Jump to content

Talk:Palestine (region): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
a bold proposal - naming scheme for articles
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 14) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
Note: We need to keep this article written from a Neutral Point Of View. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements.
{{Talk header}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=13 March 2015
|action1link=Talk:Palestine (region)/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=651254734


|currentstatus=GA
Previous discussions may be found here:
|topic=places
|dykdate=23 March 2015|dykentry=... that the first clear use of the name "'''Palestine'''" was in the 5th century B.C. by Ancient Greek historian [[Herodotus]]?}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|importance=|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=top}}
}}
{{press|author=Haviv Rettig Gur|title=Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Wikipedia|org=[[The Jerusalem Post]]|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100519111756/https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660|date=16 May 2010}}
{{ARBPIA}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
To see older commentary that was here look in these archives.
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
[[Talk:Palestine/Archive 1]]<br>
|maxarchivesize = 200K
[[Talk:Palestine/Archive 2]]<br>
|counter = 14
[[Talk:Palestine/Archive 3]]<br>
|minthreadsleft = 5
[[Talk:Palestine/Archive 4]]<br>
|algo = old(90d)
[[Talk:Palestine/Archive 5]]<br>
|archive = Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive index |mask=Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}


==Arab League==
== ==


{{ping|Iskandar323}} I think we need to find a better/more modern map; this one gives off mythical vibes to it. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
According to the Arab League's website, "Palestine" is a membor of the [[League of Arab States]]. However, they do not refer to it as either:
#an original member; or,
#a "country" which joined later


:I'm a sucker for a ye olde map, but perhaps there's a less mythical one somewhere. I don't think we want anything too modern either though. This is about historic Palestine. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Rather, they say:
::The map added as lead image a couple of days ago is the worst possible type of map for this article, as it is a Biblical / imaginary map. See [[Cartography of Palestine]] for an explanation of the difference between those maps and the contemporary depictions that the cartography article focuses on.
:"The [[Palestine Liberation Organization]] was admitted in 1976." [http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/league.htm]
::The boundaries of the region of Palestine changed over time, and in all periods had undefined borders on the south and east. The cartography article shows this well. Mandate Palestine was the first version of Palestine with known and clearly delineated eastern and southern borders. The Mandate Palestine borderline is also what defines today’s Palestinians.
::[[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I see I kicked the hornet's nest. That's all well and good. I was always interested in a discussion. That's what [[Talk:Palestine_(region)#Main_image|the discussion above]] was for, but it received little response. The prior image was unclear, had a broken key, and was an obvious issue for the colour blind. That was three strikes. As for the image I replaced it with, I did think there might be a tad too much myth, though the history of Palestine surely reaches back into myth. I do not, by contrast, think that the should be undue emphasis on mandatory Palestine. That may define Palestinians, but it does not define historic Palestine. For much of its history, Palestine was taken to include northwestern Jordan, for instance. Mandatory Palestine is a mere 30-year snapshot out of thousands of years of history, and this is not the page on mandatory Palestine. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I made [[:File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg|the prior image]] back in 2012. Then I built the [[Cartography of Palestine]] article in 2019-20. Agree it’s time for a fresh discussion. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 20:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for taking me to [[Cartography of Palestine]]. The [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1532_map_of_Palestine_by_Jacob_Ziegler.jpg#mw-jump-to-license Jacob Ziegler] map is gorgeous. I actually think something like this, slightly abstract, better reflects how the region of historic Palestine has been somewhat fluid in nature. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Personally I am not a fan of the Ziegler map because, while a milestone in the cartographic history, it doesn’t depict a contemporary period – rather it is a mishmash of various older sources. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachiene_and_Mass_Charte_von_Palaestina_1769.jpg#mw-jump-to-license Bachiene] is also a rather joyous blend of German and Arabic, and also fairly accurate spatially. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm also liking its co-location of names like Esdud and Azotus – it aggregates names across several eras. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agreed.
:::::If we want the purest “classical” definition, the Ptolemy map is the place to go. It is also the only one with a boundary. It therefore bring huge educational value. The downside is that it is in Greek.
:::::In terms of modern maps, Jacotin was the big milestone. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 21:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Bachiene's map is good without the folds, but personally I found the previous map in WP template to be better, namely because it is spatially accurate and serves an exclusively informational purpose in showing just the region; while I find historical maps also have a (distracting) artistic side to it and also gives off a [[Narnia (world)|Narnia]] vibe to the topic. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'd say it's more Tolkien than Narnia, although I think that's a little of a discredit to the map maker, who I'm sure was trying their best with the information available. Incidentally, one issue with the previous map that I didn't mention is that I believe it got the Syria Palaestina boundaries (or those of its successors), slightly wrong. It also ignored the Islamic, including Ottoman Palestine, period, which, while somewhat ill-defined, is obviously a notable period. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I also struggled to properly comprehend the old map. Also, no offense at all to the map maker, it is not about the map as much as it is about the map choice for a WP article, if you know what I mean. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg|thumb|{{legend|border=darkgreen solid|white|Boundaries of the Roman province [[Syria Palaestina]], where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine [[Palaestina Prima]] (later [[Jund Filastin]]) and [[Palaestina Secunda]] (later [[Jund al-Urdunn]]), as well as [[Palaestina Salutaris]] (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)}}
{{legend|border=darkred solid|white|Borders of [[Mandatory Palestine]]}}
{{legend|border=blue dotted 2px|white|Borders between [[Israel]] and the [[Palestinian territories]] ([[West Bank]] and [[Gaza Strip]]) which are claimed by the [[State of Palestine]] as its borders}}]]
{{ping|Iskandar323}} do you think your concerns with the svg map could be addressed with specific improvements?
We could produce a list of proposed changes and then request help from the experts at [[Wikipedia:Graphics Lab]].
[[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


:Potentially. But where are we getting the information from? The sourcing notes on the current image file only appear to yield sources for the mandate period onwards. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
So, how should the article describe this? We could be concise and say this:
::I think we start from scratch on the sourcing. Wikipedia editors' knowledge of this topic has increased very significantly since the map was first created in 2012. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
*The [[League of Arab States]] lists Palestine as a member, but not as a "country". Its seat is held by the [[PLO]].
:::Three questions come in mind and are all related to the pre-modern period since the Mandatory period and current borders will necessarily have to stay:
:::1) Were the three Palaestina Roman provinces ever considered one geographic territory; if not, is it possible for us to combine them and just simply say the three Roman provinces of.., instead of showing each?
:::2) Do we need an exact political boundary or can we use a geographic one similar to the ones used in Ottoman, or more preferably, older Greek maps, instead of the Roman provinces?
:::3) Were there any province in history that had the name Palestine in it over the past 2,000 years, other than Jund Filastin and the Roman provinces (the older the better)? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Makeandtoss}} historians have pieced together the classical provinces using the available fragments, without total clarity on the ever-changing borders - this is as true for Palestine as it is for all classical regions. For Palestine, we list the primary sources at [[Timeline of the name Palestine]] - some give reasonably clear boundaries, such as Herodotus, Pliny, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 20:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Phoenice%2C_Coelesyria%2C_Decapolis%2C_Iudaea%2C_during_the_time_of_Herod_%28Spruner-Menke%2C_Atlas_Antiquus%2C_1865%29.jpg This map] has a very unusual boundary for Syria Palaestina. It's rather curious. Not sure how credible. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::[https://books.google.com/books?lpg=PA15&pg=PA15&id=0x4dvtxyKb0C&output=text Here] is the 1865 book that the map accompanies. See "XXVI. Phoenice, Coelesyria, Decapolis, Iudaea Herodiadarum tempore". It doesn't explain the borders shown, but it is clear throughout that it is building on earlier 19th century scholarship. Those works were chronologically listed by Edward Robinson in 1841, Titus Tobler in 1867 and Reinhold Röhricht in 1890 (see the intro to [[Travelogues of Palestine]]). [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the carving out of Scythopolis is presumably based on something tangible – especially as it is consistent between the Roman Judaea (as a part of Decapolis) and Syria Palaestina (as a part of Arabia Petraea)-era maps. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 04:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okay, interesting. Actually, maybe I overcomplicated this. Maybe there’s an abstract of a general Palestine region borders over the millennia in RS that we can use for the map? Or is it better to have something political and specific like a province? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


: I've stated my problem with the svg map before. Namely, I don't think that the information provided is enough to decode the green lines. That is, one cannot unambiguously label the regions based on that description. For example, is "Syria Palestina" the part inside the solid green lines or the whole region enclosed by any type of green line? On the other hand, I don't think we should start with a biblical myth map that extends even further north than Beirut. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 16:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
::@[[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] @[[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] @[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]]: This has somewhat stalled hasn't it? Anyone have any suggestions on how best to progress? Do we want just a better, possibly less biblical old map, or do we want something bespoke from the graphics people? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It has; I am more in favor of something with the WP template; but as we were discussing, the issue remains on the borders of Palestine prior to the British mandate; the older the reference the better. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 09:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I liked the previous map that Oncenawhile made in 2012 showing the approximate borders of the region from the 1st to the 11th century AD. Its main problem, besides the colors, was that it included [[Palaestina Salutaris]] whose territorial extension goes beyond what the map shows. By excluding Salutris from the map and changing the line colors, this map could be used alongside the map from the Ottoman period in the infobox. I don't think we should use a map from the period before Christ since Palestine as an administrative unit did not yet exist. [[User:Mawer10|Mawer10]] ([[User talk:Mawer10|talk]]) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would be fine with this proposal. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which map is being referred to here? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply|Makeandtoss}} This [[:File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg]]. [[User:Mawer10|Mawer10]] ([[User talk:Mawer10|talk]]) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Onceinawhile}} {{ping|Mawer10}} So basically the removal of the below green dashed line but not the above? I would be inclined to remove both green dashed lines, which would make Palaestina I and II a single unit, and make the map much easier to comprehend. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the big question is what exactly we are trying to speak to with the image. The region of Palestine is a classically broad concept. The modern state of Palestine boundaries are specially something that is not being spoken to here. The mandatory ones are well defined but relatively fleeting in the overall historical arc. The Roman ones bounce around a little but have the pedigree of age and relative longevity on the historical record. In the mix, we are missing the Palestine that the Greek historians such as Herodotus spoke to, as well as what conceptions of Palestine existed in the Islamic period. All of this complexity, and the risk of editorial over-selectively or omission, is one reason why it could be safer to stick with a sourced image. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The image should portray three things: modern Palestine (1967), historic Palestine (1948), and ancient Palestine (whatever period whose borders can be defined, the earlier the better).
::::::::::As previously mentioned it seems that the only definable ancient Palestine is the Roman administrative provinces, in contrast to Herodotus' Palestine for example (unless the rough region is portrayed by some RS).
::::::::::While I agree it is safer to stick with a sourced image, which we have not found so far, I think the proposal to omit Palaestina III is the lesser evil, and we can avoid it being misleading by specifying in the caption that the portrayed region are of Palaestina I and II, and does not include Palaestine III. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Why should it portray the post-1948 or post-1967 Palestinian territories? That isn't actually the subject here is it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 11:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I was referring to pre-1948 and post-1067. Because these are the two most prominent definitions of the Palestine region. Clearly, post-1967 is less relevant but wouldn't hurt to have it. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:I would like to keep the line separating [[Palaestina I]] and [[Palaestina II]] on the map because they later became [[Jund Filastin]] and [[Jund al-Urdunn]] respectively during Islamic rule until the 11th century. But for the sake of clarity of the map, I do not object to deleting the lines. An interesting fact is that the borders of Palestine proposed by the 1916 [[Sykes–Picot Agreement]] is almost identical to the borders of Roman Palestine, which shows its importance. [[User:Mawer10|Mawer10]] ([[User talk:Mawer10|talk]]) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Very interesting, never noticed; although 1916 curiously cut II by half and avoided east of the Jordan river. I am also fine with either option, but now I am much more comfortable supporting deleting the lines between I and II given this piece of information. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I am fine with this. On the question of the early sources that defined historical Palestine - much of it (everything I have found over the years) is quoted on [[Timeline of the name Palestine]].
:::The earliest surviving map in existence is a 700-year-old copy of Ptolemy's map, and no maps or their copies have come down to us from any earlier authors. Before Ptolemy we are reliant on quotes from narrative works, none of which are detailed enough to construct a detailed picture of the borders. Ptolemy, therefore, holds primacy in this question. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Main problem with Ptolemy's map is that it is rough and does not show clearly defined borders, in contrast to the Roman provinces map. What are you suggesting? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


== Historic Palestine ==
==Articles with a section on Palestinian refugees==
Just how many different articles need a section called "Palestinian refugees", all with the same quotes? There's already an article on the subject; we should link to that. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 21:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Historic Palestine is an alt name for the collective history of pre-1948 Palestine in all is vicissitudes and variations that is obviously used for natural disambiguation purposes vis-a-vis the modern Palestinian state (as exemplified in [https://books.google.com/books?id=ecibAAAAQBAJ this Britannica educational reference work]). Is this then perhaps a better name than the current parenthetically disambiguated title? (Also bearing in mind that [[WP:NCDAB]] favours natural disambiguation.) Just throwing this out there informally at this point for input. Thoughts? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Dear Mustafaa,


:Tricky, this and (historical) are a bit troublesome, I mean I get it, but use is likely to lead to argument imo, especially if the pre 48 part (and I guess back to Herodotus) is not spelled out. We have SoP, Mandate and Roman links, maybe should be an Ottoman and such as well? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
O.K.,
::Yes, Ottoman Palestine is a bit of a gap, but for sure on the to-do list. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:While indeed often used in RS, it is less used than the more common name of just "Palestine". Also, this name would become to be used as it is, i.e. changes will be made to all articles linking to this one from [Palestine (region)|'''Palestine'''] to '''[Historic Palestine]''', which would be redundant. But I understand the reasoning behind this proposed move, so maybe we can add Historic Palestine in the opening paragraph or other lede paragraphs instead? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::I've already added it as an alt name. Perhaps that's enough for now. Not convinced on the merits of the move myself either. Might cause search trouble, and get confused with the history page. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


== Old map ==
I will not change what you wrote, even though I believe it could have been written better. But please let me send readers to another version, and don't erase my links.


Please use a more recent map instead of one from 1750 [[User:The letter elemenopy|The letter elemenopy]] ([[User talk:The letter elemenopy|talk]]) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you
:Maybe you are looking for [[State of Palestine|the article about the state]] rather than this article about the region. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 17:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::yea I am [[User:The letter elemenopee|The letter elemenopee]] ([[User talk:The letter elemenopee|talk]]) 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== spelling errors ==
Mike


Hi, I've noticed a few spelling errors in this article. I'm unable to correct them myself due to this page's protection policy so perhaps someone else can help with this:
:Mike, Wikipedia does not have other "versions" of topics. Any content that is appropriate to add&mdash;verifiable and NPOV information&mdash;should be combined into the single article unless it's divisible into another topic (''not'' another perspective). If you don't like what's there, you can't just create an alternate to "send readers to." And if you change what's there, it's always of course subject to being undone or further edited by the wikipedia community if they disagree with the changes, particularly if you just replace everything that has been built up over cumulative edits on a controversial subject with your own "version." [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 7:40 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
<br>Note ii: change "tern" to "term"
<br>Note xx: change "Stale" to "State"
<br>Note xx: remove the full stop/period before "and reserving the right to..."
<br>Note xx: would the wording "and reserves the right to..." work better here?
<br>Thanks everyone! [[User:Sw257|Sw257]] ([[User talk:Sw257|talk]]) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
== "[[:Israel and Palestine]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_Palestine&redirect=no Israel and Palestine]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Israel and Palestine}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:#39A78E;">'''Godsy'''</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:#DAA520;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 07:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)


== Misleading or incomprehensive context in the opening paragraph ==
::No, Postdlf, Wikipedia DOES have other versions of topics. In fact, we keep a COMPLETE set of versions for all topics on our server farm. So Mike can link to an old version if he wants to; that's what they're THERE for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


From the current version of the page:
:::I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He was trying to create a second article on Palestine, not to link to an old version. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 21:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
"In the Hellenistic period, these names were carried over into Greek, appearing in the Histories of Herodotus in 5th century BCE as Palaistine. The Roman Empire conquered the region and in 6 CE established the province known as Judaea"
It would seem, reading this, that Judaea is a name made up by some Roman conqueror, while it's more likely the Romans conquered the region from locals who already refered to their homeland as Judea. Unless we are strictly European centered, in which case only what made it in European maps and history is what counts? [[User:Gezellig~hewiki|Gezellig~hewiki]] ([[User talk:Gezellig~hewiki|talk]]) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think the point that is trying to be made is that the Romans called their province "Judaea", not where the name came from. Maybe say "... established the province they called Judaea"? [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)


== Help needed adding Map that better illuminates terminology of regions under discussion ==
==Claims that pro-Palestinian links must go first==
Pro-Palestinain links should be first, not Pro-Israeli links. Pro-Israeli links first causes page to be biased. [[User:Cellsy|Cellsy]]


[[File:Occupied_Palestinian_Territories.jpg|left|thumb|Map showing Israel and the Palestinian Territories as outlined by the [[Oslo Accords]]. The Jordan River is on the right, and the Mediterranean Sea is on the left.]]
:That's irrational. If your logic was true, then putting pro-Palestinian links would make the article look to be biased towards Palestinians! In that logic, no set could be put first. [[User:RK|RK]] 22:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
This map should replace the satellite image in the modern boundaries section. It is taken from a different page and has explanatory information not in the other maps: it shows the names used elsewhere in context along with the terrain and political regions.


The ones showing the evolutions of the border lack labels, and would be worse for them as they show the change over time. The one showing the population as a dot map is great but needs this map to show how the reality of where people live corresponds to the political debate.
:That's rather silly. People looking for real information will try to read a mix of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli pages regardless of which comes first. And people trying to justify their own ideals will read only what they want to hear. But if we're going to get all-up-ons about it, put the UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased. --[[User:Caliper|Caliper]] 03:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


I tried to replace the satellite image from the modern boundaries section but could not get the formatting to work. I would appreciate someone finding a good spot on the page or advising how to get the text flow to work. [[User:Mrflip|Mrflip]] ([[User talk:Mrflip|talk]]) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:: UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased....now that's funny! [[User:Lance6Wins|Lance6Wins]] 16:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


== "Greater Palestine" redirect ==
==Etymology==
Can anyone comment on the claim that "Philistines" means "invaders" in Hebrew? My Biblical Hebrew dictionary, which supposedly contains every word in the Old Testament, only gives hitpalesh = "roll in dust", not a word likely to be connected! - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 05:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[[Greater Palestine]] redirects here, but where is the merged content? It's not at [[Jordan–Palestine relations]], either, where the AfD decision originally said to merge the content to.
In hebrew the word for "invade" is "palash" (the 3 base letters are p.l.sh), so now you can easily see how "Plishtim" (the way it's pronounced in hebrew) comes from "invaders".
And another comment: In arabic the word for invade is "ghaza" (with the second 'a' pronounced longer), which is very similar to the palestinian city Gaza.


Mergers that factually end up being deletions, against the explicit decision at AfD, because nothing ever ends up being merged at all (the merge target is never even changed in response to the decision), are a loathsome pattern in Wikipedia. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
== Correction required for: Status of territories occupied in the Six-Day War ==
It is more of a small factual error; but I think that Sinai should be included in the list of territories, including its final status today. It could be said that it was returned to Egypt, after Sadat's historic visit to Israel, and the final peace agreement between those two countries.

Just a thought, I thought I would ask before actually changing it.

Thoughts on this?
[[User:Joseph E. Saad|Joseph]] 03:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 22:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Could someone else do it? or has it been done? because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance if someone does it. [[User:Joseph E. Saad|Joseph]] 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

:I changed the odd wording that the status of Sinai was still subject to dispute, since it is not. If someone wanted they could add in the negotiations that led to the return of Taba, etc. - but it is fair to say that this is resolved.
== Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal ==
This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind. I'm looking for a few veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brynosaurus a design proposal for Wiki branches] that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future. The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and call comments, preferably on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brynosaurus my talk page]. Thanks! - [[User:Brynosaurus|Brynosaurus]] 09:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Newly released Churchill documents on Palestine, during World War 2 ==

As time progresses many more newly released secret documents will be made public. There is today newly released documents, that I think may help to balance out this article. Would someone like to take a stab at looking these over? I am not sure how one could look them over on-line, but here is a link to the BBC story anyway, seems fairly factual and NPOV to me see: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3681840.stm UK archives reveal Palestine plan]

Again, because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the constant deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance again if someone is willing to tackle this. [[User:Joseph E. Saad|Joseph]] 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

==Borders of Palestine==

Isn't the following disputed?

:Palestine is the area bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea.

This amounts to a statement that Jordan is not in Palestine. Which is the same as saying that the definition of Palestine has changed, and that Jordan no longer is in it. Did I miss something? When did this happen?

I'd rather see a statement like:
*Palestine, as defined by X since the year N, is the area bordered by... Before that, it also included Jordan; or,
*Historically, Palestine was the are bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Then in year N, the portion roughly east of the Jordan River was designated by X as an Arab territory and by the year N-2 eventually become what is modern Jordan. Now Y and Z refer to the portion roughly west of the Jordna River as Palestine and no longer refer to the entire region by that name. Q and R, however, still call the entire region Palestine.

Or am I wrong? Am I the only person left in the world who still thinks Jordan was or is part of Palestine? And does Israel, the US, the PLO, Jordan and everyone else all happily use "Palestine" for the western portion of the British Mandate and "Jordan" for the eastern (larger) portion? --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 20:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:Palestine was a region, not a country, so exact borders are hard to define. That said, Jordan was definitely part of Palestine when the British captured it in 1917. When the League of Nations ratified the results of the San Remo conference in 1922, the part of Palestine east of the Jordan was re-named "Trans-Jordan" and removed from Palestine (and from Jewish immigration). The Golan Heights were also part of Palestine until 1923, when it was transferred to the French mandate of Syria under a Franco-British agreement. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 20:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative answer. (I was afraid you weren't talking to me any more, after the 'abuse of admin' scandal. I still consider myself on probation. I'm making hand-crafted mahagony napkin holders at Martha Stewart's estate in the Hamptons; tomorrow we'll pot some marigolds to decorate her prison cell ;-)

Maybe we need separate articles on [[Palestine (region)]] and [[Palestine (country)]]? Anyway, see ya Monday... --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


:Of course I'm talking to you Ed. I didn't approve of your actions, and I thought your e-mail on the list was quite unfair, but I still like you. As for Palestine (region) vs. Palestine (country), that wouldn't make sense, as there is no country of Palestine and never has been. There have various adminstrative units designated as "Palestine" over the centuries, but none have been countries. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 21:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::See how many mistakes I'm NOT making, just by using talk first? Hmm. Maybe I'll stay in the Hamptons for the rest of the weekend... --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Palastine ==

It's commonly stated that a nation by the name of "Palastine" does not exist, and has not existed since 1948 before the attempted invasion of the state of Isarel.
:What point are you trying to make? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 14:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Jerusalem - a divided city ==
Jerusalem - a divided city of disputed status... is "divided city" factually accurate at this time? [[User:Lance6Wins|Lance6Wins]] 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== "Pro-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian" is a huge misnomer ==

The links should be listed based on their political orientation, not as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-Palestine." Many people and organizations are both and surely many are neither... There are more than 2 sides to this conflict and we should not create this false binary in an attempt to simplify it.

--------------
I agree. How about "Palestine Soldarity Links" and "Pro-Zionist links" ? I mean, there are pro-settlement links on the list of pro-israeli groups. Meanwhile lots of the groups on the "Pro-Palestine" list also consider themselves to be doing what's in Israel's best interests.

:I agree, originally when we first started adding links, many of the links I put up were vandalized with awful names, even the Birzeit University Guide to Palestinian Websites, the 50th anniversary of the Nakba (Palestinian cataclysm) Website, The Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center of Palestine, etc...

:Some kind writers, corrected them, but the vandalism and disputes continued unabated. They would rename them this terrorist Website, the terrorist cultural centre, etc...You know, I even added the original Israeli Government Main Page - English and the Israeli Defence Forces Main Page - English links thinking it may aid others in seeing both sides of the issue, and no I did not name them badly, just as they appear now.

:I do not care for the new names too too much, but perhaps it is better to have those, than the way they were before. In any case I defer to cooler and wiser heads with better ideas!

:The Palestinian header is ok, I think, not great, but OK and liveable. What about ''''Israeli and Zionist links'''' for the latter, it sounds better than ''''Pro-Zionist and Anti-Palestine'''' links, the -anti-and -pro- sounds too negative? JMHO [[User:Joseph E. Saad|Joseph]] 15:08, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

==Meaning of "Pro-Palestine"==

I'm not sure what "pro-Palestine" is supposed to mean. Jay just said above that Palestine is a region, not a country. Would we use the term ''pro-Palestine'' to mean actions which benefit the '''region called Palestine'''? Like, suppose Bill Gates gave $1,000 to everyone in Palestine... Would Jordanians get any of that money? How about Israelis (Jew, Arab or other)?

Or do you mean '''favoring the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine'''?

This is an English-language encyclopedia, so you have to use words that English speakers can understand. And please read [[definitions of Palestine]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:The link title is "Pro-Palestinian", not "Pro-Palestine", which is quite different. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 03:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, then let me tweak my question, but it's pretty much the same:

Does ''pro-Palestinian'' mean '''benefiting the people who seek the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine?''' or favoring their cause?

Or does it mean '''benefiting all residents of Palestine, including Jordanians, Israeli Arabs, etc.?'''

You see, I'm from a scientific background and I like clear, unambiguous terminology. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 19:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Disambiguation page==

The term '''Palestine''' is used in at least three different contexts:
#the historical region
#a political division of that region
#a prospective state in either of the above

I therefore propose that we stop having an article entitled "Palestine" and that every [[Palestine]] link in Wikipedia either:
* redirect to [[Palestine (disambiguation)]] - if context is not clear; or
* refer to a specific article:
** [[Palestine (geographical region)]]
** [[Palestine (political division)]]
** [[Palestine (nation)]]

In the old days, I would just go ahead and do this '''boldly''', but I fear it would disturb others and detract from cooperative editing. So I'm going to wait a week or so for discussion. [[User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)]] 18:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:13, 1 October 2024

Good articlePalestine (region) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 23, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first clear use of the name "Palestine" was in the 5th century B.C. by Ancient Greek historian Herodotus?



Image

[edit]

@Iskandar323: I think we need to find a better/more modern map; this one gives off mythical vibes to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sucker for a ye olde map, but perhaps there's a less mythical one somewhere. I don't think we want anything too modern either though. This is about historic Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map added as lead image a couple of days ago is the worst possible type of map for this article, as it is a Biblical / imaginary map. See Cartography of Palestine for an explanation of the difference between those maps and the contemporary depictions that the cartography article focuses on.
The boundaries of the region of Palestine changed over time, and in all periods had undefined borders on the south and east. The cartography article shows this well. Mandate Palestine was the first version of Palestine with known and clearly delineated eastern and southern borders. The Mandate Palestine borderline is also what defines today’s Palestinians.
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see I kicked the hornet's nest. That's all well and good. I was always interested in a discussion. That's what the discussion above was for, but it received little response. The prior image was unclear, had a broken key, and was an obvious issue for the colour blind. That was three strikes. As for the image I replaced it with, I did think there might be a tad too much myth, though the history of Palestine surely reaches back into myth. I do not, by contrast, think that the should be undue emphasis on mandatory Palestine. That may define Palestinians, but it does not define historic Palestine. For much of its history, Palestine was taken to include northwestern Jordan, for instance. Mandatory Palestine is a mere 30-year snapshot out of thousands of years of history, and this is not the page on mandatory Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the prior image back in 2012. Then I built the Cartography of Palestine article in 2019-20. Agree it’s time for a fresh discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking me to Cartography of Palestine. The Jacob Ziegler map is gorgeous. I actually think something like this, slightly abstract, better reflects how the region of historic Palestine has been somewhat fluid in nature. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I am not a fan of the Ziegler map because, while a milestone in the cartographic history, it doesn’t depict a contemporary period – rather it is a mishmash of various older sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bachiene is also a rather joyous blend of German and Arabic, and also fairly accurate spatially. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also liking its co-location of names like Esdud and Azotus – it aggregates names across several eras. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
If we want the purest “classical” definition, the Ptolemy map is the place to go. It is also the only one with a boundary. It therefore bring huge educational value. The downside is that it is in Greek.
In terms of modern maps, Jacotin was the big milestone. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bachiene's map is good without the folds, but personally I found the previous map in WP template to be better, namely because it is spatially accurate and serves an exclusively informational purpose in showing just the region; while I find historical maps also have a (distracting) artistic side to it and also gives off a Narnia vibe to the topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's more Tolkien than Narnia, although I think that's a little of a discredit to the map maker, who I'm sure was trying their best with the information available. Incidentally, one issue with the previous map that I didn't mention is that I believe it got the Syria Palaestina boundaries (or those of its successors), slightly wrong. It also ignored the Islamic, including Ottoman Palestine, period, which, while somewhat ill-defined, is obviously a notable period. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also struggled to properly comprehend the old map. Also, no offense at all to the map maker, it is not about the map as much as it is about the map choice for a WP article, if you know what I mean. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Boundaries of the Roman province Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)
  Borders of Mandatory Palestine
  Borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) which are claimed by the State of Palestine as its borders

@Iskandar323: do you think your concerns with the svg map could be addressed with specific improvements? We could produce a list of proposed changes and then request help from the experts at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. But where are we getting the information from? The sourcing notes on the current image file only appear to yield sources for the mandate period onwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we start from scratch on the sourcing. Wikipedia editors' knowledge of this topic has increased very significantly since the map was first created in 2012. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions come in mind and are all related to the pre-modern period since the Mandatory period and current borders will necessarily have to stay:
1) Were the three Palaestina Roman provinces ever considered one geographic territory; if not, is it possible for us to combine them and just simply say the three Roman provinces of.., instead of showing each?
2) Do we need an exact political boundary or can we use a geographic one similar to the ones used in Ottoman, or more preferably, older Greek maps, instead of the Roman provinces?
3) Were there any province in history that had the name Palestine in it over the past 2,000 years, other than Jund Filastin and the Roman provinces (the older the better)? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: historians have pieced together the classical provinces using the available fragments, without total clarity on the ever-changing borders - this is as true for Palestine as it is for all classical regions. For Palestine, we list the primary sources at Timeline of the name Palestine - some give reasonably clear boundaries, such as Herodotus, Pliny, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map has a very unusual boundary for Syria Palaestina. It's rather curious. Not sure how credible. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the 1865 book that the map accompanies. See "XXVI. Phoenice, Coelesyria, Decapolis, Iudaea Herodiadarum tempore". It doesn't explain the borders shown, but it is clear throughout that it is building on earlier 19th century scholarship. Those works were chronologically listed by Edward Robinson in 1841, Titus Tobler in 1867 and Reinhold Röhricht in 1890 (see the intro to Travelogues of Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the carving out of Scythopolis is presumably based on something tangible – especially as it is consistent between the Roman Judaea (as a part of Decapolis) and Syria Palaestina (as a part of Arabia Petraea)-era maps. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, interesting. Actually, maybe I overcomplicated this. Maybe there’s an abstract of a general Palestine region borders over the millennia in RS that we can use for the map? Or is it better to have something political and specific like a province? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my problem with the svg map before. Namely, I don't think that the information provided is enough to decode the green lines. That is, one cannot unambiguously label the regions based on that description. For example, is "Syria Palestina" the part inside the solid green lines or the whole region enclosed by any type of green line? On the other hand, I don't think we should start with a biblical myth map that extends even further north than Beirut. Zerotalk 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss @Onceinawhile @Zero0000: This has somewhat stalled hasn't it? Anyone have any suggestions on how best to progress? Do we want just a better, possibly less biblical old map, or do we want something bespoke from the graphics people? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has; I am more in favor of something with the WP template; but as we were discussing, the issue remains on the borders of Palestine prior to the British mandate; the older the reference the better. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the previous map that Oncenawhile made in 2012 showing the approximate borders of the region from the 1st to the 11th century AD. Its main problem, besides the colors, was that it included Palaestina Salutaris whose territorial extension goes beyond what the map shows. By excluding Salutris from the map and changing the line colors, this map could be used alongside the map from the Ottoman period in the infobox. I don't think we should use a map from the period before Christ since Palestine as an administrative unit did not yet exist. Mawer10 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with this proposal. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which map is being referred to here? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: This File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg. Mawer10 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: @Mawer10: So basically the removal of the below green dashed line but not the above? I would be inclined to remove both green dashed lines, which would make Palaestina I and II a single unit, and make the map much easier to comprehend. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the big question is what exactly we are trying to speak to with the image. The region of Palestine is a classically broad concept. The modern state of Palestine boundaries are specially something that is not being spoken to here. The mandatory ones are well defined but relatively fleeting in the overall historical arc. The Roman ones bounce around a little but have the pedigree of age and relative longevity on the historical record. In the mix, we are missing the Palestine that the Greek historians such as Herodotus spoke to, as well as what conceptions of Palestine existed in the Islamic period. All of this complexity, and the risk of editorial over-selectively or omission, is one reason why it could be safer to stick with a sourced image. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image should portray three things: modern Palestine (1967), historic Palestine (1948), and ancient Palestine (whatever period whose borders can be defined, the earlier the better).
As previously mentioned it seems that the only definable ancient Palestine is the Roman administrative provinces, in contrast to Herodotus' Palestine for example (unless the rough region is portrayed by some RS).
While I agree it is safer to stick with a sourced image, which we have not found so far, I think the proposal to omit Palaestina III is the lesser evil, and we can avoid it being misleading by specifying in the caption that the portrayed region are of Palaestina I and II, and does not include Palaestine III. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it portray the post-1948 or post-1967 Palestinian territories? That isn't actually the subject here is it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to pre-1948 and post-1067. Because these are the two most prominent definitions of the Palestine region. Clearly, post-1967 is less relevant but wouldn't hurt to have it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep the line separating Palaestina I and Palaestina II on the map because they later became Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdunn respectively during Islamic rule until the 11th century. But for the sake of clarity of the map, I do not object to deleting the lines. An interesting fact is that the borders of Palestine proposed by the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement is almost identical to the borders of Roman Palestine, which shows its importance. Mawer10 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, never noticed; although 1916 curiously cut II by half and avoided east of the Jordan river. I am also fine with either option, but now I am much more comfortable supporting deleting the lines between I and II given this piece of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this. On the question of the early sources that defined historical Palestine - much of it (everything I have found over the years) is quoted on Timeline of the name Palestine.
The earliest surviving map in existence is a 700-year-old copy of Ptolemy's map, and no maps or their copies have come down to us from any earlier authors. Before Ptolemy we are reliant on quotes from narrative works, none of which are detailed enough to construct a detailed picture of the borders. Ptolemy, therefore, holds primacy in this question. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem with Ptolemy's map is that it is rough and does not show clearly defined borders, in contrast to the Roman provinces map. What are you suggesting? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Palestine

[edit]

Historic Palestine is an alt name for the collective history of pre-1948 Palestine in all is vicissitudes and variations that is obviously used for natural disambiguation purposes vis-a-vis the modern Palestinian state (as exemplified in this Britannica educational reference work). Is this then perhaps a better name than the current parenthetically disambiguated title? (Also bearing in mind that WP:NCDAB favours natural disambiguation.) Just throwing this out there informally at this point for input. Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, this and (historical) are a bit troublesome, I mean I get it, but use is likely to lead to argument imo, especially if the pre 48 part (and I guess back to Herodotus) is not spelled out. We have SoP, Mandate and Roman links, maybe should be an Ottoman and such as well? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ottoman Palestine is a bit of a gap, but for sure on the to-do list. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While indeed often used in RS, it is less used than the more common name of just "Palestine". Also, this name would become to be used as it is, i.e. changes will be made to all articles linking to this one from [Palestine (region)|Palestine] to [Historic Palestine], which would be redundant. But I understand the reasoning behind this proposed move, so maybe we can add Historic Palestine in the opening paragraph or other lede paragraphs instead? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added it as an alt name. Perhaps that's enough for now. Not convinced on the merits of the move myself either. Might cause search trouble, and get confused with the history page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old map

[edit]

Please use a more recent map instead of one from 1750 The letter elemenopy (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking for the article about the state rather than this article about the region. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yea I am The letter elemenopee (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spelling errors

[edit]

Hi, I've noticed a few spelling errors in this article. I'm unable to correct them myself due to this page's protection policy so perhaps someone else can help with this:
Note ii: change "tern" to "term"
Note xx: change "Stale" to "State"
Note xx: remove the full stop/period before "and reserving the right to..."
Note xx: would the wording "and reserves the right to..." work better here?
Thanks everyone! Sw257 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Israel and Palestine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Israel and Palestine until a consensus is reached. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading or incomprehensive context in the opening paragraph

[edit]

From the current version of the page: "In the Hellenistic period, these names were carried over into Greek, appearing in the Histories of Herodotus in 5th century BCE as Palaistine. The Roman Empire conquered the region and in 6 CE established the province known as Judaea" It would seem, reading this, that Judaea is a name made up by some Roman conqueror, while it's more likely the Romans conquered the region from locals who already refered to their homeland as Judea. Unless we are strictly European centered, in which case only what made it in European maps and history is what counts? Gezellig~hewiki (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that is trying to be made is that the Romans called their province "Judaea", not where the name came from. Maybe say "... established the province they called Judaea"? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed adding Map that better illuminates terminology of regions under discussion

[edit]
Map showing Israel and the Palestinian Territories as outlined by the Oslo Accords. The Jordan River is on the right, and the Mediterranean Sea is on the left.

This map should replace the satellite image in the modern boundaries section. It is taken from a different page and has explanatory information not in the other maps: it shows the names used elsewhere in context along with the terrain and political regions.

The ones showing the evolutions of the border lack labels, and would be worse for them as they show the change over time. The one showing the population as a dot map is great but needs this map to show how the reality of where people live corresponds to the political debate.

I tried to replace the satellite image from the modern boundaries section but could not get the formatting to work. I would appreciate someone finding a good spot on the page or advising how to get the text flow to work. Mrflip (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater Palestine" redirect

[edit]

Greater Palestine redirects here, but where is the merged content? It's not at Jordan–Palestine relations, either, where the AfD decision originally said to merge the content to.

Mergers that factually end up being deletions, against the explicit decision at AfD, because nothing ever ends up being merged at all (the merge target is never even changed in response to the decision), are a loathsome pattern in Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]