Talk:Palestine (region)

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.

Previous discussions may be found here:

To see older commentary that was here look in these archives.

• Talk:Palestine/Archive 1
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 2
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 3
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 4
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 5
• Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 6
• Talk:Palestine/Archive 7

PALESTINE NOT A COUNTRY??? WHO IS THE KID HERE?

So the country is now being called a region? For hundreds of years pre-Israel the concerned area of land was and even today is known as Palestine (UN). To call it a region is rather funny, how can a region then not posses countries? Asia is a so called region, rather a continent due to its size and bears many countries. If Palestine was a region, surely it must bear countries likewise, but that is rather false, since Palestine was and is a country. Please revise the writing; I will soon add meaningful information to this article, as most of the key writings are sourced from israeli materials and writers whom of many do not see nor accept the existence of Palestine as a country prior to the formation of the Israel state or after.

It is also worthy to note that the 1917 flag of Palestine is banned in Israel, another attempt by Israel to disfigure the past of Palestine. This article heavely represents the special views of Israel and not the world.

I will soon be uploading a flag and rectifying the heavily biased opening and tone used in most of this article with more soothing and factual information. It is also worthy to note that the Jewish people only saw Palestine as Israel through out history and all other countries always referred to the concerned piece of land as Palestine. To deny this is to deny history.

Palestine means the WB and GS, not the history

Robin Hood 1212 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, who said? --Vjam 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestine does NOT exist as a country!! It NEVER was a country! Before Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank, those areas were part of Egypt and Jordan respectively!!!!

Ermmm, neither did hundred of countries that nowaday exists. Countries are (or should be)the reflection of the people's will. That there was no modern state called Palestine doesn't change the fact that that land was called palestine and was inhabited by arabs since hundred of years before the Aliyah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.171.15 (talk • contribs)

Palestine is a historical geographic region. It is not a country and never has been. If you suggest to discard its rich history (that goes millennia before the Arab conquest in the 7th century) and start with today's situation on the ground, that would be completely unworkable idea. But even if we follow it, I suspect that you won't like the result. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanremo

[Sanremo] is the Italian city where the conference was held, at least according to Wikipedia. If this is incorrect please post here before reverting. Arker 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine has NEVER been a country

Palestine does NOT exist as a country!! It NEVER was a country! Before Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank, those areas were part of Egypt and Jordan respectively!!!!

History has not stopped or ended -- it is still in the making. Just because a country did not exist in the past does not mean it cannot come into existence. For example, there was no "India" before the British colonization. One could say that India had never been a country before the British captured the peninsula. The Indian peninsula were made up of many fractured kingdoms, and then the British came and conquered them one-by-one, ultimately united the territories under a single administrative entity. Over a long period of time, an unified Indian identity arose out of the British colonization and rule, and India -- then a new national identity, a new country -- demanded independence and self-determination.

What is the moral of that history lesson? New national identities (i.e., nationalism) almost always arise out of foreign occupation and oppression: a nation that did not exist in the past but comes into existence in response to the occupation and oppression by a foreign power. History has not stopped or ended. It is still repeating itself. -- ktchong 17 August 2006

Prore to the establishment of the Irish free state there was never an indepented country of Ireland this does not mean that people recondised it as a seperate country to britian. The suitwhich of northern Ireland is the excat same as Palestine a mase expsermension of on enthinic group so it can be replaced with a nother and a fictional country created and people live the lie for so long the belive in it.

Prier to the establishment of the Irish Free State there was never an independent country of Ireland this does not mean that people recognized it as a separate country to Britain. The state of northern Ireland is the exact same as Palestine a mass expsermension of on ethnic group so it can be replaced with a another and a fictional country created and people live the lie for so long the believe in it.

Can anyone provide maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns in this region prior to the establishment of the country of Israel? Thanks! --TimeDog 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps are available at passia.org. --Ian Pitchford 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Infact only 5% of the population in Palestine were jewish prior to the heavy immigrations before the early 1900's, they were a minority for many hundreds of years. Infact Jewish people are a minority worlwide only bearing 18 million people. It is good to note than non of the Israeli "leaders" are Palestinian born, all originating from Europe, US and other countries.

Palestine was and is a country and will remain so, to see it otherwise is unfactual, ignorant, biased and an attemptive move to change history.

Eretz Israel

Have removed this from the intro and replaced with the Herbrew translation of Israel. "Eretz Israel" is not in any sense a translation of Palestine, and doesn't belong there. --Vjam 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is, for more than 3 millennia. Let's keep in mind that we are talking about the region here. If this is confusing, let's return this article its earlier title, Palestine (region). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What belongs in the brackets is direct translations of the title, not alternative names which have been used at one time or another. There seems to be a perfectly good Hebrew word for the which can be used here, so why should wikipedia prefer an alternative that so clearly come with an agenda (ie it is primarily (according to Wikipedia) a religious concept and connotes (an aspiration to) sovereignty by a religious group).

I don't think this issue shows up any confusion as to whether we are taling about a geographic region. "Palestine" is, in any language, a geogrpahic region. "Eretz Israel" is ideological, and should not be presented as a neutral translation. It surely ought to be obvious that if you're choosing to translate "Palestine" as (basically) "Israel" then questions of neutrality arise. --Vjam 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ארץ ישראל is not translated as Palestina. —Aiden 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The hard fact (vs. opinion) is that the Hebrew toponym for the region throughout long Jewish history was/is "Eretz Israel". Serious encylopedias reflect facts, whether certain editors like them or not.
2. See Hebrew interwiki.
3. What about Jerusalem (Hebrew: Yerushalayim; Arabic: al-Quds...)? Are you going to argue for another "translation" of Arabic name? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this website I found, "Eretz Israel" is frequently used by Israelis in the context of arguments challenging Palestinian claims to nationhood and their right to land east of the Jordan River. [1]. Dionyseus 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, the fact is that since the times of ancient Kingdom of Israel, "Eretz Israel" is the Hebrew toponym for the region. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the fact is that it is a Hebrew toponym, and not a neutral one or a direct translation. "פלשתינה/Palestina" is clearly a more direct translation. "Eretz Israel" is no more a translation into Hebrew of "Palestine" than "Holy Land" is a translation into English.

What's important here is the difference between a translation on the one hand and a synonym or euphamism on the other. What's not okay is to take the latter and present it as if it were the former. If you have a good argument for saying that an exception should be made in this case, then you should state it. --Vjam 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vjam. Dionyseus 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Vjam --Oiboy77 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One can spell in Hebrew (or any alphabet) anything, but that does not negate 3 millennia of history. The 3 points above are still unanswered. And this is not a vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article links to the History of ancient Israel and Judah as part of the History section; how could "Eretz Israel" not be a toponym? Is "Eretz Israel" some different territory? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no amount of someone's dislike for a term can change the facts on the ground. "Eretz Israel" is not a "synonym", nor a "euphemism", but the Hebrew name for this region. Pecher ^Talk 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: What's not in dispute is whether "Eretz Israel" exists as a toponym, or to what land it refers. The issue is that it is not a translation of "Palestine", since it comes with additional political/theological connotations, and there exists a perfectly functional Hebrew word ("Palestina") which comes without this additional meaning.

Humus sapiens: I haven't answered your above points because they are really just assertions not raising much to be answered. The answers I would give are 1) No 2) Why? and 3) Al Quds is a translation of Jerusalem - if you were to use it in an English or Hebrew sentence, you would clearly be borrowing from Arabic for some reason, so this is not a parallel case.

The claim that "Eretz Israel" is in some sense a translation (I assume this is a claim that is being made) needs standing up. --Vjam 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the logic: Arabic:Al-Quds (and not Urusalim) is a "translation" of English:Jerusalem, but Hebrew:Palestina (and not Eretz Israel) is a "translation" of English:Palestina.

You are entitled to your POV but encyclopedias should reflect historical facts. A traditional 3+ millennia-old toponym Eretz Israel is not going to be replaced with Palestina (which is far from being politically-neutral) because of your political preferences. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Al-Quds is not a translation of Jerusalem into Arabic; it is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. Humus, prior to 1948 Zionists spoke of a dream of Eretz Israel but they referred to the land as it existed then as Palestine. Homey 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, for your claim to be valid then the Hebrew word פלשתינה cannot exist historically yet it was in wide use prior to 1948. Homey 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as Al-Quds is the Arabic toponym for Jerusalem, Eretz Israel is the Hebrew toponym for the region in question.

Why are we suddenly limiting our scope to 30 years of the British Mandate and discarding 3+ millennia of the Jewish history? BTW, here is an evidence that Eretz Israel was used to disambig Palestina. As a compromise, I'm going to add both. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By your argument, we should add (Template:Lang-ar Filastīn or Falastīn) to the top of Land of Israel. Are you agreeable to this? I think I've presented a more reasonable compromise in my latest edit. Homey 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. --Vjam 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aiden who didn't like it. I think it should be within the paretheses, so I added that Eretz Israel is a Biblical term. See if this works better. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given Land of Israel the same treatment since both articles should handle the question in the same manner. Homey 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that it shouldn't be presented as a translation. Eretz Israel ≈ Palestine. Palestina = Palestine. So it shouldn't be parentheses, and it certainly shouldn't be first. Plus the way you've put it is as if being a Biblical term somehow makes it better. Will alter to something I think is more realistic. --Vjam 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mot only "amongst Jews". Let's think how we can improve this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, should Land of Israel include a translation that reads: (Template:Lang-ar Filastīn or Falastīn) ?Homey 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Eretz Israel is a historical & Biblical term. What does Arabic Falastīn (c. 7th century) have to do with the Hebrew Bible? But if other editors are OK with it, I won't remove it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, either it's a historical and biblical term or its a general toponym, you can't have it both ways. And it seems to me that one-way translation is never possible, so I this goes a long way to proving my earlier point. And if it's not a translation then why do you want to put it first in the translation list?

Also think "related concept" sounds a bit vague, but will leave it there for now since my brain is frying in the heat. --Vjam 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Eretz Israel is a historical term, a Biblical term and a toponym. If 3200 years of history don't fit into some artificial frame, too bad for the frame. BTW, I feel that we are not that far apart, so let's work together to find a sensible compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If A in one language is translated to B in another language, it must be the case that B can be translated back into A, or the original tranlsation was not accurate. That's not an artificial frame, it's just regular logic.

Here's the main points of dispute, as I see it:

1) "Eretz Yisrael" is not an exact translation of "Palestine" (I get the impression we are agreeing on this part).

2) By convention, the reader is expecting to see, in the parentheses in the first sentence, exact translations in relevant languages.

3) So, it's my view that "Eretz Yisrael" shouldn't be in there. However, I don't think it's so serious if it is, provided steps are taken to ensure that no-one is misled into thinking that "Eretz Yisrael" and "Palestine" are translations of one another. This means (not necessarily an exhaustive list):

a) "Eretz Yisrael" should not come first in the list (I am still keen to know why you think it should)

b) The English translation "Land of Israel" should be included, - this makes it clear that the translation is not "Palestine".

c) Some (brief as possible) reference to it being a Biblical/Jewish/Religious concept should probably be included. Think the wording may need some discussion - does Biblical give too much of an impression of a kind of ceremonial usage?--Vjam 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is more or less OK with me. I made a minor edit, hope you and others won't find them objectionable. We are dealing with proper nouns here, so the word "translation" should be used with caution. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with this because:

1) "transliteration" seems designed to give the impression that we are not dealing with an actual Hebrew word, which is false.

2) The impression is given that "Palestina" is a transliteration from English, which clearly can't be the case.

3) "Palestina" may have originated as a tranliteration from Latin (I'm guessing this), which isn't unusual for a word, so why mark this out as if it is?

4) This is not a usual place for etymological information, so unless you can give a compelling reason, this is extraneous. --Vjam 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept the current version as a compromise. BTW, there is nothing wrong with transliteration, it's a common practice for Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not directly translated to Arabic as al-Quds; it is the common name for the city in Arabic, which is why it is listed in the Jerusalem article. In much the same way, it makes no sense that we should translate a Latin word into Hebrew when the Jews already have a common name for the region they've used for 3,000 years. —Aiden 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aiden. No, it is a translation. "name for the city in arabic" (in this case) = translation. It's not a requirement that the two sound similar or have the same literal meaning (cf "Germany" <---> "Deutschland"). The difference with "Palestine" compared to "Ertetz Yisrael" is that the two do not mean exactly the same thing, which has been gone over above.

Regarding your recent reverts, your premise is false. Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer the most commonly used name for a thing. See, for example Western Wall or Republic of China. In any event, in the present case, what is the most commonly used translation would be the question. --Vjam 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Eretz Yisrael" is not just a "biblical term", but also a modern-day term. Also, what does a "related concept" mean? It's another name for the same territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden - please discuss you proposed change in talk, since it goes against what has been settled here, and please avoid breaking WP:3RR.

Jayjg - I agree, please feel free to try a more suitable formula. --Vjam 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have; it is simply another Hebrew term for the same area. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that does fine for me. --Vjam 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not know enough about this stuff, so I am coming to talk, but it seems strange to me to have Eretz Yisrael listed as the Hebrew word for Palestine in this article, but not corresponding Arabic or english word for Land of Israel. It should go both ways, shouldn't it? Either the foreign language sections for both articles should be basically the same, or if Palestine doesn't belong in Land of Israel, I don't see why Eretz Yisrael belongs here. My 2 cents.--Andrew c 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, Eretz Yisrael is a historical and Biblical name for the region based on Torah, while Palestine is a secular name given by the Romans. "Filistin" is not an accurate Arabic translation of this Biblical concept. —Aiden 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. If "Filistin" is not an accurate Arabic translation of the biblical concept, how is the biblical concept an accurate translation of "Filistin". If the word "Palestine" is not synonymous with "Eretz Yisrael", then there is no reason for "Eretz Yisrael" and Land of Israel to be included in the opening translation section. Here is a compromise proposal. Keep the opposing terms out of each article's translation section. Instead, replace with a see also link somewhere in the artlce, or a sentence that included the corresponding link and perhaps a little background (such as "A term to describe a similar region, but not identical region/concept is....) But as it stands, it boggles my mind that one thing can be a synonym for the other, but not vice versa. Including "Eretz Yisrael" in the translation section of this article is misleading if the information that Aiden provided is correct (that they are different concepts, and that the terms do not translate into each other).--Andrew c 18:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The key to this argument lies in the first sentence itself "Palestine ... is ONE of many historical names for the region"... How could there be two Hebrew versions of ONE name. Yes, "Eretz Israel" is a name for the region... but it is a different name from "Palestina" and therefore irrelevant to the first sentence. This discussion bemuses me. 69.140.65.251 03:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And there's another clue further down the page on the image of the stamp [2]. The Hebrew text appears to say Palestina (or something very similar). Could someone confirm? 69.140.65.251 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is a sovereign nation, and sections of this article imply that the palestinians claim to all of Israel is recognized by the world and the United Nations.

Jeff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.70.152 (talk • contribs) .

That statement you are adding is a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue. I think this article and the Israel article already cover the points you mention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Jewish accounts, the kingdom of Israel lasted about one hundred years from around 1030-1020 BCE until approximately 930 BCE-920 BCE when it split into the independent kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These independent kingdoms (lasting about two hundred years) were destroyed around 720 BCE by the Assyrians. So the independent kingdom of Israel (according to their own accounts which are not substantiated by archaelogy or reliable historical records) lasted for 300 Years.

2668 years later they come back and claim it is their land .....

sounds perfectly reasonable to me ....

The Europeans were criticized for establishing colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East etc.

and they eventually left all those places ..... but somehow it is okay if Jewish people colonize ::land...

The only other country that still has colonized regions (China stills occupies Tibet, Eastern ::Turkestan, etc.) is strongly criticized by most people for continuing its imperialistic policies...

but if your Jewish you are given a free pass.... to steal land...

sounds perfectly reasonable to me .... oops Oh My God.. what am I saying...am I criticising ::Israel? Isn't this anti-Semetic? GASP!24.6.23.248 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel is not an nation, it is a state, and the U.N. certainly makes that clear, thats why we are seeing Jewish lobbies attacking the U.N. so much.

coming to talk regarding Eretz Yisrael

I don't know why editors have been mentioning talk in their edit summaries when I posted yesterday about this with no response. It seems to me that either Eretz Yisrael is a synonym for Palestine or it isn't. If it is, then the corresponding terms should be in both this and the Land of Israel articles. If it isn't, then neither should be in either article. As it stands, Eretz Yisrael is in this article, but Palestine is not in Land of Israel, which to me seems extremely biased. So how can we fix this? I made some suggestions above. I think the best thing is to not say that the terms translate into each other in the opening sentence, but instead, further down the paragraph, mention the relation of each term to the other in BOTH articles in sentence format. How does that sound as a compromise? Another suggestion would be to simply remove both terms from the opposite article, however, efforts to remove Eretz Yisrael from this article have been reverted (though I'm not sure why), and efforts to put Palestine in Land of Israel have been reverted as well. So what gives? Can we talk this out.--Andrew c 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been already discussed, pls. see above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am very stupid. Can you please hold my hand and show me where on talk this has been discussed. I cannot find it anywhere. Thanks--Andrew c 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are stupid. Please see the section #Eretz Israel above. Also, reading both articles would help to get familiar with the subject. BTW, synonym does not mean equal. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. As you can see above, my position is similar to yours. A compromise which I find basically acceptable has been reached. This was only between a few users and, of course, nothing on Wikipedia is necessarily forever. Nontheless, I feel that any further changes should be done through talk and address why that compromise is not acceptable. I'm not immediately sure what I think of your proposals above - will get back.

Humus (and others): I still think a more satisfactory formulation than "a term for the same area" is needed. "Hebrew", "religious" and "historical" all seem to have hit opposition. But what's there currently seems to me to as good as putting nothing - it doesn't really shed any light for the reader. Any formualtion should also be as short as possible. --Vjam 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I get this right. "Eretz Yisrael" is a term with 2 different meanings. One) for Israelis, it refers to the same basic region as what we often call in english as Palestine (and what this article is addressing) and Two) it refers to a biblical concept described by the article Land of Israel. Therefore, because of the common usage of the phrase in Hebrew, it can be seen as a synonym for Palestine because they both refer to the same basic area. However, Palestine, being a diminutive phrase given to the region by the Romans in the 2nd century, does not equal the biblical concept because the history of the term "Eretz Yisrael" predates "Palestine" by a millenium. So therefore, it seems strange to me that the english article Land of Israel is wikilinked in the opening translation section. I still think the best solution is to explain all this in sentence format. Point out that "Eretz Yisrael" often is used to refer to the same region as Palestine in contemporary Hebrew culture, but the phrase also has a more historic, biblical meaning, as described by the Land of Israel article. I think this still needs a little work, but thanks everyone who slowed it down and notch and reviewed the past debate for me. I honestly appreciate it.--Andrew c 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

new section for Monowiki

This requires citation; also weasel wording needs scrapping or backing up here:

"...as an insult to the now conquered Jews. In what was considered a form of psychological warfare, the Romans also tried to change..."

Who considered this a "form of psychological warfare" ? When did they consider it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 July 200.

Map needs to be renewed

The "Current Map of Israel" needs to be renewed. Gaza is no longer under Israeli occupation.

Good point. But it doesnt really have "final" status yet. --Haldrik 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

fully sourced demographic material

Those who are deleting sourced material from either Katz, Pipes, Mark Twain, De Haas and so on, please stop doing so. The fact you don't like it, don't give you persmission to delete it. I'm talking about the known WP:POV pushers who remove sourced material here. Amoruso 13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors are obliged to write their own material for Wikipedia citing reliable sources. A direct quotation must cite the source from which you took it. Katz is not a reliable source but if you want to check what he says copies of his book are very cheap second-hand. --Ian Pitchford 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Katz's book ? I have it right here beside me and I'm quoting directly from it. (Have it in two langauges, 3 differnet versions right here). Katz is a reliable source of course. And I've checked the secondary quotes as well just to be sure. Hence, stop your vandalism immediately or be blocked. Amoruso 14:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You should throw away Katz and go to a good bookshop and buy yourself some modern history books. Nearly everything you copy out of Katz is discredited by modern scholarship. For example the population of Palestine was already in the 200,000-300,000 range by 1800 (Bacchi's estimate was 275,000). It declined a bit during the middle of the century then recovered by the end. When the Ottomans started doing censuses in 1878, the population was over 230,000 (McCarthy, Population of Palestine). The worthlessness of the game of quotations can easily be shown by quotations saying the opposite. For example Ahad Ha'am wrote in 1891: "From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled; only sandy fields or stony hills, suitable at best for planting trees or vines and, even that after considerable work and expense in clearing and preparing them-only these remain unworked" (Alan Dowty's translation of "Truth from Eretz Yisrael"). Of course one can be sure without looking that this quotation is not presented by Katz, because Katz wanted to present the racist viewpoint that the inferior Arabs neglected and destroyed Palestine until the superior Jews returned and repaired it. We don't need that sort of rubbish here, thank you. --Zero^talk 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That the Canaanites originated in the Arabian peninsula was the normative view of archaeology from the 19th century until the 1960s at least. I'm not sure that is still the case, but currently I'm lacking a good source. Certainly some of the Canaanites originated there. --Zero^talk 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

if you have soruces Zero that apply to the WP:RS sources you can use them. Katz's last version of the book is very modern and verified. There's no doubt among historians that the land was mostly desolate. of course you find a fringe view here and there. The cannaties thing needs ref too, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not your personal WP:POV - do not blank out sourced material that you don't like. I repeat, you're endlessly violating wikipedia policy again and again. Amoruso 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep your cherry-picked "quotations" out of Wikipedia. --Zero^talk 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep these kind of comments out of discussion pages. Try not to vandlize pages again in the future because there's WP:RS that you don't like, especially when it's based on secondary sources as well. Your continuing vandalizm is disruptive. Amoruso 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

btw, your vandalism is even more staggering since the "citations" you brought here don't contradict what I said. 200,000 around 1800 then further decline, then rise again. Your comments are are ridicilous and your attitude is so distruptive that it's not even funny. Amoruso 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

in conclusion

I can emphasise that Zero0000 reasoning is made in bad faith and his allegations were already proven false. Yes, Shmuel Katz is a former politician and belongs to the right wing part of the map. Many others, like Yehoshua Porath who is cited in the article, are also politicans - Porath is a member of an exteme left political party. Katz is a WP:RS historian with credentials fully cited on google scholar, appreciated and discussed, referenced his works fully and never had a critic question its authenticity or sources - on the contrary, his books are regarded in the highest historical accuracy. Furthermore, the quotations are based on secondary sources, fully verified and reliable and objective. Furthermore, there are also citations that have nothing to do with Katz, for example Pipes, but Zero has vandalised them as well. Lastly, the claims are not even controversial, proven by Zero's comments himself. Echad Haam saying at the end of the 19th century that the country is not desolate is exactly what Katz has said that in the middle of the 19th century already between 50,000 to 100,000 people. These are official estimates. There may be other estimates that have 100,000 people more. Even this 200,000-300,000 estimate which we don't if it's reliable doesn't refute anything that Katz said except perhaps the last sentence contradicting it to a certain extent. In fact, if this is the highest estimate in existence, it even strengths Katz's thesis, and especially the issue of the population up until the ottoman empire. Amoruso 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

not to mention that Zero0000 has refuted himself by saying that in 1800 the population was 275,000 and then in 1878 it was 230,000. Interesting. Perhaps he should research more on reliable sources next time. Amoruso 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

btw Mccharty also denys the Armenian genocide because of his loyalty to Turkey and is obviously biased towards muslim and arab ends, which is the reason he is cited in Palestinian cites as propaganda. Amoruso 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly Amoruso, Porath was once regarded as a left-winger but he had a famous conversion to the right. And stop making up things. There were no "official estimates" in the middle of the 19th century. And your "refuted himself" comment just shows you are unable to understand. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this? --Zero^talk 02:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ignoring useless personal attacks. the information will therefore be added and any deletion of it will be regarded as vandalism by Zero0000 which should prompt blocking. btw, it's true that Porath made a shift towards netanyahu at the time, but it's irrelevant, since at the time of this comment he was on his most extreme left. Further irrelevance from you then. Amoruso 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Katz et al

If the text is properly attributed and is described as a quotation or paraphrase, then it is not a copyright violation. A violation is when person A is attempting to pass off person B's work as his or her own. If full credit is given to the author, as well as the source, it does not violate the copyright to the best of my understanding.

Secondly, Shmuel Katz was quoting others, whose texts are verifiable and reliable; the text you removed contained no opinons of Katz's own, so his own political beliefs are irrelevant for that portion.

Thirdly, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan, religious and extremist websites. The fact that someone has beliefs does not exclude them from being a WP:RS, unless they are “Widely acknowledged [as an] extremist or even terrorist groups”, and then can only be used as a source about their belief. Shmuel Katz does not fit that mold, and as such is eligible, especially in light of his source being a collection of other sources. Thank you. -- Avi 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale copying of material (including references) from a webpage without (a) citing that page and (b) checking the sources is a copyvio, plagiarism and a violation of Wikipedia policy. We cite reliable sources so that others can go and check them. We don't hide the true source by slightly re-writing material to make it appear that we're citing the original sources ourselves. It's fundamentally a question of honesty. The works cited by Katz might well be reliable sources, but his work is certainly not a reliable source for them. BTW when was the Irgun not a terrorist group? - see Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard (2003). Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 91-118. --Ian Pitchford 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Irgun was a terrorist group according to everyone except the Irgun. Would we care if Al-Qaeda claimed to not be a terrorist group? Katz was not only a member but its chief propagandist. He remained a propagandist for the extreme right all his life. If Katz is a reliable source then every seource on the extreme right is reliable. --Zero^talk 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying straight from the book. I can use for reference any sources but I have the actual book and can quote you anything you want from it, versions, pages, everything. I'm usually using the Hebrew versions for my own comfort but I have the english versions as well, and btw, permisson from the author. Your allegations as proven as false . Please stop your vandalism. Amoruso 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Shmuel Katz is also an Israeli historian and journalist, and appears to be plenty reliable for the purposes of Israeli history. -- Avi 18:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So you agree to all writings by the propaganda chiefs of terrorist organizations being used in articles on Israeli history? --Ian Pitchford 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beitar and Etzel is a political organization with militant activities in the 1940's. Since then members of Etzel (and Lehi) have already had 2 prime ministers + the current PM the son of a prominent beitar member and, + the entire likud party in its bulk and a big part of kadima today. Etzel is the mainstream of Israeli right, and is no way a terrorist organization. Needless to say Katz was never a "terrorist" or a fighter himself. In fact, anyone old enough and belonging to the right wing of the map will belong most likely or be affiliated with Beitar and Etzel. Your comments are entirely irrelevant, a violation of wikipedia policy, and you are advised , again, to cease your consistent vandalism and blanking. Most of the historians are affiliated with political parties or have showed support or even run for parliament, 90% of them belonging to the left wing or even the extreme left wing, usually communist wing. Amoruso 22:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Katz doesn't qualify as a historian and was chief propagandist of an extremist organisation. Evidence from him is not credible. Copying material from a source without attribution is plagiarism. I thought you were a lawyer. --Ian Pitchford 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. However, Katz is much better known for his role in politics and as a historian. According to your line of reasoning, anything written about Cuba by Che Guvera or Fidel Castro is not reliable. For that matter, anything written by that radical extremist anti-Tory George Washington should also not be reliable. -- Avi 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not a matter of personal opinion, and you don't become a historian by claiming to be one. If you look at the article as it stands there is no indication that material has been copied from Katz. We're obliged to use reliable sources, not to hide the fact that we're copying material from unreliable sources. As the policy states "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence"; propaganda sources like Katz are used precisely because the material can't be found in standard reliable sources - such as decent history books. --Ian Pitchford 19:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple to check. My library has Katz's book. I have placed it on hold, and will take it out this week, and confirm whether or not the quote is in the book; if it is, that's all that we need. That's the reason why we cite sources, so that we can verify them. -- Avi 20:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That wont make him a reliable source or make plagiarism acceptable. --Ian Pitchford 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Properly sourcing quotes and paraphrases prevent plagiarism, and there is really no issue about his reliability in this regard -- Avi 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, someone does not lose historian status just because you do not believe he is one either . -- Avi 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we're talking past each other. Do you know what plagiarism is and what you would be checking in Katz's book? --Ian Pitchford 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be checking the the text quoted in his name, or paraphrased and properly attributed to him, is there; and that sources quoted here as quoted in Katz, are referenced in Katz with the references here. This is for the "Demographics" section of the article. Please point out examples of what you consider plagiarism in this article. Thanks. -- Avi 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well exactly. Do you know from looking at the article what is actually supposed to be from Katz? --Ian Pitchford 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian I suggest you open a dictionary and read what plagiarism is. You're embarrassing yourself. Also, your repetitive accusations about Katz are embarrassing and have been all refuted already. Btw, I can get you permission from Katz himself is you wish. Amoruso 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've opened a dictionary: plagiarize. "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source" [3] Here's your edit [4] quoting Alphonse de Lamartine, Volney and De Hass. Where do you indicate that the material is copied from the Katz and not from the original sources? All of it is copied from Katz (1973) pp. 106-109. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think every intelligent person could have understood that this is based on Katz since I wrote his name quite a few times. Anyway, per your request, I added more references to his book. The thing is I have permission to use it the way I did + I've previously checked the secondary sources and therefore one can use them directly - credit was given to Katz for the analysis in the beginning. The secondary sources are listed very throughly at the end of Katz's book and he encourages and in fact provides readers with the access to those books, so it's all been verified. But it's now academic anyway, since the refs were added. I respect your admiration for Katz and your diligent care to protect his rights. Amoruso 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

state of palestine

this issue is dealt in the current times section. One can add info there although I don't see a reason fot a template. both templates might be used if one wants. btw, for these editors I refer you to the correct page in the disambuigation page : [5]Amoruso 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Compare State of Palestine and State of Israel. Palestine refers to a geographic term. --Haldrik 22:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)