This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
The 213 (Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine) ref isn't a true dead link, it can be correct
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"in the Greek form, Παλαςτίνη), it is used by Josephus" Please correct. -- 77.187.59.4 ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a catagory for this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ?
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
For those of you who think “Palestine” was not used in Jewish publications, see the following sample:
--- Chesdovi ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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? Tiamut talk 20:57, 20 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I proposed that Holiness of Palestine be merged with Palestine.
Discuss please!
Cynival Thou Shalt Talk to Me 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
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.
— Ashley Y 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, how about this?
— Ashley Y 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, we should drop that last clause:
— Ashley Y 03:54, 23 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)
There are two problems with this map.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Which map should be at the top of this article? Current options are:
Feel free to add more options. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 06:44, 15 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)
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 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
Options that came up in the discussion (none of which we have actual images for at the moment):
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
* 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll be happy to send the whole article of Jacobson to anyone who can't see it. Just send me mail. Zero talk 08:25, 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)
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)
Since the conversation appears to have stalled, I have requested a WP:3O. Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:23, 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) |
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
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)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]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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:
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
The 213 (Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine) ref isn't a true dead link, it can be correct
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"in the Greek form, Παλαςτίνη), it is used by Josephus" Please correct. -- 77.187.59.4 ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a catagory for this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ?
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
For those of you who think “Palestine” was not used in Jewish publications, see the following sample:
--- Chesdovi ( talk) 12:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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? Tiamut talk 20:57, 20 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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I proposed that Holiness of Palestine be merged with Palestine.
Discuss please!
Cynival Thou Shalt Talk to Me 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
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.
— Ashley Y 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, how about this?
— Ashley Y 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, we should drop that last clause:
— Ashley Y 03:54, 23 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)
There are two problems with this map.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Which map should be at the top of this article? Current options are:
Feel free to add more options. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 06:44, 15 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)
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 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
Options that came up in the discussion (none of which we have actual images for at the moment):
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
* 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll be happy to send the whole article of Jacobson to anyone who can't see it. Just send me mail. Zero talk 08:25, 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)
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)
Since the conversation appears to have stalled, I have requested a WP:3O. Oncenawhile ( talk) 08:23, 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) |
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
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)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]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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:
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)