Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Let's not undo led to undoing...

So, we have an editor put in a map and asking not to undo so naturally someone comes along to undo it a day later. Why put in a nice, visually pleasing map for our readers when there is a bland black and white one available and why replace a map of the holy land (presumably because of POV issues?) with one by Arab cartographers? Back to square one is the only option for the present I think even though I did support option number 3 a few threads higher but it didn't get support from enough people as I recall so I undid both edits. --Kalsermar (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth is there a biblical representation of the Holy land made in 1759 in the section on the Modern Period? This needs to go. If editors can't agree on a Map for the modern period then it is better to go without than present a map showing the Biblical Holy land as representation of Palestine in the modern period. Dlv999 (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

True. Shouldn't there be a section about Palestine in scripture, though? --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I placed the biblical map in the ancient history section where it belongs. For the main map, i like that one. The black and white one placed there is ugly but tolerable, and valid under the RfC. What is not valid under the RfC is NO MAP. I'd rather see edit warring on two decent valid maps then no map. Feel free to stick RfC compliant maps into the lead so we get a feel for looks and options. I also have no problem voting on the aesthetics of two or more valid options.Gsonnenf (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Map in Ancient section

Gsonnenf, I find the map of the Holy land problematic. This map was produced in 1759 at a time when scholars accepted the Biblical scriptures as historically accurate. Modern archaeologists and historians do not accept the historical accuracy of the biblical scriptures so it is anachronistic to use an 18 century misconception of ancient Palestine as the actual map for ancient Palestine in a modern encyclopedia article. The map only tells us what 18th century Christians believed about ancient Palestine - whereas this article should be based on the modern conception of ancient Palestine based on modern scholarship and understanding. Dlv999 (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We can do better than use obsolete maps. Zero^talk 12:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Better to change the caption then. There is no harm in placing something that is verifiably accurate with context such as historical accuracy. We might as well remove any map on Wikipedia articles that is not drawn according to the latest GPS and satellite data! If the map depicts what was thought of as accurate in the period the map was drawn simply provide the context instead of withholding such a map from our readers.--Kalsermar (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We only have limited space for maps so we need to use it wisely. In case it is decided that a map of the Jewish tribes is appropriate, then the best work of modern scholarship should be used. Personally I'm not convinced that such a map is appropriate at all, since a great part of it has no historical support at all outside the Bible. It would be better to use a map of the various Israelite kingdoms as understood by modern archaeologists. Zero^talk 00:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that this beautiful map was replaced by this thing. It is doing our readers a great disservice imho to withhold such an esthetically pleasing map. Like I suggested before, amend the caption to reflect what it is exactly. Removing old maps because they might not be accurate is the worst reason for removing anything I have seen in a long time. Of course they are not accurate, they are not supposed to be from our point of view. That doesn't mean they don't exist or shouldn't be used. There should be room for both maps with proper captions to illustrate the subject to our readers. --Kalsermar (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The historical map has great value in that:

1. It is an image of an artifact pertaining to Palestine.
2. It is an aesthetically pleasing piece of art.
3. It gives historical context of how the Palestine region was perceived in the past.

The current map is:

1. Really ugly.
2. I wasn't able to find if the map came from a wp:rs

For these reasons, I believe the first map should be included. Because the map has been on the article for several months, I'm going to revert and ask that people follow the WP:BRD cycle. I will change the caption to reflect its outdated status.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the map is beautiful, but that is not enough for inclusion. The section is on the history of ancient Palestine. Per WP:IUP, images "should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter". The current image is not relevant and is likely to decrease readers understanding of the subject as what it depicts is not a representation of the historical situation in ancient Palestine. If you want to include a section in the article on "cultural perceptions of Palestine through the ages" then you could include such a picture - but not in a section on the actual ancient history. I am not committed to the alternative picture as long as the Holy land map is replaced with something that reflects the modern understanding of ancient Palestine. Also to clarify WP:IUP states that Wikipedia encourages user created images - so they clearly do not need to be sourced to RS. The issue is does it reflect mainstream scholarship on the history of ancient Palestine. Dlv999 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and does increase the users understanding, especially in showing historical context. Also, wp:image suggests use of wp:rs for technical drawings. Reliable sources,may be listed on the image's description page ... This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate. It is valid without a source, but not necessarily a good choice.Gsonnenf (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a historical map, it is a fanciful depiction of religious mythology. Zero^talk 10:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Using a map based on religious mythology for an encyclopedia article on the actual history of a region is clearly absurd. To address some of the (justified) concerns that the alternative was ugly I have done a little work on a derivative of the file on Wikipedia Commons. I present the result here for the consideration of editors. Suffice to say I consider this a significant improvement on the current map based on religious mythology. However, I have consulted a reliable secondary source (Marc Van De Mieroop(2006)) which considers the ancient history of the region to be generally accepted to be between 3000 bc - 300 bc. According to the source the Map I have presented seems to be reasonably accurate for several hundred years around the beginning of the first millennium BC. My view is that it would give undue weight to this several hundred year period (in the context of a 3000 year ancient history) to present it as the only Map for the section. During the time period in question the region was part of the Egyptian Empire [1], the Assyrian Empire [2], the Neo-Babylonian Empire [3], and the Persian Empire[4]. The existence of independent city states and kingdoms in the region was actually the exception during the ancient period and only occurred in the relatively short periods between the fall and rise of great empires. Given these considerations I am thinking perhaps something like this might be most appropriate. It would be relevant for the entire ancient period, showing the location of Palestine in the context of the fertile crescent and in relation to the major power centres of the time period. I also think it would be useful in the wider context of the article to have a map which clearly places Palestine within the wider region as the other two current maps on the page do not supply this information. Dlv999 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but disagree on the use of the map based on the Bible. With proper captioning there is nothing wrong with presenting a map of the region as it was understood at the time of the map's creation. That is what older maps do. They depict a region as it was understood at the time. Readers will be served by including a map like that and I think that with the proper captioning we should give our readers some credit in their ability to place the map in the proper context. Like I argued before, otherwise we might as well remove any map on Wikipedia not based on the latest technologies.--Kalsermar (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious, Zero, as to what your assessment is based on. Ignoring the subject of WP:RS (a must, of course) for a moment, that's actually a pretty faithful representation of the position of modern scholarship regarding the Levantine kingdoms of the Ninth and Eighth century BCE. This is not a map of the 12 tribes or the United Monarchy, which are indeed Biblical entities, but of Kingdoms for which there is a wealth of archaeological evidence. How would you portray the region at the time if not as the map depicts? The fact that these are entities mentioned in the Bible does not by itself make them "religious mythology". Poliocretes (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Poliocretes - just to check we are on the same page here. Zero was criticizing the current Map [5]. Produced by European Christians in the 1700s and clearly stating that it depicts the Biblical 12 Tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Sorry about that. Poliocretes (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks, I'm not sure if this discussion resulted in the munging of the title of the map (which may not have been perfectly clear via italics alone) but I've restored the English translation of what you see in the map's upper left corner (Terra Sancta, sive Palaestina, exhibens non solum Regna vetera Iuda et Israel, etcetera). FWIW, I don't think a document from 1759 can be particularly biased vis a vis the current territorial dispute, nor can it be expected to be archaeologically accurate per modern day knowledge as to the extent of the Israelite tribes. However, I do think it's important to the article given the common misconception that Palestine was something invented out of whole cloth in the 1930s or thereabouts. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, but I think the accurate translation only highlights how unsuitable this particular map is for a section of an encyclopedia article on the ancient history of Palestine. What the Map shows is religious mythology based on 1700's Christian theology. We should have a map that accurately reflects ancient Palestine per modern scholarly opinion. By using the map to dispel a misconception, you are introducing many, many more. Dlv999 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, OK, you are absolutely correct. I had thought the map was otherwise accurate for the 1700s but merely contained an overlay; after looking closer and googling a few of the place names I now realize my error and that the map is completely fanciful. Having added it back myself some time ago, I'll undo my mistake. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored the map again. Much has been said about it here and the map was left in place for a while. I see no reason to remove it again all of a sudden. The map is a beautiful piece of mapmaking that shows the area. the captioning explains what exactly is shown. We do not need to remove beautiful eye-pleasing antique maps because they may not be accurate. that is a (my POV) ludicrous reason to remove such a map as they are never accurate according to modern knowledge and understanding. Please, lets not dumb down everything on Wikipedia and only show unimaginative maps that have no aesthetic quality whatsoever. --Kalsermar (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to move to some sort of dispute resolution here. We seem to be going round in circles in this discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kalsermar seems to have a broken idea of what this article is for. We don't use inaccurate images because they look better any more than we use inaccurate sources because they sound better. Zero^talk 22:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalsermar has a point; if we excluded every pre-modern map simply for containing flights of fancy (q.v. Here be dragons) we'd be hard pressed to include most such maps. Anyway, having done the honorable thing and self reverted once, I'm content to fiddle with the under-title to try and reach a compromise despite having no real opinion as to whether the map should continue to be included or not. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What this map offers is a perspective of what was considered Palestine in the 1700s. That alone gives it great historical perspective on the perception of the region. There is no definitive "Palestine" as there is state borders. There is only what people have attributed to the label over many centuries. The map is also a historical relic concerning Palestine. Artifacts are certainly encyclopedic content. The inclusion of the tribe boundaries is somewhat irrelevant as long as they are properly described.Gsonnenf (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Christian perspective on Palestine in the 1700s is an interesting topic that belongs in Wikipedia and that map could play a part. However, my feeling is that this is too peripheral to appear in the main article "Palestine". It belongs in some more specialized article. Zero^talk 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zero, that it probably does not deserve inclusion in the article as a whole. But even if it does merit inclusion in the article, it is certainly not appropriate for the section on the ancient history of Palestine. This section is dedicated to the description of the actual ancient history of Palestine. The Map presents 1700's Christian theological beliefs. It is totally inappropriate and misleading for this section. As I said before, I think we need to consider some form of dispute resolution on this because this discussion seems to be going round in circles and getting nowhere. Dlv999 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be the first map a reader sees in the ancient history section. I don't see a reason not to use it at all if it's captioned properly, though. We could probably add a gallery of such maps, there are quite a few and a lot of them are very nice. Here's a whole bunch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NNMNG, I like this idea. A gallery of Maps showing "historical depictions of Palestine" could be an interesting addition to the article. The main issue I have here is that the map for the ancient history section should reflect modern scholarship on the ancient history of Palestine. Dlv999 (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

1517, 1660, and 1834 pogroms/massacres in Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias

Several editors are exhibiting a pro-"Palestinian" bias in favor of keeping this article clear of any mention of the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. The original dispute with inclusion of these events especially the Safed Plunder was the source issues those articles had which have since been rectified. DionysosElysees (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the geographic region called Palestine and its history section is necessarily a brief summary of the territory's history. The material you wish to include gives undue weight to these incidents.

PS: Accusing other editors of having a bias, using quotation marks around the word Palestinian, and referring to other editors as trolls, may indicate that you see Wikipedia as a battleground. I recommend you lose the attitude or your career here may be very short. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This article claims that "The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal but the Arab Higher Committee rejected it; a civil war began immediately, and Israel was declared in 1948. The 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were driven from their homes were unable to return following the Lausanne Conference, 1949." So if that statement is not undue weight but the reference to the multiple massacres then you're insinuating that a "Palestinian" allegedly being kicked out of their home is far more significant then the indigenous Old Yishuv population being massacred (as in killed), correct?

DionysosElysees ^Talk/_Stalk 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me: In terms of local, regional, and world history, which has had more historical significance? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire "Palestinian" claim to a right of return and their narrative is based on the myth of being an indigenous people that were expelled by a colonizing European group. local, regional, world historical support for their narrative is almost completely if not entirely based on that myth. Therefore why their narrative of course should be mentioned and included such as the alleged "indigenous" 700,000 refugees that were allegedly kicked out then it then it must be mentioned that there was in fact an already indigenous population on that land upon the self-proclaimed "indigenous" group's ("Palestinians") arrival that suffered several massacres (which could be debated that was genocide). Since you brought up the local, regional, and world history relevance it should also be mentioned prior to the expulsion reference that there was a mass influx of Arab immigrant from surrounding countries from the establishment of the mandate to the outbreak of war in the late 1940s as well.

DionysosElysees ^Talk/_Stalk 19:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This offensive diatribe is not going to help your position here. Wikipedia is for balanced, NPOV editors. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To prove that I'm imagining an alleged bias towards a fictitious "Palestinian" narrative that promotes "Jews and Muslims living peacefully prior to Zionism" as has been suggested. I've asked several other editors to look at this dispute.

DionysosElysees ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:CANVASS and ensure that you have messaged editors with a diverse range of known opinions. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"DionysosElysees" aside from the fact that your claims are all completely false in particular your sourceless assertion that there was already a supposed "indigenous population" on the land when the Palestinians "arrived" (putting aside the scholarly consensus that the Palestinian Arabs (i.e. people who have been culturally Arabized, something I'm sure you either don't know about or will just ignore) via genetic tests (like those conducted by Dr. Ariella Oppenheim and others) show that Palestinians are related to all the people who have been in the region including "Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few" where did they supposedly "invade from" according to your theory?!

It has been shown even that Palestinians are very closely related to many Jews despite the reality that "Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with European populations, which makes sense because some of them lived in Europe during the last millennium." So again in your little "theory" (i.e. your nonsense) that you posted above where did Palestinians supposedly "invade" from or something? Let me guess you claim "they came from Saudi Arabia!" or some nonsense to that effect. Again the research and even genetic show that is not the case all the Palestinians are from the land of Palestine and cluster very closely with all the people who have lived in the land and even are significantly related and tied to many different Jews around the world as well.

And lastly just going with your claims even, when did the Palestinians supposedly "kill" or displace the supposed other "indigenous people" your speaking of? In Jewish mythology it was the Romans who exiled the Jews from then Roman controlled Palestine, not the Palestinian people from the Levantine region themselves! Regarding the supposed "exile" of Jews under the Romans academic Professor Shlomo Sand has shown that to be almost certainly unhistorical as no Roman records back up this supposed naval "exiling" of millions of Jews to Europe by the Roman navy or something and its been shown to be Christian propaganda to try to tell Jews in Europe they had been supposedly "exiled" from Palestine (and then "sent" to Europe) for rejecting Christianity. So really your whole claims were ridiculous and false.Historylover4 (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Historylover4, you might want to be more careful with generalizations such as "all". The UNRWA operational definition of Palestine refugee for persons qualifying for UNRWA assistance says "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948, and 1967 conflicts." Given that the Arab population of Palestine doubled during the period of the British Mandate, that would suggest a significant amount of immigration. Drmikeh49 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Basilica - World Heritage!

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Basilica of the Jesus Nativity in Bethlehem and the pilgrimage on the Palestinian territories is included on the UNESCO World Heritage List. This is the first place in the Palestinian territories, which is registered on the UNESCO list. 78.2.119.101 (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

wikilink changes needed

In Palestine#Overview please change Canaanite link to Canaan, Palmyrenes to Palmyrene Empire and Rashidun to Rashidun Caliphate. 108.73.115.62 (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you click on them they will now direct correctly. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New map - comments please

On the right is my attempt to create a professional-looking map which is also informative to the reader regarding the complexities of defining the region of Palestine, to replace the map at the top of the page at the moment (per the discussion at Talk:Palestine/Archive_12#RfC from last year). It's not finished yet (I need to fix a couple of the red lines, as the top one needs to correctly encompass Upper Galilee and the middle one needs to be closer to Rafah and Beersheba), but I would appreciate comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to offer in reviewing your work, but thanks for the effort.

What I would note is that the map doesn't give any indication of where an historical eastern boundary might lie. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's missing some stuff, like the Crusader borders and the eastern boundary as noted by FormerIP. I'm also not sure why the WZO proposal is necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WZO proposal is non notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better to restrict it to actual boundaries rather than mere proposals. Zero^talk 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. If the WZO proposal really isn't noteworthy, then don't include it. But I seriously doubt that's the case. As long as it doesn't reach a stage where the map is too cluttered an complicated to read easily, the more information the better. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There were at least 2 partition proposals which are probably more relevant than the WZO proposal.

I think we should probably stick as much as possible to well defined borders that were actually used to administer the area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, comments heard. The benefit of the WZO proposal is that it represents the largest area claimed as Palestine, and was based on historical analysis by Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi (see their book written one year before the proposal ארץ-ישראל בעבר ובהווה). I thought it was helpful because "Palestine" is not just a historical "administrative area" but also a historical "cultural area" - as Timeline of the name Palestine shows, the area has been known as Palestine during many eras where there was technically no administrative area named as such. Anyway, seems noone likes it though so i will remove it and replace it with the boundaries of administrative areas known as Palestine - let me think about how to do it. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The largest area claimed as Palestine includes most of today's Jordan. You can see that in the original Mandate as well as books written in the late 19th century such as the PEF's Survey (which includes a book on "Eastern Palestine" which is on the eastern side of the Jordan river), maps, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The mandate never suggested that - see e.g. British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Background_and_negotiations - what you are referring to is the interpretation by the Revisionists which never had traction in negotiations. And the PEF's definition of Eastern Palestine did not go any further than the WZO definition above - the PEF uses the cultural definition / natural borders, which stops at the beginning of the Arabian Desert. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read that article. "After further discussions between Churchill and Abdullah in Jerusalem, it was mutually agreed that Transjordan was accepted into the mandatory area as an Arab province of Palestine with the proviso that it would be, initially for six months, under the nominal rule of the Emir Abdullah and that it would not form part of the Jewish national home to be established west of the River Jordan". It was part of the Mandate and any map showing what the term Palestine referred to historically should include this as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seems to be missing the wider context of the article. See, for example these two quotes from the British:

• From immediately before the Cairo Conference (1921) at which the British proposal was formed: "The western boundary of the Turkish vilayet of Damascus before the war was the River Jordan. Palestine and Trans-Jordan do not, therefore, stand upon quite the same footing. At the same time, the two areas are economically interdependent, and their development must be considered as a single problem. Further, His Majesty's Government have been entrusted with the Mandate for "Palestine." If they wish to assert their claim to Trans-Jordan and to avoid raising with other Powers the legal status of that area, they can only do so by proceeding upon the assumption that Trans-Jordan forms part of the area covered by the Palestine Mandate."
• From 1927, during the early years of the mandate: "[Transjordan] is not part of Palestine but it is part of the area administered by the British Government under the authority of the Palestine Mandate."

This article is about the historical / cultural region of Palestine. No scholar has ever suggested that the Arabian desert is included in Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Borders - comments please

NMMNG has suggested that we "should probably stick as much as possible to well defined borders that were actually used to administer the area". I am ok with that proposal, which, subject to the above discussion, I take to mean we should define it as being the regions when the area was technically known as Palestine. Which to my mind leaves us with two broad time periods:

1) From the late Roman period to the Ottoman period: (from 135AD - 1516, excluding the Crusader period when it was administered as the Kingom of Jerusalem), when the region was administered in two/three sections. Although the first section was named Palestine throughout, the second and third sections had different names during some periods. Since they were all named Palestine under the Byzantines, I propose to use their definition. Bernard Lewis gives quite a good description of the administrative changes here:

• Palaestina Prima, previously part of Syria Palaestina, later broadly equivalent to Jund Filastin
• Palaestina Secunda, previously part of Syria Palaestina, later broadly equivalent to Jund al-Urdunn
• Palestina Salutaris, previously Arabia Petraea, later Palestina Tertia and broadly equivalent to the Arab provinces of Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar of northern Sinai (both subordinate to Jund Filastin)

2) The British Mandate period: As is already shown on the map

In other words, the map will look like it currently does above, but I will remove the dashed blue line (the 1919 WZO proposal which noone seems to like), and the dashed red lines will be replaced with the Prima / Secunda / Salutaris split.

Please could you let me have any comments on this proposal. If no objections, the one thing which would then be very helpful is if someone can find a cast iron source for exactly where the Byzantine borders were. I could use this map which is broadly consistent with Lewis and others, but I am not sure that it is 100% correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Transjordan needs to be in there. It was part of the Palestine Mandate. A large chunk of it is covered by the Byzantine provinces anyway. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No. As per the quote above, it may have been in the mandate but it was not part of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As per the quotes above, it was part of the Palestine Mandate. You might want to settle this issue before you put too much work into a map that might get rejected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source to back up that POV, let's assume it's settled. This is supposed to be a serious project.

Yes, the mandate boundary would be a suitable thing to include on the map, obviously. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Who should assume what is settled? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very difficult map to create if you want to have something that is accurate before the mandate period. Obviously boundaries of palestinian mandate should be on map and are not controversial. (Notwithstanding opinions above, although Transjordan may technically have been included in the Mandate, it was never in Mandate Palestine governed by the british. There's a decent discussion of this in the Transjordan article.) Just by way of example, British use of the term pre-mandate almost certainly did include transjordan. I'd have to go back to look at sources, but am pretty sure that Ottomon gaza was, more often than not, not in the same administrative division as Jerusalem or what is now northern israel. The best book on modern (post 1840) period is "The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947" by Gideon Biger.--Federalist51 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See attached link: Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, p683 - this map seems good quality for the purpose. p682 says this map is originally sourced from Michael Avi-Yonah - even better if someone has a copy of that map they could send. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

New Map

This map is profoundly wrong. The map removes 78% of Palestine. All of the present Kingdom of Jordan was an integral part of Palestine as determined by Balfour and the San Remo conference. TransJordans creation in 1922 by Churchill was a breach of international law. All of Palestine (including Jordan) was designated by the League of Nations (unanimously) as the Jewish National Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.251 (talk • contribs)

Beersheba (Biblical southern boundary)

Dan
(Biblical northern boundary)

Haifa /
Mount Carmel (Historical coastal boundary
w/ Phoenicia)

Arish
(Historical coastal boundary
w/ Sinai)

class=notpageimage|

Red line = 1922-48 borders of Mandatory Palestine
Green line = Boundaries of Roman Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)
Dotted blue lines = Post-1967 Israel borders

OK, on the right is the new map, with the Byzantine / Arab provinces shown. Any thoughts gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The dotted blue line is actually pre-1967 borders. Chronological order for the index would probably be good. I still think the Jordanian part of the Mandate should be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - agree with both of your two sensible suggestions.

This article is not about the technicalities of a legal instrument, it is about a region. I think you made your third point in good faith, but it shows that you don't understand how the mandate was negotiated and how its name is easily misunderstood. I can try to explain, or I can refer you to some books, or we can agree to disagree - whichever you like. Either way, I hope this won't distract other editors from making constructive comments on the map. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to write "1923-48 borders"; this is the official date after which Mandate was recognized as well as its borders. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is not part of Israel, the 1967 war did not change Israels borders and no new land became "Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For pre 1948 borders , there should be the Israeli transjordan part (Gilead area and Where Naharayim and worker villages had been on the east of Jordan village), in the pre 1922 (S-P aggrements) the line should also include the PICA lands (as they were legally Israeli and still are)37.26.147.214 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile,concerning this:[6] you have added the borders of today's Israeli-occupied territories, about a map that is supposed to show the boundaries of Palestine, it is irrelevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As unlikely as it sounds, I agree with SD. The Golan is completely irrelevant here and the WB/Gaza should probably have a title that links it to this article. You can't assume a reader will know why they're relevant.

Also, since we had an RfC regarding the picture, I think you should do another RfC about this one before putting it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canaan Disconnect

There appears to be a strange disconnect in the historical perspective of the area in question as given in the article. Perhaps this is because of the two different views of the subject matter being combined into one.

If a person accepts the Biblical time line, then the area was called Canaan, which was given over to the Israelites by God Himself. If a person accepts that such was not the case, then anything might be acceptable. Therefore there is no reason to discuss anyone's opinion, since anything is as good as another.

From a simple view of the subject, the land belonged to the Israelis for over three thousand years, and their recent reclamation of that space includes their right to call it whatever they want. The last name it should be called is Palestine. Since it is all belonging to Israel, then for three thousand years there were only invading squatters who have no right to name the place. Just because some people in ancient times called it Palestine, has no bearing on the issue. The name of the land comes from the Israelis.

So which is it? So far, this article gives no clear argument. Will it be a history based upon other than the Bible, or one that adheres to the Biblical time line? It appears to me that using other than the Biblical time line will be an offense to Jews, Arabs and Christians. After all, they all count their history from father Abraham. And they certainly have a very long history between them. Especially the first two groups.

Thanks. - KitchM (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source, not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia is based on the publications of reputable modern scholars (including notable divergent positions among them) -- who of course use the Bible as one source among many for history. Thanks for your interest. --Macrakis (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Modern period

What a total piece of dung. In the first place the UN resolution was non-binding and called upon Britain to establish the Jewish and non-Jewish territories. This is an important detail and totally absent from the account. Britain chose not to abide by the resolution. Also missing. Moreover, in the face of a massive influx of European Jews in defiance of Britain's immigration quotas, accompanied by a similar increase in arms, ammunition and funding from the Zionist diaspora, Britain essentially threw up its hands and walked away. What followed can hardly be described as a "civil war" - it was the armed seizure of Palestinian territory by largely European Zionist rebels who unilaterally declared the State of Israel conforming to the boundaries outlined in the UN resolution. In short, in the vaccuum created by Britain's inability or unwillingness to enforce its own policies, an organized force of armed militant European- and American-backed Zionists seized control of territory which was over 90% "Arab" from a largely unarmed and unprepared populace, and unilaterally declared a Jewish state where none had existed for over a thousand years, based upon a two-thousand year old imaginary promise by a god they invented for themselves.

These are facts. The rest is simply a lie. Not an inaccuracy. Not an oversight. Not an interpretation. Not gross incompetence.

A lie.

An intentional attempt to deceive the entire Wikipedia readership to further an agenda which benefits one demographic group at the direct expense of another residing in the same territory no-less.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

It would seem that someone has missed the point of their own religious tenet.

If you think what the Zionists did was honourable and just, fair enough - but, if so, why lie about it?

This weasel-word nonsense is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.67.113 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine and the Palestinian territories in the lead section?

Should we have that article paragraph about the State of Palestine and the Palestinian territories in the lead section? This article is about the geographic region called "Palestine", not the state or territories called "Palestine". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't cover all the meanings of a word on the same article, we give them different articles, and use hatnotes to direct readers to the article about the meaning their looking for. We don't have a paragraph about the USS New York City in the New York City article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant the third paragraph, not the second. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

British Isles mentions the nations that currently cover the area. Sometimes also the common name of a nation is similar to that of the region and the point needs elaborating. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If that paragraph were about both Israel and the PT you'd have a point, but that paragraph is entirely about the PT. The lead section of British Isles doesn't give such excessive focus on Britain or Ireland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And we do mention the nations covering Palestine in the second paragraph. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That crossed out "article" above was supposed to be "paragraph". GraemeLeggett, if you thought I was saying that we shouldn't mention the PT in the lead, I wasn't. My problem is just with how the 3'rd paragraph makes the lead excessively about the PT, and treats this article as if it were the PT or SOP article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. The note at the top of the article should be enough, as it is quite explicit: "This article is about the geographic Palestine/Israel region. For the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation). Not to be confused with State of Palestine." --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been two days sense anyone's posted, and there don't seem to be any strong objections, and it looks like GL's "objection" may have been the result of a misunderstanding anyway. I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph. If there are no objections, issue resolved. If there are, WP:BRD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Issue is back again, and the map is incorrect, could you please remove it? "(cur | prev) 08:59, 13 November 2012‎ Oncenawhile (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,408 bytes) (+720)‎ . . (adding back map, but without dates per comment from NMMNG.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi Ingel (talk • contribs)

No More Mr Nice Guy

User No More Mr Nice Guy, please explain your rationale here. This is not a pov issue but a style point. My edit comment was clear. I look forward to your explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I explained it clearly in the edit summary, but let me try again: if someone objects to material you want to put in the article, particularly something without sources, the material is removed while the discussion is ongoing. If and when there's consensus to include it, you may do so. Hope this helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So, it is the sourcing you are objecting to? I would be delighted to provide these. Or are you just trying to make a wp:point? Please clarify, so we can move forward instead of wasting everyone's time. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, please clarify which if any of the four points you think are in any way debatable. They have been up in the prototype on this page for months and noone disputed them. Carmel / Dan / Beersheba are all very well known. Arish could just as well be Rafah, but both have been used and Arish is further west. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Haifa is not positioned correctly. Beersheba is only one of several possible "biblical southern boundary" and I have to wonder why you chose to highlight just this one. Same goes for Dan, replace "south" with "north". If Arish is the "historical coastal boundary w/ Sinai", why is it not touching any of the boundaries on the map?

Why are half the points on the map supposed biblical boundaries (minimal possible application) but only one point is relevant to the boundaries actually drawn on the map?

Other problems include the Golan boundary being marked despite not being relevant here, and the green line should include dates like the red one does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I can deal with the last two points easily, and will do so now.

Haifa and Arish are easy to deal with. Let's discuss Dan and Beersheba for a moment - they are there because of From_Dan_to_Beersheba#Modern_history - i.e. those points were how the British government looked at Palestine's ancient boundaries at the time Mandatory Palestine was defined. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To try not to antagnoise, I have not added back the map location points yet - looking forward to your comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the dates per NMMNG's edit comment. NMMNG, which date(s) did you not agree with please? The Timeline of the name Palestine article may be helpful here. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with the dates is that the term Jund Filastin fell out of use in the 13th century, and not the 16th as it was on the map (or was it 15th? Too lazy to check right now). I'll go dig up some sources if you think this is incorrect. Also, while we're here, why isn't Palaestina Salutaris, which if I'm not mistaken included most of the Sinai, cut off on the map? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On falling out of use in 13th century, Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun contradict that. These two are respectively the most important arabic-speaking geographer and historian of the 14th century. Let's discuss when you've got your sources together.

On Salutaris, most of that region is not treated as "Palestine" by scholars, except the Negev (as a result of the Mandate). The Sinai and northern Hejaz are therefore not part of the scope of this article. Anyway, the province only had the word Palestine in its name for a part of the Byzantine period, and the Byzantines did not exercise meaningful control over the region during those years.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source that says the term was no longer used administratively from the mid 13th century. There are plenty more if for some reason this isn't enough.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning on why you think Palaestina Salutaris (notice the "Palaestina" there) is outside the scope of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest renaming articles

I suggest renaming this article to "Palestine (disambiguation)" or even better, splitting it to separate articles like Mandatory Palestine, etc. (we more or less already have this... see the current disambiguation page for links) and rename State of Palestine to just "Palestine".

The rationale is that today's UN resolution will recognize the State of Palestine, so *that*, not various historic senses of the word "Palestine", should be the main article. The old senses, e.g., Mandatory Palestine, or the Roman province, are still interesting, but in modern context nobody will call them just "Palestine" as this word is now reserved for the state (or territory, or whatever your politics wants to call them) in the West Bank.

As a comparison, look at the article for Israel - it rightly points to the existing state of Israel, as it exists now, and not to some historic sense (like Kingdom of Israel) and not to some ideal (for some) Land of Israel, etc.

Similarly, Palestine should point to the existing State of Palestine as it exists now - not some historic sense, and not some ideal of what the Palestenians would hope to gain in a future peace process (or war...) with Israel.

Nyh (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, please make the suggested changes. Sepsis II (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Today's a great day. When will the article be updated? 78.133.67.71 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Palestine has been internationally recognized as a state, means the state has become its main meaning Twilight 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves is thata way. I'm not convinced that the 1988 state has suddenly become the primary topic just because the UN has had this vote today. That doesn't impact on what the primary topic is. By the way, this article isn't about Mandatory Palestine. It's about the geographical region known as Palestine. Nightw 00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no clear consensus to do so. Suggestions to let the recent UN decisions mature a bit are sound Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

---

• Palestine → Palestine (region)
• State of Palestine → Palestine

– United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 recognizes Palestine as an independent nation. Thus, the primary article about Palestine should be the one about the State, as it is with any other nation currently existing. Twilight 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Not only does the UN now recognize Palestine as a state, but for many years now a majority of the world has recognized Palestine as a nation. Just like when I say or type Israel, unless I clarify my meaning, I mean the state and not the land. The same is true for Palestine, when I search for Palestine, I want to find the state, not the much less important historic area. Sepsis II (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the fact that only (substitute your favorite term here) would think that Palestine is in fact a state. The UN has absolutely no authority over independent states. Israel is an independent state, and Palestine is a wholly contained territory within the boundaries of the country of Israel. "The motion was widely expected to pass, even if only symbolic". And how did Israel, one of the only two votes that, along with Palestine, mattered, vote? Rejected. The article can have the focus of the concept of the independence of Palestine, but that certainly does not make Palestine independent. But sure, go ahead and move the article. Apteva (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  I see also that the vote did not pretend to make Palestine a state, it simply gave it "non-member observer state status" at the UN. Which has nothing to do with whether Palestine is or is not a state. Apteva (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a) It is the name of an historical area over a couple thousand years and b) obviously the international status as a "state" (or an independent state) and the full implications of UN vote is still under discussion by WP:RS. I don't see any one providing any WP:RS supporting this motion that is a full state. Even those who support a state of Palestine probably would have a problem with this proposal. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Week Oppose I don't have any strong feelings, but Carolmooredc assessment looks about right. Let's what to see what RS says about the UN vote's implications before making any important decisions based on it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. CarolMooreDC, you say that "Even those who support a state of Palestine probably would have a problem with this proposal" is exactly why I thought this move is a good, non-political, idea. Some Palestinians would say that the current Palestenian State is not Palestine because their "Palestine" is bigger. Some Israelis would say that "Palestine" doesn't exist. But both are wrong, and the current Palestenian State is "Palestine", and in modern texts is known as "Palestine". Heck, I saw yesterday's UN discussions, and this guy was sitting behind a nice clear "Palestine" name plate, not "State of Palestine" or "Palestinian Authority" or any such longer name. Nyh (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Today's vote does not mean that the UN recognizes Palestine as a state. It was only the General Assembly that voted today. Claiming that means the UN has recognized Palestine is akin to claiming that United Kingdom has taken a position after only a vote of the House of Commons, or that the United States had taken a position after a vote of only the House of Representatives. Another reason to oppose this move is a non-political one; the region of Palestine is distinct from the State of Palestine. We have not moved The United States of America to America, nor have we moved European Union to Europe, and by the same rationale we should not move State of Palestine to Palestine. - Hoplon (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your first point is not pertinent and your second point is a false comparison and very poor cherry picking. This discussion is not about what effect the UN vote has, this is about whether Palestine, the state, recognized by the majority of the world, should be the primary topic, like all other states, or whether it should be relegated to below that of a historic area, something never done on wikipedia. Why would America lead to the USA? The most popular name is the United States, which is why the article for The United States of America is titled United States. No one ever says Europe when they are referring to the European Union, people do often call it the EU though, which I guess explains why EU goes to the European Union and not disambiguation. China does not go to the historic area or the ROC or disambiguation, it goes to what most people mean when they say China, the PRC. Israel goes to the state of Israel, not the land, and so it follows that Palestine should go to the most popular and important meaning, the state, not the historic area. Sepsis II (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland, Micronesia vs Federated States of Micronesia, Central Africa vs Central African Republic. That was a point made at Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6#Requested_rename_.28move.29_to_Palestine anyway, how applicable it is here was debated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland is that way for the same reason as the congo, korea, or the virgin islands, being that their are multiple entities which have an equal claim to the name. Between the PRC and ROC both claiming the title of China, the PRC gets the name China because the common use is so very much often to mean the PRC. The FSM is the same as the USA, the USA is not primarily called America and neither is the FSM primarily called Micronesia. The CAR is primarily known as the CAR, not Central Africa. The Republic of South Africa however is widely known as South Africa, which is why South Africa goes to the nation, not the area. All these examples show that it is common practice, that when there is no conflict between two states over a name, a nation always gets priority over geographical areas with the same name. Sepsis II (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued bellow. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support It has been apparent to me for some time: State of Palestine should be renamed Palestine, content should be moved from the current Palestine page to History of Palestine, like for example Italy and History of Italy. No similar page is called "State of x" unless it is a state, like for example California (even that is redirected to California) or New South Wales, Australia, and whether or not it is completely recognised by other states is not a reason to oppose such a move, like for example Israel, which is not called State of Israel.Otkdna (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Old RM's: /Archive_11#Requested_move, /Archive_10#Requested_move, Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6#Requested_rename_.28move.29_to_Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just watch out - the article on the region "Palestine" should not be called "History of Palestine", because it isn't really the history of the modern state (or territory, or whatever) "Palestine", but rather a history of a much bigger region which now contains other states as well. It's like the article on the History of the United States of America shouldn't contain whole sections on South America, etc. I think this article should be named something like "Palestine (historic region)" instead. Nyh (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If this page is renamed "Palestine (region)" then History of Palestine should be renamed "History of Palestine (region)". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - frankly, first i thought to oppose (conservative position), but then i thought supporting the move; i'm however mostly neutral on this - it is that we should take in mind the huge renaming issue ahead, if this rename takes place. It should probably be renamed as proposed, but due to technical reasons it should be better to wait for things to stabilize in this geopolitical area in order to prevent great deal of confusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two reasons:
  1. This is not a triggering event. It's been previously recognized by some UN agencies; the UN GA has no power to recognize a state, and the PLO had previously been given this status.
  2. Per WP:COMMONNAME, most people who use "Palestine" mean either the geographic area or the Biblical/historical area (which are not the same....) Even if it the state were universally recognized, this would still be the case. I would support the first move, leaving Palestine as a disambiguation page, although that still requires tracking all the incoming links.
  • This could even be more disruptive than Macedonia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first reason is not a reason, this move should have been done years ago, the UN vote only supports an already overdue move. While I find your claim dubious, that people use Palestine to refer to a historic area more than to the current state, even if it were true, Palestine is a STATE, nothing, short of another state, should be able to usurp the common name of a state due to the significance of a state. As a side note, I just saw that Georgia, the state, has been relegated second to a disambiguation page, and I am very much opposed to that situation as well. Sepsis II (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All the other examples I gave may or may not have been bad examples, but Ireland the geographic region trumps the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is also called Ireland just as the State of Palestine is also called Palestine. Something short of another state has usurped the short name the Republic of Ireland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh the region trumps the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, who's short name is Nagorno-Karabakh. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of Ireland, "Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland...and Northern Ireland", this is why Ireland does not go to the state, because two political entities want the title of Ireland. Nagorno-Karabakh, is recognized by zero UN members, I don't think it's a suitable comparison, I think Georgia is the only other state article in the same situation as Palestine is in, yet at least Georgia links to disambiguation rather than fully relegated to second place. Sepsis II (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't claim the title "Ireland", it claims the title "Northern Ireland". My point is that both Ireland and Nagorno-Karabakh refer to regions and states and yet the regions take precedence. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you and I are getting off topic, we can not argue what ought to be based on what is because what is is not necessarily correct and has indeed recently changed as in China's case. My reasoning for why Palestine is the primary topic is that it is a widely recognized state whose common name is simply Palestine, and although Palestine the region may also be a notable topic, its lower significance reduces its importance to below that of the state. Sepsis II (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Taiwan/China is a good example. The China article isn't just about the mondern-day PRC, it's about China in general. Taiwan, if it's part of the "China region" is a tinny part of the vastly larger China and it's not worth having having a duplicate China article over. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also about Ireland there was An RM about a month ago about it. It wasn't moved, so in this case we can argue what ought to be based on what is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - while you can make a reasonable case for this move, I think the current position is more neutral. Regardless of the UN vote, the status of the 'State of Palestine' is still fiercely disputed; moving it to 'Palestine' would imply a kind of objective certainty that simply does not exist here. 'Palestine' should remain an article about the historical and geographical area, with the partially recognised state remaining at 'State of Palestine'. (As others have noted, this is the approach we have taken in some other cases of disputed states, although no two cases are exactly alike.) Robofish (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Considering Palestine and Israel have a similar level of international recognition and that both share names of historic areas, I think it is quite easy to expand your above argument to also placing Israel (region) as the primary topic with Israel (state) relegated to State of Israel. I would disagree with this as it could easily be seen as a bias anti-Israel move, a neutral position would to not relegate any states with high levels of recognition to below a historic region. Sepsis II (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing needs time to shake out. Meanwhile see United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 which should have all the accurate info per WP:RS. (Haven't read it that carefully, so don't know for sure.) CarolMooreDC 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have an interesting definition of similar. So similarly to you, I agree with 'Robofish' motion to oppose.--188.130.222.210 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

palestine is not the name of a region anymore....since 29-11-2012 its the name of a non member STATE. This subject should be changed,since it's outdated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.25.4 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a change I have believed for a long time needed to be done. The recent event in the UN is not the sole catalyst, it's long overdue. As opposed to what was said above, Palestine as a historical region is no longer the primary use of the word. I can safely assume that most people who inquire about "Palestine" are looking for the modern political Arab entity, not the historical region. In today's times, hearing the word "Palestine" in most cases is in reference to the current State of the Palestinian people. This requested move makes the title more relevant and appropriate. Arguments about "anti-Israeli" bias are unfounded because in a general sense, the word "Palestine" in fact is synonymous with the State and carries no unilateral political implications. The reverse can be said, people who strongly oppose the move could have "anti-Palestinian" bias, not wanting to give the State of Palestine the "glory" of getting the implicit recognition of having the title "Palestine" to represent the State. Naming the article with the most relevent and coherant title is the "neutral" position, instead of refraining from doing so to avoid offending the anti-Palestinian, pro-Israelis. In addition the the new recognition at the UN, the State of Palestine has simply been under the title "Palestine" at the UN for a very long time. Abueita (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's simply not true - "State of Palestine has simply been under the title "Palestine" at the UN for a very long time.". The PLO has been under the title "Palestine" at the UN, not the state. Japinderum (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, of an historical area over a couple thousand years. The event that most refer to was symbolic in nature and change nothing. The general assembly does not have the power or the authority to establish states. Furthermore Palestine or rather the PA in the West Bank do not meet any of conditions for statehood as were defined by the UN for any other candidate I can recall.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:4 1, 30 November 2012 (UTC) — 109.186.17.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support I think we should remove all pretenses that this move solely depends on the new UN recognition. The sole facts are already in the favor of Palestine representing the State of Palestine, that was the way to was before the UN vote even took place. The current article named Palestine is about the previously commonly used name for the historical region, nowadays the word Palestine usually always refers to the country. Keeping it the way it is isn't the most relevant thing to do judging today's standards and uses for the word. 71.13.52.176 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — 71.13.52.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support per nomination. The State of Palestine has been recognized for decades by many nations and 'Palestine' has become the common name for the (tentative) State of Palestine, and less for the geographic region of Palestine. If the move doesn't happen, at least disambiguation would be necessary, like in the case of Macedonia. 64.189.103.119 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — 64.189.103.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - I see that most of the supporters' reasons are "I support Palestine and I'm happy to upgrade it in any way possible, including in Wikipedia article titles" and then they add some logic involving UN position, Palestinian rights, etc. - issues that however important I don't think have anything to do with Wikipedia article titles. Applying WP:COMMONNAME leads to Palestine (disambiguation) or Palestine (region). Of the political entities - PNA is the one most commonly interacting with the people on a day to day basis. The PLO and the State of Palestine (whose territory is still occupied by Israel) are some distant and arcane political-diplomatic creations. Also, very problematic is the timing of this move request - right after the UNGA adopted the resolution transferring the observer status from the PLO to the State of Palestine. Yes, this bears diplomatic importance, but is not a reason to change article titles. Japinderum (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the supporters' reasons are "I support Palestine and I'm happy to upgrade it in any way possible, including in Wikipedia article titles" or anything remotely resembling that. None of the opposers' reasons are "I oppose Palestine and I'm happy to downgrade it in any way possible, including in Wikipedia article titles" or anything remotely resembling that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mine especially. I practically said it is stupid to call Palestine a state. And you can insert any other expletive of your choice instead of stupid. Apteva (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds of Common Name and Primary topic. I do not see evidence that the modern State is the primary topic for the word, nor that "Palestine" is synonymous with the State rather than the general region. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Support. This article should be moved to Palestine (region) but State of Palestine should be moved to Palestine (State) and a disambiguation page should be created. My reasonning is that Palestine has too many different meanings and it is not possible to decide which one would be the main one. Regarding the State of Palestine, is official name is Palestine and there is no reason not to specify this particularly given it is now not any more en 'entity' but the status of State is official. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Multiple reasons:

First of all, this would be rather like moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to Nagorno-Karabakh and Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia. WP:PRECISION, among other reasons.

Secondly if somebody says "I'm going to visit Palestine" he means he's going to visit the Palestinian territories. "State of Palestine" is a very commonly used pharie that refers to the state/"political entity" that claims the Palestinian territories. Also unlike the France article which is about both the state/"political entity" and the physical location, State of Palestine is pretty much just about the "political entity". The main article about the physical location is Palestinian territories. WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRECISION again. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it "is pretty much just about the "political entity", you are the one who deleted a large piece of non-political information from the article. And again, arguments of what ought to be based on what is are very weak because they rest on the assumption that what is is correct. When someone states "I'm going to visit Australia", does he mean he is going to the region or the state? Well, he is going to both, just like someone who is going to visit Palestine/oPt. Sepsis II (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I moved the demographics section to Palestinian_territories#Demographics per Talk:State of Palestine#Demographics section because the State of Palestine article was already pretty much just about the "political entity", and the person who originally put it there agreed with me.

As for Australia that's like my France example above, it's article is both the state/"political entity" and the physical location. You'd have a point if the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine articles were merged but right now the physical location (Palestinian_territories) takes precedence over the "political entity" (State of Palestine). Plus the praise "State of Palestine" is far more commonly used then say "French republic". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ireland, Nagorno-Karabakh and Macedonia are all names of regions claimed (or partially claimed) by more that one political entity. Nobody other than the state of Palestine claims the name Palestine.

Nobody other then the Republic of Ireland claims the name Ireland (Northern Ireland claims the name "Northern Ireland" not "Ireland"). Both Israel and the State of Palestine claim parts of the region of Palestine similarly to how both Ireland and Northern Ireland claim parts of the region of Ireland. My main point is that the "State of Palestine" is more WP:PRECISE then "Palestine" like "Republic of Ireland" is more precise then "Ireland". I'm not saying that the region of Palestine is the primary topic for "Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

About Palestinian territories, it should be merged with State of Palestine under the name Palestine. There are far, far too many articles about the damn same thing. It's really confusing, it's a mess! Twilight 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I too would support merging the Palestinian territories article with the state of Palestine article, maybe someone could start a separate discussion on that merge? Sepsis II (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Such a merge would be a good idea, if it weren't for the small problem that de-facto, there are two Palestinian states - the State of Palestine (which can now be called simply "Palestine"), and Gaza. Each of those have a separate government, which hates the other's government. I'm not sure what to make of this confusion. Imagine that in the middle of the U.S. Civil War, Wikipedia existed and somebody wanted to write an article on the "United States of America" - would it include the confederate states, or not? What a mess :( Nyh (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not correct. Gaza and West Bank have different PNA cabinets, due to a recent political dispute. Both of these governments consider themselves as part of the same country, and the Hamas gov't in Gaza has not rejected the State of Palestine. Notably Hamas supported the UN membership bid of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support The UN action alone is not cause for a move, but it underscores a move that is long overdue. Palestine may not be a true nation-state, but it serves a similar role in many capacities. If we ever see an independent Palestinian state, it's going to look a lot like the present Palestine. I don't buy the WP:COMMONNAME argument against; rather, I think it supports this move. And I completely agree with the nominator that when it comes to Palestinian topics, there are too many overlapping articles that need to be merged. This is a step in the right direction, with Palestine the logical main article. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  There are not too many articles - content is anyway too much to fit inside a single article and what's more important the article topics are clearly defined. Also, there is no "main" article or topic. The "main" article for the state is State of Palestine, there are also articles for its president, recognition and so on. The "main" article for the PNA is its own article, the main article for the physical region is Palestine and so on. The most sensible moves in that situation are:

  Palestine → Palestine (region)

  Palestine (disambiguation) → Palestine.

  What should be understood is that the topic "State of Palestine" does not include the PNA and Hamas. Those are separate entities that are not "part" of the State of Palestine. The only link between the PNA and the State of Palestine is that both entities are established by the PLO (and represented by it abroad). The PNA and the State of Palestine each has its own separate institutions - president, government, parliament, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that until a final decision is made on whether to merge or not to merge the two articles, the upgrade to non member state-hood of Palestine should be is pertinent to both Palestine the "State" and Palestine "the geographic area", and thus should be included under both headlines. Recognition by the UN as a state is what gives official autonomy to Palestine under international law, akin to the state that the Vatican is. Palestine as a "region" has never been defined other than as territories or refugee areas since the Mandate. This new status will now put Palestine actual borders (not a "dotted line") and is signifaicant and relevant in both topics...Patwinkle (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Palestine (region) and the State of Palestine is inappropriate for many reasons, some of which are mentioned above. The UN doesn't recognize states [7]: "does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." - it only decides whether somebody is accepted as one of its members or observers or not. Japinderum (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Israel a state only because of UN recognition?Patwinkle (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Israel is a state, because it's declared as such by its founders, because its institutions managed to get hold of the permanently populated territory it claims and to control it and to enforce there the laws they make, because it's recognized as state by others (over 150 right now). You see in the link above - diplomatic recognition of sovereign states is an unilateral act of each state (whether it recognizes another state or not) - it's not up to the UN. Japinderum (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine has also diplomatic recognition.

And the effective control of the territory is not mandatary. When you are military occipied, which is the case for Palestine, it is not possible. Germany was a state after world war II but it was administrated by the Allies. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The question was whether Israel is a state only because of UN recognition (which is not so) - not whether Palestine has recognition or whether control of territory is mandatory. Japinderum (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The UN doesn't recognize states per se, but its member nations do, and 139 of them did so on Thursday. Everything that you just mentioned about Israel applies to Palestine as well. One can even argue that today's Palestine was always there because it had always been within the geographic location of the Palestine that is covered in this article-it just got smaller. There is a timeline over which the specific geography of Palestine may have changed, disputed, have become ambiguous at times, then more defined in others, but its still all the same continuous story of Palestine.

139 states didn't recognize Palestine in 2012. Over 100 recognize it since decades ago. The 139 are not the recognizers, but those who voted for PLO UN delegation to be upgraded to State of Palestine UN delegation. Not all recognizers voted "for" that. Not all non-recognizers voted "against". Today's State of Palestine is not different from yesterday's, that's correct. The only change is that now it's a UN observer. Regarding the geographic region there are no changes today or yesterday... Japinderum (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly Israel the country today and Israel as romantically refered to as Eretz Yisrael-historically and in folklore- cover roughly the same areas but are not geographicaly or compositionally identical. The people are different, they may be of the same ethnicity or the same religion but the histories they have in today's Israel and the history they had back then are completely different-essentially different people. Yet you go to the articles that covers either of those topics and you wouldn't find one excluding the other completely.

But here, there seems to be a staff of watchers determined to keep Palestine before and Palestine today exclusive of each other as a topic of discourse.

So in short I really dont understand the objections about it. However you twist it, recognition by the UN is recognition by the UN. Its an official vote of approval by the community that makes up the UN-which is what the UN is all about. It seems more you have a problem with acknowledging Palestine is really a recognized state rather than about whether that topic belongs here or not.

I will wait until move takes place, and find a better place for that piece-admittedly a dedicated section does not help the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patwinkle (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Even Taiwan is simply Taiwan, and is not recognized as an independent state by the majority of UN members.Gabriel arisi (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan is a bad example since we don't have an associated region article by that name. Kosove is better example, we have Kosovo(the region) and Republic of Kosovo(the state) and APKM (the province within the state).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo is bad example, because it is only a partly recognized country and has no official status in the UN. Bosnia and Bosnia (region) or Macedonia and Macedonia (region) are better examples. 64.189.103.26 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No Kosove case is exactly the same, both recognized by many states with which they maintain bilateral agreements, both recognized by various members of the United Nations System and yet both are not not full member of the UN. As for your two examples I think your information is little out of date see Member states of the United_Nations.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Both Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia are official UN members. Kosovo is not even a recognized non-member, as Palestine is. 64.189.103.26 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Neither Ireland nor America work in the way described by the proposer. The latter is a disambig page and there might be an argument for making the main Palestine one too. However, with other articles such as the Palestinian Territories and Palestinian National Authority, which then talks largely uses the term Palestinian Authority, floating around things get complicated, especially with there being two currently competing governments centred around Hamas and Fatah. I think that such academic authorities as geographers and historians will largely be referring to the region when talking about "Palestine" and I would agree with Carol that we should wait for a consensus that its meaning is anything else.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Wikipedia is not beholden to UN diktat and, to many, Palestine is more than the Occupied Territories. —  AjaxSmack  04:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support With Palestine admitted to the UN and recognized by the majority of UN members, this proposal makes more and more sense. Palestine is generally recognized as a contemporary country, the fact that there are disagreements on boundaries doesn't make it a non-entity. Likewise, there are quite a few countries that don't recognize the State of Israel but that doesn't stop us from having an Israel article. --Soman (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. As an aside, the examples of Ireland and America are irrelevant. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are two separate nations sharing the same land mass, and so each would require its own page using official nomenclature to differentiate between them, which is precisely the case. It's merely a coincidental convenience that the "Ireland" land mass has its page at Ireland, because for this to occur, international recognition of territorial contiguity between two or more nations would have to exist. Likewise, the official name of the country referred to above as "America" is the United States of America, which also has its own Wikipedia page. These examples identify separate nations on Wikipedia based on their official titles. Wikipedia strives to represent the global perspective; as Palestine has gained recognition as a sovereign state, setting it on par with Vatican City and, incidentally, above both Taiwan/ROC and Kosovo in terms of international recognition and UN status (as well as UN-affiliated organisations such as the WHO, UNESCO, etc.), the official name of "Palestine" alone ought to be used to represent it on its own Wikipedia page. Once this is established, naming conventions relating to it will naturally fall into place. I also doubt that most people searching for "Palestine" would be looking for the geographical region, despite assertions from those opposed to the change, but that's just my opinion. The other issue is that, yes, to many people Palestine is more than just East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, but elected representatives on both sides of the territory welcomed the UN vote. The schism in defining Palestine in terms of how it's viewed by Palestinians (and Israelis) is something that will likely continue to be debated well beyond a full peace agreement, recognition by/of Israel, or full UN membership. As it stands today, Palestine has been defined and recognised, and this should be reflected on Wikipedia in the same manner as it has with other sovereign states. - G E Enn (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand - what is the goal of the above "vote"? Is it to see what the vox populi thinks, and act accordingly? Or is it to reach consensus? Because if the intention is to reach consensus, I fear there is no chance: The problem is that hardliners on both sides don't want the article on the existing state to be called "Palestine": The Palestinian hardliners think that the existing state is only a small piece of their real "Palestine", while the Israeli hardliners think that Palestinians don't really exist, and neither does their state. So hardliners on neither side will agree that the current state(s) in the West Bank and/or in Gaza are "Palestine". And yet - this is what pragmatists all over the world call it. So I think we should use this name, and not try to seek consensus between the hardliners, who will never agree. Nyh (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The support move would clarify that Palestine is a contemporary country, with a people (a.k.a. Palestinians) and representation in various international fora. The State of Palestine is sole government structure claiming to represent the Palestinian people. What the State of Palestine lacks is de facto sovereign control over any of its territory, but so was Iraq for a couple of years. There are hardliners on the Palestinian side that dispute the notion of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, but many other countries around the world have similar territorial issues. The article should be clear on that the borders of Palestine changed in 1948, that the PLO is currently seeking to establish sovereignty on the lands of 1967 borders, that there are minority factions (principally Islamic Jihad) rejecting this move. However all Palestinian factions agree that they are in fact Palestinians and that their homeland is Palestine. On the Israeli side, however, the situation is different with the hardliners outright rejecting the notion of the existence of a Palestinian nation. This rejection is analogous to Greek nationalists' rejection of the existence of a (Slavic) Macedonian nation. Their position should be mentioned in the article, but not block the article as such. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Sole government"? Isn't Hamas not PA, was elected by the people of Palestine in a democratic process and due to Hamas armed coup in Gaza strip, the current representatives of the 'State of Palestine' are only PA elects from the west bank? furthermore PA President mandate to rule expired three years ago, but they hold off the elections because they afraid that the Hamas Islamic fundamentalist from gaza strip will take over? "borders of Palestine changed in 1948"? The UN Special Commission on Palestine already concluded that Palestinians have not been in possession of the Mandate territory as a sovereign nation.Overall Palestinians lack national unity, capability of governance and inability to fulfill international obligations of a state(considering both issues with Hamas and Israeli limitations). So the way I see it they fail several principles of statehood and still in murky ground.
More relevantly to the topic, I think that the timing of this vote is tricky, especially with people like you who wish to "clarify" issues by changing article titles. --109.186.17.8 (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. The PNA (or PA) is an organ for local self-government. Hamas and Fatah disagreed on the management of the PNA, thus the split and two separate PNA governments. However, this changes nothing in regards to Palestine as a country. All Palestinian factions agree on Palestinian nationhood, and the Hamas-led PNA in Gaza has been no means rejected the State of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do support the move, but I don't see why you think the split of Palestine into two governments is not a problem in this regard. Someone might say that Korea is just one country with two governments. But because these are completely different governments, and the governments (not necessarily each other) hates each other, "North Korea" and "South Korea" are regarded as two separate countries. I think only time will tell if we'll have "Gaza" and "Palestine" as two separate countries, or some other solution. A federation of Israel, Palestine and Jordan would make sense in an ideal alternative reality :-) Nyh (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support The current arrangement is counter-intuitive and POV as the modern use of "Palestine" is not for the whole historic region. Recent news may have brought the issue into the limelight but that is not a factor here; a move six months or two years ago would have been equally valid. There may need to be some mergers but something has to move first and we shouldn't get into a similar mess that we had with the China articles for years. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I read all the comments and have not found any decent reason to oppose the move. There is no doubt that Palestine as a country is the primary topic if compared to the article Palestine (region), therefore I am in favor of the move of the article to the more appropriate title.--Sal73x (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence that Palestine is the common name of the state (more generally it still seems to be referred to as the Palestinian Territories). Number 57 08:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

look at this please Twilight 18:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

and look at this please--Sal73x (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And what does that prove? Perhaps you could do a picture of what the Burmese delegates sit behind? Number 57 11:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to deny what's obvious.--Sal73x (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh? A country's UN designation is not the same thing as the common name. See this if you need any further proof. Number 57 14:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And what has Russia to do with this discussion? You said "Palestine is not the common name". Do we need to have a look at the definiton of "common"?--Sal73x (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a response to you posting a picture of the Palestinian UN delegation, presumalbly to show that the name is Palestine. I am merely responding by pointing out that UN names are not relevant to this discussion as they are over-ridden by WP:COMMONNAME (and providing an example). Number 57 15:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And the images show that the name is "commonly" used, today as many years ago. The name Palestine fits perfectly all criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Can you tell us where does it not meet the criteria?--Sal73x (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

[8] [9] [10] [11]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) was going to post some of those, but also the the Guardian, British Council and Amnesty International. Number 57 16:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Emmette are you serious? your researce on google and selected results are nothing else than the results of censure and a term that describes that Palestine is composed by more than one territory. What would you say of these then (the first should be more than enogh):

english (BBC), english (other UK), english (US), german, italian, spanish, french. --Sal73x (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That the non-English results are irrelevant because this is the English Wikipedia and we're trying to determinate the English title. If those sources had wanted to say "Palestine" instead of "Palestinian Territories" they would have. Michigan (for example) is also composed of more then one territory (the Upper and Lower Peninsula) yet I have never herd anyone call Michigan the "Michiganian Territories".

Also the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations is renaming iteslf the "Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations" per the UN vote which is the exact opposite approach your suggesting we take here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. HLE (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are several definitions of the term "Palestine" and I don't see evidence that the modern state is the primary meaning of it. mgeo talk 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (i.e. keep everything where it is now), per my rationale at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine: "The present name is clear: think what you may on Israel/Palestine issues, pretty much everyone agrees that "Palestinian territories" refers to the West Bank and Gaza. "Palestine" is ambiguous: is "Prostitution in Palestine" an article about prostitution in ancient Syria Palaestina, or prostitution in the British Mandate of Palestine, or prostitution in the Palestinian Territories? Or is an article on prostitution in Israel whose editors gave is a name informed with a pro-Hamas POV?" Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Sepsis II. In light of the UN action, I think this move is sensible. -Kai445 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis II backing was on the basis of what they do, not what Common Usage is or what Reliable Sources use.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Making this RM immediately after the UN vote when the Palestinians and their supporters are celebrating over it could heavily bias the RM in favor of support. It really would have been better to wait a few weeks until the emotion and the celebration has died down before making this RM. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The State of Palestine is not the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Territories or Fatah, but rather a notational entity that was created in 1988. It's the PLO wearing another hat, and you don't hear so much about the PLO in recent years either. The boast that the State of Palestine/PLO/Fatah is the real "Palestine" rings hollow at a time when Hamas is riding high. If you google Palestine -wikipedia, the top result is Britannica, which defines Palestine as a historic region, the same way that we do. Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this is a recentism issue. UNGA changes observer from PLO to the State of Palestine and some people jump to make big changes to multiple articles. They don't care about difference between PNA and the State of Palestine. They don't care about Hamas and Israel. They don't care about WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing else than the UNGA observer resolution has happened recently - and that's not a reason to change the article names. Japinderum (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Section on Palestinian Statehood

It now has been removed thrice.Patwinkle (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Twice my addition has been removed without any more explanation than something in the line of "this does not belong here, it belongs in the article State of Palestine", but there is no attempt to discuss why that is so. Yet here, there apparently is a lengthy discussion over the obvious overlaps in topics between the two articles, with a decision being made about whether to merge the two or not.

I believe that until that decision is made, the upgrade to non member state-hood of Palestine is pertinent to both Palestine the "State" and Palestine "the geographic area", and thus should be included under both headlines. This article talks about Palestine the unofficial territories, right up to recent times, the current demographics of those areas, not just the much larger historical and biblical Palestine, or Philistine. So why shouldn't a recognition of the current Palestine as a state in the modern day also be relevant to this article?

Last line of lede - "Today, the region comprises the State of Israel, the State of Palestine and the Hamas governed Gaza Strip". If you think the mention of recognition belongs in the article, then it comes under History, modern period - not as a separate section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This makes sensePatwinkle (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your removed addition was, but the topics are quite clearly separated - State of Palestine article is about issues related to the state declared in 1988, its institutions (president, parliament, government), diplomatic relations, diplomatic recognitions, opinions on its legal status, etc. If your edits were about those issues, then yes, they belong there.

The state declared in 1988 comprise of the remnants of the Palestine that existed prior to that.. I agree that no unnecessary devotions to legislative or governmental affairs should be made here, but the UN recognition does have profound implications geographically as well. The border between Israel and Palestine is no longer only defined by Israelas a buffer, or containment line. It is now equally defined by Palestine, by the Palestinians.Patwinkle (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not certain what Israeli or Palestinian(PA/Hamas) border definitions you talk about, but atm only the armistice line is recognized and final borders are subject to negotiations, so nothing has changed.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The only overlap between the articles is in relation the history since both articles contain such sections.

There is no "upgrade to statehood". The State of Palestine is a state since 1988, recognized by more than 80 states in 1988, more than 100 in 1998 and then by more than 130 - before any UN observership resolution - nothing in its statehood changed yesterday.

A lot has changed. Palestine can now join some UN agencies. The ICC for one. Again, all this may not be a specific topic of discussion in this article, but it all comes down to the legitimacy a country feels, and that is linked to how it is recognized geographically as well. The Palestinians themselves, and many, many other people, Im sure, feel that Palestine is now more "on the map" than ever before since after the Mandate.Patwinkle (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no "unofficial territories" - Palestinian territories also called "Occupied Palestinian territories" (occupied/controlled by Israel) is a term utilized in many official documents, resolutions, statements, etc. These territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip - the Palestine (region) is a broader territory that includes also Israel pre-1967 territory, etc.

If your edit was to briefly mention that the State of Palestine, which claims territory inside Palestine is recognized by over 130 states it's fine. If it was to briefly mention that it now has observer status at the UN, it's fine. It's wrong if it includes a statement such as "The UN recognized the State of Palestine" - because the UN doesn't have the authority to recognize states - see above for a link to its website where this is explained. Japinderum (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The UN didn't recognize the State of Palestine but the UN officiliazed the fact that Palestine is a State. As a proof, many States feared that now this Status is official, Palestine would use this at the International Criminal Tribunal to sue Israel given only States can go to ICT. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What is so difficult about this? This article is about the region. The article about the state is at State of Palestine. The topics are separate. If you want "Palestine" to be about the state, then participate in the move discussion above. Don't unilaterally turn this into a duplicate. We need an article about the historical region. Nightw 10:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to duplicate the discussion unilaterally. I came here to read about the UN vote, and didn't see it, so I decided to add the content. I didn't realize there were two separate articles about Palestine. It seemed counter intuitive to me that there would be.Patwinkle (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is about "the geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands." Palestinian territories/State of Palestine is about "the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip". The two are very different. In fact, Israel contains more of the Palestine region then the PT/SOP do. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Patwinkle, surely you understand that sometimes things that are not the same share the same name? Compare Ireland/Ireland, Micronesia/Micronesia, Sudan/Sudan, Guinea/Guinea, Congo/Congo/Congo, Bosnia/Bosnia, Macedonia/Macedonia. "Palestine" can refer to many things, all of which are very distinct topics. Do you think that Guinea (region) should have a separate section about the foundation of Guinea but not Ghana just because the former has the same name? Nightw 13:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a region, not the state. The vast number of editors being directed to this region article rather than the state article they seek is proof of the need to move this article. Sepsis II (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, there may be an alternative explanation for the "vast" (actually only 3 different editor but you 3 times) number of editors that jump in with both feet having failed to read the hatnote.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

'Patwinkle' to avoid such confusion in the future, I suggest you first look at the top of the article, it usually makes it crystal clear what the article is about. In this case: "This article is about the geographic region roughly covering the Southern Levant. For the its parts, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For the Palestinian state, see State of Palestine."--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine the "State" as we know it today is a direct product of the culture and the people that are refered to by "historic" Palestine, or the "geographic region" of Palestine, however you may put it. Go to the article on Korea, for example. There are no separate articles on North Korea, South Korea, and Korea. There are only Korea and Korea-(disambiguation). The topic of how Korea came to be North and South today is covered in a sub heading in the main article.

Similarly, I think Palestine should include all relevant topics from antiquity to present and the continuum of her past be granted direct connection to the Palestine in the present.

Frankly I believe this is nothing less than a thinly veiled attempt by some to deny the present day Palestine of its roots.Patwinkle (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

North Korea, South Korea, and Korea. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, a summary of the recent history of the State of Palestine should be included under "Palestine" with more details being directed to the article "State of Palestine"Patwinkle (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel the "State" as we know it today can also be described as a direct product of the culture and the people that are refereed to by "historic" Palestine, or the "geographic region" of Palestine, however you may put it. Remember Israel contains more of the geographic Palestine region then the Palestinian territories/State of Palestine do. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the progressive events that led up to this situation can be detailed here and also under the articles pertaining to Israel. I don't think anything needs to be watered down in regards Plan Dalet and the influx of migration of Jews from elsewhere. Regardless, there were no migration of Arab Palestinians from other parts of the region to Palestine, however what remains of Palestinians in the present day Palestine today are people that remained in the region from the times referenced in this article.Patwinkle (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The Arabs are originally from Arabia, they migrated to Palestine, Mesopotamia, and allot of other lands. Jews also migrated to Palestine, and were expelled, and migrated back. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This article covers the region in broad strokes, as is necessary lest it be of unmaneagable size, further detail is in History_of_Palestine and History of the Palestinian territories, the former of which is linked from already in the article under #History #Modern Period. There's also specific articles on History of the Palestinian people. Wikipedia devolves (not the right word but can't think of something better for moment) detail into sub articles - for which the lede of each can act as a summary section in the next higher article. It goes awry if the ledes aren't up to spec though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine portal split

Recently user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman proposed to split Portal:Palestine and create Portal:Palestinian territories (see Portal talk:Palestine#Content split), with the rationale that Palestine is a geographic area without specific association with any people or politics, while Palestinian territories is about Palestinian people and modern Palestinian politics. Emmette also has already created a twin template to template:History of Palestine, named template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 to demonstrate this concept. Editor opinions are welcome on the issues of:

• Portal:Palestine content split (at Portal talk:Palestine#Content split)
• Whether template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 should be separate from template:History of Palestine (at Template talk:Governance of Palestine from 1948#Merging with History of Palestine template).

Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Btw, this semms to be WP:POVFORK. --Omar-toons (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put my rationale that way. My rationale is the same rationale that this article and Palestinian territories are separate articles, that they are not the same thing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Outremer a synonym of Palestine?

Outremer extends well north of Palestine. The map on it's article clearly shows that is consists of the Northern Levant, not just Palestine, which if anything would make it a synonym of the Levant or at least the Western Levant. Wouldn't the crusader name of Palestine be Jerusalem? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Outremer and Palestine are not co-extensive. Palestine, under its many guises, has always exclusively been in the Southern Levant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it to say Jerusalem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine at Asia topic

An ongoing discussion at Asia topic template talk page is proposing to change the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2013

"The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region in 1922. The non-Jewish Palestinians revolted in 1920, 1929 and 1936. Should add in "In 1946 the Mandate relinquished 70% of the land included in the Mandate for Palestine to create the independent state of Trans-Jordan which would ultimately become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; thus creating a contiguous and recognized Arab state from the original Mandate". 27.32.236.201 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)  Done--Launchballer 17:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact Transjordan was removed of the Mandate before its officialisation and was not part of this.

The reason is that the terms of the Mandate garanteed the establishement of the Jews in it and to respect their agreement with the Arabs the British didn't want the Jews to settle East of the Jordan. They made this territory become semi-autonomous under Hashemite rule.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That's right. It's set out clearly here British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Key_Mandate_dates_from_assignment_to_coming_into_effect. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Country / No longer a Country

Palestine is an occupied country, why has its status as a country been changed to 'region', as opposed to a country? Also, why has the history been modified? It contradicts itself in six different areas. Check the history. Also, one more thing. "The region is also known as the Land of Israel" By who? I have never heard it referred to as the Land of Israel. --Suffery (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this article is about the region, not the country. For the country see Palestinian territories. It's like America and the United States of America. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a similar concept to help you understand the logic Suffery. The Native American nations or countries ceased to exist after the United States finished colonialism in America and Native Americans were moved onto reservations, in the modern day, Native American Reservations are seen as the remaining independent nations of the Native Americans. Palestinians have been put into the West Bank and Gaza because colonizing Jews mostly from Europe imperialized Palestine thus created Israel. Whatever the West Bank and Gaza shrink to after Israel is finally done colonizing will most likely end up as Palestinian reservations, that is assuming Israel does stop building on Palestinian land mind you. Silvertrail (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no country called Palestine, and second of all, Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. Your analogy is entirely incorrect. A proper analogy to the situation would be if the Native Americans had effectively gained power, overthrown the U.S., and started moving out of their reservations and founding their own "settlements" in the American wilderness. Then all the European Americans get angry, perform suicide bombings, and make up a story that somehow they are the ones who are indigenous. Then the whole world feels sorry for them and rants about how evil those Native Americans are for taking back their land. By the way, if Silvertrail had been describing Muslims the way he is describing Jews, his comment would have been quickly removed as "WP:SOAP," "WP:FORUM," "rm Islamophobic/racist/politically incorrect rant," or some other convenient policy meant to silence Jews. Σαμψών (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

'The indigenous people of Palestine'. Oh really? Read Genesis and Exodus, which place the forefathers as immigrants to Palestine. Or, if you are a religious sceptic, read genetic analyses which state (a large percentage of) Jews have genetic markers indicating some of their ancestors come from the Middle East, i.e. from Anatolia, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Iran etc. Please don't use these pages to engage in soap-operatic divagations, especially with riffs like this. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Jews are far more indigenous than Arabs because they predate Arabs in the region by centuries. The European Jews Silvertrail defames as "imperialists colonizing Palestine" were expelled from Israel against their will following the Bar Kokhba revolt. As for "imperialists colonizing Palestine"... hmm, sounds awfully like the Muslim conquests. If you don't want "soap-operatic divagations," then don't spout ethnic/religious defamation. When I see anti-Jewish propaganda, I feel compelled to act. Σαμψών (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nish, please dont waste your time. nableezy - 09:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's Sunday, which I waste most of regularly by challenging the six-pack pretensions of my waistline with the usual midday to four pm gluttony living in this country imposes as a social duty and cultural ritual. This is no problem, but the conversation ends below.:::::Yawn. 'See'? Rather than suggest you go to the optometrist, I suggest you do some elementary reading. The Jews weren't expelled from Israel after the Bar Kochba revolt, (Eusebius's report of Ariston of Pella (HE:Book 4:6.3. It's written in Greek so you should have no trouble with it, i.e. it has, predictably, no reference to 'European Jews' being expelled from Israel a thousand years before the emergence of the Ashkenazi (European Jews. τὸ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐξ ἐκείνου καὶ τῆς περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα γῆς πάμπαν ἐπιβαίνειν εἴργεται νόμου δόγματι καὶ διατάξεσιν Ἁδριανοῦ,ὡς ἂν μηδ᾿ ἐξ ἀπόπτου θεωροῖεν τὸ πατρῷον ἔδαφος, ἐγκελευσαμένου· Ἀρίστων ὁ Πελλαῖος ἱστορεῖ.). If you think the Beta Israel, Inca Jews (at Alon Shvut) or San Nicandro Jews or 26% of the Russian Jews, some 300,000 of over a million who made 'aliyah' though weren't considered Jewish, by all means keep talking about 'more indigenous'. If you don't know the abc's of elementary (Jewish) history, don't pretend to be literate in the subject.Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic and false map

In the "Evolution of Mandate Palestine and modern Palestinian Territories " The last image shows the Golan heights as being part of Israel. It uses the same thick line for the ceasefire line line straight through Syria, as it uses for the international boundary for Israel-Lebanon, Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian_National_Authority_within_Israel,_2013.svg --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does the keyword Palestine redirect to an article about the region of Palestine?

There is a State of Palestine as far as I know it. For instance, there's both a State of Israel and the region of Israel. But the keyword Israel redirects for the State of Israel article. Maybe that could be some kind of bias? 189.123.205.142 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference between a geographic region and the "conventional name" of a geographic region

Instead of:

Palestine is a conventional name, among others, for the geographic region in Western Asia...

I propose

Palestine is a geographic region in Western Asia...

The weirdness of the current version seems so obvious that as I was about to make the change, but then I remembered what topic area I was in.

If it made any sense, we could have articles on the "conventional names" of France, Helsinki, Yorkshire and so on rather than on the actual places, so what's going on here? Formerip (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't there a Palestinian flag on the Palestine wikipedia

I believe that a flag is a symbol of community, a representation of history, and a mode of communication. Why is the first image of Palestine defined by a map of what it is and isn't?

~~User:supporterofdialogue ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkdte (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the geographical region of Palestine which includes the modern-day state of Israel. This flag represents only the State of Palestine and its people. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevance?

In late 2012, a donation of $21.6 million was announced by the Government of the Netherlands—the Dutch government stated that the funds would be provided to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), for the specific benefit of Palestinian children. An article, published by the UN News website, stated that: "Of the $21.6 million, $5.7 will be allocated to UNRWA’s 2012 Emergency Appeal for the occupied Palestinian territory, which will support programmes in the West Bank and Gaza aiming to mitigate the effects on refugees of the deteriorating situation they face."

Is any of the above relevant to Palestine as a geographical region? It just seems strikingly out of place in this particular article when placed alongside an entire section very much on the history of control and boundaries of the region. 131.111.243.142 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Y You are right; this doesn't belong on the page. I will boldly remove it, and other users are free to restore if they wish. Please let me know if you disagree, though. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of map template in use on this page

Template:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at @ the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I nominate it be kept. In fact there needs to be a section of maps. Do you have something as informative to take its place? How can you discuss the Taking of Lands from Palestine and Occupation of lands within Palestine, without showing the land being taken? Are you trying to hide information from people? For what reason do you want it removed? -- BTW, please add the two maps I posted. DigDeep4Truth (talk 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not my nomination. To register your view, go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 26. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I misunderstood. It was good of you to make sure the debate was also posted here. Please Keep the Palestine Maps. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

grammar correction

In the Middle Ages section, the following needs fixing: [The word 'Arab at the time referred to Bedouin, nomads with an Arabian ancestry.] Should read: [The word Arab at the time referred to Bedouin nomads with an Arabian ancestry.]

Even though it is capitalized you didn't bother to look up what a Bedouin is? There is a comma because they are trying to rename or describe , saying nomad after nomad is repeating its meaning. However the italics for slang usage is a good idea. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the true origin of the term, Palestine.

The name, Syriana Palaestina was given to Judea by the Roman Emperor, Hadrian following his conquest of Yisrael (Israel). Yirushalem (Jerusalem) was renamed Aelina Capitolina by Hadrian as well. The article makes no mention of this fact, but does mention references which suggest that persons indigenous to the region identified the region as Palestine and that the name, Palestine has indigenous origins. The history of Hadrian's conquest and redrawing of the region, while entirely accurate, is often suppressed because it supports a politically unpopular native; which is that the origin of the name, Palestine is wholly colonial. <Judea, Wikipedia>

Garrettrutledge55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrettrutledge55 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the story you allude to is supressed because it is wrong. There is no primary source for Hadrian's renaming - it is romatic contecture. See sources at Timeline of the name Palestine.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

and was greece in charge of the area at the time?! the article it's self states that the Egyptians used a different name, that the philistenes (a cognate) were an invading people from the argean area, who only settled the southern section of the coast, the reast of the area being refered to as "canaan [phonecea]" and later as "kingdom of israel" and "kingdom of judea" for a period of over 500 years, so what relevance does the greek decision to call it palistine have to do with the native name of the region? it makes sense on account of the theory that the philistines were greek, its always nice to use a native word, but the native population during the period in question called it "israel" "judea" or "phonecia". So yes, the greeks count as colonial by any streach of the immagination! Far from being wrong, it represents the view of the then majority indigenous population.93.172.175.43 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The land area has been known as variations of the word Palestine since antiquity, calling it any previous or further names would be inaccurate, simply put. Silvertrail (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

in antiquity by whom? as stated, the egyptians were still speaking egyptian up till roman times, and had a different name for it as mention "plst" referes to the philistines proper. There is no proof here whatsoever that aramaic speakers (the lingua franca in the area, greek and roman were only used in the roman empire, greek didn't manage to take root in the semetic speaking countries) used these names clearly other that for the philistines proper, so the answer remains clear that "palistine" was a colonial, not local name. You are looking at this with a Grecian bias. That the term has been used for the past 2000 years all by exclusively colonial powers does not establish the name of the area.

also antiquity is a relative word, for an area who's history goes back 10,000 years as opposed to 2,500 for european areas, pretending as if there is unique significance to the greeco-roman antiquity over any of the other major empires that ruled here or peoples that lived here is a tad ego-centric of the west. the name palistine is nothing more than a name of convenience, and the answer needs to be given why they chose a distinct minority inhabitant as the name for the entire region. 93.172.87.147 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, if you don't know something or anything, rather than argue the point, just consult google books, and in this case you will find in a minute that all of your preconceptions are wrong, esp. about Greek which was, after Alexander's death one of the dominant languages of the area from Phoenicia to Egypt, so used by Jewish thinkers and within the diaspora that the Septuagint was produced to cater to non-Hebrew or Aramaic speakers. The koine was spoken throughout Palestine, as numerous inscriptions attest.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Unless you provide reliable sources that support any change you want to make to the article you are wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.

• I think this should be copied into the text. Rather than floating out there on its own as if it is a separate subject. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Copyright expired books on Palestine -- http://www.wdl.org/en/search/?q=Palestine&qla=en

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

This text in regards the Wikipedia page for 'Palestine' is historically incorrect and incomplete, as to give a misleading account of historical events. On that basis, I would like to request a change FROM:

EXISTING Entry:

The term was first used to denote an official province of the Roman Empire in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.[20][21]

TO (proposed paragraphs):

In AD 135, the Emperor Hadrian blotted out the name “Provincia Judea” and renamed it “Provincia Syria Palaestina”. This was the Roman-Latin version of the Greek name, and soon became a name to be used as an administrative unit. This name was shortened to Palaestina and the name “Palestine” was derived from it as a modern and anglicized translation. [ref (1): http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php]

From 115 – 117 CE, the Jews, primarily outside of Judea, fought a bitter war with the Romans. The main centers of revolution were: Alexandria in Egypt; Cyrene (in the region, Cyrenaica) in Libya; and also Cyprus. The Jewish revolt all but saved the Parthian Empire from a Roman onslaught. After failing to make any strategic inroads, in 132 CE the Jews of Judea once again revolted – this time under a leader called Simon “Bar Kochba” (which translates to, “the son of the star”). When the Bar Kochba revolt was finally quashed in 135 CE, the Romans exiled the majority of the remaining Jewish peoples and renamed Judea “Provincia Syria Palaestina”. “Syria Palaestina” thereby officially became a Roman province roughly a century after Jesus’ crucifixion (i.e. circa 130 AD). The essential concept being, by Rome, to effectively erase all Jewish connotations in Judea and to re-assign the Jewish homeland a direct reference to their (i.e. the Jews) Biblical arch-enemies the Phlistines. For the Jews, it was a final humiliation.

Historically speaking, there were no Philistines at the time of the revolt [ref (2): http://focusonjerusalem.com/whatromecalledthepromisedland.html] occupying Judea or the directly adjacent regions - and if some Philistines had existed there during the era, they would certainly not be "Arabs" in the strictest modern, anthropological understanding of the term: Philistines have their true origins in Greece.

Kowalski2014 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• www.palestinefacts.org does not qualify as a WP:RS
• The second paragraph appears to be based on a blog by Simcha Jacobovici, Canadian-Israeli filmmaker and journalist[12] so again, not reliable by Wikipedia's standards
• focusonjerusalem.com is a self-published "prophecy ministry" site by Darrell G. Young so again not reliable by Wikipedia's standards

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is common knowledge. If you do not know this, should you really be editing Jewish history articles? Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions, prohibited the Torah law, the Hebrew calendar and executed Judaic scholars (see Ten Martyrs). The sacred scroll was ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. In an attempt to erase the memory of Judaea, he renamed the province Syria Palaestina (after the Philistines), and Jews were forbidden from entering its rededicated capital. When Jewish sources mention Hadrian it is always with the epitaph "may his bones be crushed" (שחיק עצמות or שחיק טמיא, the Aramaic equivalent), an expression never used even with respect to Vespasian or Titus who destroyed the Second Temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.205.145.28 (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Which part of "please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made" didn't you understand ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the Wikipedia nerd. It is your responsibility to find sources, not mine. By the way, I am not Kowalski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.205.145.28 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite curious. This proposal is an offprint from a noted hasbara meme, which crops up on many newspaper sites with polemical regularity. It has no grounding in sound scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That Hadrian renamed the province of IVDAEA to remove the Jewish reference, among a number of other anti-Jewish measures he undertook in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt, is historical enough, but 94.205.145.28's emotive language is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles, and of course it's the responsibility of someone who proposes contentious changes to source those changes... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I know you read that someone, but History says it is a made up lie. Here is a redrawn map of Judea and Palestine from 43 CE = before Hadrian was born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela ~ 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC) DigDeep4Truth (talk0

nope. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please Include these Two Maps of Palaeftina 400 AD and Palestine 2007 CE

• Palaeftina 400AD http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=5.4635&centerX=0.2820&centerY=0.5588
• Palestine 2007CE http://davidduke.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/West_Bank__Gaza_Map_2007_Settlements.jpg

DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is David Duke a reliable source on this subject? -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

He is not the source of the map. I did a Google image search. This was the largest image I found. ~ I don't agree with David Duke, you are only trying to incite flame bait. See the picture for its honest value, and move on with your character assignations by associate. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to be very quick to accuse others of having KKK ties, maybe you should have exercised greater circumspection in using David Duke as a source... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the extraordinarily funny 'character assignations by associate' (which I presume is a google translation of some foreign text that referred to 'character assassinations by association') in 'incite flame bait', is that three consecutive verbs, or is 'flame' an adjective governing 'bait', ort do 'flame and bait' go together, as the object of 'incite'?Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

These two maps are already on wiki:

• File:Israel Byzantine 5c.jpg (this is a modern representation of the first link above)
• File:West Bank & Gaza Map 2007 (Settlements).png

You can see links to which articles these maps are included in at the bottom of the page links. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• The First Map is labeled wrong. It is not a map of Israel Byzantine. It is a map of "Palestine Byzantine". Not the same map. Though the time frame is within 100 years, and more detailed, it lacks the authenticity of an old map. But it needs to be relabeled "Palestine Byzantine".
• The second map should be in this Palestine article. If there is one single map of Palestine, it should be an accurate one. That is not just a map of the "West Bank and Gaza". It shows the North, the South, and the East bank settled too! That is a Map of "All of Palestine 2007" and must be added for this article to be an accurate reflection of what is Palestine. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

---

The Holy Land or Promised Land (Formerly Palestine), Recently Depicted and Published by Nicolaes Visscher 1659 CE --> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/210/#q=Palestine&time_periods=-8000-499&qla=en `` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Here ABOVE is another very good map, this United Nations map shines the light on a European Goal to replace Palestine with a Holy Land or a Promised Land of the artist and Europe's own Social Religious design. Created in Amsterdam, one should note that Freemasonry started in Germany around 1500 CE. And be mindful both Harry S. Truman who signed 1948 Israel into existence and his Grandpa were Freemason. F.A.M Blue Lodge (Zionists), York Rite (Catholic), Scottish Rite (KKK Zionist Movement for Jews in Jerusalem). All three have one thing in common, Religious titles & Knight Degrees as part of membership, keeping the unfinished Crusades fresh in each members mind. Everyone who joins Freemasonry is reminded of the European unfinished Goal, akin to how Bush Jr groundlessly acted out against Iraq all because he was reminded of how senior Bush had failed in his goal to cripple Iraq from ever being able to defend Palestine, and for Freemasonry in general the invasion of Palestine and conversion to Judeo-Christian control.

I'm also looking at another United Nations hosted map, this time from Lithuania along the coast of Germany where they carved Palestine into 12 Tribes. Written in Hebrew. Eliyyahu ben Shelomo Zalman (1720-1797) better known as the Vilna Gaon or Elijah of Vilna, Although he traveled some in Eastern Europe, he never visited the Holy Land. However, more than 500 of his disciples moved to Palestine at his urging; this immigration is considered the beginning of the modern Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel. http://www.wdl.org/en/item/2662/#q=Palestine&page=2&qla=en

Do the Palestinians have a Flag of Jerusalem?

Above is the question. Any answers? Background is that presently the only flag shown for Jerusalemn on the Jersualem article is an Israeli flag. I asked why and some one asked me, well, you find us a Palestinian one. I don't know the answer. Best, Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Propose merging Definitions of Palestine into this article

Most of the article Definitions of Palestine is redundant as it is covered adequately here. The useful piece is explaining the connection between the region of Palestine and the other modern uses of the terms.

I suggest we cover that in an illustrated section at the end of this article entitled simply "Modern politics", where we explain that Palestinian people and Palestinian nationalism relate to the whole region, but that since 1988 the term State of Palestine (and other related political organizations) refers only to the West Bank and Gaza.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

History section - a summary of History of Palestine

Just a reminder that we have a History of Palestine article, which is a good repository for relevant detail, particularly around the middle ages. I think it is important that we keep the history section in this article as a summary, without too much detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That we need be informed that both Jews and Christians prayed for Ahmad ibn Tulun when he lay dying, but are to desist from mentioning the killing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian soldiers (who happened to be Jews) during the Roman onslaught is curious. (Oh, and let's include the 700,000 Arabs who were driven out in 1948, but not a peep about the 700,000 Jews who were driven out/killed in 148.) Chesdovi (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your general point - that we need to ensure balance. Let's debate all these points in detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree generally, but Chesdovi's note re 985 villages (while leaving out 50 fortresses) was not excessive detail. It is illustrative for the context. The problem with it is that the original source (RS, but not by a specialist says in 'Judea proper', whereas the figure, probably inflated as almost all ancient figures are, would refer to all of Palestine and parts of Transjordan (in Judea proper there were, from memory, just 200 Jewish villages at the time). You cannot cite Dio Cassius, Josephus or any ancient writer for facts, as opposed to citing them via secondary sources. Chesdovi, this is the second time today you made the simple error of presenting an opinion, or a theory (albeit based on a primary source) as a fact. The academic consensus is, all the same, that the figure suggests the depth of the devastation visited upon Jewish communities outside the Galilee (which didn't participate), and this is a central element in the history of Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Chesdovi. For almost a millenium, Palestine was largely Christian, and this fact disappears all over wiki.

That was a very poor and confusing edit you made. ‘At the time of the conquest, the majority of the population were Jews and Samaritans’.

• You cite Gil p.3.
• Gil in that quote hazards an assumption explicitly adding ‘we do not know’, and ‘we may assume with some certainty’. I.e. he is expressing his personal view, a view ungrounded in evidence. You restate this as a fact. It was not, in his own presentation, a fact.
• Moshe Gil’s book came out in its original Hebrew edition in 1983. Gideon Avni’s book surveys and draws conclusions from the extensive archaeological work done in the area over the last three decades, i.e. since Gil made that arbitrary assumption, and overturns many of the earlier assumptions Gil’s work displays. 2014 trumps 1983 for the state of the art.
• There is not a shadow of a doubt that Avni expressly states that Christians were the majority at the time of the Islamic conquest.

• ‘The Muslims, on the other hand, saw Palestine as a monolithic Islamic domain. The presence of a Christian population was mentioned only briefly, and the fact that Christians remained a majority in Palestine long after the Arab conquest was ignored.’ p.6

• ‘my major argument is that archaeology provides a reliable picture of the Byzantine-Islamic transition. It was evidently a much slower and ore graual transformation, involving regional variability and affecting more locales, population sectors, and settlement configurations, than previously assumed. The cultural and religious shift from Christianity to Islam, one of the most significant transformations in human history, needs to be considered from the longue durée perspective. It took a different shape in large urban areas, medium-sized towns, agricultural hinterlands, and nomadic settlements on the fringe of the desert. This process of change, from a Christian majority to a multicultural dynamic society, will be explored in the course of the book.’p.9

• ‘

  the predominance of the Christian population was maintained throughout the early Islamic period. p.131

• ‘Despite the language change from Greek to Arabic, the majority clung to Christianity until Crusader times. Islamization gained real momentum only after the conquest by Saladin in 1187 and the expulsion of the Franks.’ P.336

• ‘In what way do the archaological findings contribute to our understanding of the changes in religious affiliation during this time, the creeping Islamization and the relations between religious communities? As we saw in Chapter 5, the transition from a predominantly Christian society, as manifested in government and religious institutions, was a gradual one. Through the period, Christians were the majority population group in both the cities and villages. The penetration of Islam was slow, and mainly expressed in the formation of government elites p.351

These articles concern all aspects of history, and all confessions. The three monotheisms have equally profound historical attachments to that land, and articles must reflect this diversity.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fairly compelling to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing that might have influenced Gil's judgement here is that after the Persians conquered and sacked Jerusalem in 614, 30 years earlier, they are said to have destroyed the city's Christian majority - those who survived were handed over to the new Jewish messianic groups who took up residence after long being forbidden access (and in one account conducted a 'convert' or die event at Mamilla). Exactly as the Jewish elite had been deported from Jerusalem to Babylonia a millenium earlier, so the Christian elite was deported to Iran. A good example of history repeating itself. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable populations (a continuity of the byzantine era) of indigenous holy land Christians were noted later in the Crusader Era as well. Lazyfoxx (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

From the article: The three-year Ministry of Jesus, culminating in his crucifixion, is estimated to have occurred from 28–30 CE, although the historicity of Jesus is disputed by a minority of scholars.

The citation used to justify this brief string of bald assertions is opinion not fact, and I think it's pretty unfortunate that mythology has been inserted into the history section of this article. Firstly what do they mean by scholars, secondly which scholars, is there a poll or anything other than hearsay to support this claim? I guess at the end of the day it's one thing to to reference mythology as it relates to history, but to pretend it's anything but mythology is just sad.209.202.24.156 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing exceptional in the fact that most ancient historiography mythicizes its figures, this is as true even of Alexander the Great as it is of many of the foundational figures of the early Biblical chronicles, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Saul, Solomon etc. To exceptionalize Jesus therefore as not 'factual' is usually to enter into partisan, usually interfaith, polemics. The strong consensus (it may well be biased) is that some historical figure lies behind the Jesus of the Gospels, that he preached for some years and then, like many messianic figures of that period and area, was crucified together with two bandits. In a general article, the passage you quote is a fair summary of the consensus, which does not establish 'facts' but forms the basis for the narrative we have here, which describes what scholars generally think, with a few exceptions, of Jesus.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

189.14.8.13 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel tem o póder5 bélico de já ter decidido sobre essas questões. Mas por que é necessária a continuidade da destruição? Qual é o valor da vida dco ser humano para essas questões? O ódio nãda constrói. Será que os martires já não foram suficientes? Será que as partes envolvidas só enxergam o que perdem e não o que prejudicam? A nação árabe têm uma história de união. Somente o Satã é que deve estar fomentando essa desunião! Judeus e Palestinos. O terror não está na origem, mas na forma de se relacio9nar e Mem seus objetivos! Qual o motivo para se manter esse estado contínuo de terror e guerra entre seus povos?} Qual é o objetivo de ncada uma de suas nações? Será que seus líderes são crianças iguais aquelas que são vítimas inocentes de seus devaneios? Será que Israel não está derramando sangue mjudeu de mPalestinos? E os Palestinos igualmente?

VALOR PAZ = 11_4_12_15_5_16_4_25=15+20+25+1221=1281 ISRAEL PALESTINA= 9554512+16+4+12+5+5+7+14+4=9554512+67=9554579 9/554579 + m1281 = 685860 FHEHF (A O) SISTENA=59575144=40 SISTEMA=59575134=39 40+39=79 > 16=16 > p 81+21=102

22+9+14+15+5+5 = 70 3+15+12+5+14+9 = 58 27+15=42 9+14+20=43 20+14+9=43 42+58=100 43+70=113 Good Night Brothers !

Not done: This is the English Wikipedia and all requests must be in English.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

- Nakba - Everything you need to know about Nakba Day - nakba.co.uk.

Miahwaheed (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?

Please comment at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to correct hyperlink

Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, this is my first suggested edit on a semi-protected page.

Section: History Sub-section: Classical antiquity Proposed edit: change hyperlink for "Saint Helena" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_(Empress)

Mngrover (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)mngrover

 Done Thank you for pointing out this error. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Haavara Agreement

Why the Haavara Agreement are not mentionned in this article ? It is an important detail to understand the help of the EU to the zionism thom 12h 10/08/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomMonteillet (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The term palestine (paleshet) is about the area of five city state in Southern israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistia Not the whole land..how so ? if the article writes abotu the whole land as "paleshet" but paleshet is onyl this certain area.. --Dor25 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of the term "sovereign state"

See also: beginning of this discussion at Malik Shabazz's Talk, 07:15, 8 March 2015 (added by --Igorp_lj‎)

An editor amended the hat note citing "(sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. This doesn't apply to Palestine unless you think Israel isn't an external power)". I reverted the edit citing, "this refers to normal relations. Wartime is different". This short note should be expanded. While the first citation is correct in normal, peacetime situations, it is not true in wartime. For example, did the sovereign state of Poland cease to exist in 1939 or did it continue while under Nazi / Soviet occupation? By December 1939, the Polish nation no longer had de facto control "over its territory and domestic affairs". However, it's de jure rights to such control were not extinguished by the state of war and the occupation of the national territory. The same principle is true for Palestine. While it may not have de facto control over its territory and domestic affairs, it's de jure rights to such control remain undiminished. It is legitimate therefore to describe it as a sovereign state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you have failed to provide a source for the dubious claim that the definition of sovereignty fundamentally changes during wartime, you have also neglected to make a distinction between recognized sovereignty, and actual de facto sovereignty. Who a country recognizes as an area's sovereign depends upon the foreign policy of the countries doing the recognizing. Actual soverignty depends upon full control over borders, foreign policy, taxation, movement, etc. none of which the PA control in the West Bank. For several centuries in Europe, the recognized sovereign of modern Israel and Palestine were various monarchs that had no actual control of the land that they claimed. I obviously recognize the difficulty in describing this, which is why I invite you to write whatever you want in the body to correctly explain the situation. Trying to make the correct distinction in a blurb at the top is impossible.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

While it is now seen as a sovereign state, it may still be okay to just write "for the country" as I don't think other states are described different from that but they are just stating it is a country. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Moshe is confusing sovereignty with the ability to exercise sovereignty. They are different. (For the record, I don't care whether the word "sovereign" appears in this place in the article or not.) Zero^talk 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I am confusing anything. In fact I believe that the confusion is on the part of those that do not see the difference between being a sovereign state and being recognized as a sovereign state, which is a key distinction. I am a little annoyed that there is a refusal to even accept that an argument exists. Also for the record I don't even believe that whether or not the word sovereign appears really supports the pov I may or may not have. In fact there is an argument to be made that I since it actually doesn't look very good stylistically that it affects the article's credibility. It's good to see you again Zero, its been a long time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also I wrote this in response to something on MShabazz's talk page- I hear you, you're making the point that the vast majority of the countries that exist today recognize Palestine, whether is be de facto or de jure recognition, as a sovereign nation. That is valid. My, and I believe Igor's, argument is that this country whether or not it is recognized as a sovereign nation is not able to exercise sovereignty over any meaningful geography. That is also a valid point. You could argue that this is irrelevant and that the State of Palestine could exist in an abstract way as a sovereign entity without any actual land under its control by virtue of the aforementioned recognition. My point would be a one sentence blurb at the top of an article is not the best place to explore these arguments, and that any attempt to do so would appear either out of place, or risk simply being inaccurate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious (and sourced) that Palestine has been recognized as a sovereign State and it is obvious that it cannot exercise this sovereignty.

I think we should just explain the situation as the sources explain this.

I mean: how do sources introduce the situation of the State of Palestine ? Are there sources that underline it cannot exercise its sovereignty ? If so, we should follow the advice of Moshe, else we should not.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Moshe, as I wrote on my Talk page, you are engaging in original research. The article State of Palestine describes Palestine as a sovereign state and cites reliable sources to that effect. That you're edit-warring over a hatnote — a hatnote, for fucks sake! — despite the fact that these sources have been pointed out to you repeatedly indicates a serious problem on your part. Continue down this path and you will end up at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not original research; no one here has even suggested that the article would be better off with sovereign included in the note. Also I don't appreciate you blaming me for the edit war since it was clearly going on before. The fact that you continue to push the original research argument shows you have not been paying much attention. If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I have engaged with the arguments of others, have never assumed bad faith, and never added information that was based upon original research. The same cannot be said about you. Also in my experience actually talking to people rather than citing rules (rules which I would say you are clearly misquoting) generally works better. When you begin the confrontation by adding a WP:ARBPIA alert on my talk page, and then proceed by citing wikipedia policy, it makes me instantly not like you. Just as much as I would instantly not like a coworker who began our first interaction by self-servingly citing an odd interpretation of company policy. I genuinely say this for your future benefit, and the benefit of Wikipedia since it is highly unlikely I am going to continue to edit any IP articles with any amount of regularity in the future, and as a result, unlikely that I will encounter you much again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The best solution to this issue is to use the simplest term, which I think is the current version (at the time of my edit): "state (country)". The State of Palestine is only de jure sovereign, not de facto sovereign. Noting such a distinction is not really necessary in the hatnote and I think simply stating "state (country)" is sufficient. I also want to remind everyone in this discussion that this article is under a one revert per editor per 24 hours sanction (refer to notes at top of this talk page), which User:Laurel Lodged violated on March 8 (2 reverts within 4 hours) and User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg came close to (2 reverts in 26 hours). AHeneen (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Moshe made three reverts within 24 hours, two of them within two hours of one another.[13][14][15] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Question: Can somebody explain me why so many editors have to waste so many time for a couple of words?

I'd remind what we'are talking about:

{{About}} is a commonly used hatnote template on Wikipedia, and should be placed at the top of an article, linking the reader to other articles with similar titles or concepts (with names very similar to the name of the article) that they may have been seeking instead.

As I see, almost no one here has principal objection to the State of Palestine duality. The easiest & complete version: only "For the state (country), see State of Palestine" was proposed by me and argued on the Malik Shabazz' Talk page after his revert yet at 10:48, 8 March 2015. Unfortunately, so far I have not gotten there a technical answer from him.
Moreover, after discussion has been continued here (as I hope after my proposal) it was already emerging consensus in favor of this simple option, so that a detailed explanation (de jure, de facto, full or limited recogntion, etc.) should be in a main article. It may be then be changed, RS may be added, etc.
But unfortunately, the discussion again slipping into an administrative rather than technical issues.
Can we still go back to common sense? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The additional word "sovereign" is useful in distinguishing between the many other Palestines mentioned in the hat note. Moshe's apparent issue with de facto vs de jure vs full recognition vs partial recognition of sovereignty vs the ability to exercise that sovereignty, is, at best, a distraction from what is quite clear - that the state is a sovereign state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about just using the term "state (country)". Adding the word "sovereign" is not necessary. AHeneen (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I know only one administrative unit, called itself as State of Palestine, what it's clearly "distinguished between the many other Palestines mentioned in the hat note" :

This page is about the historical geographic region. For the state (country), see State of Palestine. For the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation).

Can you point to another such one ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So Palestine is just an "administrative unit"? That speaks volumes about the motivations of any editor that would want to delete the word "sovereign" from the description. I need say no more. Thanks to Igorp, my work here is done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear example of not assuming good faith Laurel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, Laurel Lodged, both of us may have any personal opinion about what is called as State of Palestine, but it does not matter, my version is talking just about the State of Palestine, neither about some administrated / governed object nor about your "So Palestine is..." (BTW, what about your "That speaks volumes about" motivation? :) )

Any way, your guesses are not reason to move away from my question about "another such one". So I'm waiting for your answer. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not just say for the country like any other country? The state (country) thing just looks kind of weird and clunky. A problem with the Israel and Palestine articles is people are always trying to hammer home some point or another. If the sources say Palestine is a country and we all consider it a country, then just treat it like any other country like IRISZOOM said. It doesn't need to be emphasised over and over just make a point. I would say the same for Israel were the situations reversed. Honestly, guys, the only way for us to actually take a neutral approach to editing Israel and Palestine articles is to actually take a neutral approach to editing Israel and Palestine articles. And Moshe, if you're the only one still strongly advocating a point, then it means one of two possibilities: either you're the holdout with a bright and innovative idea who needs time to sell their idea properly, or it might be best just to put down the stick. You're saying people here aren't getting what you've been saying and so the latter might be the case here. If many other people here don't get what you're trying to say, then what makes you think readers will? Please consider these points. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 20 Adar 5775 23:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm clearly not the only person trying to argue my position. In fact I think it has been shown that I am in the majority of people who think "sovereign" should be removed. It's clunky, awkward, and makes it seem like a point is being made in a hatnote. Beyond that I'm fine with it just saying country of Palestine. The annoyance I exhibited was a result of two editors beginning the conversation by basically saying any change to what was there is a violation of policy, which is stupid and dishonest. By the way, that's a cool picture of you with the hoe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. I tend to speed-read on controversial article talk pages (as they're usually rife with insults), and usually I get a good idea of everyone's viewpoints. Sorry for any offence caused, though I stand by everything else as good general advice for everyone imo (including myself if I manage to follow it). And thanks! It was a pickaxe (technically a mattock) though and I was very happy that day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Adar 5775 04:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Oncenawhile

I congratulate you too on getting GA status for the article and appreciate your hard work on it. I also found out about this treatment only in the current process of its editing.

But :( now the question on your revert of one of my edits.
The following is is the quote from the UN document referenced by me in it. “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,” said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine”.

So my edit was based on this source:

In November 2012, the Palestinian National Authority was upgraded to non-member observer state status in the United Nations.

I got messages about the edits' conflict (as well as about your revert) just adding to it the following new information:

and on January 2013, by an official decree of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority has officially transformed all of its designations into the State of Palestine.

To simplify the question, I can offer such compromise variant for this edit:

• "In November 2012, the the status of Palestinian delegation in UN was upgraded to..."

P.S. Regarding to your "please could you use short citation format" - ok. BTW: will I receive the same "Check date values in: |date=" message passing to it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Igorp_lj, thanks for your message. I am inclined to agree with your proposal, which seems like a good suggestion. Having said that, I think that this question has been discussed in great detail before on another page - let me see if I can find that.

On the date= error, I have made a quick fix above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read the talk pages behind a variety of pages including State of Palestine, International recognition of the State of Palestine and United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. There seem to be a number of ways of describing what the UN vote achieved. I think your new version is fine, and if others with better technical knowledge have a different view then we can discuss again later.

By the way, the reason I reverted your edit was that the relationship between the PNA / PLO / PNC etc is quite complex. As explained on State of Palestine: "An analysis outlining the relationship between the PLO, the PNA (or PA), Palestine and Israel in light of the interim arrangements set out in the Oslo Accords begins by stating that, "Palestine may best be described as a transitional association between the PA and the PLO." It goes on to explain that this transitional association accords the PA responsibility for local government and the PLO responsibility for representation of the Palestinian people in the international arena, while prohibiting it from concluding international agreements that affect the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This situation is said to be accepted by the Palestinian population insofar as it is viewed as a temporary arrangement."

Another good explanation is in this diagram.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just want to comment that the recent addition of "Afterwards" as a subsection heading is really odd. I suggest "Post-partition" or "Since 1948" as better section names. AHeneen (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Since 1948" may be a good alternative. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile. You're right about a relationship's complexity. I've already seen some of such diagrams, but simpler that this one. :)

BTW, the Arafat & Abbas have used such different titles as Сhairman / President of PLO, PNA, State of Palestine (what else), sometimes almost simultaneously, depending on circumstances.

I do not know who is an author of these wordings, but he did his best to get the following :

• 'the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system'
• 'to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice'

So "UN Palestinian delegation" seems me a good choice. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to finish on something as :

• In November 2012, the status of Palestinian delegation in the United Nations was upgraded to non-member observer as State of Palestine.

:) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Igorp lj, yes I am fine with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On the date= error: If I understand well, you've changed my '|date=29 NOVEMBER 2012' to simple '|date=2012'. Do you know how to use a full date? Sometimes I'm changing it to as '2012-11-29' for this purpose, but as I think it should be some standard way. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry am not sure. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Emergence of ancient Israel

Just on this topic, seems it be one that I seem to spend a lot of time writing on, the opinion modern scholars - you could call it a consensus - is that there never was a united kingdom, and that the northern kingdom of Israel emerged first followed a century later by Judah. But I think this concentration on Israel skews the way the section treats the topic - what was really happening was that the Egyptian empire ruled over a collection of city states along the coast and in the Jezreel and Jordan valleys with the hill districts unpopulated, then Egypt lost control, nation-states emerged in the interior of which Israel/Judah were only two, while city-states continued along the coast (the Philistines and the Phoenicians further north). Israel/Judah have to be put in that context. PiCo (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair overview. The article actually ignores that period (leaping from the Israelites 12th to the 8th century in a single bound over a gaping silence). I don't know why, unless editors think that as an article on the territory of Palestine, Israelite origins should be kept out of it. On the other hand, there may be a calculation that the other wiki articles are so chockablock with a literal recital of the biblical story, which is, as you say, totally unreliable, as "history" , that the whole subject of a 'united kingdom', of a great series of kings extending their sway throughout the world too complex to boil down to a few sentences. All that stuff sounds like a rewriting of chronicles from Aram-Damascus, a major occupier of Israel, from Aramaic into Hebrew. After all Hazael formed a 'United Kingdom' in Aram-Damascus, and held the Israelite kingdoms in vassalage. Just guessin.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)