Talk:Palestine (region)

Palestinians in exile

• I think jordanians living abroud should also be considered palestinians in exile since that land was part of the region of palestine until 1929

Is there a catagory for this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Palestine is a geographical region, there are some Jews who were and are still in exile, since they choose to live outside the land from which the Romans exiled their ancestors. John Hyams (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John, your comments are completely irrelevant, the user is asking about Palestinians in exile, not Jews in exile. Furthermore, I challenge you to provide evidence that Jews were ever exiled from Palestine.

The fact is that there are over 3 million Palestinians who have been forced out of their homes and effectively forced to live in exile outside of Palestine because of Israeli persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

read historical books,such as Joshepius Plavious' books.

read the bible for god sake! most of it might be not true,but at least it's clear that there were some jewish state, in your "palestine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.160.81 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews have lived in Palestine thousands of years ago, they also lived in other parts of the Middle East, Europe and Africa. They were a scattered group of people who believe in Judaism. A "Jewish State" never existed in the area called Palestine, but Jews did.

I encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Hasmonean_dynasty_.28140_BC.29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah . If you want to go into details of what state did or did not exist in that area - you should say that a "Palestinian State" never existed in that area, mainly because the notion of a "Palestinian People" or "Nation" had only risen in the 20th century, when the area was under Ottomman, British and Israeli/Jewish rule (and the West Bank was also under Jordanian rule). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.44.102 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Attacking the origins stories of other groups whether Jewish or Muslim is classic racism and pointless. The important point is to describe accurately the history and current state of the Palestine area. Who was there first or longest or who was in charge is important to describe but not to wet one's pants over --Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

currently there isn't such thing as the 'state of palestine' and nobody used the term palestinians before 1967 and it should be mentioned in the article. and there was a jewish state and kingdom in israel for a lot of years and for more than one time and it should also be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.203.116 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your own Bible speaks of the Palestinians by stating that there was a Land of the Philistines (the extent of it can be argued, but it existed nevertheless and is also mentioned in Egyptian and other historical records, so you cannot deny it). If there was a Land of a people then there must have been a people of this name on the land, right? Also, while there was not a country in the "modern sense" called Palestine, as there is no country in the modern sense called Texas or New York, there was certainly a geographical/political entity called Palestine and had I asked anyone from that area at any time over the past 2000 years or so about where he was from he or she would indicate something that has Palestine in it one way or another, be it Palestina, Jund Filistine, Wilayat Filistin, or whatever. And contrary to your belief, nowhere in actual history is it called Israel before 1948.

One would think that all religious references should be removed from the article as evidence of anything. I frankly do not care what the Torah, Bible or the Quran say about something which is supposed to be historical and factual, and certainly outside of the religious realm. Your beliefs do not matter to me and my beliefs do not matter to you. You cannot prove to me that what is in your religion is true and I cannot and do not want to prove to you that my beliefs are true. So better for all of us, and for "scientific" honesty, to leave all religious BS out of it. And that would be actually the only neutral way of approaching the subject, not by mentioning all religions' claims. Biraqleet (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it is true there were Philistine people, they have no relation to the current Palestinian Arabs. The original people are gone. The region was Jewish when the Romans conquered it, forced most of the Jews to become refugees (as celebrated on Roman coins and the Arch of Titus), and renamed the region "Palestine" as an insult. The reason it was an insult to the Jews was because the Romans renamed the region to be the same name as the Philistines (an ancient enemy of the Jews). But at that point , there were no Arabs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree

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

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

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

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

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

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

What topics should this article cover?

For some time now, this article has covered only four topics: (1) Etymology; (2) Boundaries; (3) History; and (4) Demographics.

I propose adding summary sections re other articles that I believe readers want to understand when they come to this page: (5) Israeli–Palestinian conflict; (6) Palestine political entities [SoP/PNA/PLO]; (7) Palestinian people.

Anyone disagree? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Bandlow (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A key issue that I have not seen defined is: "substantial independent nation-states on the land".

The chart indicates periods of local independence during 3,000 years back
to Canaanite tribes. It appears that the only substantial independent
nation-states have been Judah and Israel, and possibly "Philistine States" around Gaza.

I am no expert, but other times appear to be as provinces controlled by various empires.
And it seems that time as an imperial province would not confer nation status and rights,
nor break the rights of the last independent nation-state.
If Hitler had turned Europe into a Nazi Empire, when would the rights of the last nation-states expire ?

Above line comment - Strabo

I'm deliberately committing the minor sin of of breaking Talk page policy and placing notice of an edit above the current important thread below to avoid distracting from it. I have (a) sectioned the classical geographers into (i) Greek, (ii) Roman, (iii) Byzantine. I have also (b) added in a sentence about Strabo (the most notable of the Hellenistic arm-chair geographers) noting that he referred to the whole area as Coele-Syria + 2 refs. In context of the ancient geographers mentioned its worth noting that Strabo, like other pre-70CE Roman govt and geographers, didn't use the term Palestine much before the destruction of the Second Temple. My edit may not have made that clear and adjustments are welcome. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

“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

In ictu oculi (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Historic designation of the Palestine region

What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiqity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948? I feel the correct historical term is simply Palestine. Other suggested variations include Land of Israel, Mamluk Palestine, Crusader Palestine, Ottoman Syria, Ottoman Palestine, British Palestine. This matter needs to be settled once and for all. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, generally speaking for all historical articles, doesn't it depend on what the various WP:RS for the various historical periods call it? If they are all over the place, and all use in common "Palestine" or "Israel" or "Syria" with whatever modifier, then you might have a footnote saying "various sources use various names (list) and for consistencies sake we call it whichever phrase seems most used for that time period. (Assuming of course there isn't some obvious POV drive to exclude WP:RS that use a phrase some editors disapprove of.) So I'd apply that principle here, except to be clear of change in names when you moving from time period to time period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Depends on the time period, as noted by Chesdovi's own list, so I am inclined to take a case-by-case view. However, Land of Israel is a religious (biblical/talmudic) name that overlaps, but is not exactly the same as all of the above. I disagree this needs a systemic solution (like Judea and Samara needed), simply because there would be no neutral sources calling this area anything but a variation of "Palestine" from the middle ages until the emergence of "Land of Israel" Zionism (because as we know, there were other Zionisms) in the late 19th and early 20th Century, and of course, the immediate name before the area became Israel was British Palestine. Even sources in Hebrew will say "Palestina". The only people with a problem are those who want to change history to fit current political positions. It should be trivial to keep that at bay if it weren't for the fact that everyone in WP:ARBPIA is so tainted, going to AE is usually suicidal. :)--Cerejota (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• An example of this issue is Israel ben Moses Najara. The lead stastes: Israel ben Moses Najara (c. 1555, Damascus – c. 1625, Gaza), while per WP:OPENPARA (c. 1555, Damascus, Syria – c. 1625, Gaza, Palestine), would seem more apt. Note that is very rare that we have the country preceded by the empire which ruled the region at the time. Or do we use: Gaza, Land of Israel? Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:OPENPARA doesn't require the precision you are giving to the places of birth for anything other than contemporary and relatively modern BIOs and BLPs. The mention of Damascus and Gaza with wikilinks, alone resolves the issue in a satisfactory fashion. In any case, the most precise form would be (c. 1555,Damascus, then in Ottoman Syria – c. 1625, Gaza, then in Ottoman Syria), but that is ugly, so the first version is best. Again, what I see is that this RfC doesn't resolve a problem that existing policy cannot resolve - if people are willing to be NPOV about it.--Cerejota (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We can not only rely on the links. Pages from wikipeia are copied elsewhere and are printed out for infomation. You cannot click a link on a sheet of paper. I would also point out that it is probable that sources which put Rabbi Najara in "Ottoman Syria" are non-existent. I would go further and state that while using the Empire+Country (E+C) may be acceptable within the main article, for the lead, I doubt that using the E+C terminology has a precedent in good articles. To be accurate, the Ottoman Emipre is classified as a county in its own right. Therefore it should be: "Gaza, Ottoman Empire". But that is rather vague. Most RS, AFAIK, tend to use modern term for ancient areas in such cases. Thats why we have Jewish rabbis from Muslim ruled Andulasia called "Spanish" scholars and mediveal scholars are described as being from Italy, while at the time, Italy did not exist, but was rather made up of many independant city-states. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• The correct term is "Palestine." I don't remember exactly when it began being called by that name, but it ceased being called by that name in 1948. I agree with Chesdovi. --GHcool (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Chesdovi too. It would save everyone a lot of unnecessary debate if we could solve this once and for all. The articles Time periods in the Palestine region and History of the name Palestine show well that Palestine is the only name used consistently throughout history pre-1948. Even the early Zionists used the name (see e.g. here First Zionist Congress). Wiki-agreement on this would allow us to streamline a number of overlapping and duplicative history articles as well, and would make the whole topic much more user friendly for readers. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Well, I for one think it depends on what time period your are writing about. The authority and name for the region has changed many times throughout history. Maybe you should post what your going to say here in the talk section, then we can figure out what it should be called.

-Wiki_Khalil

• • This has come to fore due to some well meaning editors replacing the word "Palestine" with the word "Israel" in article about 16th-century rabbis, which is a total fallacy. Other editors prefer to use the term Land of Israel or Eretz Yisrael in articles about rabbis from the 3rd-century, etc. The question is: Can the term Land of Israel be used in a secular encylopedia, or do we use the Jewish term for Palestine in all Jewish subject matters? (This may lead to the use of other terms in "Jewish," i.e. Turkey may be called "Kushta" - it's name in Hebrew/Jewish). I am not saying it can LOI can not be used at all in such articles, but "Palestine" should be the preferable term used, esp. in the lead, as it is the common English term used for the historic region used in contemporary RS. (i.e. the official name for the British Mandate was "Palestine", not British Mandate of the Land of Israel). Chesdovi (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If your talking about 1000-586 BCE or after 1948 May 14-15, call it Israel. Otherwise I would refrain from calling it Israel. -Wiki_Khalil

• Yes in some cases it would depend on more specific time periods, but if we are trying to give a broad title overlapping this period then I would have to agree that the most commonly used name would appear to be Palestine or small variations thereof. Might as well just use Palestine then. It should not be viewed as "lessening" in any way as regards to Israel whether it be post 1948 or pre 500 BC or so. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• For much of recorded history (ie post biblical, until 1948), the correct term must be "Palestine". That this may confuse some modern readers (reading about, say, a 17th century rabbi) is unfortunate, but it's rigorous. Maybe if they're confused enough they'll click a link and learn something. I'd normally prefer to avoid any chance of confusion, but there's no better solution without dumbing down or becoming ridiculous... or worse, political. This is the term other serious RS give to this piece of land and we should do the same. I think the only period I'd be unsure about is from 586BCE until the Roman conquest, but that's probably only my ignorance of the history of that period and no doubt others would be able to clarify. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, I agree. To your question re pre-Roman times, working backwards: (1) Before the Romans (63bce) were the Hasmoneans, who expanded out of the Judean mountains in 110bce and ruled almost all of Palestine for 50 years before the Romans came, giving the name Judea to their wider empire; (2) Before the Hasmoneans were the Greeks - mainly the Ptolomies and Seleucids. Greek writers called the region Palestina. There are no biblical sources covering this period; (3) Before the Greeks were the Persians (539–332bce). Greek writers Herodotus and Arrian wrote that it was called Palestina during this period. Persian sources call it Eber-Nari. Coins from this period suggest that the area of the Judean mountains was known as Yehud Medinata; (4) before the persians were the neo-babylonians and neo-assyrians (732–539bce), who also called the region Eber-Nari. The biblical Kingdom of Judah in the Judean mountains existed as a vassal state during this period; (5) before that were the independent biblical states of Ancient Israel and Judah and Philistia. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the term "Palestine" should be used in some cases, and the term "Land of Israel" in others.

This question has been the issue of many a heated debate of late, after User:Chesdovi started to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in areas where such was previously exception rather than rule. Namely articles about and related to Jewish sages of various ages.

I think there is no reason we should use one term throughout the whole project. I think it is perfectly normal that an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia is, should avoid ambiguous terms and/or awkward word combinations. The adjective "Palestinian" is likely to be misconstrued as meaning "holding Palestinian citizenship" (as in "State of Palestine"), or "being of the Palestinian ethnicity" (as in "Palestinian people"). Likewise, sentences like "Rabbi Akiva was a Palestinian sage" sound awkward. (In addition to being inferior from a strictly encyclopedic point of view to "Rabbi Akiva was a Jewish sage".)

An analogue and precedent can be found in Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Year_numbering_systems, which is the basis for the fact that most Judaism-related articles use CE and BCE instead of AD and BC.

An additional argument is the category Rabbis of the Land of Israel, which has been called so since 19 December 2006. In fact, on that same date Category:Palestinian rabbis was redirected there, and that has been so ever since.

And yet another argument is the category Palestinian Jews, which was never populated by more than four articles, about Jews who have been clearly identified as either holding Palestinian citizenship or publicly identifying with the Palestinian ethnicity.

In addition, it is important to notice that the term "Palestine" as it is used in academic English-language literature refers to an area of ever-changing boundaries, ruled by many different rulers, who used various names to designate this area. In this sense, the term "Palestine" is not preferable to the term "Land of Israel". But the term "Land of Israel" has one reason to be preferred in articles about Jews, and that is that it has been the term by which they have traditionally referred to this area themselves. Jews, through all ages, have called this area "Eretz Israel".

I would like to notice that few editors have so far replied on this Rfc. Many editors have expressed their opposition to the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles in other discussions, like an Rfc Chesdovi opened on the now deleted Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and a Cfd at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis, which was closed with a very sharp concluding commentary "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Debresser (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem is using the adjective "Palestinian", which has become ambiguous (political, ethnic, or regional sense). The phrase "Ottoman Palestine" (as in Category:Jews in Ottoman and British Palestine, 107 pages) is unambiguous and unproblematic, and can't possibly refer to modern politics or ethnic identity. I wonder how we could extend that model without having to say things like "Rabbis of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem", "Rabbis of Palestine under the Ayyubid Sultanate", etc. Maybe divide into Roman and Byzantine Palestine, Medieval Palestine, and Ottoman Palestine? Though "Akiva ben Joseph was a Palestinian sage" is ambiguous and peculiar, what's wrong with "Akiva ben Joseph was a Jewish sage in Roman Palestine"? --Macrakis (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

While this is off subject, I feel I must reply. There is one thing I need clarify by people who are of the opinion that "Akiva ben Joseph was a Palestinian sage" is ambiguous and peculiar. Why is the case dissimilar to “Joseph ibn Abitur was a Spanish sage”? Did Joseph ibn Abitur hold Spanish citizenship, was he of Spanish ethnicity? He was of neither, but it is deemed okay to call him Spanish, for he was indeed from Spain. So why is Palestine the only region where use of its adjective becomes ambiguous regarding its context? Does it not simply mean the guy was from Palestine? If it is indeed so problematic, why are contemporary RS using the term to describe ancient people from Palestine, be they Christian monks, hermits, historians or rabbis? Why is there only an issue on wikipedia when it comes to Palestine and Jews? There are Jewish academics, notably Adin Steinsaltz who have called rabbis such as Akiba “Palestinian.” If it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for wikipedia? Would we never be able to call rabbis Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi or Yemenite? Some may think its peculiar to call a Jew “Palestinian”, but that is only due to people’s limited exposure to the term Palestinian in the contest of the modern day conflict. The more well-read among us will know that the term is also applied to historic people of all faiths and ethnicities who came from the region called Palestine. There is in my mind no valid reason why this appellation should be disregarded in regard to Jews only. That would be totally ridiculous. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Palestine" should be consistent with the use of any other geographic description. That means, in general, that the OP is correct that "Palestine" is the correct term from the Hellenic era onwards. As would be the case with other geographic descriptors, we may sometimes need to be more specific. "Ottoman Palestine" may sometimes have a place, but overdoing it would be pushing a political POV. We wouldn't describe François Léotard, for example, as being anything other than French, although in the article detail it might be mentioned that he was born in the État Français under Nazi occupation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I don't particulary have a brief on this subject, but I can't really understand the conclusion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis as it seems to have been concluded because of heatedness rather than actual presention of WP:RS. Just a quick glance at Google Books shows:

• "rabbis of the land of israel" about 144 results
• "palestinian rabbis" about 2,940 results

You'd expect JSTOR or Athens to produce similar. As for history,

• "palestine under the" about 27,000 results

I'm not even sure what the alternative to search for would be? Geographically, between 70CE and 1948, that area is known as Palestine. What else would it be? Pre-70CE "Land of Israel under the Ptolemies," fair enough, but post 70CE?

However, out of sensitivity to the comment Macrakis makes, how about Category:Christian monks from Georgia (country) (11 P), there's no reason why 70CE-1948 Category:Rabbis from Palestine couldn't be used if there's a concern about modern association of the adjective "Palestinian" as an ethno-political rather than geographical term In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can all respondents please be aware and stay on topic: This discussion is about "Historic designation of the Palestine region", not about designating people from that region. Once this matter is concluded, we can move onto other issues at hand. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is basically one and the same issue. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi/Debresser I don't know if it's one and the same issue or not - sorry for responding to Macrakis' concern, but I thought it's worth noting that the adjective "Georgian" and noun "from Georgia" carry different weight in an analgous Wikipedia naming convention. The intention of the point was to make people less itchy/jumpy about if the decision goes for "Palestine" here that then the adjective "Palestinian" follows automatically - it doesn't ...which achieves the unexpected of agreeing with both Chesdovi and Debresser's comments. Only trying to be helpful, if its is isn't helpful ignore it :). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, although the question was posed in general terms, we all understand that the main reason for this Rfc is because you want to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in articles about Jewish sages. So I think we had best address the hottest item, and see if some consensus can be worked out here. I propose to not change the consensus, which is to avoid these words in Judaism-related articles, and use the equivalent (and in some respects even better) "Land of Israel". Debresser (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can all respondents please note that deciding on what to call this specific region and the issue of how we refer to people of this region are related, but seprarate issues which will be resolved individually. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As you see, we are discussing them both. Since they are so closely related. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, please stop posting these annoying bold notices. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• It must reiterated for the sake of those who are unclear about the nature of this Rfc: This discussion is specifically related to what to call the historic region of Israel and the PT in all articles. Respondents are kindly reminded not to go off topic. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the notices are quite annoying. --FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is indeed related, and it could easily be considered separate, but deciding one issue can set a precedent when dealing with the second issue. this is why the majority of people here prefer to discuss both issues at once. Or so I think. Vaskafdt (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think its better to deal with one thing at a time. If however, the majority wish to discuss both issues, by all means, just add a note to the top so the Rfc subject matter is clearer to the closer and new respondants. You do realise that this will snowball into how we decide to refer to people from the political entity as opposed to the region, unless all are referred to as Palestinian, which I would support. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the two are easily divided. The geographical name normally dictates the demonym, doesn't it? For me, the fact that we wouldn't refer to Léotard as "Vichy French" or Oscar Wilde as a "subject of the United Kingdom" illustrates the main principle.

Apologies for my comment above, which may have been brusque.

I do think though, that if the RfC is about a very specific issue, as it appears to be, that should be reflected in the RfC question. I obviously haven't been understanding what the specific thing in issue is. --FormerIP (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Demonym" perfectly describes my position on the matter. Anyone from "Palestine" (we will know what tha refers to after the Rfc), should obvioulsy be called "Palestinian" (be it the historic region or modern political entity.) Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not clear to me what the point of the RfC is. Replacing references to Palestine in articles would be wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the complaint. I don't see why it is inappropriate for subcats to be based on historical eras. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Some editors have removed "Palestine" and left the lead like: (b. 1569 Gaza, d. 1701, Damascus). I am suggesting that we added the countries Palestine and Syria, as opposed to "Ottoman Palestine" or "Land of Israel" or leaving it sans-regional identification. Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Land of Israel" would be very wrong. But is there an example of an article where that has been done? --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Land of Israel" used at Laura of Euthymius, Yadua the Babylonian, Theophanes the Branded, Hanan the Egyptian, Simeon the Yemenite, Tachlifa the Palestinian. Left empty at Israel ben Moses Najara. "Ottoman Palestine" at Issachar ben Mordecai ibn Susan. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I've gone through and changed those first six. Let's see if it sticks. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you go ahead and change before the Rfc is closed? Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, like I say, I'm not sure I understand what the RfC is specifically about. But, in those cases, I don't think an RfC is needed. They are covered by COMMONNAME. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. But Debresser does not. Good luck. Chesdovi (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the word "Palestine" comes from the designation of the land inhabited by the Philistine tribes. The area called "Land of Israel", which is the area inhabited by the Israelite tribes, is larger than the area the Philistines inhabited. As the term "Land of Israel" has been in use at least since the times of the prophets (see 1 Samuel 13:19), when people still knew the difference between the places inhabited by the various tribes, Philistine and Israelite, the term "Palestine" is basically incorrect when applied to the "Land of Israel".

This is only an additional argument to prefer "Land of Israel" in some cases, specifically when referring to tis area in Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, that's incorrect. Even if you choose to take the bible literally, the Torah / Pentateuch is ambiguous as to the definition of Philistia. Only the books covering the specific period of Samuel / Judges, as also covered in Chronicles and Kings, use the definition you refer to. But putting that technicality aside, there are no historical references to Palestine referring to only the area of the biblical Philistines. Absolotely none. Archeologically and historically speaking, Palestine has only ever referred to the wider region. The egyptians and Assyrians used the word to refer to an undefined area, and from 450BCE all historical references have clearly referred to the wider region the term implies today. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Close RfC without prejudice. What problems does this RfC aim to solve? It appears to me that it is directed towards a very specific issue (regarding Palestinian rabbis), despite being framed in more general terms. This is not the right way to go about solving a content dispute of that kind. As CarolMooreDC points out above, the way to handle this is first and foremost to go by what reliable sources say. In the case of the rabbis this means secular, historical sources. If there is a disagreement between sources covering the specific topic then expand to other sources about the same region in the same time period and see what they say. If there is no consensus among such sources, then, well we can't settle this RfC in the first place, because we'd be arbitrarily deciding to use one over the other without a consensus among historians to do so. Chesdovi, I think you need to re-frame your RfC to deal only with the issue you clearly started this over, or else provide examples outside the rabbi entries where this is also a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I should have been more specific at first about what I hoped would be settled with this Rfc. We cannot have a situation where a very notable and clicked-on rabbi, Isaac Luria, has been described since December 2009 as: He was born in Jerusalem in 1534 to an Ashkenazi father, Solomon, and a Sephardic mother; died at Safed, Ottoman Empire controlled land of Israel July 25, 1572 (5 Av 5332). As far as I can tell, the vast majority of secular sources use the term Palestine/Palestinian, even when discussing historic Jewish matters. Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw the changes made by FormerIP. Should we keep them, since there seems to be nothing really amiss with them, or should we blindly revert them, only because they were made before the Rfc was over? What is the correct thing to do here? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC should be closed. If there is nothing wrong with his edits then so be it. These issues should be decided on a case by case basis anyway and should reflect reliable sourcing.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the term "Land of Israel" or "Erez Yisrael" are not to be used, unless in a religious context. It also seems the demonym "Palestinian" can be used for all people from "Palestine", it not making a difference under whose rule it was during a certain period. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a forgone fact that you would come to that conclusion, whatever transpired here. But I see a lack of consensus on the latter part. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this Rfc was opened less than two weeks ago, and I don't see any strong consensus yet, that would allow to close it before the customary 30 days. On the contrary, I think we need more blood here (that is to say, more and fresh input). Debresser (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good discussion (though -- and perhaps because? -- I've not taken part). I agree that there doesn't seem to be a reason to close it early (even if the result may be the same as if we were to). I, for one, think it is helpful to let editors have at it, in the thoughtful way that they are addressing it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just stumbled upon a very fine book by The Rev Dr. Abraham Cohen who states:

The concluding chapters of Genesis which we read this morning describes the closing scene in the lives of two of our great men-Jacob and Joseph…[Jacob] had just claims to be called Palestinian-to apply the modern term. But with Joseph it was otherwise…He ought, consequently, to be regarded as Egyptian rather than as Palestinian. Sabbath sermons, Soncino Press, 1960. Pg. 57.

Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi/Rav

As an issue has arisen at Yadua the Babylonian, I wish to ask for views appertaining to the usage of “Palestinian honorific” to describe the title “Rabbi” as opposed to “Rav”. We have the following sources:

• “Rav is a Babylonian title, Rabbi a Palestinian title.” The Jewish quarterly review, Volume 31
• “He is, consequently, referred to by the Palestinian title 'Rabbi', as distinct from the title 'Rav' current among the Babylonian scholars” The Talmud with English translation and commentary
• “Although he is designated in this text Rabbi (Palestinian title)” Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part IV: the Eastern Diaspora
• “In the Talmudic era, the term "rab" was used chiefly of Babylonian teachers and "rabbi" of Palestinian teachers” Mercer dictionary of the Bible
• “Rab is Babylonian in distinction from the Palestinian, Rabbi. A higher dignity than Rabbi is intended by the title Rabban” Judaism: in the first centuries of the christian era. The Age of the Tannaim

Is using "Palestinian honorific" at Rabbi Yadun valid? Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Talk:Yadua the Babylonian. See there for my opinion. Personally, I think this is the wrong place for this issue. Please feel welcome to post there. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine" used in Jewish publications

For those of you who think “Palestine” was not used in Jewish publications, see the following sample:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4] and [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

--- Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

thumb|Jewish poster From the above discussion, it is clear that Palestine/Palestinian is to be used in all relevant articles. Chesdovi (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but however much you might want that to be true, it is not. I see a distinct admission by editors that the term "Palestinian" is problematic in connection with rabbis. And I likewise see a slight preference for alternative terms, like in the edits done by User:FormerIP. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about we swap it round to something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Edit request from , 22 October 2011

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

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

Strange article

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

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

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

Inconsistent Epochs

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

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

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

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

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

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

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

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