Jump to content

Talk:Palestine (region): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 14) (bot
Line 156: Line 156:
this is supposed to be called israel as people don’t know the fact that the roman’s renamed the land palestine
this is supposed to be called israel as people don’t know the fact that the roman’s renamed the land palestine
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Tollens|Tollens]] ([[User talk:Tollens|talk]]) 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Tollens|Tollens]] ([[User talk:Tollens|talk]]) 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

== "Gaza's population is expected to increase to 2.1 million people in 2020" outadedness ==

It's 2024, we need to change the tense of that statement and/or verify whether or not the prediction came true. [[User:Polishedrelish|Polishedrelish]] ([[User talk:Polishedrelish|talk]]) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:19, 9 February 2024

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



Palestine = Philistia?

The article sets a very ancient date for the area being known as Palestine but does so by presuming that Peleset referred to Palestinians. In fact, this almost certainly referred to Philistines, a people expelled by Egypt, maybe about 2 centuries after Moses was expelled. Contrarily, at about the same time, there was a kingdom in coastal Syria known as Palistin. So, yes, "Peleset" seems similar to "Palestine," (especially figuring "ine" to be a Greek suffix), but given that we know Peleset referred to Philistines, and that there was a separate kingdom of Palestin, it seems unlikely to me, a non-academic on such a matter, that the Philistines gave the southern/western Lavant the name "Palestine," instead of Palestin. Or am I ignorant of something which has been left unsaid? 2600:8806:1002:4C00:9104:277C:7691:DF3F (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic Phillistines and Palestinians are the same word - Filistini. This causes great confusion. In Hebrew Peleset refers to Palestinians, Philistini refers to Philistines. DNA evidence shows there is no Philistine DNA in Palestinians. this is a great piece of reserch that describes it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEmMdBfD3OQ&t=2699s Alanlevin (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about an RS describing it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, in Hebrew it’s falestinim. Peleshet was Gaza the land of the philisties that don’t exist today Zapmufins (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention to the ongoing (2023) war

I think that a mention on the ongoing war should be added to this paragraph inside history section (I bold the proposal):

In 2000, the Second Intifada (also called al-Aqsa Intifada) began, and Israel built a separation barrier. In the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, Israel withdrew all settlers and military presence from the Gaza Strip, but maintained military control of numerous aspects of the territory including its borders, air space and coast. In 2023, after an attack by Hamas, Israel entered again Gaza after heavy bombing. Israel's ongoing military occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues to be the world's longest military occupation in modern times. Theklan (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza is not occupied. Not maintaining military control of numerous aspects, especially the air space and the border, would simply be suicide as 10/7 proved. --Slow Phil (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish immigration

Jewish immigration is notably absent from both the British mandate period and the demographics section. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix numbers

"At the time, Palestine's population was 1,845 thousand people, of which a minority of 608 thousand were Jews (33% of the population)."

The original numbers are 608,000 and 1,845,000 - I have no idea why they are presented in this confusing way (half numbers, half words) 194.223.4.117 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that Slatersteven finds the original comment confusing proves why it is a problem 128.187.112.15 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplification is misleading

@Wlbw68: @Dovidroth: "The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal, but the Arab Higher Committee rejected it" this is not a summary, this is an oversimplification that is misleading, which is clear by both the refusal to elaborate properly on it, or have it removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the POV description. Particularly since there has been a lengthy discussion about this at the partition plan article, people can visit there for the proper detail. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory Palestine

The original mandatory Palestine is actually not the Gaza strip, Israel and the west bank aka Judaea and Samaria alone but all of this plus today's Jordan. --Slow Phil (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception, as well as incorrect propaganda, the borders of the mandate were to be set by the Allies, and they were, in such a way as to exclude Transjordan. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"incorrect propoganda" - is that a way of discrediting the original documents and justifying rewriting history? In fact you only deal with the Jordanian part of Palestine, noone is addressing the Syrian part which includes those that started wars with Jews in the 30's Alanlevin (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is partly correct, the original Mandate is available and the British Government confirm on their site here https://www.gchq.gov.uk/information/palestine-mandate - The borders most definitely included Transjordan. Similarly the 6m Jordanian Palestinians concur. Transjordan does not include the entire of Jordan but certain all of the Western part. This is the reason that this page is currently perverted by others here Alanlevin (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mandate for Palestine" was a legal document that gave the UK power over a region with undefined eastern boundary. The Brits decided to interpret it to cover Transjordan. However, they almost always called the part west of the Jordan River "Palestine" and the part east of the Jordan River "Trans-Jordan". Those are the names used throughout the mandate period. "Mandatory Palestine" is an unofficial name that means "the region called Palestine during the mandate period"; it never extends east of the river. Trans-Jordan in its first defined boundaries was only slightly different from modern Jordan. Zerotalk 13:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained in gory detail at Mandate for Palestine#Council of the League of Nations: Transjordan memorandum, put into effect prior to the final approval in September 1923 of the mandate by the LoN. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

The claim is made that the region nowdays called Palestine was called by the Egyptians Peleset and by the Assyrians Palashtu (after the name of the Pleshet, part of the Sea People). To the best of my knowledge, this claim is not correct, as the most of the region was actually named Canaan at the time, and Pleshet was only the region along the southern Mediterranean coast, were the invading Pleshet Sea People settled down during the Bronze Age collapse). I think this distinction should be made. 2A02:1210:6AC5:5A00:788F:A9A5:9189:9D0 (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC) NOt according to reliable sources (see wp:rs). Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring people or land."
Is that what you are referring to? (There are other references to Peleset in the article).
To the best of my knowledge We cannot rely on your knowledge, do you have reliable sources that support your view? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peleset -> Palestine

Re: Recent edits regarding trajectory of evolution from “Peleset” to “Palestine”. Just because Peleset has a basis in name origin to the general regional concept of Palestine does not make it “Palestine” (so far as the article is concerned). Distinction and evolution of terms are important here, and should be appropriately noted. 12th century BCE records refer to a specific entity or group of people Peleset, which later fully ceased to exist before influencing the later terms “Palaistine” or “Palestine” that came into separate formation and use (hence the edit “later came to be referred to as” which I think is fully justified). These are two distinct items (with an influencing connection) and that should be made clear. Mistamystery (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the fact they "later fully ceased to exist", in fact what does that even mean, they were wiped out? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation below, but fyi this is general history on the topic (iIt’s on every single page relating to this group of people). The Peleset were fully wiped out by the Babylonians in the 7th century BCE.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/science/philistines-dna-origins.html
While there is a name origin connection to the later concept of Palestine as a general regional concept, Peleset is not that concept.(which is the subject of this article, hence the distinction being made) Peleset was a regional polity / group (made up of migratory Aegean peoples) whose territory was limited to the southern Levantine coastal plain. There is no direct connection between the Peleset and later general concepts of Palestine as a regional designation (short of select foreign mapmakers using it on occasion). Mistamystery (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to view this (paywalled) maybe you can provide the quote where it says something to the tune of "and the Peleset were wiped out" or "Peleset and Palestine are not the same"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't either one. It says the Philistines were (thought to be, I think) wiped out in 604 BCE. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think, have you not read it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Archaeologists have long wondered about the origins of the Philistines, who are thought to have established themselves in the Levant around the 12th century B.C.E. and lived there until their destruction by the Babylonians in 604 B.C.E." Slightly odd wording. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked specifically “later fully ceased to exist” - re: the source:
“Archaeologists have long wondered about the origins of the Philistines, who are thought to have established themselves in the Levant around the 12th century B.C.E. and lived there until their destruction by the Babylonians in 604 B.C.E. The Hebrew Bible mentions they came from “Caphtor,” which some archaeologists believe might be present-day Crete, while some modern interpretations of ancient Egyptian texts suggest they were the “Peleset,” or maritime invaders associated with a group called the “Sea-Peoples.”
Regarding Peleset, Philistia, and Palestine not being the same, we have separate articles on wiki making clear in what ways they are both related and distinct.
The name Peleset is the inspiration for the Greek term Palestine. Peleset was a regional entity of limited territory that never covered the region, and was later co-opted as a regional definition mostly after the Peleset ceased to exist. Mistamystery (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The info in this article is probably in a few articles, right? So which article should be seen as the parent article? Timeline of the name Palestine? Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the variable meanings/definitions/entities, probably appropriate for Palestine to remain the parent article.
That said, Peleset, Philistines, Philistia, as highly related terms, should probably appear (appropriately) somewhere on this page. Perhaps under a “Related” header.
As for the “Palestine (region)” page, it’s important that we outline the parameters of the page clearly and abide by it. The page as it stands refers squarely to the general regional designation. Peleset and Philistia are specific entities and are not only not descriptives for the general region, both fully ceased to exist by the time that Herodotus inscribed the term “Palaistine” to describe the region more than a century later.
To circle back to the initial edit in question: “The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring people or land” is both without citation, as well as appears to be SYNTH (or heavily leading) and either needs to be rewritten or needs to go. I think my proposed edit (which is reasonably in line with what’s cited in the body of the article) is sufficient. Mistamystery (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is a disambiguation only, what I mean is that we should get the info correct in one article and then transclude it to the others. On a quick look, I see similar or some info at Palestinians, State of Palestine, History of Palestine, maybe others too, idk. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daunting task, but could be a challenging but worthwhile effort to relegate the current Palestine main page to a disambiguation page and try and create a proper master article for Palestine that is all inclusive of the various usages, definitions, regions, states, etc. Mistamystery (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Palestine main page (only the disambig), unless one chooses to count State of Palestine as such. This discussion and the article content here seems as much about the name as the geography so I suggest that since we have started here, we continue here and make this the "main" for this purpose and consolidate material/refs here, see if we can't make some sense out of it all. Section title probably ought to be etymology/toponymy rather than just History of the name- Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes, I meant main as in the page that points to the /palestine link, not saying its acting as the main page.
I lean more toward spinning the current /Palestine page into a separate disambiguation page, and then rebooting general /Palestine page to be the main page. Making the Region page seems fine I guess but wonder if there’s a more square footprint to place it. Mistamystery (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This came up indirectly in the section above, where I unsuccessfully asked for more info. I would probably have myself reverted as well, I am still a little unclear as to the problem, is the connection between Peleset and Palestine disputed or unclear? I might understand if that were the case. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to outline. It’s a subtle matter of some very granular details, but I think an important distinction to make (at least so far as the evolution of both term and concept are concerned).
And to be clear from the start, my main argument here is simply that the term “Peleset” influenced what the name of what later came to be known as the general regional designation of Palestine…but Peleset and Palestine are very much not the same thing (in very significant ways). I also don’t think this is particularly controversial, but still an important distinction to make (especially since we are covering some very dense historical periods).
This article is *specifically* about Palestine as a regional designation - and specifically the regional designation that roughly equates to the Southern Levant. The distinctions (academically and otherwise) are already significant enough that we already have separate articles for both Peleset, as well as Philistia, neither of which are academically considered “Palestine” in any shape or form outside of having influenced a name of a later distinct concept.
While (as this article itself outlines) the genesis of referring to the entire region specifically as “Palestine” seems to have originated with Greek scholars and mapmakers, using prior reference and knowledge of (the) Peleset as a naming point (Palestine is itself a Greek term), what “Peleset” is is fully distinct from what “Palestine” is (so far as the topic of this article is concerned). Peleset / Philistia refers specifically to a people and limited geographic entity that never - during the entirety of its existence - was referred to as “Palestine” in Greek, nor referred to the entirety of the region using these terms. Later European writers took this name, Hellenized it, it and separately started using it as a regional designation…which then served as the basis of the Roman Empire’s renaming of the province in the 2nd century CE.
There is separate academic distinction between Peleset, Philistia, and Palestine, and it’s already reflected in separate wiki articles. We can most definitely say the *name* Palestine has origins in the 12th Century BCE with its preceding forms, but Palestine as it both came to be called, and its understanding as a regional definition, is a later concept. Mistamystery (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do like sources, we should go by them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editing conflict is whether Pelest and Palestine are related names or not. Mistamystery rejects the connection because the Pelest were "wiped out" by Babylonians in 7th c. BC. I made the argument that these are (obviously) related names. Sources simply disagree with the former argument (which is arguably in line with the Zionist myth that the name Palestine suddenly came into being by the Romans):
  • "The name Palestine is derived from the ancient names Phillistines, identified with Peleset" [1]
  • "The name Palestine is the most commonly used from the Late Bronze Age (from 1300 BCE) onwards." [2]
  • "A cognate of the name Palestine, Peleset,..." [3]
Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't myself know enough about this to say one way or the other what's right, but the slightly different material that is on related pages needs sorting, I don't have much time for next few weeks, but I will get to it if no-one else does. Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(in response to Makeandtoss, not selfstudier - we responded at the same time) No, thank you. You are mischaracterizing the issue here. It is not whether Peleset and Palestine are related (obviously they are), it’s if we are to presume the connection between the two is direct enough, and if the two are similar enough in definition, to make the claim that Peleset’s Bronze Age appearance in the historical record is therefore indication that “Palestine” (as a catch all regional definition) entered the historical record in the 12th century BCE - which it did not. Peleset did, and it later influenced a separate exonym used by foreign powers to describe the region.
Outside of the etymological sourcing of the word, the historical Peleset and later regional definition of Palestine are almost entirely distinct. It’s already sourced in this article (and in the other connected ones) that Palestine as a specific term (not its derivative forbears) that is in reference to the region, does not solidly enter the historical record until the 5th century BCE.
A cursory review of the talk page conversation today will catch you up on where we landed. There isn’t a dispute here - just a need to perhaps further clarify the parameters of this page, as opposed to other Palestine related pages. Mistamystery (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The name Palestine is the most commonly used from the Late Bronze Age (from 1300 BCE) onwards." Sources are quite clear and explicit in making the connection.
Furthermore, notice the article's body: "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BCE ancient Greece, when Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê."
Is it really clear? Because by your logic, it wasn't really called "Palestine", it was called "Palaistine"; also an ambiguous region only defined as a district of Syria.
I would support a phrasing around: "The first written records referring to a cognate of Palestine..". But certainly not a "what would later become known as Palestine". Makeandtoss (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peleset is not Palestine. It is a specific and separate geopolitical entity that ceased to exist before “Palestine” as a specific term as well, as the separate concept (that is the explicit subject of this article - a general regional entity - not a pentapolis of Aegean migrants).
The region became generally known as “Palestine” starting in the 5th century when Greeks adopted the term. Hence “later to be known”. Peleset is not a cognate for Palestine, it is a distinct concept, and Palestine’s etymological inspiration.
“The Greeks began using the term ‘Palestine’ to refer to the whole region between Egypt and Phoenicia. This term does come directly from ‘Philistine.’ The Greeks used this for the whole region because they were obviously more familiar with the coastal nation (the Philistines) than the inland one (the Israelites).”
https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/09/palestinians-ancient-philistines/ Mistamystery (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A cognate of the name Palestine, ‘Peleset’, is found on five inscriptions as referring to the settlement of a people along the southern Palestinian... [4] Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

“ The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring people or land.”

Edit request to either remove or clarify with source why a neighboring region is conflated with Palestine. 2603:8001:7401:6254:D031:6813:D5DA:61B7 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I believe the written records came from Egypt, and those written records referred to what is now Palestine using the term "Peleset". Does that help clarify things? Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

93.173.94.27 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is supposed to be called israel as people don’t know the fact that the roman’s renamed the land palestine

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza's population is expected to increase to 2.1 million people in 2020" outadedness

It's 2024, we need to change the tense of that statement and/or verify whether or not the prediction came true. Polishedrelish (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]