earlier Septuagint translation of the books of the Pentateuch from Hebrew into Greek, undertaken by Jewish authors and dated to the early third century B.C. at the latest, different terms are used, transliterated from Hebrew. There, the Philistines are called Philistieim (Φυλιστιειμ) and their country the Land of the Philstieim (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ). Bearing in mind that the word Palaistine (Παλαιστίνη) had already entered the Greek vocabulary, one might have expected the translators of the Septuagint Pentateuch to have selected that word when mentioning the country of the Philistines"
  • "Thus, for example, the Septuagint Pentateuch consistently translates the biblical Hebrew term Yam Suf ("Sea of Reeds") as Erythra Thalassa ("Red Sea"), the regular geographical name that was employed by the Greeks."
We have now had 20 posts on this topic over a period of four days - crazy for such a simple debate. Do you think it might be appropriate now to (a) finally explain what exactly you are taking issue with; and (b) propose a draft which solves your issue?
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you seriously cut a quote mid sentence? I'm talking about the second quote in the second part above. You know, where the sentence continues with "...unless, of course, there was some ambiguity in the meaning of the Greek word Palaistine by that date".
I have explained to you what I'm taking issue with. I'll explain again. According to Jacobson, before Josephus it was not obvious that "Palaistine" got its meaning from "Land of the Philistines". He thinks it meant [never mind]. He notes that in the Septuagint they did not use the term Palaistine, which was ambiguous (could have been the coast or the whole area), for "Land of the Philistines", but transliterated from the Hebrew.
Your text makes it seem as if there were two established terms, one for "Land of the Philistines" and one for a "region synonymous with that defined in modern times".
That is simply not what the guy is saying. You can't take fragments of sentences from a source and synthesize your own theory from them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument above is incorrect, as you have not distinguished between the Jacobson article's "thesis" and "background facts". The proposed text only sources Jacobson's "background facts" and is entirely justified in doing so. His thesis presents a possible explanation for the facts he presents, but crucially it does not modify those facts so they can appropriately stand alone.
You appear to have boiled down your disagreement to the suggestion that the text makes it seem as if there were two established terms, one for "Land of the Philistines" and one for a "region synonymous with that defined in modern times". I completely disagree with your assessment - nowhere does it use those words, or even imply them.
So, please either (1) explain how you reached the conclusion that the text implies that these terms were "established", and/or (2) propose a redraft. Thanks in advance.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You are reading into the "background facts" stuff that he just doesn't say. He explains why he thinks the translators chose to transliterate from the Hebrew rather than use the Greek term, which was ambiguous. Where does that appear in your proposed text? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you've reverted back to unconstructive comments. I have already answered that question - I purposefully left out the "why" and focused on the "facts". Now, will you answer my previous post?Oncenawhile (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You are supposed to summarize the source, not cherry pick sentence fragments and state them in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That is only relevant if the context modifies the facts. That is not the case here - the facts can appropriately stand alone. If you want to add Jacobson's theory of "why", you are welcome to do so. Since you have not substantiated a single reason why the text is not entirely valid, I assume you agree that the proposed text is a fair reflection of the source quotes above. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The only fact here is that the translators used the transliterated term "Philistieim". That there was another term used in another place in another time by other Greek speakers and this should have influenced how the Septuagint should have been translated is a theory. Jacobson specifically notes that other scholars think that "prior to Hadrian's dissolution of Judaea after the Bar Kochba rebellion, the term Palestine referred to the narrower geographical area".
You are supposed to summarize the source, not cherry pick sentence fragments and state them in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, deciding what is "fact" and what is "theory" as you go. If you don't like this source's theories, find another one that states the "facts" in a way you like them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you feeling dizzy yet? We have been going round in circles for some time now. You keep focusing your comments on text which exists only in your imagination. Can you PLEASE suggest a redraft. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? "Ambiguous" exits only in my imagination? "Transliterated"? How about "some of Herodotus' references to Palestine are compatible with a narrow definition of the coastal strip"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This conversation is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Please get over yourself and suggest a redraft so we can move on. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the conversation appears to have stalled, I have requested a WP:3O. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Unless I got something very wrong, Oncenawhile attempts to perform improper synthesis of the statements in the source: Jacobson doesn't state that the words Palaistinē and Philistieim had different meanings, he just finds it probable. The different is slight though, so the issue can be solved by changing wording or directly citing the source.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dmitrij, thanks for your input. Does the following text work for you?
The word Philistia is generally accepted to be a cognate of the word Palestine. However, different ancient Greek terms for Philistia (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ, "Land of Philistieim") and Palestine (Παλαιστίνη, "Palaistine") co-existed as early as the second century BCE. The Greek translators of the LXX, thought to have been completed in 132 BCE, chose "Land of Philistieim" to denote Philistia rather than "Palaistine".
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I was lurking in hope of seeing the opinion of No More Mr Nice Guy (as the other side of dispute); still, since Oncenawhile contacted me via talk page to comment on that, it seems I have to state my opinion first. To me the last sentence ('The Greek translators of the LXX, thought to have been completed in 132 BCE, chose "Land of Philistieim" to denote Philistia rather than "Palaistine".') seems to be an emphasis, which is not dictated by the topic. I would trim it leaving a reference to Jacobson right after the rest of the suggested text to avoid implicit judgment which I observe in the sentence I propose to drop. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks Dmitrij. If i understand correctly, you mean the following:
The word Philistia is generally accepted to be a cognate of the word Palestine. However, different ancient Greek terms for Philistia (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ, "Land of Philistieim") and Palestine (Παλαιστίνη, "Palaistine") co-existed as early as the second century BCE.[1]
NMMNG, what is your view?
Oncenawhile (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a couple of problems with the new text. As I mentioned before, the source doesn't say Philistia and Palestine are cognates. The source doesn't say "Land of Philistieim" is a Greek term, it specifically says that Philistieim is a transliteration from Hebrew. The source does say that Palaistine was ambiguous, so saying there were two different Greek terms meaning two different things is incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG, please try to learn from Dmitrij - if you want to progress a discussion you need to do more than just give negative statements. Positive contributions are necessary - e.g. make a clear suggestion for how to change the text, or even better provide a redraft. Negative statements alone are not constructive. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You want to put something in the article that the source just doesn't say. I don't see what kind of positive statement I can make about that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that is simply your incorrect interpretation. We clearly have a communication problem between us, as I am unable to use your comments to move this debate to conclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What about this:
The greek word Palaistinē (Παλαιστίνη, "Palaistine") is generally accepted to be a translation of the Semitic name for the Philistia; however another term – Land of Philistieim (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ, transliteration from Hebrew) – was also used to refer to Philistia.[1]

References

  1. ^ Jacobson, David M. (1999). Weinstein, James M. (ed.). "Palestine and Israel". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (313). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 65–74. ISSN 0003-097X. JSTOR 1357617. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
I see no inaccuracies here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised by "(transliteration of Hebrew Γη των Φυλιστιειμ)". I wouldn't expect Greek text after "transliteration of Hebrew". W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's pretty accurate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Dmitrij, a big thank you from me for mediating this. I am also happy with it, although i think it would be slightly better with some reference to the time we are referring to:
The Greek word Palaistinē (Παλαιστίνη, "Palaistine") is generally accepted to be a translation of the Semitic name for Philistia; however another term – Land of Philistieim (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ, transliteration from Hebrew) – was used in the second century BCE Bible (the Septuagint) to refer to Philistia.[1]
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jacobson, David M. (1999). Weinstein, James M. (ed.). "Palestine and Israel". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (313). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 65–74. ISSN 0003-097X. JSTOR 1357617. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"...was used in the Septuagint, a second century Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, to refer..." would probably be better. Although I still think it's kind of missing the point that Jacobson is making about the ambiguity of the term Palaistine, it's at least accurate as to what he actually said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Synonymous

Thanks again Dmitrij for your help above.

We have one other question outstanding on this section - NMMNG has questioned the use of the word synonymous as it related to Herodotus' usage. Below are some quotes from Jacobson:

  • "The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in the mid-fifth century b.c., Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt."
  • "The first known occurrence of the Greek word Palaistine is in the Histories of Herodotus, written near the mid-fifth century B.C. Palaistine Syria, or simply Palaistine, is applied to what may be identified as the southern part of Syria, comprising the region between Phoenicia and Egypt. Although some of Herodotus' references to Palestine are compatible with a narrow definition of the coastal strip of the Land of Israel, it is clear that Herodotus does call the "whole land by the name of the coastal strip."
  • "It is believed that Herodotus visited Palestine in the fifth decade of the fifth century B.C."
  • "In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense."

I cannot understand NMMNG's issue here, particularly since below he is arguing that "Land of Israel" is synonymous with the Palestine region.

NMMNG, please could you explain, and suggest another form of drafting you are happy with? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained the issue I have here. "Palestine as defined in modern times" is ambiguous and not what the source says. You can't just decide that the source's "the Land of Israel in the wider sense" or "the region between Phoenicia and Egypt" is synonymous with "Palestine as defined in modern times" (whatever that means). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the topic of a dispute. The source says that Herodotus' Palaistine is the "region between Phoenicia and Egypt", No More Mr Nice Guy says the same and I have no reference to the portion article's text that is disputed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the Etymology section that says "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Synonymous means "having a similar meaning". What don't you agree with - that the article doesn't use the same syntax, grammar or font as the underlying source? There is no question at all that the sentence is fully supported by the quotes in the source. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not very difficult to understand. "Palestine as defined in modern times" is ambiguous. Does it include areas east of the Jordan river? Could you explain what you think it means exactly? Same for "the region between Phoenicia and Egypt" and "the Land of Israel in the wider sense" which the source uses. Then we can see if they're synonymous (as in meaning the same or nearly the same thing, not just similar). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) Can you please explain the difference between the phrase "nearly the same" and the word "similar"? You are drawing a distinction between them above. This is important so we can agree that we are both talking about the same thing when using the word synonymous.
(2) If both terms refer to the wider region of Palestine but are both ambiguous as to exact borders (as you correctly suggest above), are they not therefore similar / nearly the same / synonymous?
It seems from your answer that this debate is not about content but about semantics. Again, if you are going to criticize something, couple it with a constructive suggestion - you will find it a much more efficient way of reaching a conclusion. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not a native English speaker, so I may have an interpretation problem due to the possible differences between words "synonym" in English and "синоним" in Russian (my native language), but I'm pretty sure that this word means not just "similar" but "nearly the same, with the differences that generally don't matter"; thus I would discourage using the word synomymous in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hold on to your chairs everyone - my thesaurus says that a synonym for synonymous is similar.
Now, while this debate is fascinating, I suggest we stay on topic. To get around this debate, I suggest we change the sentence to say:
"The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region similar to that defined in modern times was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece"
OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to explain what exactly "the region [...] defined in modern times" means?
This debate is not about semantics, it's about accurately reflecting what the source says. Jacobson says that he thinks that at a certain time, earlier than what other scholars think, the term Palaistine sometimes meant more than just the coastal strip. He illustrates this with terminology from the ancient world and says nothing about modern times. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that until we have a source directly supporting the claim about similarity, we should stick with description of the region given in the source. This opinion is based mainly on WP:SYNTH. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Another source here from the same author makes the connection more explicitly "As early as the Histories of Herodotus, written in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., the term Palaistinê is used to describe not just the geographical area where the Philistines lived, but the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt—in other words, the Land of Israel. Herodotus, who had traveled through the area, would have had firsthand knowledge of the land and its people. Yet he used Palaistinê to refer not to the Land of the Philistines, but to the Land of Israel". NMMNG has been passionately arguing throughout this talk page that the term Palestine today (as defined by this article) is synonymous with the term Land of Israel. So I can't understand how he can possibly disagree in good faith.
Dmitrij, to your comment, I don't think this qualifies as synth, since synth is about combining two arguments. Here there is one argument and one synonym (palestine for land of israel) to make the statement simpler to understand in the context of the wider article. But what qualifies as synth is subjective, so i accept it is not black and white and both our views can be equally valid.
Anyway, how about "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece"
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This one is perfect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I did not say that Land of Israel and Palestine are synonymous. I use synonym for things that are the same or nearly the same, as explained above. Here we are talking about two not particularly well defined (depending on time and usage) geographic regions. They are not synonymous. They do apply to the same general area, like "entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt" or "Southern Levant".
Second, except for the word "clear" which is not in the source any implies prior "unclear" usage, the proposed text is again completely missing Jacobson's point but is at least consistent with what he wrote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_(region)/Archive_12&oldid=1136700386"