Talk:Palestine

I agree

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

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

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

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

Thats just not true. Its a very resent propaganda statement, its invented in the 21-century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.241.33 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  "Propaganda?"  It is a statement of fact. Look at any map showing the British Mandate of Palestine and the formation of the State of Jordan.

First sentence

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

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

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

Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 20:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The order of the sentence was better before. Just change "was" to "is" and that's it. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi both, I agree too, but think another tweak needs to made to the proposal. From memory it was written the was it was to try to stop the incessant cycle of pointless debate about what the "real name" of the region is today. To keep it balanced we shouldn't forget that since 1948 the name is only ever used to refer to the entire wider region by (1) people talking about pre-1948 history; or (2) Palestinian nationalists. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we swap it round to something like:

Palestine is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands. It is primarily used to refer to the region during time periods between 450 BC and 1948 AD.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first sentence in your proposal Oncenawhile is an improvement. I still have problems with the second. I'm thinking of the use of the word Palestine by archaeologists, botanists and hydrologists, for example. (See Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Category:Flora of Palestine for wiki examples and sources). This use is not historical, its contemporary and it is used to discuss contemporary phenomena as well. And the writers using it are not Palestinian nationalists. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, I know what you mean, but in common English usage the word Palestine (and the word Israel) has been a politically charged word since 1948, and since then it has become rare to use it to describe the region "today".

For example, no journalist or modern geographer would use the word in this way to refer to the region today. All the academic disciplines you mention refer to the past - e.g. botany refers to plants which originated in the region.

I agree my proposal is not perfect. Can you think of a better way to explain this nuance to people? It is a reality that you and I know to be true (even if we don't agree), but it is difficult to put in to words. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of reliable secondary sources making such statements, I propose using your first sentence and foregoing use of the second. The second paragraph of the lead explains the boundary changes and current situation. And the etymology and history sections cover when the term was used and how. I don't think we can make conclusions about how frequent use of the term is now compared to the pre-1948 period. In absolute terms, its probably used more today than ever before. :) Tiamut^talk 19:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me with the RS point - there must be RSes out there which discuss this, but i can't find them. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

---

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

I don't think so - the Assyrians used this term to refer to the entire region between Syria and Egypt, and so did the Greeks of the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods. PiCo (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

okay, but should this be in the lead? above, i though we had agreement to omit the sentence with dates and change the first as suggested by Oncenawhile above. Tiamut^talk 17:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Up to you - I don't follow this page and just stumbled across it. Plus I've seen AnonMoos around and respect his knowledge - it's just this once that I suspect he might be mistaken. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

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

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

Strange article

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

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

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

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

Inconsistent Epochs

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

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

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

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

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

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

A. You dont appear to have read the History section of the article, which says that the people who controlled the land, over time, include Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Ancient Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, ... B. From Time Immemorial does not come close to being a reliable source. nableezy - 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A. MarkEaston, you don't appear to be aware of the consensus of Wikipedia - established over many years of Socratic and democratic debate and dialogue - that no Zionist writers or academics can be considered reliable sources. Especially one that has been so aptly criticized and debunked by his eminence, Professor Norman Finkelstein. HaHagana1948 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Map

There are two problems with this map.

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

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

The map is not "highly POV". The other map is more POV as it shows Palestine as the region on both sides of the river Jordan, a minority POV. I could agree with changing the map, but the other map is out of the question. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called "Historical region of Palestine (as defined by Palestinian Nationalism) showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders". That's not highly POV?

And are you seriously arguing that a map showing the area as described by Arab cartographers is a minority POV? Does anyone dispute this is how it was described at the time? It certainly covers a longer timeframe than the current, "as described by Palestinian Nationalism" map does. Anyway, feel free to suggest another map. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1. The file title could be changed to "Historical region of Palestine showing Israel's 1948 and 1967 borders". Then that problem would go away. So no, it's not "highly POV".

2. The Arab map does represent a minority POV. The minority POV is that Palestine is the region on both sides of the Jordan.

3. A better map would be a map that shows Palestine as the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, with fuzzy northern and southern borders. Preferably, it should be a bit more zoomed out than the Mandate map. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The file name accurately describes what the map is. Changing it won't change the map. There should either be a map of Palestine as referenced today (which would probably be the West Bank and Gaza, as this is likely the majority POV), or a non-politically charged historic map. If you don't like the one I used, we can use one from another time in history. I just restored the map that was there before this political map replaced it. By the way, the fact that at the time the map I restored was drawn Palestine referred to both sides of the river is not a minority POV by any stretch of the imagination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Frederico. From my perspective, the most important point here is clarity for the reader - the current map gives that. The map provided by NMMNG is very hard to read, and shows a minority view. However, NMMNG's underlying point is reasonable since his view is "minority" but not "fringe". So I would be open to a map which shows dotted lines for the maximum extent of Palestine as well. But it must remain simple and easy to read. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The current map gives clarity to the reader if you want him to think that "Palestine" equals "British Mandate Palestine, 1922-1948". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG, you don't agree with the claim that "the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river" is the most common definition of Palestine as a historical region? --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on the era being discussed. "Historic Palestine" in the nationalist sense refers to Palestine as defined after the British removed Transjordan from the Palestine Mandate in 1922. Prior to that, Palestine often (but not always) included areas east of the Jordan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Interesting idea, but obviously damaging to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's more damaging than leading the reader to believe that Palestine means "British Mandate Palestine". That map could go in the section that talks about the Mandate. The onus is on you to explain why it should be at the top of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Because that definition is by FAR the most common definition of the term. You cannot seriously be disputing that? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NNMG the map is highly POV and should be moved to the Mandate section--Shrike (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you both to prove your view then. What do you believe the most common geographic definition of the Palestine region is? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am disputing that. That map is what is called "historic Palestine", usually by people who support Palestinian nationalism. Not only is it POV to put it at the top of the article, it is also inaccurately described as "Palestine" rather than what it really is, which is "British Mandate Palestine".

You should re-read WP:ONUS. It says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (bold in the original). You're the one who added and is restoring the material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious that the map that is in dispute here is not the correct map to show our readers as the first image of the article. This article deals with Palestine from ancient times to modern times. The lead sentence in this article states: "Palestine (...) is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands". furthermore, the disambiguation page states first and foremost: "Palestine is a geographical and cultural region in the Middle East, today comprising primarily Israel and the Palestinian territories". On top of that there is the separate article British Mandate for Palestine. Given this, there is no way to justify insisting on a map of the Mandate area as the main image (ie. the first image our readers see). this does not even take into account that the image is not visually very appealing and yes, visual appeal is a great tool to keep holding on to readers after they first see a page.

There are other maps that could be inserted here that keep the focus on the area between the river Jordan and the sea to satisfy people who want to pretend the rest was never part of Palestine and at the same time give more information to the reader than the present map. this and this come to mind (I didn't check the whole article to see if these are already there but there are other alternatives too). Neither of these show defined borders with any meaning today. finally, this image might do very nicely as well. It is visually more appealing and the borders drawn on it are subtle and do not attract undue attention, unlike the present map. Unless I see substantive objections I propose to change the lead image with one of these after the coming weekend.

In closing, it is unfortunate to see how an editor, (NMMNG) who contributes in good faith and has excellent points to argue his side of the story, gets dismissed so easily. --Kalsermar (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederico1234 and Oncenawhile are quite right. The map is clear, simple and completely correct. It outlines what the borders of Palestine were ever since 1922. Paul K. (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be true, but it is not appropriate to place it in the lead, which should be representative of more than the last ninety years or so of several thousand years of history covered by the article (see WP:Undue). -- Chefallen (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As per my suggestion and absent any objections I picked the satellite image as the lead image of the article. Feel free to discuss other options but relying on an image that puts too much emphasis on any one historical period is misleading in my opinion in an article that covers all of Palestine throughout known history.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

This image was recently re added to the article: [1]. It can not stay in the article as it shows inaccurate boundaries for Israel, it shows the GH as if it was part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. This annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights was, of course, never recognized internationally. At the same time we should realize that Israels annexation of territory in 1949 was never recognized internationally either. The map gives the borders of Israel as perceived by Israel. Maybe we can solve this by changing the caption under the image. Now it says: "The borders shown are those of the modern nation states in the region as they existed in 2003." Maybe it could be something like "The borders shown are the current borders as they exist in the view of Israel"? (Suggestions for a better wording welcome.) Paul K. (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would we have a map showing how Israel perceives its borders in this article which is about Palestine? The only thing we have to do here is to remove the inaccurate image and replace it with any image that actually is about Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Israel within the 1967 lines is recognized as such by most states, with the exception of maybe the area around Jerusalem. This includes agreements signed by the PLO.

Feel free to add the border at the Golan if that bothers you, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ridiculous. Of course the Golan Heights are part of Israel as that country controls the area as an integral part of the country. And of course no one else recognizes this. The latter is of no consequence however. We represent the facts on the ground and in reality, not the ideal situation everyone wants to see. Do we omit maps of the Second World War that show Austria as part of Germany? No, of course not. it is the facts we give, not anyone's ideal or perceptions. This map and its caption is fine. --Kalsermar (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The "facts on the ground and in reality" is that is not part of Israel. Israel believes that and no one else, we can not follow the view of Israel in this article and disregard everyone else, reality. So this map:[2] is a clear npov violation and must be removed from the article, this article is also about Palestine, not about how Israel incorrectly believes its own country looks like. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree there. The fact that no one recognizes it does not mean it is not a fact in reality. When the Taliban was in control of Afghanistan no country other than Pakistan and the UAE I believe recognized that government. I do not recall Wikipedia stating at the time that Afghanistan did not have a government or head of government. Do not confuse international diplomatic recognition with the facts on the ground. Besides, it is not up to Wikipedia to favor one's interpretation over another's. Neutrality dictates that we present the facts as they are and explain their circumstances, ie non-recognition.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that Israel isn't occupying it, but this doesn't mean that "its Israel". These are two separate things. Your view of what "fact in reality" and "facts on the ground." is, is not shared by the international community. So the satellite map with inaccurate borders shouldn't be used here or any other article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A - I don't see such map in World War II. The one map that IS there just shows as one entity the "German Reich, allies and occupied zones". B - Please read [[Anschluss]] to see that Austria is a bad example. (The Austrian Nazi Party took power in Austria, then transferred said power to Germany, which was then confirmed this to be the people's choice --- yes, it was and is suspected - but never proven - that the referendum was strongly rigged.) _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of you contribution here as it does nothing to further this particular article. I do not recall anyone saying that there is such a map on any particular article. I do see someone illustrating a point with an example. Discussing the particulars of Austria in 1938 is outside the scope of this talk page. Having said that, it is interesting to note that the one map that you are referring to clearly mentions just two words, "German Empire", to show that entity within contiguous borders including such territories as Austria and Luxembourg. I highly doubt that this was an internationally recognized situation at the time! I'm afraid you might merely be looking at the key of the map and not the map itself.

To get back to the issue at hand though, given the situation on the ground, are you denying that at the present time Israel is in sovereign, albeit internationally not recognized, control of the Golan heights and that therefore the border of Israel, again, not internationally recognized, encompasses that territory? To state, as one editor here suggests, that these borders "exist in the view of Israel" is preposterous. these borders exist today. You may not like that fact and most people may not like that fact but that does not make it any less of a fact in reality.--Kalsermar (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

A "compromise" is something you make with other people, not with yourself inside you head. A "proposal" is customarily put on the talk page where discussion is ongoing, not edit warred into the article. Several people have objected to the British Mandate map being at the top of the article, as you are well aware. It's not a "separate topic". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, did you say edit-warred? You and Kalsermar removed the status-quo map without consensus (see above - it was 3 for status quo vs your 2 against). The original green map (a) is much clearer than the satellite image which is difficult for a reader to interpret; (b) was stable for a long period of time before Kalsermar changed it; and (c) is representative of by far the most common definition of the region (and yes, that happens to be synonymous with the Mandate borders). In addition, the definition of the region is relevant to many fields, including the definition by which the Palestinian people self-identify. I am sure you are aware that all Palestinian people self identify Palestine with the Mandate borders.

Having said all of that, I am not keen to participate in your edit war, so proposed a compromise - frankly I think the side by side looks quite good. Wikipedia is about consensus, not about fighting, so aggressive reversions of obvious compromise solutions are anathema to what we are trying to achieve here. I am unable to stop your continual aggressive behaviour, so I await your response with baited breath. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I count Frederico1234, Paul K., and you who think the Mandate map belongs at the top of the article, and Shrike, Kalsermar, Chefallen, and myself who object. So I'm not sure where you got that 3:2 from. I disagree that the green map is much clearer. That it was in a certain place in the article for a while doesn't mean it should stay there forever. Please source your claims that the green map is "representative of by far the most common definition of the region" or that "all Palestinian people self identify Palestine with the Mandate borders".

I'm glad you understand wikipedia is about consensus. It would be quite difficult for you to argue you thought your edit had consensus considering you dropped out of the discussion and returned just to edit war the map back into the top of the article, which I notice is an MO you use quite often.

By the way, while we have you here discussing, could you please answer some of the questions presented to you in the section below? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's go one by one - delighted to discuss the below in due course. Re above, your suggestion of a tactical "MO" is silly (and does not WP:AGF) - are we not allowed breaks over the holidays?! There is no time limit in wikipedia, as you know. To your questions - the self identification point is pretty simple - just look at the flags used by some of the PNA political parties: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine / Palestinian Popular Struggle Front / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. I have never seen any other definition used by Palestinians to refer to the region - have you? Frankly it's common sense - the Palestinian identity was forged during the time of the Mandate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed you violated 1RR. Please self revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I didn't realise. Which edit are you referring to? Not on this page - it's been 2 days since my last edit? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. You did indeed wait a day before edit warring a map several people said should not be at the top of the page, back to the top of the page. My bad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, the green map represents the situation in one particular historical period with modern borders. this article deals with Palestine in all its incarnations and throughout history. When there is clearly opposition to a particular image as the lead image in an article is it not better to find an alternative. the image can stay in the article for all I care, it is just wholly inappropriate as the lead image, ie the first thing most readers see. (Not to mention that the green map is visually unappealing and totally unimaginative!)--Kalsermar (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kalsermar, thanks for your post. I continue to disagree, as do others, but I respect your position. Perhaps all involved editors should set out the arguments on both sides, and if we can't convince each other then we can try to draw a wider group of editors to comment. In the meantime, i have reverted the map to the statusquo (prior to NMMNG's first attempt to change the map in late October) and I strongly request that the edit war is stopped to allow the conversation to take place without distraction and bickering. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The green map has not been at the top of the article for over a month before you started edit warring it back in. That's the status quo. You can continue to filibuster when I restore the status quo shortly. You actually removed the satellite map this time as well. Classy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"synonymous"

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

I recommend reading the articles here Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine#External_references - one of them is by Jacobson. You'll learn a lot. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Jacobson article is what I requested someone send me, if possible. I don't have JSTOR access. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I see you're the person who added the text to this (and other) articles. Can you please provide the requested quotes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears the quotes are not forthcoming, I'm going to tag this as dubious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The word "synonymous" is not great here, but the basic sense is certainly supported by the Jacobson source. Unless there are collateral sources that say otherwise, I would "roughly the same as...".--FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What the Jacobson source says is that this is the first recorded time the term "Palestine" is used to refer to more than the coast, or specifically "By the fifth century B.C. the term Palaistine was being used to denote the entire area of the Land of Israel, the traditional area assigned to the 12 sons of Jacob, rather than only the Land of the Philistines or the coastal strip of the Holy Land."

No mention of "modern times" and in fact the source uses traditional Jewish terminology which Oncenawhile took it upon himself to replace with his personal interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think is can be reasonably disputed that this corresponds roughly to the area defined in modern times, though. Do you disagree? --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Modern times" is ambiguous. Are we talking pre 1922 or post? Pre 1948 or post? If you read the above section, you'd see that is not something that's in agreement here. But that doesn't matter because the source doesn't say or even allude to modern times, so any such interpretation of the source is WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It don't think "modern times" is ambiguous. It is inexact, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it has much to do with 1922 or 1948. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, not that it really matters since changing "the entire area of the Land of Israel, the traditional area assigned to the 12 sons of Jacob" to "modern times" is unacceptable, but "Palestine" in normal usage pre-1922 included areas East of the Jordan River, while after it didn't. We're talking post 1922 of an area less than half the size it was before. I'm not saying the term "modern times" is ambiguous, I'm saying that "the region...[as] defined in modern times" is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

New Information!

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

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

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

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

Emerging economy

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

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

Discuss Merging Proposal

I proposed that Holiness of Palestine be merged with Palestine.

Discuss please!

Cynival^{Thou Shalt Talk to Me 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)}

Agree, albeit it needs to be more balanced. Jerusalem#Religious_significance is a good precedent. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew and map

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

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

NMNG, there are clear objections/arguments above to the non neutral satellite map, why did you re ad it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the only one who objects specifically to the satellite map is you, you never said anything when Kalsermar was asking if anyone has objections to it, and your objection can be easily solved by you adding the line of the border for the Golan. Am I missing something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are missing something. There are other editors above, including myself, who have objected to the satellite map. It's common sense, but WP:IRELEV confirms the point - "A map of Moldova should show its frontiers with Romania and Ukraine, so people may know where the country is located in relation to its neighbors." The map you have been trying to edit war in to the article does not provide clear borders of Palestine, whereas the original map you have been trying to remove for almost three months is very clear.

The reality of the situation here is that we could solve this easily by discussion. If you took the time to explain exactly what you believe an "ideal" map for this article would show, then we might be able to make some progress here - perhaps one of us will take the time to make up the new map. Neither you, nor any of the other editors here could possibly believe that your satellite map is the perfect solution. But your editing style is simply too aggressive and too unprofessional - all I ever see is fighting rather than constructive discussion. Unless you are prepared to start behaving more professionally, you will just continue wasting more and more of your time, and going round in circles.

In order for us to move forward, please drop this "statusquo" tactic that you have been pushing - the statusquo map was stable for a long period of time before this recent spate of edits, and the new map has simply not gained consensus (despite its 20 day stability over the international holiday period [not "over a month" as you disingenuously claimed above!]). Let's please just calm down, stop the edit war, and start talking. My open question to you is underlined above. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

We did solve this by discussion. Then you came back and started edit warring. I don't know what an "ideal" map is. I do know that a POV map doesn't belong at the top of the article when the majority of editors who participated in the discussion objected to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In order for us to move forward, please drop this "statusquo" tactic that you have been pushing - the statusquo map was stable for weeks before you came here and started edit warring your POV map back into the article despite several editors objecting in a discussion you dropped out of.

How about you calm down, stop pushing a map most editors who participated in the discussion objected to and then we can talk. Otherwise I'm going to an admin board with this. Keep in mind the WP:ONUS is on you to explain why you want to restore this POV map to the top of the article when there's a perfectly good section is belongs in.

By the way, I find it hilarious that you are calling me aggressive and unprofessional when it's you who is edit warring a map a majority of editors objected to, into the article in violation of both ONUS and NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew translation / transliteration

I don't have a very strong view about the map, but translating Palestine as פלסטין is a long overdue application of NPOV. ארץ־ישראל is not a translation, it is a politically loaded alternative. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. "פלסטין" is the name of the political entity, not the region. The region has always been called "ארץ-ישראל", and if anything it was (rarely) "פלסטינה". On what basis do you make your statement? Do you speak Hebrew? Do you have any sources?

You also restored the incorrect description of the map. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"ארץ-ישראל" is absolutly NOT the hebrew world for the english "Palestine", otherwise what is the hebrew word for the english "Land of Israel"? please don't mix politics with languages, at the best we can say that "ארץ-ישראל" is a point of view for what should be the name of a region, but here in the article, it's not a matter of what is the region is called in hebrew. No, it's as simple as, in Languages Sience what is the hebrew word for the english "Palestine" and the correct answer is "פלסטין" or "פלסטינה" if you want. Pkhetan (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the purpose of other languages in the first sentence of the lead. It's not supposed to be a translation of the English name, it's supposed to be the name in another language, if it differs from the English. ארץ-ישראל is undoubtedly the Hebrew name for the region. It's not a "a point of view for what should be the name of a region". That's ridiculous. פלסטין is the name for a political entity (not to mention very recent). You're the one who's trying to mix politics with language. Even the official Hebrew name of the British Mandate was "פלסטינה (ארץ-ישראל)ת" (ignore the last ת it's just there to get the parenthesis to format properly). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"פלסטין" pilastin (Palestine) is where the adjective "פלשתינאי" pilastinai (palestinian) come from (or maybe you will tell that the translation of "palestinian" in hebrew is "ישראלי" Yisra'eli !!!). I'm not talking politics here; "Palestine" is not "the name for a political entity", the political entity of Palestine is only one of the uses for the word "Palestine". Land of Israel "ארץ-ישראל" Eretz-Yisra'el is the religious (in Judaism) name and/or biblical name of a land that had been given by a god to the sons of Israel; so it's totaly in onther context than this page (and there is already an independent page for that context here: Land of Isarel ארץ-ישראל). If you are not mixing politics with languages, then at best you are mixing religions with languages. The Hebrew name should be removed from this page (like what we have done with the map) until an agreement is concluded by discussion. Pkhetan (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, no, פלסטניאי comes from פלסטינה (also, it's not pilastinai it's palestiani and פלסטין is palestin not pilastin). That's a somewhat archaic usage as פלסטיני is what most Hebrew speaking Palestinians would use nowadays, as in someone from פלסטין, which I challenge you to show usage from before say, the mid 1960s (and more likely even the 1980s, since, like I said above, this is political/nationalist usage). Palestine as in the region is ארץ-ישראל or פלסטינה in Hebrew. Palestine as in the political entity is פלסטין. This is the article about the region. פלסטינה should be in the lead alongside ארץ-ישראל (which has been there since 2005(!)) instead of the incorrect פלשת which isn't the same region. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, it depends, when they are refering to the religious promise land, they use Eretz Yisrael. And by the way, No More Mr Nice Guy, about your argument about the official Hebrew name of the british mandate, again this page is not about Mandate Palestine, there is an independent page for that. The Histo-Geographic Palestine "פלסטינה" even it's around the same region as the religious Land of Israel "ארץ ישראל" but it has not exactly the same 'borders' and/or definitions, neither the religious פלשת, neither the nowadays political state of Israel ישראל, neither the proclamed political state of Palestine, neither the British Mendate Palestine. All of them are around the same region but not the same thing. I suggest, as we all agreed about "פלסטינה", to use it insteed of the actual debatable "ארץ-ישראל" and "פלשת". About the map I vote for the Satellite map because this seems to me to be the Histo-Geographic Palestine; the green map is the British Palestine. Pkhetan (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

My point about the British Mandate was to show the term was used in modern times in a secular context. פלשת shouldn't be there at all. Please vote about the map in the section below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You still insist for the Eretz Yisrael! The article is about the Palestine that is changing its border all over the history. Do you think that the promised Eretz Yisrael (well-defined in the mind of Judaism followers) is also changing its border all over the history? I remind you that it's you who object the green map telling that this article is about Palestine as a region that is changing it's borders continuously; why suddenly you see this "Palestine" only inside the borders of Eretz Yisrael !? Pkhetan (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave you an example of Eretz Israel used with borders that are different than the biblical ones and in a secular context. Here are some WP:RS that use the terms interchangeably [3]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pages 18-19 here are also quite interesting and relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at 1926 in this article Timeline of the name Palestine - explains same point. But NMMNG, you are wrong to dismiss Pkhetan and FormerIP. You have not provided a source backing up your core argument about state vs region above. There is already an article for Land of Israel, which is clearly referred to in the lede of this article. Your argument about the history of these two terms is valid, but if you follow it through you must be suggesting a merger of this article with Land of Israel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Land of Israel article is about the biblical concept. This article is about the region, which happens to have the same name but is also used in a secular context, as I pointed out above with multiple sources. None of you have provided a single source that contradicts that. Your change is unacceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with NMMNG there are plenty of source that support this and there are no reason to remove it.--Shrike (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources for NMMNG [4] and [5] - proving this is like proving the sky is blue. Now please provide the sources which unpin your arguments about secular / biblical context. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, you are arguing with at least two fluent Hebrew speakers about a word meaning in Hebrew, and you bring Google translate to support your argument? -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I posted a link to a whole bunch of sources that use "Eretz Israel/Palestine", but if you like dictionaries, here are the first two that come up in google: direct link - [6], put "ארץ ישראל" in this one - [7]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary translations may provide literal translations, but not necessarily correct usage. The issue is what is the name of this region in Hebrew as used by Hebrew speakers? It is abundantly clear that the Hebrew endonym – the name of the place in Hebrew as used by Hebrew speakers – is Eretz Israel - ארץ ישראל. Thus, this definition from Hebrew wikipdia:

Palestine השם המקובל בלשונות אחרות לאזור הגאוגרפי המכונה בעברית "ארץ ישראל" הוא

Translation: The common name in other languages for the geographical area known in Hebrew as "Eretz Israel" is Palestine [8]

See also how the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel begins with the words Eretz Israel to name this region: “ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people…” [9]

A Google search for the term ארץ ישראל (in Hebrew) yielded about 3,810,000 results. It is clearly the endonym for this region in wide use in Hebrew, referring to an extensive range of topics connected to the geography, history, politics and academic study of this region. --Chefallen (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

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

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

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

• The satellite map shows the Golan Heights as part of Israel, this is a clear npov violation, it can not be used. This article is also about Palestine, not about inaccurate state borders. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you support the satelite map if it had no borders or if the border at the Golan was added? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Dont see what it has to do with Palestine. Also to ad a border between Israel and Syria would still leave an inaccurate border inside Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What it has to do with Palestine is that it shows the region historically called Palestine, while covering practically all the different areas that were included in this region throughout history, without pointing out any particular timeframe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• This article is about the region, not any particular political entity. Option 1 is a map of the British Mandate which is titled "as defined by Palestinian Nationalism", it's obvious POV. I think a satellite map, or an older map that gives a feel that the region wasn't usually particularly well defined is more appropriate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that says that Israel + WB and Gaza is how elements of Palestinian Nationalism sees Palestine, then it can be a map of that and it can be attributed to that specific pov. There can be several different all accurate maps, for example one of the Palestine mandate and it can be titled "As delineated during the British mandate for Palestine" or something like that. Roman era map etc. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is what map belongs at the top of the article. There are certainly many maps that could be in different sections, but that's not the issue here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness is right. The Palestinian perspective on the definition of Palestine is highly valid for this article, along with other definitions. It belongs at the top of the page. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some good satellite images at the bottom of this page, which it says are public domain. Could use some cropping, but otherwise I think one of them could be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• The solution would be an old map with no border or satellite map with no borders either.--Shrike (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Many things to say. The best is to us 'a satellite map without any border at all. The reasons are : 1/ the historical region of Palestine is cannot be defined because it changed at different time ; 2/ I point out that option 1 is not the historical region of Palestine during Mandate ; maybe in the eye of some, it is pro-Palestinian b(???) ut it is just the map of the British Mandate in 1923 and has no link to Palestinian nationalism ; image title should be moved ; 3/ satellite map is interesting because it gives some more information about the geography (fertiles lands ; deserts ; mountains ; valleys) which is important in an historical perspective ; 4/ option 1 doesn't even show the Galilee/Kineret/Tiberiade Lake and is poorly colorized. 87.66.170.243 (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• An ideal map would be a satellite map with no borders. In the absence of such a map, Option 2 or a crop of one of these images would do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Use of two/three new images side-by-side (or a combined image similar to Tibet) - Palestine means many things to many people. It is a political as well as historical concept:
  • Palestinian people and their supporters: See flags used by many of the PNA political parties, all of which use the British Mandate borders for obvious historical reasons: Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine / Palestinian Popular Struggle Front / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
  • Zionists and their supporters: From the World Zionist Organization ""The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity south of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr El-Karaon thence to El-Bire, following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El-Korn and the Wadi Et-Teim, thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity west of Beit Jenn, then eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the east a line close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the south a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the west the Mediterranean Sea." This is shown in a picture here
  • Historians and Archaeologists: Pre-20th century, the borders changed over time. This is true for every country and region in the world - shifting borders and definitions is normal, and would be odd if it had not happened. It is not a valid reason for having an unclear map, as it hasn't stopped other similar historical regions having clear pictures at the top, e.g. Greater Somalia, Punjab region, Tibet, United Armenia and Bengal

Having a satellite image with no borders is as good as having no image - it tells users nothing useful. We can make new image(s) to fit the purpose, but the suggestion of no borders would be detrimental to the high quality encyclopedia we are all trying to achieve here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What Palestinian nationalists think Palestine should be is a matter for the Palestinian Nationalism article, which would be the equivalent of the Greater Somalia or United Armenia examples you gave above.

What Zionists think Palestine should be is a matter for the Zionism article (that's assuming something they said in 1919 is still relevant).

If you want a map comparable to other articles, then it should be a map of what is currently recognized by most states as "Palestine" which would be the West Bank and Gaza. It's not like borders stopped changing at the turn of the 20th century. Feel free to make such a map and add it to the options above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to consider my core points:

• This article is about the region of Palestine. Can you explain why you think this article is (or should be) solely about the historical concept of the region, separated from the political concept of the region? If we were to split the article into two to separate these subjects, what article titles would you suggest?
• What is your view on Punjab region, Tibet, and Bengal, per my comment above? These are historical regions with a less obvious political focus compared with the Armenia and Somalia examples. Ignoring them in your comments is selective bias.

Your last point undermines the rest of your post - you know full well that there is a separate article for State of Palestine, which is clearly explained in the lede and footnotes. Please try to be constructive instead of combative.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your last point undermines the rest of your post. You say the region of Palestine shouldn't be separated from the political concept but you want to ignore the current political reality. We can have a map that shows the general area as it was throughout history, or we can have a map that shows the political reality now. You can't pick an historical era you like and use a political map that describes just that.

Punjab region has a topological map at the top of the article, so that doesn't exactly support your point. I find the one in Tibet quite complicated. Let's say that the Bengal article supports your point. Now what? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The green one looks amateurishly made. It's way too schlocky. Сол-раз (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the "Option 2" satellite map can not be used as it violates npov with inaccurate boundaries. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think he was saying his first preference would be a satellite map without borders. There seem to be several editors who share that opinion. If we could find one I think we could easily reach a wide consensus here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the above section "Hebrew and map", I was refering to a normal satellite map (i.e. without borders. Pkhetan (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Full protection

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

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

Translation error

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

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