Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine

Tagging

Chesdovi needs to attempt a justification for all the tags added to this article today, or they will be removed. Can I please ask anyone commenting on this article overall to first review the external references section of the article, in particular:

• Jacobson
• Feldman
• Gerber
• Also, Edward Said's A Question of Palestine

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that you have gathered from early sources, however these being only translations. i.e. I doubt very much whether in Jewish Midrash the word Palestine appears. It is only referred to as such by the translator, but does not appear in the original text. It seems in this case, it appears only in the notes. The whole page needs to be based on tertiary sources. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS, which says that articles should be based primarily on secondary sources whilst primary sources can be used with care so long as any interpretation is supported by secondary sources.

This article is based primarily on secondary sources - in particular, the four listed above. Where primary sources have been used, no interpretation is given - only the source quote.

To your point on the midrash, you only needed have read the secondary sources above - see e.g. Feldman who says "...the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 90.6), commenting on the word "land" in Genesis 41:54, presumably as Krauss mentions, reflecting official nomenclature, explains that the reference is to three lands in the region - Phoenicia, Arabia and Palestine."

Nice talking to you as always. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To my amazement, I have checked the original Hebrew midrash text and lo and behold the word Falastini indeed appears! So I am sorry and acknowledge that I should have checked first. Thanks is also due, as now I can use this piece of infomation elsewhere. Regards and speak to you soon, Chesdovi (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure - thanks for letting me know. Speak soon. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though Chesdovi was mistaken in this instance, his general point is valid. Very few traditional Jewish sources use the name "Palestine". A few years ago I asked a friend who is an expert on this sort of thing, and he came up with these examples of "Palestine" or "Palestinians":

• 3-4 uses in Midrash Rabbah
• one quote from Midrash Rabbah around 1300 CE
• R' Saadya Gaon (around 900 CE) in his Arabic commentary to the Torah
• R' Ashtory HaParchi (around 1300CE) in his travel book Kaftor VaPerach calls the city of Ramleh "Palestine" (this is known from non-Jewish sources too).

Zero^talk 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

IP 74.240.225.109 has just added the following: "It is important to note that the root is traced to a meaning that means, "usurper" or "invader", and that the Biblical Phillistines did not refer to themselves by that name. This is how the term "invaders" is spelled in Hebrew: פולשים. It has the same F/P-L-S semetic root. It is a fact that is routinely ignored by Palestinian nationalists, who are either too ignorant, or afraid of the truth. In reality, it is beyond amusing that any modern people would choose to refer to themsleves as "invaders". Why on earth would you willingly refer to yourself in your own language, by a term that literally means "invaders", and was a deragatory term used by a non-Arab people to refer to another non-Arab people who are completely unrelated to you? That makes no sense.<http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php>" Can anyone provide a reputable source for any of this? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This claim of the origin of the word "Philistine" (by Zionist propaganda) is not supported and only thrown out by "Biblical scholars" and even the root itself is not certain at all and can possibly mean migrant as well. The real scholarly view (putting aside so-called "Biblical scholars", an oxymoron to be sure) is the following that Philistine comes from "Jacobsohn and supported by others, is that the name derives from the attested Illyrian locality Palaeste, whose inhabitants would have been called Palaestīnī according to normal grammatical practice". And this fits with the other scholarly fact about the title Caphtor where the Philistines are said to be originally from according to the "Bible" that "Scholars variously identify the land of Caphtor with Cyprus and Crete and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean." Illyria is around the generic term eastern Mediterranean and the Philistines movements are impossible to document other than again somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean so it could very possibly be a Philistine migration from Illyria (the Balkans, modern day Albania, etc) were they started out and then say Crete or Cyprus and then to Canaan (Palestine).

Also being called something by someone else and having the word stick is not "unique" at all in world history anyway even IF this propaganda claim the person above posted from an infamous Zionist propaganda source was supposedly "true" at all. Just see for an unrelated example (that makes this point) the word "Christian" being something enemies of what the New Testament says were the Apostles of Jesus, first called the "Christians" as an insult in Antioch and the name stuck clearly Christianity; Acts 11:26- ... And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (KJV)

And then just finally to conclude, Palestinians are shown to be mostly related to the old indigenous people of the land (in this Canaan, Palestine, Israel, etc) as even Israeli academics and geneticists have largely acknowledged themselves http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/10/30-01.html. The whole issue about Palestinians being Semites or Arabs today has to do with them having been Arabized culturally and linguistically, regardless of where the Philistines (who most certainly have given DNA to the Palestinians as the Palestinians have the DNA of all the people who have lived in the region throughout history be they Philistines, Canaanites, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Mamluks, Kurdish Ayyubids, etc etc). If one holds say Jewish people to the statements this piece of Zionist propaganda mentiond above gives, then even according to Zionist mythology and the "Bible"; the Hebrews (putting aside nobody on earth can prove if they are descended from the Biblical Abraham much less most Jews who have lived with and intermarried in Europe in particular for centuries) the Hebrews themselves won't have originally been Semites as Abraham is said in religious lore (in particular the Bible) to have come from Ur (Iraq) which was not a Semitic place at that point either. Just see the Sumerian language in old Mesopotamia it wasn't Semitic! Meaning even Abraham, the Patriarch admired by three world religions, would not have been Semitic himself even and would've had to undergo a process of being turned Semitic culturally and linguistically (as terms like Arab, Jewish, are not "races" they are cultures and linguistic groupings, obviously more so Arab then a term like Jewish which just denotes a follower of Judaism and one can convert to the religion of Judaism, etc)Historylover4 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

genesis 21:34 needs inclusion

Genesis 21:34 refers to Abraham dwelling in Palestine, used to refer to the entire country, and should be referenced as it would predate the rest of these sources.129.215.130.11 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Added as requested. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Genesis 21.34 refers to Abraham living "in the land of the PLISHTIM for many days". In Genesis 21.32, Abraham and Abimelekh having "made a treaty in Beer-sheba", Abimelekh then "left [Beersheba] and returned to the land of the PLISHTIM". Ts-lin09 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with lack of context of pre-Hadrian usages

There may be a lack of context problem with the way the pre-Hadrian "Palestine" uses are presented. While it's interesting to give a complete (and they do look fairly complete) list of Greek/Roman citations, they could mislead the casual browser to think that "Palestine" was common pre-Hadrian, it wasn't. It's misleading that Strabo's non-use of the term is not mentioned given Strabo is the main Herod-the-Great era geographical source on the area.

“Palestine” did not come into official use until the early second century ad, when the emperor Hadrian decided to rename the province of Judaea; for its new name he chose “Syria Palaestina.”49 The new name took hold. It is found thereafter in inscriptions, on coins, and in numerous literary texts.50 Thus Arrian (7.9.8, Indica 43.1) and Appian (Syr. 50), who lived in the second century ad, and Cassius Dio (eg, 38.38.4, 39.56.6), who lived in the third, referred to the region as “Palestine.” And in the rabbinic literature “Palestine” was used as the name of the Roman province.

— The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa 2006 p37 Getzel M. Cohen

The article needs to show more clearly that "Palestine" jumped from not being a very common name for the region to the common name with Hadrian. Inserting a comment on Strabo would be a good way to do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem in principle, but I don't find in any of the three sources you gave a clear statement that Strabo never used the word. I only found statements that Strabo used "Coele Syria". Did I miss something? If not, it seems like original research. Zero^talk 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

sources missing

There are two references to "Lewis, 1993" but no such source is identified. Similarly for "Kaegi, 1995", "Sharon, 1988", "Marshall Cavendish, 2007", "Lassner and Troen, 2007" and "Room, 1997". Maybe others too. I guess some things got lost in past page splitting. "Studies in Hellenistic Judaism ：Louis H. Feldman" needs page number. Zero^talk 12:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The details for most of the short citations seem to be available in the Bibliography section of the Palestine article so they could be copied over if there is agreement to include this material. The crystalinks source doesn't look like it qualifies as an RS. I can't tell what the Jastrow 2005 is meant to be as the link doesn't go anywhere. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language link doesn't go anywhere useful. The enotes ref is a circular Wikipedia reference. I don't have any view about whether this material should be included (other than that the unsuitable sources should be replaced) but I've watched the edit warring over this material develop. I hope Tritomex stops trying to put it back until the issues are resolved and there is consensus for inclusion. Tritomex, please can I encourage you stop returning this material to the article until all issues have been resolved and there is consensus.Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

.<http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php> Most of my previous information's are given here as well. If my previous sources are questioned (although my previous source provided much deeper perspective to the etymology of the name Palestine, I can use this source too. I don't think that I should agree in self-censorship, as I gave valid links to all facts mentioned.As the books are currently unavailable I will replece part — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

palestinefacts.org is a self-published web site that fails WP:RS. We can't use it here, and we aren't allowed to copy sources from places like that either. [1] is entirely out of the question as it is a wikipedia mirror. There is only one thing that needs fixing in the article as far as I can see. When the Hebrew usage of the word Peleshet is mentioned in the lead, the word "Philistines" doesn't appear; that seems to be a mistake. Zero^talk 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation

By my count, Tritomex has violated WP:1RR three times, and has refused to attempt to gain consensus for the proposed addition. I would note that I warned the editor two months ago about WP:ARBPIA. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology - the whole article?

There have been repeated attempts to add an "etymology" section to this article. The proposed section says that the word Palestine means the Biblical Philistines, and that these Philistines were not Arabs or Semites. The section does not make any sense in this article for the following reasons: (1) This whole article is about etymology. Having it begin with a section on one person's interpretation of where the word came from is absurd (2) The sources being the Seattle Times and Palestine Facts are not experts in etymology, they are experts in politics (3) This article is not the right place to talk about who the Philistines were, where they came from, or what they called themselves (4) Focusing only on the biblical interpretation, versus the whole history of the word (which began in Egypt, before the bible was written) is not NPOV. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree except that Palestine Facts is not expert on anything. It is just some private propaganda site that obviously fails RS. One thing that can be added to the article (though not in this way) is an expert opinion of how the name "Palestine" came into English. When I get a chance, I'll cite the Oxford English Dictionary for that. Zero^talk 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote on my talk page: Seattle Times is a reliable source, they frequently publish scientific articles, and unless anyone here wants to go to the RS noticeboard and gain consensus disproving them as such, the reference should stay. The origin of the name has nothing to do with the modern definition, it is a sourced fact, and attempts to conceal that are plain agenda pushing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it is you who has to justify the insertion. I having nothing against the Seattle Times as a newspaper, but it is embarrassing to have a newspaper feature used as source in an article that otherwise relies on professional historians. The article already has a whole section on the Philistines. If you spend some time looking at serious sources, you will find that nobody knows what "Peleshet" originally meant, or even if it was a Semitic or Indo-European word. You will find that scholars have many different theories. You will also find that "Kaftor" is usually taken to mean "Crete", but that isn't known for sure either. These questions belong at Philistines anyway. Zero^talk 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The burden requirement has been fulfilled by providing a reliable source, now it's up to you to discredit what has been already established as credible... or are you suggesting I need to reinvent the wheel every time another editor has doubts against established consensus? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hearfourmewesique, I understand that your comments are made in good faith, but what you said on your talk page suggests you think there is not good faith on the other side? I find this hard to understand - please could you respond to each of Zero's points in his post above as it might help us understand where you are coming from. Also please have a look at the External References in this article. And please explain exactly what part of the Seattle Times article is saying something different to what is currently in this article - personally I don't even understand what specific point you are so focused on. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rabbinical refs

Rabbinical literature is full of apophthegms that express the positive passion of the teachers of Israel for the soil, the air, the water, the physical being of the national land. 'Whosoever walks four cubits in Palestine is assured of the world to come.' 'It is better to dwell in a Palestine desert than to live in a land of plenty abroad.' 'To live in the land of Israel outweighs all the commands of the Torah.' 'The air of Palestine makes men wise.' 'Even the chatter of Palestine is worthy of study.' 'Palestine is the microcosm of the world.' 'Rabbi Abah used to kiss the rocks of Palestine. Rabbi Chazah used to roll in the dust of Palestine.' The whole doctrine of the rabbis in regard to the national home is summed up in the sentence: 'God said to Moses, "the Land is me and Israel is dear to me. I will bring Israel who is dear to me to Land that is dear to me.' Here is the triple thread which is Judaism -- God, the Jewish people, the Jewish land. What the rabbis taught and felt, the Jewish people believed and felt. Quotes from here should be added [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.114.94 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy with respect to pre-135 A.D. uses

At a minimum, the Pausanias reference seems to be inaccurate, since Pausanias referred to Judea as being "above" Palestine (i.e. in the hills inland from the coast), and not "in" Palestine. The Greek words huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης "above Palaistine" can be seen at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0159%3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D9 . As far as I can tell, among those who had specific knowledge of the area (as opposed to those dependent on secondhand reports from coastal-sailing merchants, at a time when Judea did not extend to the coast), the word Παλαιστινη / Palaestina predominantly referred to the coastal plain area (old Philistia) before 135 A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of Philo and Josephus' uses then?! They were Judeans / Jews. If you want to understand this you should read the Jacobson reference. He states very clearly "In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense." Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your quote, I have added a translation used by two unrelated specialist scholars in to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pausanias again

The article seems to be completely rewritten (and have a different title) since I left the remarks above, but it still omits the fact that Pausanias refers to the Hebrews as being "on" or "above" Palestine (i.e. living in the hills inland from the coast -- the coastal plain being the commonest meaning of the term Peleshet/Palaistine before 135 A.D., especially among those who knew the area firsthand). See the Perseus@Tufts link above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, did you see the scholarly sources I added to support the translation?

To your second point re "commonest meaning ... before 135 AD" you are incorrect - the sources here show that clearly. I suspect what you mean is "commonest meaning as used in the bible", in which case you would be right if you judged commonness by "number of uses of the word" and wrong if you judged commonness by "number of books the word is used in". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources here only show anecdotal evidence the term was used. Does any of them explicitly support this was the common term, or is that just what this article is designed to lead a reader to believe? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMNG, I think you might misunderstand the debate here (the first point). My second comment was as an aside - we do not write this anywhere in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what those are, or whether they're supposed to be loose indirect paraphrases or actual translations. Click on the box on the Perseus site if you want to see what was printed in the famous series of green-backed books -- which was definitely a direct translation, and says "above Palestine"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Zionist propaganda

All references to Zionist propaganda must be removed as deeply offensive. 'Zionists' do not publish false information. The Torah commands the Jews to not bear false witness, the Koran commands Moslem's to use Al Teqiyya (false witness)in the furtherance of Islam. Who would you believe? John, London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.78 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to HistoryLover's comments above? I'm not sure whether that breaches policy, I defer to others on that. I am sure however that your last sentence was obscene racism, and is totally unacceptable here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about "obscene racism" (whatever that means), but it's pretty dumb, since taqiyya is mainly a Shi`ite thing, while the majority of Muslims in the Levant and Egypt are Sunnis -- and taqiyya actually mostly deals with dissimulation for self-protection in the face of persecution, anyway. There's plenty of lying in the claims of some Arab nationalists (the "map on the wall of the Knesset" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam) but I'm not sure whether there's more lying than in other forms of nationalist historiography, and the great majority of it has nothing to do with Qur'anic doctrines... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. My reference to obscene racism is based on the user's suggestion that adherent muslims are untrustworthy. His inference is as clear as daylight, and there is no place for such absurd generalisations about any race, religion or peoples in wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit by Mainstreamegypt

User:Mainstreamegypt added a new source (here in "A Commentary on Herodotus") in order to justify the statement: "Scholars are divided on whether his usage of the term only refered to the coastal strip (Philistia)".

Having read the source, it is silent on this question, and the user is making an WP:OR argument from silence. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed the Google books link, but Herodotus did use the word Palaistine to encompass Judea. However, since Herodotus appears to have gotten his information from coastal traders, and knew almost nothing about inland areas in that part of the world (he was certainly dismally ignorant about Jews), this therefore provides very little evidence as to how someone with more solid and detailed knowledge of the area (inland, not just the coast) would have used the word. As the usage of Pausanias etc. suggests, the more knowledgeable people often tended to use the term mainly to refer to historic Philistia, (i.e. the southern coastal plain), which is also the etymologically original meaning of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article title

I think it is illegal to use "" tags in wikipedia article title. Anyways shouldn't the name be Etymology of Palestine ?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology has more to do with ultimate name origins... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess then it should be Name of Palestine, in accordance with other articles titled "Name of <country>".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of those are redirects to etymology sections of main country articles. Zero^talk 22:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GreyShark you had it right, Etymology of Palestine. -- Etymology is the correct term = "A history of a word". Please punish AnonMoos. He is trying to hide the existence of this page and corrupt wikipedia, on many "Palestine" talk pages, he is posting that Hadrian invented the name Palestine after exiling the Jews 135CE. AnonMoos in on a Religious Crusade to keep this article from coming to light. -- 20:19, 31 January 2014‎ User:DigDeep4Truth

Whatever -- I haven't edited this article at all, as far as I remember. What I have done is call attention (on this talk page) to a highly-relevant quote from Pausanias, which the self-appointed apparent article "owner" refuses to include. And it's nonsense to say that the Emperor Hadrian "invented" the word Palestine, and I never claimed any such thing. Instead, I pointed out that before about 135 A.D. the word most commonly meant the southern coastal plain (i.e. Philistia), and that some of those who extended the meaning of the word beyond the coastal plain were those who were most ignorant about anything inland (this includes Herodotus). The emperor Hadrian made the previously less-common extended meaning of the word official in Roman administrative terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You opposed Greyshark09 's insightful Motion to fix the article title and blocked his Motion recognize this article as an "Etymology of Palestine" -- "The History of a Word". And even though you have read this article you posted on Multiple other Palestine related Talk pages that Palestine did not exist before Rome and Jesus. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your wrath would appear to be misdirected, since I've had basically zero influence over the text of the article up to this point. And if this article were renamed "Etymology of Palestine", then it would be much more narrowly focused on the ultimate origin of the term, and there wouldn't be too much to say other than that it was came from the name of the "Philistines", of unknown original meaning. The word Palestine or slight variants of it certainly goes back to 1000 B.C. or so, but before 135 A.D. it more commonly meant "Philistia" than "Palestine" in the modern sense... Furthermore, I've removed pointless and meaningless remarks of yours which are in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lassner and Troen quote

The sentence from Lassner and Troen in the lead "Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arab caliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible" is incorrect / misleading. They do not "offer a different view" to that of Moshe Sharon. The source states simply that Muslim geographers made the etymological connection to the Philistines, but the source does not say either (a) that this connection was made at the time they first started calling the region Jund Filastin, or (b) that the making of this connection was the reason they called it Jund Filastin. Frankly, we don't even know who the Muslim geographers being referred to were and / or when they wrote.

Removing the WP:OR synthesis of "offer a different view" makes the sentence redundant, as the fact that some geographers who happened to be Muslim at some point made a possible etymological connection between Filastine and the Philistines does not appear notable, at least not without more specificity regarding who / when / what context. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are definitely better sources for etymologically connecting Palestine to the Philistines. For example, as Moshe Gil has pointed out,* the connection was made by Epiphanius, who died in 402 CE, well before the dawn of Islam. Citing a 2007 work to make a similar point smacks of WP:RECENTISM. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

*Gil, Moshe (February 27, 1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge University Press. p. 113.

Article purpose

What is the actual purpose of this article? IMHO it is nothing more than an attempt to establish a "Palestinian" claim to SW Asia through a name that may or may not fit any of the current inhabitants thereof. The whole subject is fraught with controversy yet nothing is said of this controversy in the article. Things like all the above differences on where Filistia actually was at any one point. Just saying.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To provide a list of historical references to the name in English, in line with scholarly studies on the subject from at least the last 300 years. See the bibliography section: e.g. Reland, Noth, Gerber, Jacobson and Grief.

The controversy is about the name in Hebrew, not the name in English. It is referred to in the article in the entries for 1920, 1926 and 1936.

To my knowledge there is no controversy about the name in English, and none of the scholars in the bibliography refer to one.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Degen Earthfast, you make a Straw man claim that this article is something that it is not —If the cited sources do have "differences on where Filistia actually was at any one point" then this article is truly a fraught-full "attempt to establish a 'Palestinian' claim to SW Asia". 96.28.43.27 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

MM edits

To clarify (its a bit hard to tell), in the first paragraph I added the identification of Peleset with the Philistines by scholars, the hebrew word for the Philistines, and the region of the Philistines as described in the Hebrew Bible. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please self revert as you have crossed 1RR.

Then please explain ALL of the parts of your edit, one by one, on this page. Much of what you added contradicts properly sourced material already on this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Current	MM edits
In the 20th century the name was used by the geopolitical entities commonly known as "Mandatory Palestine" and the "State of Palestine". Both incorporated geographic regions from the land commonly known as Palestine, into a new state whose territory was named Palestine.	In the 20th century the name was used by the British to refer to "Mandatory Palestine", a mandate from the former Ottoman Empire which had been divided in the Sykes–Picot Agreement. The term was later used in the eponymous "State of Palestine". Both incorporated geographic regions from the land commonly known as Palestine, into a new state whose territory was named Palestine.

@Monochrome Monitor

1. Why did you remove the term 'geopolitical entities' ?
2. Are your edits appropriately concise for the lead section ?

96.28.43.27 (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tacitus. Removed for discussion

• c.100: Tacitus, Histories: In describing Palestine, Tacitus says that in all it productions it equals Italy, besides possessing the palm and the Balm of Gilead (Hist. 5:6).
• Tacitus isn't discussing 'Palestine' in this passage. He is discussing Judea/Samaria, the Jewish part, which he locates with Arabia to the east, Egypt to the south, Phoenicia and the Mediterreanean sea to the West, and Syria to the north.
• 'in all its productions it equals Italy' is crap, a dog-Latinist garbling of the original.

Rari imbres, uber solum: exuberant fruges nostrum ad morem, praeterque eas, balsamum et palmae. Tacitus, Histories IV:6

'Rains are rare; the soil is fertile: its products are like ours, save that the balsam and the palm also grow there.'

I.e., Judea produces all the things Italy produces save for balsam and the palm.Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that regional geography is a moot point, the following wry note is on regional geography;

salubria: this and uber solum would refer more especially to Galilee. Judaea itself was far less fertile, although a 'land of milk and honey' in contrast with the surrounding deserts. (Cornelius Tacitus (1898). The histories of Tacitus. Macmillan. p. 272., Image of p. 272 at Google Books)

96.28.43.27 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yobot

The bot, User:Yobot, removed ‎ from "פלסטיני‎&#8206;". What is the correct use of Unicode Character 'LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK' (U+200E) ? -thanks 96.28.43.27 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC) and copyedit 96.28.43.27 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)