Talk:Muslim history in Palestine

Palestinian nationalism seperate from Arab nationalism

I flagged the following claim as dubious: "This anti-Zionist trend became linked to anti-British resistance (such as in the 1936-39 Great Uprising), to form a nationalist movement quite particular and separate from the pan-Arab trend that was gaining strength in the Arab world." I'd like to see verification of the claim that Palestinian nationalism was "particular and separate" from pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism as early as the 1930s. If none is forthcoming in the next couple of days, I'll remove the claim from the article. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism was distinct from Arab nationalism after the expulsion of Fayçal from Damas in the '20s. Before, natinalist leaders from Palestine (area) promoted an Arab kingdom of Great Syria where Palestine would have been a South Province. After they promoted an independant Palestine. 81.247.82.174 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you verify that? --GHcool (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

pov

Seriously, an article based on the propaanda of Efraim Karsh and propaganda from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs? (Btw: people in many countries, including the one I am in, cannot access the webcite of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)

This is pure propagada, nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.204.61 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of just being vague, please explain EXACTLY what in your opinion should be fixed? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the fault of your oppressive Islamic government, not the fault of Israel. 23.240.42.139 (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not reliable source?

A team of anti-Israel editors think that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not reliable source about the history of Israel. That point of view is rather absurd, so I restored the information. I am talking about this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have asked editors at WP:RS/N to come here and give their opinion. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Everytime you call any editor who disagrees with you 'anti-Israel' you are confusing yourself with a country, to say the least. Only a complete ignoramus regarding history would even entertain for a nanosecond the idea that historical data, amply studied in great detail in thousands of academic books written by specialists, is best annotated by some snippet of inadequate summary by some anonymous joker in a government bureau. This would apply to using the U.S., Russian, Chinese, German, or Palestinian governments as sources for their own history. History is the competence of historians, not paid-up bureaucratic pen-pushers.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• I need not word it quite so pungently, but yes, there is no material here for which a political ministry of the Israeli government is a usable secondary source. Find a history book or journal article and use that. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is WP:RS on the views of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs ...not for the history of the region. This should be elementary. Huldra (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Making it seem that anyone who disagrees with using this source is anti-Israel is poisoning the well. It's possible for someone like me, who is worldly but not inherently anti-Israel, to recognize that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs would most likely be a biased source in regard to content about the history of the land currently known as Israel. I concur with other voices who say that there are plenty of academic historical sources available, and therefore in this instance the Israeli government should be avoided as a source, unless it is just to source the position of the Israeli government. SageRad (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Making it seem that anyone who disagrees with using this source is anti-Israel". I never did that. I specifically referred to those two editors who removed the source from the article. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In any language, 'team' does not mean 'two'. In any article of merit, no one familiar with the methods of scholarship would consider that one does well to cite abbreviated governmental versions of history when, at a punch of the search machine, anyone from any background can harvest a host of scholarly works that deal with the same topics in detail. That you have yet to learn the difference between an officially sponsored government-national history in blippy handouts, and academic histories, is all that one can conclude from this unfortunate exchange. It's never too late to pick up the hint now given, and master it.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser: are you serious? Are you really calling me "anti-Israeli" because I removed Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a source for Muslim history in Palestine? Huldra (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course not on the basis of that edit alone. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Which other edits, then? Diffs, please. And may I ask diffs for the other editor, too. Huldra (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Study of the history of Palestine is not in the terms of reference of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actually there is no reason whatever to imagine that they have expertise in the subject. None. Nor is there are least reason to believe that they would disseminate a balanced view if they had one. MFA has a mandate for "information" propagation in the service of the state, that's it. So they produce these booklets containing a dumbed-down Zionist view of history designed to satisfy people who are not willing or able to consult books written by historians. We don't want it here. Zero^talk 23:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, what are you doing? You bring something to RS/N, and every single person that responds agrees it is not a reliable source. So you keep restoring it here? And claiming its a reliable source? Can you explain that to me? nableezy - 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So far I see only 2 neutral editors, and I eagerly await more neutral editors' comments. In any case, as of yesterday, which means since before your post, I have not reverted any more. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are adding information about the environmental history of the region, it would seem to me that there would be sources much more directly tied to that actual topic, that would work better here.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps indeed Wikipedia would benefit from a dedicated environmental history article to complement Demographic history of Palestine.--Pharos (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not about 'neutrality', Debresser. It is about basic RS competence. Everyone, of whatever POV, editing Wikipedia should know that historical facts are to be sourced to competent historical works. What Erdogan's government thinks of Turkey's past, or Netanyahu's government of Israel's past, or Putin's bureaucracy of Russia's past, or the French government of France's past,etc.etc., is not of interest, for if correct, it is derivative of scholarship, and therefore unnecessary. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, you may accept whatever opinions you like, I will accept the opinion of neutral editors only. Please notice that when Huldra insisted on neutral opinions at another discussion, you had no problem with that. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus against your using a government agency as a source for history. You don't get to decide which editors voices matter. nableezy - 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nableezy, that point is moot in this case, did you notice? Debresser (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: I question your counting ability. Even ignoring the regulars, there are SageRad and Mangoe here and K.e.coffman, Comatmebro and Aquillion at RSN. I don't recall any other I/P-related RSN question that brought such a unanimous verdict from the community. You should learn from it. Zero^talk 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zero Those I hadn't seen, since the request was clearly to comment here. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, since, while you can ask editors at RS to post here, the issue is an RS/N problem, and therefore specialists there are perfectly in their rights to drop their opinions there. Everyone disagrees with you, accept it.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• The foreign affairs ministry of any government is a seriously flawed source for the history of anything. Ministries serve government, not the study of history. Objective3000 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't put it better than Objective3000 did. Note: the article Jews is using the exact same source in its lede paragraph; not for a controversial statement, but we might want to replace it by a proper source there too. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

IMFA as a source

This is the second time that I've seen the IMFA used on this article, and invariably it is not about some historical fact, but a description that insinuates 'under Arabs/Ottomans the country was ruined. The first on examination against historical scholarship, for the medieval period, turned out to be a gross caricature of the age, emphasizing the late decline due to disease against the earlier evidence of Mamluk prosperity. This recent edit does the same, and is again, a gross caricature. These articles can easily be sourced to numerous high quality works such as in this case David Kushner (ed.) Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social and Economic Transformation, BRILL, 1986Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, regarding the claim that the information itself was found to be "a gross caricature". The information was found to be correct. However, the consensus was that the source is not in itself a reliable source for historic information. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Check the different in quality of content between the rubbish you introduced and the revision correcting it here.

The edit was much more detailed and nuanced, but basically said the same, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Again no. The Israeli gov source reads:Under the Mamluks Palestine suffered degradation (Arabs can't build nations). The proper edit said, Under the Mamluks there was investment that made great strides in providing education and construction (Gaza and Jerusalem particularly) then a series of natural calamities intervened. That's profoundly different. One is an implicit blame narrative, the other historical.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how you consider yourself reliable after such words? Is it bias, or are there other reasons you don't mention other things you wrote yourself? See the rise to prominence of a certain family, bad internal control, bad taxation policy? Debresser (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was trained in how to read historical works and at a tertiary level by scholars with an international reputation. I'm no one in particular, of course, but I did learn what historical method is, how one uses it, and how one writes up a topic using the best secondary sources. Anyone who uses a government handout to edit in 'stuff' of a historical nature, by that very choice of trash, is yelling over a megaphone that (s)he doesn't read historical works, and is unfamiliar with the topic.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is already the second time you are bragging about your education and experience. That makes it all the sadder that a person like you should distort information and simply ignore clear words to the effect that at least in part the decline was due to internal influences. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You fail once more to grasp the point. This is a global encyclopedia, based on the best scholarship. The method I use is the standard worldwide method for ascertaining reliable information of high quality. You don't have a method, and it shows in the deplorable, indeed appalling use of agitprop versions of history, the sort of stuff old readers of Soviet Union encyclopedias had to read. Learn the method. It's simple, and guarantees one's edits stick.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is that unlike button when you need it? Method or not, your personal point of view is in blatant evidence, and that is my problem with many of your edits. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Both this and now this edit by GHCool suggest the editor has one aim, to put over 400 years of Ottoman history as one of unrelieved impoverishment (till Zionism redeemed the land), by selective citation of one period source to imply the observation holds for the whole country over centuries. The last is particularly execrable citing comically National Geographic for Mark Twain’s noted views, and using Twain’s 19t5h century piece, a journalistic impression, as a fact for a far more complex reality. (On the fatuity of using Western traveller accounts for this see Robert Mazza’s Jerusalem: From the Ottomans to the British, I. B. Tauris 2009 pp.11ff) Twain was not summing up Palestine’s three centuries of history, but is made to do so. Just as your edit from that dubious gov source asserted as a consequence of Muslim rule a late collapse that proper sources show had multiple factors often having nothing to do with Muslim administration (the Balck Death etc), so GHCool’s bit ignores the effects of the Tanzimat reforms, and much else. It’s lazy editing, in the name of a government position and an ideological cliché (Zionism) as the pathetic sources underline. You’d never guess now in reading this pastiche there that Jerusalem was an independent 'sancak’ after 1872, no longer a part of the vilayet of Syria since it was ruled directly from Istanbul not Damascus (except for legal affairs, which were based in Beirut), for example. I'm reverting it. Either do some serious research with strong sources on the Ottoman era Palestine for statements that describe it in a way that is valid for the centuries alluded to, or edit elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This second edit, on the other hand, is excellent. Could we try to keep that standard everywhere in the text? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge

Propose to merge Islamization of Palestine -> Muslim history in Palestine region
The articles obviously overlap and are rather small, with the Islamization article sized 7kb and History article sized 30kb. I essentially don't see any notability to split between "Islamization" and "Muslim history" referring to the region of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 17:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --GHcool (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm not really sure what the scope or even purpose of this article is. Is it about the history of the Muslim religion in Palestine, Muslim habitation in Palestine or (and I think this is the one) the history of the various caliphates and Muslim dynasties in Palestine? In any case, I don't see any similar articles, neither a "Christian history in Palestine" or a "Jewish history in Palestine". And for that matter there are no other articles titled "Muslim history of blank". This article's existence is actually strange and its scope, confused. Why is there is a large "Modern era" section dealing with the 20th-21st centuries when Islamic governance, so to speak, ended in 1917? "Muslim history" in Palestine is extremely varied and the only common link between the Early caliphates and say the Ottomans, is a shared faith.

There is a "History of Palestine" article which should serve as the umbrella article for all of the sub-historical periods. These sub-historical periods should be divided along the more or less traditional historical eras of the region and not a +1,400 year period during which several unrelated or very loosely related caliphates and dynasties (Umayyads, Mamluks, Ottomans, etc.) ruled the region. In fact, this article is rather redundant of material already present in the History of Palestine article (and other articles), but it's actually less detailed, which is strange for a sub-article (typically, large umbrella articles with broad scopes contain summarized information, while more details are found in sub-articles). I realize this comment is not a direct answer to your merge request, but I think we should have this discussion first before proceeding with mergers. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Maybe we can merge both into Islam in Palestine?GreyShark (dibra) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a more appropriate place for much of this material, which I hadn't thought of. I'd support merging the two into Islam in Palestine. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a sensible suggestion for a merge.Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I was reading about Arab-Byzantine wars when I stumbled upon the "Islamization of Palestine" article. The article is short and is better off around more context within the Muslim history in that region. Initially, I find this a good idea, unless Al Ameer has a better one. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• @GHcool and Makeandtoss: what is your position to the reconsidered option above to merge both Islamization of Palestine and Muslim history in Palestine region to Islam in Palestine?GreyShark (dibra) 06:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe Islam in Palestine article should be more about religion rather than detailed history. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: You're right that Islam in Palestine is about religion i.e. the state of Islam in Palestine and what variety is practiced there, but history is typically a major component of such articles. See Islam in Turkey, Islam in Spain, Islam in China, etc. as examples. An important word you mentioned is detailed: I agree that detailed history should be reserved for "History of Palestine" and its sub-articles, while a summarized history of Muslim rule in Palestine that mentions the Muslim conquest, Umayyad, Fatimid, Mamluk, Ottoman rule, the Supreme Muslim Council, and perhaps the present-day Jerusalem Waqf authority should be present in "Islam in Palestine". It's true that the current content of this article is more on the detailed side, but it should moved to Islam in Palestine nonetheless. From there, we could condense the content into a more summarized form. Thoughts? --Al Ameer (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with it. --GHcool (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the three way merge as well. I would propose slimming down much of the text in this article (Muslim history in Palestine region) as part of the merge - a lot of it appears to have very significant overlap with the History of Palestine article. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Condensing into a summarized form may cause the loss of valuable information that would have been easily displayed at the Muslim history in Palestine.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a solution to that is a (main|article) hatnote on top of the proposed "History" section of Islam in Palestine that directs the reader to "History of Palestine". It should be said that no sourced material will be lost (it probably already exists in the History of Palestine article and will exist in a summarized form in the Islam in Palestine article). Also, we should eventually create sub-articles that separately deal in detail with the various major Muslim periods in Palestine i.e. Early Islamic rule, the Middle Ages, and the Ottoman era, but we can have that discussion at Talk:History of Palestine. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to this merge taking place? Discussion above seems all for it so long as no content is lost... TrickyH (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing against the merge but the merge was improper only one sentence was copied until someone properly incorporate all the material here the content in other article shouldn't be deleted--Shrike (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is my fault, I didn't read clearly enough through the guidelines for merging, and didn't realise merged content should be block copied before copy editing. However, most of the content was duplicate or unnecessary to add; the relevant sections of history were better covered in History of Palestine#Rashidun.2C Umayyad and Abbasid periods already and sources there could be used to expand the article.TrickyH (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @TrickyH and Shrike:  Done.GreyShark (dibra) 08:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)