Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

"West Bank", in 1948?

Regarding to the Zero0000's revert:

I return the previous version, and I'd ask to explain your revert's description here:

• "Was better before. As well as adding unnecessary political baggage, the edit was not very accurate geographically"

Please also paid attention for the following sources:

• The Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate, 1920-1948 Central Judea 217–19
• International Documents on Israel & Palestine 1915 to 2008 (Peell Comission, etc.)
• http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253 "The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at...",

etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Per [1] and numerous other sources, it was called the "Jerusalem District", not the "Judea District". Why should we prefer a non-official designation over an official one? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Igorp, your edit violates WP:WESTBANK. The arguments you put forward were made in much greater quantity during that discussion but did not get a consensus. For that reason alone, it has to be changed. But even without that agreement, there is plenty wrong with your edit. Your words "Jordan captured the region of Judea and Samaria" suggest to the reader that those regions are well defined, but nothing could be further from the truth. Historically, the perceived extents of Judea and Samaria varied enormously. Nearly always "Samaria" extended to the sea; sometimes "Judea" did too. See this old map for a typical example, but different maps show the boundaries differently. The British district of Samaria extended to the sea too, see the map at Districts of Mandatory Palestine; did Jordan occupy Natanya? There was no "Judea" district, as Once mentioned. The partition resolution (your third example) uses "boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea" to describe a part of the partition boundary between the proposed Jewish and Arab states, but you know that Jordan only occupied a fraction of the proposed Arab state. So that example proves your sentence wrong too. In fact there is exactly one sense in which your sentence is meaningful and accurate, and that is if Judea and Samaria are defined according to modern Israeli parlance, which is derived from the green line (not the other way around) and is well known as a nationalistic practice. That is, your sentence can be taken as a claim that what Jordan occupied was rightfully Jewish. I'm not saying you intended that, but what matters is how readers will take it. We should avoid unnecessary political baggage in geographical statements. Zero^talk 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the title here. Who has said it was called the "West Bank" in 1948? The sentence does not say so and you didn't change it either so what do you mean? I agree with Oncenawhile and Zero0000. That this area is known as "Judea and Samaria" was basically introduced in the late 1970s when Likud came to power. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, Zero, IRISZOOM, I'll try to answer you in a couple of days after I'll check the WP:WESTBANK and sources there (Zero, thanks for reminser).

At the moment: I do not think the that my return to this Nishidani's version (IRISZOOM - it's my answer for your question) "violates WP:WESTBANK" because we are talking about the 1st half of XX century as minimum. What one may understand from the article now is that Judea wasn't mentioned since "Middle Ages" till 1970 as above. :) Are you thinking that it's true?

For example, what is written here does correspond to that Nishidani's version :) :

• Spencer C. Tucker: The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'd propose you to undo your revert and to return to your version mentioned above. Your "per talk" isn't correct again.

BTW, why do you revert this my edit too?

• "the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war began immediately after the Resolution's adoption."

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Judea and Samaria" is the term preferred by Israel, as it lays a sort-of claim to the territories as a part of the ancient Jewish state (you can't get much more biblical than Judea and Samaria). West Bank is the accepted, non-political modern usage.PiCo (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice article, by the way - congratulations to those who've brought it to this state. PiCo (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It had plenty of time to answer. So I return my text and will add such appropriate RS:

• Spencer C. Tucker: The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.., pp.248-249 Transjordan, however, controlled large portions of J & S, later known as the WB - p.500, p.522, etc.
• Israel, the West Bank and International Law By Allan Gerson,  : "Trans-Jordan was also in control of all of J. & S (the WB)"
• even at Pappe: p.119 :) [2]

... --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You actually did not adress the multiple responses you got but said you would "try to answer you in a couple of days...". --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: I did response to the 1948+ cituation, and sources above approve using of "Judea & Samaria" as min in this period. I'll add yet RS what approve using of this term in ХХ century. But now we are talking about ~1948 and Nishidani's revert concerned just to it.

Regarding to your revert "No, it was not renamed" (erasing my 1st RS as well): I'd suggest you to check a lot of sources approvig Transjourdan's renaming and to make self-revert. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am also talking about what it was called in 1948 and you have gotten several replies about this.

You have to look generally and not search for certain thing in cases like this, otherwise you get skewed result.

You call it the "region of Judea and Samaria". They were not defined like that before the 1970s. Was the area Israel acquired in the 1949 Armistice Agreements part of this "region of Judea and Samaria" and then suddenly it was not after the agreement (like Wadi Ara) while the small area Jordan acquired was suddenly part of this region? No, as there was no such region defined. What remained of what was supposed to be the Palestinian Arab state was called the "West Bank" and the "Gaza Strip", which had not been defined in any certain way before. It was just born out of an agreement.

By the way, the part "Transjordan, however, controlled large portions of Judea and Samaria, later known as the West Bank" rather proves what I and others have written. Namely that parts of those regions became the West Bank as, depending on which source you look on, the regions did not match what became the West Bank (see for example the old map linked by Zero0000). -IRISZOOM (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: you haven't approved your "No, it was not renamed" statement.

As I understand, the Trucker's "Transjordan, however, controlled large portions of Judea and Samaria, later known as the West Bank" (as well as Gerson's "Trans-Jordan was also in control of all of J. & S (the WB)"?) are suitable for you. So I do not see any reason not to place such quote(s) along with Pappe's and other refs. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is that there was no "region of Judea and Samaria", instead they were different regions with different definitions and that they matched what became the West Bank is simply not true. As you can see at Judea and Samaria Area#Terminology, the term was rather introduced to replace the "West Bank" in the late 1970s, not the other way around. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to Spencer C. Tucker, I am saying the source rather proves what I and others say, and I elaborated on how. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note (again :): you haven't approved your "No, it was not renamed" statement.

According to RS, it was such "region of Judea and Samaria", even Pappe wrote : "His (Abdallah) natural choice was the regions of Judea and Samaria...".

So my edits are based on 3 RS. It seems me enough even for those who so easily reverts them. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW: about D. Ben-Gurion's (not M. Begin's) position: "Ben-Gurion's accusations that Sharett had hindered military operations in Judea and Samaria that would be mourned for generations to ..."

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you mean "proved". Just some sentences above I referred to Judea and Samaria Area#Terminology where Ian Lustick, amongst others, are mentioned that talk about the terms "Judea and Samaria" and the "West Bank". --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the statement by Spencer C. Tucker and Priscilla Roberts rather proves what I said, namely that that the West Bank did not match a region called "Judea and Samaria". --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right about "prove". Lustick's "The terms “occupied territory” or “West Bank” were forbidden in news reports. Television and radio journalists were banned from initiating interviews with Arabs who recognized the PLO as their representative" doesn't concern to 1948. Isn't it?

Imho, in Tucker's "Transjordan, however, controlled large portions of J & S, later known as the WB", a keyword is later. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There is more from Ian Lustick in For The Land and The Lord: The Evolution of Gush Emunim:

Judea and Samaria are the biblical names for the general areas south and north of Jerusalem (respectively). Historically, they include substantial portions of pre-1967 Israel, but not the Jordan Valley or the Benyamina district (both within the West Bank). For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the green line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria.

There are other sources in that section in the Wikipedia article about the usage of the term. There is a reason why we have the naming convention WP:WESTBANK.

It is not a keyword as no one is disputing that the West Bank, just like Gaza Strip, was how the areas later were called. What is disputed is that the West Bank somehow matches the regions of Judea and Samaria. As I and others have mentioned: the definitions varied and Lustick mentions this above too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

show source data

there is a notable discrepancy between the words on the source page "{{About|the historical geographic region|the state (country)|State of Palestine" and the title on the page itself which is not only absent that this discusses a "historical geographic region", but also misleads the reader that it refers to "palestine" the state which the government called "palestinean authority" is attempting to add to- which lacks any "coast" in contrast to some misleading links that show "coast" of "palestine" i request that the title reveal this content from the source page and that those authorized to edit reveal the words in the article itself, the words in the source page 147.236.34.10 (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 147.236.34.10 (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your points however you only complain and fail to offer anything better and failed to capitalize the name "Palestine". Although one may add the word "state" to modern Palestine, this title is still precise for the region. The only additional clarification would be to title "Palestine (region)" and write in the article a verb in past: "Palestine is a name that was used for the region in Western Asia etc." I hope the editors will add these clarifications132.74.1.84 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Requested move 18 August 2015

The following is a closed 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: procedurally closed. This is already being discussed at another RM. Jenks24 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Palestine → Palestine (region) – not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose No sources/evidence presented by the nominator and seems a bit WP:POINTY with this still ongoing (also by the same nom). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: this request should be closed per the existing request. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy procedural close WP:FORUMSHOPPING per FoCuSandLeArN and Lugnuts ; this duplicates part of an existing request, opened by the same nominator, Shhhhwwww!! . -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Lugnuts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom, and per rationale given at Talk:State of Palestine. The base name "Palestine" is ambiguous, hence must be a disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not a valid argument. York, for instance, is also technically ambiguous, yet it's not a disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: actually the State of Palestine is a very highly notable modern country commonly called just "Palestine". A valid comparison for us here is Macedonia, which is a disambiguation page inspite of a country and a region known by that name. The same rules must apply to "Palestine". Khestwol (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:State of Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Noted. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Palestine (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this topic

It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem in the section Boundries#Modern

If we are already talking about Modern changes, insteed of using the often used Palestinian propaganda 4 maps structure with the title "Shrinking Palestine" (a simple google search will show it.

My suggestion is the rewrite the whole section and remake all the maps.

It should talk about:

• Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem + Beirut Vilayet (Areas regarded to Palestine pre WWI) incluidng the border with Sinai that was forced on the Ottoman Empire and was signed on in 1 October 1906.
• Proposals: Zionist Proposal and Sykes–Picot Agreement
• Occupied Enemy Territory Administration
• Mandatory Palestine Incluiding Emirate of Transjordan and changes accuarding to:
  • Deauville agreement signed between David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau (September 1919)
  • "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia" (December 1920)
  • Paulet–Newcombe Agreement
• Proposals accuarding to the Peel Commission
• Transjordan independence
• United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)
• Bernadotte Truce Plan, 1949 Armistice Agreements
• Six Days War, Israeli Military Governorate and Israeli Civil Administration
• Oslo Accords
• Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron, Wye River Memorandum and Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum
• (Maybe) Israeli West Bank barrier

--Bolter21 11:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The current maps are a very clear and NPOV representation of the evolution, and have been discussed many times. If you would like to improve them by adding more maps with further detail, that would be great. I look forward to discussing. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the Achaemenid rule it was called Yehud_Medinata

Please correct (or add ) that province name under Achaemenid was Yehud_Medinata and not only Idumaea between 539 to ~332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.138 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Name under the Neo-Babylonian Empire -586 and -539

Yehud_(Babylonian_province) had been a province of the Neo-Babylonian Empire since the suppression of the Judean rebellion in 585/6 BCE. It first existed as a Jewish administrative division of the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Gedaliah, though it quickly became depopulated after his murder and another unsuccessful revolt around 581/2 BCE. The province was absorbed into the Achaemenid Empire with the collapse of the Chaldean Dynasty in 539 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.149.138 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

alejandro was here

100.35.33.38 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

154.241.50.85 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Discuss 04:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Josephus

@Davidbena: see the two references to Josephus in Timeline of the name "Palestine". The Against Apion reference is widely considered to be referring to Jews and Palestinians as the same thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, I saw the reference there, and Josephus' use of the word "Palestine" while quoting Herodotus is by no means conclusive. Josephus' own view is firmly fixed in his drawing a distinction between Judea and Palestine in Antiquities 13.5.10, which makes the secondary-source unreliable in its full-content. Perhaps we can divide the lede paragraph into two separate paragraphs, so that it will not appear to be too long.Davidbena (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed !.

To be 100 % sure and validate this it would be important to get the original text to see if there is no problem of translation. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ὑπὸ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν καὶ Σίμων ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἅπασαν ἐπελθὼν καὶ τὴν Παλαιστίνην ἕως Ἀσκάλωνος ἠσφαλίσατο φρουρίοις, καὶ ποιήσας ταῦτα καὶ τοῖς οἰκοδομήμασιν ὀχυρώτατα καὶ ταῖς φυλακαῖς ἦλθεν εἰς Ἰόππην καὶ καταλαβόμενος αὐτὴν εἰσήγαγεν μεγάλην φρουράν· ἤκουσε γὰρ τοὺς Ἰοππηνοὺς βουλομένους τοῖς Δημητρίου στρατηγοῖς παραδοῦναι τὴν πόλιν.

ypó dé tón aftón kairón kaí Símon o adelfós aftoú tín Ioudaían ápasan epelthón kaí tín Palaistínin éos Askálonos isfalísato frouríois, kaí poiísas tafta kaí toís oikodomímasin ochyrótata kaí taís fylakaís ílthen eis Ióppin kaí katalavómenos aftín eisígagen megálin frourán: íkouse gár toús Ioppinoús vouloménous toís Dimitríou stratigoís paradoúnai tín pólin.

Greek wikisource. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

He wrote in Greek. I don't understand :(. At first view, it seems the translation is right : aftoú tín Ioudaían ápasan epelthón kaí tín Palaistínin.

If so, these would be two disctinct places. As on the map that is given in the article by the way. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We really need a secondary source commenting on this. Similar to: Flavius Josephus (2007). Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10: Against Apion. BRILL. p. 100. ISBN 90-04-11791-1. on a related passage. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Whiston translation Davidbena provided is almost 300 years old.

Using Whiston, the Greek breaks down as follows:

• "About the same time it was that": ὑπὸ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν καὶ
• "Simon his brother": Σίμων ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ
• "went over all Judea and Palestine": τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἅπασαν ἐπελθὼν καὶ τὴν Παλαιστίνην (tín Ioudaían ápasan epelthón kaí tín Palaistínin)
• "as far as Askelon": ἕως Ἀσκάλωνος ἠσφαλίσατο φρουρίοις

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's cristal clear that Josephus distinguished Palestine and Judea in that sentence.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"ἅπασαν ἐπελθὼν" (ápasan epelthón) means "went over all" - see wikt:ἅπας and ἐπέρχομαι. FYI kai is a conjunction - i.e. "and" and tin is a case - i.e. roughly "the" in this context (see Grammatical case). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We have to avoid WP:OR but we can't leave written that at the time Palestine was the same as Judea. We have this sentence that shows the contrary and the map in the article. A secondary source can make mistakes...

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Which sentence(s) in this article are you referring to? This topic is tricky, not just because of the biblical confusion of Palestine / Philistia (the latter being the area of the "Five Lords of the Philistines" during the Judges period - I am not aware of other uses of the word for this small area outside of that one time period), but because of Greater Judea (i.e. the Hasmonean period, which lasted for a century) and core Judea. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on the way Josephus uses these terms in other areas of his work, I think he is saying the equivalent of: "About the same time it was that Simon his brother went over all Catalonia and Spain as far as Madrid". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed where you both took issue with the source (Josephus) as being a "Primary Source," but according to Wikipedia policies, Primary sources can, indeed, be occasionally used with caution. Therefore, the source speaks for itself and cannot be construed withWP:OR, and, in fact, proves the unreliability of the secondary source (where it refers to Josephus), but not as it refers to Philo.Davidbena (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Josephus's sentence that you are referring to uses Palestine to mean "the whole country" and Judea to mean "the province within the country". They are not used in a mutually exclusive sense as you seem to be implying. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, Josephus' use of the word Judea is meant to imply a specific country (the same country being explained in the Mishnah, Shebiith 9:2, compiled in the 2nd-century CE), but "Palestine" (named here as a specific region of the same country, and which extended at least as far as Ascalon) is meant to be exclusive, meaning, a specific region within a larger country, just as Josephus uses the word Idumea. This is confirmed by Josephus, where he writes of the boundaries of Judea, saying in Wars 3.51 that "the frontier village of Anuath Borceos is the limit of Judea on the north" (See: Wars of the Jews, 3.51), which ostensibly refers to Judea's border with Samaria. Breadthwise, Judea extends to the sea. This too happens to be confirmed also by Ishtori Haparchi (1280–1355) in his seminal work, Kaftor we-Ferah (vol. 2, Jerusalem 2007, p. 78, in Avraham Havatzelet's edition), who mentions Ramla as being the ancient city of Gath, in the region of the country known as "Philistine" (Filastin). Only later, some time after the Arab conquest, did the word "Palestine" come to be a word more inclusive, as in Jund Filastin.Davidbena (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Josephus references differentiate the two terms. Mostly referring to the Philistines. It is possible that in one passage (Antiquities 20.259) when writing for a foreign audience Josephus refers to the whole area as Palestine. As Louis Feldman shows use of the term Palestine is rare in Jewish literature. See [[3]] p564-565Jonney2000 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

All this is complex. There are 4 explanations regarding what he meant (and that's why secondary sources are important) :

• Palestine and [its province] Judea
• Philistine and Judea (which are both provinces)
• Palestine and Judea (which would be different)
• he made a mistake

nb: The map that I refer to is this one where both Palaestina and Judaea are distinguished.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Timeline of the name "Palestine". Much of the commentary above is already in there, and more can be added as appropriate. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree for the simple reason that the edit involves this page; not the other page.Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree to go on discussions there.

Nb: please feel free to ignore my comments and -by advance- apologize my potential banalities.

I don't know anything about the use of the word "Palestine" and all the scholarly discussions around this as well as all that was discussed on wp about this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:, The best way to familiarize one's self with the boundaries of "Judea" is to read-up on "Judea". As a start, I suggest this excerpt: The Samaritans, the Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature. Judea was, in Jewish terms, originally only that country stretching from the borders of Samaria in the north to the Arabian desert in the south, but breadthwise from the sea to the Jordan River. This would mean that Palestine was used by Josephus as a district or region within the bounds of Judea.Davidbena (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

One more thing: As for the place called "Anuath-Borkaeos" by Josephus, see page 145 of this PDF document, and where the author says it has been identified with Berkit, to the West-southwest of Akrabe in lower Samaria, in the Wady Ishar. While the author goes on to write, "Anuath has not yet been located," this can be explained as his own shortcoming, seeing that Josephus makes it clear that Anuath (Ἀνουάθου) had the additional name of "Borkaeos" (Βόρκαιος) and which is the only name that has survived for this site.Davidbena (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Timeline of the name "Judea". Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In any case, citing primary sources with regard to antiquity in particular, is fraught with dangers, as one can see with Josephus (and Herodotus as well, to name just one other of many sources), whose various references are self-contradictory, reflecting attempts from context to context to mediate between (a) the contemporary Roman topology (b) Biblical concepts and (c) Jewish national concepts. The secondary scholarly commentaries on writers like Josephus make his waverings clear, and cherrypicking one source from his writings while ignoring that, elsewhere, he makes a different emphasis, can only produce a POV manipulation. At times he takes the coastal areas to be part of Jewish land, at other times he affirms that it is a distinct area outside of Jewish territory for example. The lead generalizes, and therefore such complications should not be erased by a partisan choice of just one of the many passages in Josephus concerning 'Palestine'. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani, I think that this is the first time that we have ever agreed on anything. Lol! Yes, we ought to proceed with extreme caution when citing Primary Sources. Hopefully, more scholars and academics will give us more insight into this matter. As for Josephus, I have read his works extensively, and as I recall, he never calls the coastal region of Caesarea Maritima "Jewish land." On the the contrary, he says that it was settled in his time mostly by Grecians and Syrians, with only a small Jewish population that had only recently moved there. He makes this very clear. He mentions other non-Jewish enclaves along the coast. The so-called country of "Judea", however, did extend to these regions. He also mentions the Tyrians as usurping positions formerly occupied by Jews, such as in Gaba near Mount Carmel. The thing to remember here is that Judea at that time was settled by different ethnicities.Davidbena (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede paragraph and citing references there

User:Malik Shabazz I noticed where you cited WP:LEADCITE concerning an edit made by me in the lede and where I had provided sources, albeit two out of a whopping 14. Still, the edit there was important, as the "unsourced statements" in the lede seemed to beg for an immediate source of confirmation. The policy regarding citing references in the lede paragraph is not so black & white, as it says explicitly: "...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I was of the impression that other editors were pleased with the edit and wanted it to stand.Davidbena (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no "policy regarding citing references in the lede paragraph". There is, however, a policy concerning maintaining a neutral point of view in our articles. Cherry-picking two shitty "sources" when the article has at least 14 real sources on the subject is hardly NPOV. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ. First, I honestly do not understand how the two sources cited can, in any way, infringe upon maintaining WP:NPOV. Secondly, why would you call the British Government in Mandatory Palestine and Al-Muqaddasi "two shitty sources", each of which sources spoke about the boundary of Palestine as described in the lede? Their testimonies are as firm and solid as anyone else's testimony. Are you looking for specific page numbers with regard to the edit?Davidbena (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What's 'Roman-judean' doing here to describe both Philo and Josephus. Philo certainly, and I suppose one could include, Josephus were 'Graeco-Jewish' culturally.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Josephus' use of the words "Palestine," "Syria" and "Judea"

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews: "...these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen us Jews, as well is Egypt as in Syria, and in Palestine" (see s:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX)
• Josephus, Against Apion: "Nor, indeed, was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our nation, but mentions it after a way of his own... This, therefore, is what Herodotus says, that "the Syrians that are in Palestine are circumcised". But there are no inhabitants of Palestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and, therefore, it must be his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning them." (see s:Against Apion/Book I)

Josephus, when concluding the writing of his Antiquities, mentions "Syria and Palestine," just as the Greeks would have known the country. Syria is sometimes used by Josephus to refer to Greater Syria, and which would include all of Galilee and Judea, just as we see in Josephus' account of Antiochus V Eupator, the Seleucid king, who invaded Judea in 161 BCE with eighty elephants (others say thirty-two), some clad with armored breastplates, in an attempt to subdue the Jews who had sided with the sixth Ptolemy. Antiochus Eupator and his father vied with Ptolemy VI over the control of “the whole country of Syria” (see Josephus, Wars i.i.§1). So, by this account, Josephus in his conclusion of his Antiquities (Book xx), may have simply been referring to the entire country, with its specific regions. Note that he does not use the name typically employed by Jews in their native language for the country, ie. "Judea" (Heb. יהודה - Aramaic: יהוד), a name that appears for the country in the Mishnah and in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, but rather uses the words "Palestine" and "Syria." It seems that, here, Josephus is appealing to a non-Jewish audience, the Greeks, who would have known the country by those names, and just as he writes explicitly in the very same paragraph where he mentions Palestine: "[no one could have] delivered more accurately these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books." (see s:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX). Elsewhere, he mentions together "Judea and Palestine" (see: Antiquities 13.174 (13.5.10). It is to be remembered here that there were colonies of Grecians living along the coast in Palestine. Anyway, the matter is quite complex as we see, and as we shall discuss later. Here, accuracy would demand of us to have no superficial readings of Josephus.Davidbena (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is for your information: With respect to Josephus and how that he mentions in one breath "Syria" and "Palestine" in the 20th book of his Antiquities, I found where Josephus expressly states what he means by writing "Syria." Josephus, when writing about Titus' movements with the Roman army, marks the stations he passed while en route from Egypt to Jerusalem, saying that the city Rafah (a place south of Gaza) was "the beginning of Syria" (see: Wars 4.11.5; 4.656). So, here, once again, Josephus distinguishes between the "Land of Israel" (i.e. "Syria"), and the smaller enclave within the boundaries of the "Land of Israel" (i.e. "Palestine").Davidbena (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

David. You require secondary sources. If you want to make a start on understanding the contradictions in Joseph (and every other ancient historian's) geographical and toponymic references, begin with Ben-Zion Rosenfeld, 'Flavius Josephus and His Portrayal of the Coast (Paralia) of Contemporary Roman Palestine: Geography and Ideology,' in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 91, No. 1/2 July-October, 2000 pp.143-183. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nishidani. I have already read this fine article by Ben-Zion Rosenfeld. The scholar, Louis H. Feldman, says exactly what we said earlier, writing: "Writers on geography in the first century [CE] clearly differentiate Judaea from Palestine. ...Jewish writers, notably Philo and Josephus, with few exceptions refer to the land as Judaea, reserving the name Palestine for the coastal area occupied [formerly] by the Philistines." (END QUOTE)

References

Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Where it states that the name 'Palestine' was used by ancient Greek authors, could reference please be cited, as most historians date that name after the Roman occupation of Judea, thus ante-dating most Greek authors of note. 202.142.135.112 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You have only read the “lead” summary, which is often unreferenced, as the information is repeated and referenced in the main article below. See the subsection “History of the Name”. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Name order

Can somebody explain why any of the editors attempting to change the long-standing consensus on the order of the names, and edit-warring to do so, have yet to make any attempt to explain their edits on this talk page? nableezy - 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the ordering issue, but ordering by appearance of the term makes sense. Alternatively we could order by the language spoken in the majority of the area of mandatory Palestine, which would be Hebrew follow by Arabic.Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not about "mandatory Palestine", it is about a region. A region that is still in Arabic called filastin. Do you have any policy or guideline that supports your view? Because mine, at the very least, is supported by WP:CON which requires consensus for changes if I am not mistaken. nableezy - 15:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The stable version (in as much as this is stable - did not check) is a very weak form of consensus - this does not support a talk page assertion. MOS:FORLANG would seem to favor Hebrew first seeing as Hebrew is the official language in most of the region.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is not about a political entity called "Palestine" but a geographical and biogeographical region. As such, it makes more sense to list the languages in the order that they were used to define the region. If we were writing about a country called "Palestine" then it would make sense to list the languages in either an official or most used order. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Levant is "A geographical and biogeographical region". "Palestine" is a designation that has been coming in and out of fashion since Roman times. Herodotus used the term, but it was Rome that first brought it into common use. It has been going in and out of common use ever since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The tricky part of going that route is that we’d need to start with Egyptian hieroglyphs and follow with cuneiform, before going to Greek.

As to Icewhiz’s comment, Arabic is the majority language between the river and the sea, and even more so when including the small but highly populated parts of western Jordan which fall into certain definitions of classical Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no official language for a region thats just foolish. nableezy - 22:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how weak a form of consensus it is, those arguing for a change are invited to demonstrate that it has changed through means other than edit-warring. nableezy - 22:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as "most used", exactly how often is פלשתינה used to describe this area? Id imagine not very often since at least the demise of the British mandate. The Arabic is however currently used as the name for this place. nableezy - 22:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hebrew is used quite often, and predates the Arabic. The official state language, in most of the area, is Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What Hebrew? Eretz Israel? Or Palestina? There is no official state language for a geographical region. Im sorry, I really do not understand how you are making such a claim, it makes zero sense to me. nableezy - 16:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

78% of the former Palestine mandate is recognized Israeli territory (the other 22% being contested/occupied). The official language of Israel is Hebrew. So quite clearly, if we are to have bolded nonn-English names, Hebrew should come first. There may be cause, if we treat this as a geographical region, to remove the names all together and discuss this in the etymology.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there is an article for that, its Israel. That has literally nothing to do with this article though. This is indeed about a geographical territory, and if you want to be that pedantic about it, and this is according to the Israelis, the portion of the population of this region that are Arabs is higher than non-Arabs. nableezy - 19:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that as a historical region that is currently not a state, it'd make sense to list the languages in historical order. I'd suggest Akkadian as the first one (Statue of Idrimi; Idrimi fled to Canaan in the 16thC BC). This is clearly before any Philistines arrived from the Aegean and before any Abrahamic descendants immigrated from Turkey, their native land.. Haran is, of course, in Turkey. Idrimi's attestation, furthermore, is two thousand years before the Arab invasion of the Roman Provinces of Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda, which is very recent (AD 636). XavierItzm (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Genesis isnt exactly a reliable source. nableezy - 16:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

To comment, "Population of... Arabs is higher than non-Arabs", don't cherry-pick your data, the only reason why arabs are the majority ethnicity is because nearly half of all israeli jews are arabs, and they don't use arabic over hebrew in daily conversation, as well as any under the age of 30 not typically being fluent in arabic, which I personally dislike (I would rather see all israelis being knowledgable of at least basic conversational palestinian arabic). Regardless, tracing language to ethnicity in one of the most diverse regions in the world is foolish as well. Cakiva (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

References

root

I removed The root of the name "philistines" comes from PLŠ (פלש) which in both Canaanite and Hebrew (a Canaanite dialect) means: "Invader" (פולש). sourced to this. I dont actually see, in the translation of the page I could generate, any etymology for philistines. I see a translation for פולש, the rest is unsourced. nableezy - 22:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I did, then I self-reverted, but I will be removing it later. Just not sure on the timing on the 1RR here tbh. nableezy - 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Listen, I speak Hebrew as my native tongue and also Canaanite from my degree, THIS CLAIM IS REAL AND BASED JUST AS THE SKY IS BLUE. Try to converse with non-Israelis who speak Hebrew if u have doubts. Rest asure they'll confirm this.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Listen, I don't care what your native tongue is. You can't just put stuff in articles because you think you know them. Anyway, you are making a BIG mistake by assuming that this ancient proper name is a Canaanite word, when scholars consider it could be Indo-European or Greek. The fact is that nobody knows the origin of the word, especially not you, so stop your disruption. Zero^talk 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there are multiple sources referring this to being Canaanite. This doesn't mean פלש is "invade" in ancient Canaanite or Hebrew - it is not.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

True, that's why I said could be Indo-European or Greek. There is definitely no consensus. Zero^talk 11:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

In modern Hebrew and Arabic, f-l-sh is frequently used as "flash", cognate from English. "Break through" seems to have an even longer history as a meaning of the root (it shares the same in Syriac [4]), but not as far back as Ancient / Biblical usage. Would be interesting to understand the history of the evolution here. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably from burrowing in the earth beneath the walls - but that's WP:OR - though related to the original use of wallowing in the dirt (usually due to grief).Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these are in fact millennia-old archaeological structures? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

LMAO!!!!!!!!! u guys DO NOT SPEAK HEBREW (WHICH IS A CANAANITE DIALECT) - I DO, u sympathize with the current variety (as proven genetically) muslim populations who call themselves "palestinians" since 1964 and now think u can preach me or any Hebrew speaker things about this language? LOL!!!!!! Flash is written פלאש not "פלש" which means INVADER. That's why the Biblical Philistines got this name from the Canaanites and Israelites, and that's the source of the name "palestina" = "palestine" in English.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The "invader" etymology was popular in the 19th century, but is not widely accepted today. Just because you are a speaker of a language does not make you an expert in etymology -- relying on personal belief or knowledge is consisdered original research on Wikipedia. Also, etymological information belongs in the etymology section, which already discusses multiple theories. --Macrakis (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I speak Hebrew. And yes, פלש, is (also) invade. However, this is a later use - it is not used for invade in biblical Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

LMAO WHICH LEVEL OF HEBREW ARE U AT? POLESH WAS ALWAYS INVADER. THAT'S WHY THE PHILISTINES ARE CALLED PLISHTIM. PLISHA = INVASION!!!! --Wolfman12405 (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh yeah, you're clearly not at high-levels of ivrit. Any israeli can tell you that biblical hebrew is an entirely different animal that requires its own independent study, modern hebrew speakers can't even interpret biblical hebrew without at least minimal training or exposure. For example, the biblical hebrew word for 'invader' is גּוּד. Cakiva (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That is one of them pallywood lies you're being fed with? trying to cover ur hatred for Israel's existence with lies about Israelis' ability to use their language? what a pathetic attempt! OFC Modern speakers of Hebrew CAN understand Biblical Hebrew without any guides or aids. FTR the Biblical word for 'invader' is פולש, that's why Philistines are called that way, since they're invaders (!). LOLed so hard at ur poor attempts of preaching me about Hebrew and about my Hebrew level, I'm a born and raised speaker of Hebrew and a descendant of the Ancient Hebrews. Hope your excuse for a Hebrew teaching course that scratched out this non-existing word ("גּוּד"? LOL it's not even in the Bible and Extra-Biblical sources) will give u ur money back, it clearly isn't on a real certified class.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfman12405: what proof do you have for your claim that you are “a descendant of the Ancient Hebrews”. Most well-developed Jewish family trees don’t go back further than the middle ages. I can only assume that some of your ancestors had a tribal surname such as Levi (surname) – the connection of surnames to Biblical tribes is entirely unproven. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: My DNA says so. Also my physical appearance. I can feel u have problems with Jews, don't know whether it's because we STILL exist or is it because we had RETURNED HOME despite muslims' belief in "dahr al islam" (which was debunked long ago). But I'll give u the option to answer that. Yes, I am a partly a Cohen. Levite and Cohen are Hebrew names which were preserved for a long time due to the necessaty of the Tribe of Levi in the Hebrew religion, it was the only Tribe to keep his name due to it's status even when all the Israelites who were recognized as such by Ezra and Nechemia (unlike the Samaritans) had began being called collectively "Jews" due to Yehud Medinata.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is just unseemly willy waving. Please stop it now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearer distinction needs to be made between "Pelesheth" (Philistia) and "Palestine".

It is simply disingenuous to begin the "History of the Name" section with a description of the Biblical Hebrew "Pelesheth" (and its Egyptian and Assyrian cognates) without any mention in that first paragraph of the fact that this name refers not to "Palestine", but to PHILISTIA and PHILISTINES, the tribe and its city-states situated along the southern coastal plain.

The term "Palestine" (introduced by Herodotus to refer to a district of Syria with an apparently wider geographical sense than Philistia) is indeed linguistically derived from "Philistia", but has a clearly different meaning in the text of Herodotus. Its people aren't referred to as "Philistines" or "Palestinians", but as Syrians, i.e. "the Syrians of Palestine", and they are noted by Herodotus for being a circumcised people, whereas the Philistines of Biblical fame were distinguished among the peoples of the area for being uncircumcised. The Philistines themselves had essentially disappeared from the historical record as a distinct people by the 5th century BCE.

Hence, the caption to the first figure (the collection of maps) stating that "the name is found throughout recorded history" is simply erroneous and misleading. "Philistia" and the "Philistines" are to be clearly distinguished from the term "Palestine" introduced by Herodotus.

Jacob D (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Pelesheth and cognates have a variety of meanings. The meaning in the Torah is not “city states in the coastal plain” (that is later in the Biblical story); the Torah meaning is unknown, but is different from later usage according to Rabbinic sources (see here).

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? The meaning of Pleshet/Philistia in the Torah is exactly what it is: "A coalition of 5 city-states in the Southern Coastal Plain which was yet to be conquered by the Israelites". Each of these city-states had a monarch of its own. Try not to involve modern day politics with ancient history.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That is never mentioned in the Torah. There are only 10 references to the word - you can read them all yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

" שָׁמְעוּ עַמִּים יִרְגָּזוּן חִיל אָחַז יֹשְׁבֵי פְּלָשֶׁת" in Exodus:15 ("14 The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina" - KJV - [5]) is in the Torah, and generally is thought to refer to normal meaning of Pleshet in the rest of the bible (e.g. see - here) - the verse - Song of the Sea - enumerates various regional enemies of the Israelites. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

”Generally thought” sounds like WP:OR.

The Torah and the Deuteronomistic history were composed at different times by different people. Geographic borders are in constant flux.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Overview table

Please review this table I'd like to add to help readers get a quick overview. Ythlev (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Overview of administration in the Palestine region

Area		Administered by	Recognition of governing authority	Claimed by	Recognition of claim
Gaza Strip		Hamas	None	State of Palestine	137 UN member states
West Bank	Area A	Palestinian National Authority (PA)	Witnesses to the Oslo II Accord
	Area B	PA and Israel
	Area C	Israel
	East Jerusalem		Honduras, Guatemala, Nauru, and the United States		China
West Jerusalem			Australia, Russia, Czechia, Honduras, Guatemala, Nauru, and the United States	United Nations as an international city	Various UN member states and the European Union
Golan Heights			United States	Syria	All UN member states except the United States
Other areas of Israel			163 UN member states	None

Crusader states as "independent"?

I think that in the chart in the Overview section of History, "Crusader" should be moved from row "Independent" to "Europe". The Kingdom of Jerusalem was definitely a European-ruled thing. – Monkeyfume (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you provide a source? It is true that the First Crusade, which established the Crusader states, was initiated from Europe, but did the Crusader kings really take orders or act as vassals to European states or the Holy See? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

The lede in this English-language article gives pronunciation in several languages, but not for English speakers. "Pal-a-STYNE" is usually heard, but confusingly in Texas a town with that spelling is called "Pal-a-STEEN." (Possibly because many placenames in the states bordering Mexico have a Spanish flair even if not derived from that language.) Casey (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Palestine is a country under occupation. 89.64.31.115 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusing line in "History of the name"

The term is generally accepted to be a translation of the Biblical name Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth, usually transliterated as Philistia).

This line is preceded by two paragraphs that list earlier instances or at least variants of the term. It should be made a bit clearer on what exactly is meant by it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please let me add that Palesine is derived from the hebrew word "polesh" which means invader

and that is is named after the plhistin, a nation invading from overseas (probaly cyprus)

{Edit semi-protected} is needed as i cant edit it , or someone who could would add this fact by himself. The article makes it look like this name has no meaning --Dor25 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an entire etymology section, so this addition would be completely unnecessary. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

it is not written in there --Dor25 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable source for this claim, it could warrant inclusion. Otherwise, it's just speculation. Icarus of old (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It comes from the name "Paleshet" that was used by all the area. I didn't find any source that said that the Greeks used the Hebrew term "Polesh" (invader) but they used the term "Paleshet" and "Plishtim" which doesn't have any meaning in Hebrew, it's just their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources already in the article show that its origins predate the Hebrew language, so deriving it from Hebrew is dubious. Also, there is little evidence that the Hebrew word means "invader", that is just a theory from the days when every word in the Bible was endowed with a meaning. Zero^talk 04:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The Hebrew root PLS means exactly that: invader, to invade, invasive. It has always been exactly that. But hey, Wiki cannot possibly be seen to say anything negative about so-called 'Palestine'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

geographic - problemtic term + I got confused

From the beginning of this article, I got confused: "Palestine...is a geographic region". "Geographic" is a problematic not only because it is a political statement but also historically. It is seen that over the time, the term "Palestine"\Philistines used for several historical periods. Cambridge [6] defines it as period's time of Rome history. After Bar Kokhba revolt, Kingdom of Judah called Syria Palaestina.

Why it was called Palaestina? We don't know certainly - it is a political argue. Shortly (from what I read), Pro - Israel said that Philistines lived on southern coastal plain of Canaan. After Bar Kokhba revolt, Rome removed any memory of Israel and change her name to name that base on an old name of group which lived on southern coastal plain of Canaan - Philistines - . [see Pillars of Smoke and Fire - The Holy Land in History and Thought]. The Palestinians today said that they are the same Philistines which lived on Israel from Philistines era…

Now the history of Palaestina and Philistines mixed together without no expansion why, when it the change happen, etc. It also mixed with the "history of Israel" and periods were the land, (which they fight on) were called different names! Those name need to appear on Wikipedia rather than a political terms. Today we called Jerusalem - Jerusalem but it is also called Aelia Capitolina. The used in those names are for exploding different periods in time not to explaining different point of views which from my eyes this article is all about.

In other word, I suggested to give more background to the Palestine history and perhaps the political fight, because right now I got confused – subject appear to be on History of Israel and History of Palestine – when they mean to the same event which happen on the same land! (just with different point of view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.149.113 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

How about "Palestine is a name for a Geographic region"? Names are no facts but an agreement, Palestine is not agreed by all the people in the world. Some will call it Israel, some will call it Canaan, Aram, Sothern Syria etc. --Bolter21 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'Palestinians' claim to be Semitic. The Philistines were not Semitic. Ergo, it's absurd to claim that they are the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew??? : פלשתינה Palestina

"Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina": What is meant by "Hebrew"? Should this be changed to "Modern Hebrew," a somewhat different language from Biblical Hebrew? What is the first instance in the history of the Hebrew language to פלשתינה ? If the term does not occur in the Tanakh, I suggest that the plain term "Hebrew" should not be used, but a more specific term, like Modern Hebrew. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC))

Modern Hebrew is regarded as "Hebrew" and Biblical Hebrew is regarded as "Biblical Hebrew". Nevertheless, the written name פלשתינה was created as a transliteration of the Latin one (Palaestina) but it is based on the letters used in the bible to describe the Philistines and their land "Paleshet" (פלשת). The modern term for Palestinians, used by most sources today is פלסטין ("Falestin/Palestin"). So the term "פלשתינה" is actually a combination of Biblical Hebrew, Latin and Modern Hebrew. This is an unimportant matter.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "פלשתינה" (palestina) is the term used for the british mandate era palestine and maybe late ottoman era (during the first "zionist" Aliyahs, as regarded by wikipedia), or the time of the Hebrew revival. The most common term in hebrew in all generations is "ארץ ישראל" (eretz israel), perhaps due to the Haggadah (or other texts and prayers), with no specific attention to borders-I can't imagine, like someone said, that Tyre is in the land of israel. the term "palestina"/פלשתינה is specific for those few decades, and "eretz israel" is more common term in hebrew, before and after that time (and prbably in "sister languages" like yiddish or ladino). Hummingbird (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is simply crazy, anyone that uses פלשתינה in Hebrew will get unbelievable ractions then will consider very radical left. The name in Hebrew is ארץ ישראל and using another name here is *clear* violation of NPOV.Troll Refaim (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Refaim. -Also: 'Modern Hebrew' and 'Biblical Hebrew' are both Hebrew, not 'somewhat different languages'. The Hebrew of Genesis is far closer to 21st century Hebrew than Chaucer's English is to 21st century English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete etymology

If the Egyptian "Peleshet" is the name of the Philistines (which is the majority opinion these days), then the name predates the first known appearance of the Hebrew language. This makes it extremely dubious that the origin of the name was a Hebrew word for "invader". That was a popular theory in the 19th century and I don't doubt that it can still be found lurking here or there, but it isn't one supported by modern scholarship. At Philistines, this claim is cited to page 1185 of a dictionary of Jastrow. My Hebrew is crap, but I don't see it there. I see an entry for פלש (to divide, go though, penetrate, perforate) and a separate entry for פלשתי (Philistine). I do not see "invade" given as a meaning and I do not see any connection made between the two entries. Zero^talk 02:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't comment on a language if you admit that your grasp of it is 'crap' (your term). The root פלש very much means invader, to invade etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not about Hebrew specifically, except that it entered Greek via Hebrew. It's a Semitic root, and Semitic languages predate Egyptian. Assyrian sources also refer to the Philistines and they contain the same Semitic root.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

'Semitic languages predate Egyptian.' Jeezus Christ!! Great blistering bloodoranges!! Out of the mouth of babes.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence that "Peleshet/Philistine" comes from a Semitic root. There are hypotheses and counter-hypotheses. If you try to find modern academic sources on this, you will have trouble finding much at all. The reason is that such questions went out of fashion on the realisation that they can't be answered on the present evidence. Regarding Greek and Hebrew, it can't be proved that the Greek form came from the Hebrew and there have been scholars who thought it was probably the other way around or that both the Greek and Hebrew forms came from earlier Egyptian or Assyrian forms. Basically nobody knows. Zero^talk 02:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your condescension is charming as always Nish. Egyptian inscriptions are found earlier but reconstructions date the Semitic language family splitting from proto-Afroasiatic before Egyptian, which is highly divergent.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Pelasgian theory? There's really not much evidence for that besides linguistic similarity. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Online_Etymology_Dictionary. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

MM. 'Semitic languages predate Egyptian' is fatuous (it means: any member of Semitic, like the Maltese language, predates Egyptian, though the former emerged 4,000 years after the later. It implies, unknown to you, that Arabic is a far older language than Hebrew) Writing 'reconstructions date the Semitic language family splitting from proto-Afroasiatic before Egyptian,' only makes it worse. This is not condescension. It is a technical correction of the amateurish speculation of someone unfamiliar with the topic. The quickest way to avoid these edits based on false premises, which are being frequently reverted, is, short of getting a degree in linguistics at a reputable university, taking pen and paper when you make a generalization, write it out, and reduce it to (a) propositional form and (b) the inferences that follow from the latter. Just a piece of advice.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement 'Semitic languages predate Egyptian' does not mean what you claim it means at all. It means that the oldest Semitic language predates the oldest Egyptian, so your sneering is what's fatuous here. Do you actually speak Hebrew like a native speaker, Nish? Because if you don't, then the amateurish speculation is on your side, as well as the condescension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No such thing as 'West Bank'

That was the name temporarily appended to the illegal Jordanian occupation of Judaea and Samaria, the correct names going back several millennia. Using the term 'West Bank' is typical Wikipedia politicisation and POV (and we all know which way that always tends). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The name for the region in Israeli Hebrew

In the beginning of the article we learn that "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina)." However, in Israeli (i.e., modern) Hebrew, the name for this region is not פלשתינה (Palestina) but rather ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael); no Hebrew speaker nowadays would call it "Palestine," plain and simple (except for within specific contexts, like when discussing the region under British rule).
Onceinawhile has reverted my edit, claiming that "this is already in the lead. It is covered in a separate article. These are not equivalent concepts." I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case when it comes to Hebrew, where the two terms are completely interchangeable, and the one in use in the vast majority of cases is "Eretz Yisrael."
Historically, for the most part of the past two millenia, Hebrew texts have refered to the region as "Eretz Yisrael." True: in the 19th century and until the foundation of the state of Israel in the middle of the 20th century, the term "Palestine" was also in use in Hebrew. That being said, today the region is almost never called "Palestina" but almost exclusively "Eretz Yisrael." That's just a fact. It may, of course, have political implications (like virtually anything connected with Israel/Palestine), but this doesn't change the sheer truth regarding Hebrew onomastics. Aviados (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the concept of "Palestine".

The Land of Israel article is about the concept of ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael).

I agree that in common parlance today they are both often used to refer to the same geographical area (that of Mandatory Palestine), but actually they are both much deeper concepts than that.

Eretz Israel is of course a Biblically-derived term meaning the land promised to the Children of Israel, and its political usage began with Zionism. It comes with a great deal of nuance. The exact borders of the land it has been interpreted to refer to over history bear no relation to the way "Palestine" has been used throughout history, as shown by the introductory image in this article. "Eretz Israel" was not a synonym for "Syria Palestina" or "Palestina Prima" or "Filastin" (for example the word "Palestina" was used in the midrash). So for 2,500 years the words were different. Even today, many use "Eretz Israel" to refer to a wider concept than "Palestine" usually refers to (i.e. to include parts of Jordan).

These concepts have so many differences, which is why they have separate articles.

We already say in the first paragraph that "The region comprises most of the territory claimed for the biblical regions known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el), the Holy Land or Promised Land. Historically, it has been known as the southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan, Syria, ash-Sham, and the Levant." This is an accurate, precise and nuanced way of explaining it to readers.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"its political usage began with Zionism" - factually untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't it called simply "Israel"

Since it was called Israel in the 13th Century BC which is long before "Palastina" by Herodotus in the 5th Century BC. It was called "Cna'an", then "Israel", then "Israel" and "Judah", and only then "Palestina". There is no reason calling it "Palestine" unless it's a political stance by Wikipedia's users. And it's not "nonsense", user:sakiv, it's the accurate course of history.

No, because the region (not political unit) called "Palestine" is not the same as the modern country, however it is delimited, in some definitions. As just one example, the WGSRPD region of Palestine includes Jordan; Flora Palaestina covers more than modern Israel. Furthermore, Wikipedia is committed to WP:NPOV, and the view that Palestine = Israel isn't remotely a neutral point of view. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not remotely follow the NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Change last paragraph of top section:

Today, the politically defined region comprises the states of Israel and Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian territories)

to delete the parenthetical phrase "(i.e. the Palestinian territories)"

Justification: To identify the phrase "State of Palestine" with the phrase "Palestinian territories" is of dubious correctness and neutrality. Those who recognise the State of Palestine as a valid sovereign state do not agree that it is the same thing as the "Palestinian territories". But conversely, I don't think those who reject the existence of the State of Palestine as a valid sovereign state would agree with identifying it with the phrase "Palestinian territories" either – to them, the former is an invalid concept and the later a real one. The relationship between the two concepts "State of Palestine" and "Palestinian territories" is complex, and trying to explain the relationship in a way which is fair to both sides of the Palestinian statehood debate is even more difficult. Rather than trying to address those complexities in the introduction, I think it would be easier just to leave the parenthetical phrase "(i.e. the Palestinian territories)" out entirely. Mr248 (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Add the Balfour declaration to the events in 1917

Add under section (2.8 British mandate and partition), first paragraph, change "The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917.", to the following: "The British made the Balfour Declaration in November 1917; and controlled Jerusalem by December 1917" 100.37.88.146 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Since that section is about the military campaign through the area I don't believe the Balfour Declaration is due in that sentence. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Map's info is misleading

In the Map the borders of the Byzantine provinces of Palestine, The borders of Mandatory Palestine and the "borders of Palestine" are showen. The last one is the problematic. This border is not an acual de-facto border following the 6 days war and the occupation of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). The border it self was created in the 1949 Armistice Agreements and is called Green Line (Israel). This line was the border of Israel until 1967 and when Israel took controll over the Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and the [Gaza Strip]] the border was not an International border anymore simply because No state was in the other side of the border anymore. Before that, there were Jordan and Egypt . In 1967, the State of Palestine wasn't even an idea since the State of Palestine was declared in 1988 but as a PLO Goverment-in-exile. In 1995, Israel signed a peace-treaty with the PLO and devided the West Bank and Gaza into 3 zones. Since then Israel and the PLO made some agreements and acts that gave more lands to the Palestinian National Authority. In 2012, the PNA was accepted to the UN as a UN observer member and therefore the leader, Abu Mazen, changed the official name of the PNA to "State of Palestine" for the political reasons. Today, no change was made to the borders, the original boundries of the PA with some changes stayed and therefore, this is not "The border of the State of Palestine", this is the "CLAIM of the State of Palestine" following the fact that almost none of the PNA's enclaves touches the greenline with a few exeptions of small villages.

Here are examples of pages that show De-Jure claims and/or De-Facto controll and other examples of De-Facto borders showen:

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Donetsk People's Republic

Luhansk People's Republic

Novorossiya (confederation)

China (China's desputed areas)

Tibet (Same Idea of the Palestine, but here they show the De-Facto controll).

Iraqi Kurdistan

India

Pakistan

Russia (Crimea's desputed area, still a De-Facto controll).

I was not suprised that after we saw all this maps, the map in the Israel's article, showes only the De-Jure of the 49's agreement line, without the Desputed Jerusalem, without the annexation of the Golan Highets and without the Palestinian Territories.

Is it a coincidance that all the places where there are De-Jure borders and De-Facto borders, both are showen but in Israel-Palestine related, it's always as if Israel is just on the original borders and the Palestinian somehow hold more lands then the lands of the PA?

The line "Borders of the State of Palestine" in the map's decription needs to be changed to "Claims of the State of Palestine" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References

It's far from being a coincidence. We all know exactly what Wikipedia's blatant POV is on this whole matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Aggreed Emmett87 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine at the top

State of Palestine has it, and so should this page Unbeatable101 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Anachronism re: start of usage of Palestine to the region.

The page says that the ancient Greeks referred to the area as Palestine. I’ve never read any source for this. Additionally, it says that the region was controlled by a number of societies which preceded references to the region as Palestine including eras controlled during Achaemenids era and Jewish Hasmonean kingdom. It seems much more accurate to edit the page to reflect that prior to being referred to as Palestine, the area was known as Judea. Emmett87 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

See:

• Timeline of the name "Palestine"
• Timeline of the name "Judea"

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

To add to what Onceinawhile already posted, Herodotos refers several times to "Palestine" in his writings, so the use of Palestine for the region is indeed ancient. Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Name note

The land of the kingdom of israel was never known as palestine befoew. Palestine was a name give to the greater areas including Egypt, israle, jordan, syria and lebanon. The name palestine was only given by the romans to disassociate the name "Judah" (juda=jew) from jewish roots 2A02:C7F:FEB4:A600:CDFD:2C7B:9768:C6DC (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Egypt included in Palestine is a new one on me. Zero^talk 11:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Glaring typo

Under the Demographics section heading in section 5.2, a quote is given as:

[T]he first half century of Ottoman rule brought a sharp increase in population. The towns grew rapidly, villages became larger and more numerous, and there was an extensive development of agriculture, industry, and trade. The two last were certamly helped to no small extent by the influx of Spanish and other Western Jews.

The word "certamly" is clearly a typo intended to mean "certainly." This glaring typo should be edited by a qualified editor immediately.

--WikEdits5 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. thanks. -Daveout(talk) 08:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Colorblind accessibility

Red and green outlines are not ideal for those with red green colorblindness. Is it absolutely necessary to use those in the map? 47.198.66.117 (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Area

Is it possible to add the area, but without the Golan Heights? but due to the ongoing dispute over the ownership of land, it is difficult to determine the exact area of the region that includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and Israel. In the article Mandatory Palestine, the area is estimated 25,585.3 km2 (9,878.5 sq mi). I will add it to the Infobox Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same area of Mandatory Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile So do you agree with the proposal? Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No objections on my end. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Greek and Latin translations of Palestine in opening

@Peter coxhead: regarding this revert: really? We don't have the Latin and Greek names in the opening of Egypt or the Anglo-Norman or Old English names in the opening of England yet they are surely just as "relevant historically". DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I can only say that I don't think they are. I would be happy to see the Greek and Latin terms moved to the end of the list, but the region of Palestine was long part of the Greek speaking region of the Roman Empire and its successors, hence the New Testament being written in Greek. We have multiple articles on the plants in Flora Palaestina (e.g. List of native plants of Flora Palaestina (A–B)) and many occurrences of Flora Palaestina in other articles. There is nothing comparable that I know of for Egypt or England. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Egypt was part of the Hellenistic-world (and Roman and Byzantine empires) just as much as Palestine was and for much the same period. I don't see a difference. Aramaic is more closely associated with Palestine than Latin. But the point is we do not include historic foreign language names here ever, as far as I've seen. Please refer to MOS:LEADLANG. If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local-language equivalent: with this example following - Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivetska oblast) It's quite clear this should only reflect current usage. The Latin and Greek names can be discussed in the body of the article. Including these historical names clutters the first sentence and affects readability. DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I see from your user page you have great expertise in botanical editing. Do you think that your strong but specialist interest may lead you to be a little WP:UNDUE on this? DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a modern country article, but an article about a historical region, so there's a bit more latitude for featuring historical names. Since Greek is where the more recognizable pronunciation of the term originates, it's quite interesting for the reader to include; ditto Latin for its widespread use in historical and scientific literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Compare Syria (region), another historical region article with several names. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It definitely needs Greek – the language was the primary official language in the region for 1,000 years. That compares to Arabic for about 1,400 years, and various versions of Hebrew/Aramaic as the primary official language for perhaps 900 years all-in. See this chart for clarity. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Right. Zero^talk 02:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct Historical Interpretation of The Peleset

The correct identification of the Peleset does not refer to Palestine, instead it is in reference to a group of people that have been somewhat elusive in the historical record. In the contrary, it is known that the Peleset were part of a group called The Sea Peoples. “The Sea Peoples remain unidentified in the eyes of most modern scholars, and hypotheses regarding the origin of the various groups are the source of much speculation. Existing theories variously propose that they were any of several Aegean tribes, raiders from Central Europe, scattered soldiers who turned to piracy or became refugees, or even migrants linked to natural disasters such as earthquakes or climatic shifts.” Drews 1995, pp. 48–61

The Peleset does not give rise to Palestine or the Palestinian people. 2603:6010:DA01:FA89:F9C4:2636:A456:602A (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking to be changed in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified is there's no connection between the Peleset or Philistines and the present population in the Levant. 76.198.129.142 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done because unclear what is required. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There’s no connection between Palestine and Peleset. This is misleading 2A06:C701:4BED:D200:344F:39D6:5D02:73D9 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Existence of Jesus

It is safe to say that most everyone believes that Jesus existed,and contemporary historians mentioned him and his followers. There is as much evidence that He existed, as there is for any other figure of this period. 2600:1700:F2F0:BFA0:B8F5:9F1D:FF1F:CDC0 (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is very wide consensus that there is sufficient evidence to say he existed under the same criteria as we use to evaluate purely secular historical figures. But he is not as well attested as "any other figure of this period." In fact, he is not as well attested as some figures of much greater antiquity, for instance certain Ancient Egyptian rulers. Also, it is inappropriate to capitalize the pronoun "He" when discussing the historical existence of Jesus, as accepting he was an historical person does not in any way establish any theological claims about his divinity. LeperColony (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Restore time/year reference symbols to: "BC ##" and "AD ##." BCE or CE is bogus; an attempt to obliterate historical/significant events on Earth. 74.79.219.34 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:BCE Cannolis (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

Please change Palestine region as Palestine is a country and not a region. 147.161.237.109 (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate article about that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish immigration

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

Oversimplification is misleading

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

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

Mention to the ongoing (2023) war

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

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

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

Mandatory Palestine

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

A common misconception, as well as incorrect propaganda, the borders of the mandate were to be set by the Allies, and they were, in such a way as to exclude Transjordan. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"incorrect propoganda" - is that a way of discrediting the original documents and justifying rewriting history? In fact you only deal with the Jordanian part of Palestine, noone is addressing the Syrian part which includes those that started wars with Jews in the 30's Alanlevin (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is partly correct, the original Mandate is available and the British Government confirm on their site here https://www.gchq.gov.uk/information/palestine-mandate - The borders most definitely included Transjordan. Similarly the 6m Jordanian Palestinians concur. Transjordan does not include the entire of Jordan but certain all of the Western part. This is the reason that this page is currently perverted by others here Alanlevin (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The "Mandate for Palestine" was a legal document that gave the UK power over a region with undefined eastern boundary. The Brits decided to interpret it to cover Transjordan. However, they almost always called the part west of the Jordan River "Palestine" and the part east of the Jordan River "Trans-Jordan". Those are the names used throughout the mandate period. "Mandatory Palestine" is an unofficial name that means "the region called Palestine during the mandate period"; it never extends east of the river. Trans-Jordan in its first defined boundaries was only slightly different from modern Jordan. Zero^talk 13:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is explained in gory detail at Mandate for Palestine#Council of the League of Nations: Transjordan memorandum, put into effect prior to the final approval in September 1923 of the mandate by the LoN. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

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

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

Is that what you are referring to? (There are other references to Peleset in the article).

To the best of my knowledge We cannot rely on your knowledge, do you have reliable sources that support your view? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Peleset -> Palestine

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

Source for the fact they "later fully ceased to exist", in fact what does that even mean, they were wiped out? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation below, but fyi this is general history on the topic (iIt’s on every single page relating to this group of people). The Peleset were fully wiped out by the Babylonians in the 7th century BCE.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/science/philistines-dna-origins.html

While there is a name origin connection to the later concept of Palestine as a general regional concept, Peleset is not that concept.(which is the subject of this article, hence the distinction being made) Peleset was a regional polity / group (made up of migratory Aegean peoples) whose territory was limited to the southern Levantine coastal plain. There is no direct connection between the Peleset and later general concepts of Palestine as a regional designation (short of select foreign mapmakers using it on occasion). Mistamystery (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am unable to view this (paywalled) maybe you can provide the quote where it says something to the tune of "and the Peleset were wiped out" or "Peleset and Palestine are not the same"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't either one. It says the Philistines were (thought to be, I think) wiped out in 604 BCE. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You think, have you not read it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Archaeologists have long wondered about the origins of the Philistines, who are thought to have established themselves in the Levant around the 12th century B.C.E. and lived there until their destruction by the Babylonians in 604 B.C.E." Slightly odd wording. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked specifically “later fully ceased to exist” - re: the source:

“Archaeologists have long wondered about the origins of the Philistines, who are thought to have established themselves in the Levant around the 12th century B.C.E. and lived there until their destruction by the Babylonians in 604 B.C.E. The Hebrew Bible mentions they came from “Caphtor,” which some archaeologists believe might be present-day Crete, while some modern interpretations of ancient Egyptian texts suggest they were the “Peleset,” or maritime invaders associated with a group called the “Sea-Peoples.”

Regarding Peleset, Philistia, and Palestine not being the same, we have separate articles on wiki making clear in what ways they are both related and distinct.

The name Peleset is the inspiration for the Greek term Palestine. Peleset was a regional entity of limited territory that never covered the region, and was later co-opted as a regional definition mostly after the Peleset ceased to exist. Mistamystery (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The info in this article is probably in a few articles, right? So which article should be seen as the parent article? Timeline of the name Palestine? Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Given all the variable meanings/definitions/entities, probably appropriate for Palestine to remain the parent article.

That said, Peleset, Philistines, Philistia, as highly related terms, should probably appear (appropriately) somewhere on this page. Perhaps under a “Related” header.

As for the “Palestine (region)” page, it’s important that we outline the parameters of the page clearly and abide by it. The page as it stands refers squarely to the general regional designation. Peleset and Philistia are specific entities and are not only not descriptives for the general region, both fully ceased to exist by the time that Herodotus inscribed the term “Palaistine” to describe the region more than a century later.

To circle back to the initial edit in question: “The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring people or land” is both without citation, as well as appears to be SYNTH (or heavily leading) and either needs to be rewritten or needs to go. I think my proposed edit (which is reasonably in line with what’s cited in the body of the article) is sufficient. Mistamystery (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestine is a disambiguation only, what I mean is that we should get the info correct in one article and then transclude it to the others. On a quick look, I see similar or some info at Palestinians, State of Palestine, History of Palestine, maybe others too, idk. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Daunting task, but could be a challenging but worthwhile effort to relegate the current Palestine main page to a disambiguation page and try and create a proper master article for Palestine that is all inclusive of the various usages, definitions, regions, states, etc. Mistamystery (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no Palestine main page (only the disambig), unless one chooses to count State of Palestine as such. This discussion and the article content here seems as much about the name as the geography so I suggest that since we have started here, we continue here and make this the "main" for this purpose and consolidate material/refs here, see if we can't make some sense out of it all. Section title probably ought to be etymology/toponymy rather than just History of the name- Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, I meant main as in the page that points to the /palestine link, not saying its acting as the main page.

I lean more toward spinning the current /Palestine page into a separate disambiguation page, and then rebooting general /Palestine page to be the main page. Making the Region page seems fine I guess but wonder if there’s a more square footprint to place it. Mistamystery (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This came up indirectly in the section above, where I unsuccessfully asked for more info. I would probably have myself reverted as well, I am still a little unclear as to the problem, is the connection between Peleset and Palestine disputed or unclear? I might understand if that were the case. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to outline. It’s a subtle matter of some very granular details, but I think an important distinction to make (at least so far as the evolution of both term and concept are concerned).

And to be clear from the start, my main argument here is simply that the term “Peleset” influenced what the name of what later came to be known as the general regional designation of Palestine…but Peleset and Palestine are very much not the same thing (in very significant ways). I also don’t think this is particularly controversial, but still an important distinction to make (especially since we are covering some very dense historical periods).

This article is *specifically* about Palestine as a regional designation - and specifically the regional designation that roughly equates to the Southern Levant. The distinctions (academically and otherwise) are already significant enough that we already have separate articles for both Peleset, as well as Philistia, neither of which are academically considered “Palestine” in any shape or form outside of having influenced a name of a later distinct concept.

While (as this article itself outlines) the genesis of referring to the entire region specifically as “Palestine” seems to have originated with Greek scholars and mapmakers, using prior reference and knowledge of (the) Peleset as a naming point (Palestine is itself a Greek term), what “Peleset” is is fully distinct from what “Palestine” is (so far as the topic of this article is concerned). Peleset / Philistia refers specifically to a people and limited geographic entity that never - during the entirety of its existence - was referred to as “Palestine” in Greek, nor referred to the entirety of the region using these terms. Later European writers took this name, Hellenized it, it and separately started using it as a regional designation…which then served as the basis of the Roman Empire’s renaming of the province in the 2nd century CE.

There is separate academic distinction between Peleset, Philistia, and Palestine, and it’s already reflected in separate wiki articles. We can most definitely say the *name* Palestine has origins in the 12th Century BCE with its preceding forms, but Palestine as it both came to be called, and its understanding as a regional definition, is a later concept. Mistamystery (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I do like sources, we should go by them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The editing conflict is whether Pelest and Palestine are related names or not. Mistamystery rejects the connection because the Pelest were "wiped out" by Babylonians in 7th c. BC. I made the argument that these are (obviously) related names. Sources simply disagree with the former argument (which is arguably in line with the Zionist myth that the name Palestine suddenly came into being by the Romans):

• "The name Palestine is derived from the ancient names Phillistines, identified with Peleset" [7]
• "The name Palestine is the most commonly used from the Late Bronze Age (from 1300 BCE) onwards." [8]
• "A cognate of the name Palestine, Peleset,..." [9]

Makeandtoss (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't myself know enough about this to say one way or the other what's right, but the slightly different material that is on related pages needs sorting, I don't have much time for next few weeks, but I will get to it if no-one else does. Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(in response to Makeandtoss, not selfstudier - we responded at the same time) No, thank you. You are mischaracterizing the issue here. It is not whether Peleset and Palestine are related (obviously they are), it’s if we are to presume the connection between the two is direct enough, and if the two are similar enough in definition, to make the claim that Peleset’s Bronze Age appearance in the historical record is therefore indication that “Palestine” (as a catch all regional definition) entered the historical record in the 12th century BCE - which it did not. Peleset did, and it later influenced a separate exonym used by foreign powers to describe the region.

Outside of the etymological sourcing of the word, the historical Peleset and later regional definition of Palestine are almost entirely distinct. It’s already sourced in this article (and in the other connected ones) that Palestine as a specific term (not its derivative forbears) that is in reference to the region, does not solidly enter the historical record until the 5th century BCE.

A cursory review of the talk page conversation today will catch you up on where we landed. There isn’t a dispute here - just a need to perhaps further clarify the parameters of this page, as opposed to other Palestine related pages. Mistamystery (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"The name Palestine is the most commonly used from the Late Bronze Age (from 1300 BCE) onwards." Sources are quite clear and explicit in making the connection.

Furthermore, notice the article's body: "The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BCE ancient Greece, when Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê."

Is it really clear? Because by your logic, it wasn't really called "Palestine", it was called "Palaistine"; also an ambiguous region only defined as a district of Syria.

I would support a phrasing around: "The first written records referring to a cognate of Palestine..". But certainly not a "what would later become known as Palestine". Makeandtoss (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Peleset is not Palestine. It is a specific and separate geopolitical entity that ceased to exist before “Palestine” as a specific term as well, as the separate concept (that is the explicit subject of this article - a general regional entity - not a pentapolis of Aegean migrants).

The region became generally known as “Palestine” starting in the 5th century when Greeks adopted the term. Hence “later to be known”. Peleset is not a cognate for Palestine, it is a distinct concept, and Palestine’s etymological inspiration.

“The Greeks began using the term ‘Palestine’ to refer to the whole region between Egypt and Phoenicia. This term does come directly from ‘Philistine.’ The Greeks used this for the whole region because they were obviously more familiar with the coastal nation (the Philistines) than the inland one (the Israelites).”

https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/09/palestinians-ancient-philistines/ Mistamystery (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A cognate of the name Palestine, ‘Peleset’, is found on five inscriptions as referring to the settlement of a people along the southern Palestinian... [10] Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestine = Philistia?

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

In Arabic Phillistines and Palestinians are the same word - Filistini. This causes great confusion. In Hebrew Peleset refers to Palestinians, Philistini refers to Philistines. DNA evidence shows there is no Philistine DNA in Palestinians. this is a great piece of reserch that describes it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEmMdBfD3OQ&t=2699s Alanlevin (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

How about an RS describing it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Please fix numbers

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

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

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2024

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

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

 Note: I believe the written records came from Egypt, and those written records referred to what is now Palestine using the term "Peleset". Does that help clarify things? Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

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

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

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

change state of Palestine from political entity to country

in the main article - it is defined as a country and not a political entity. can someone change it in the top section Gsgdd (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Map

The map is inaccurate for the british mandate of Palestine. It should include Transjordan. 173.178.44.232 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

because...? Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding Sources

I do not have extended confirmed user status so I cannot edit the page, so if someone else can, that would be helpful. The introductory paragraph references Herodotos' The Histories. This is extremely important as there is a claim that has been repeated continuously that Palestine is a an invention of the Romans and did not exist in the ancient world, or variously that it has never existed. The reference is from Herotodos c 104, where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans, but only refers to Syrians and Phoenicians of Palestine:

"For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be p393 so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macrones, say that they learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do even as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learnt it from the other; for it is manifestly a very ancient custom. That the others learnt it from intercourse with Egypt I hold to be clearly proved by this — that Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children."

The Greek is:

"Φαίνονται μὲν γὰρ ἐόντες οἱ Κόλχοι Αἰγύπτιοι, νόησας δὲ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἢ ἀκούσας ἄλλων λέγω. ὡς δέ μοι ἐν φροντίδι ἐγένετο, εἰρόμην ἀμφοτέρους, καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ Κόλχοι ἐμεμνέατο τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἢ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῶν Κόλχων· νομίζειν δ’ ἔφασαν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῆς Σεσώστριος στρατιῆς εἶναι τοὺς Κόλχους. αὐτὸς δὲ εἴκασα τῇδε, καὶ ὅτι μελάγχροες εἰσὶ καὶ οὐλότριχες. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐς οὐδὲν ἀνήκει· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι· ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅτι μοῦνοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Κόλχοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Αἰθίοπες περιτάμνονται ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογέουσι παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων μεμαθηκέναι, Σύριοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Θερμώδοντα καὶ Παρθένιον ποταμὸν καὶ Μάκρωνες οἱ τούτοισι ἀστυγείτονες ἐόντες ἀπὸ Κόλχων φασὶ νεωστὶ μεμαθηκέναι. οὗτοι γὰρ εἰσὶ οἱ περιταμνόμενοι ἀνθρώπων μοῦνοι, καὶ οὗτοι Αἰγυπτίοισι φαίνονται ποιεῦντες κατὰ ταὐτά. αὐτῶν δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Αἰθιόπων οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁκότεροι παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐξέμαθον· ἀρχαῖον γὰρ δή τι φαίνεται ἐόν. ὡς δὲ ἐπιμισγόμενοι Αἰγύπτῳ ἐξέμαθον, μέγα μοι καὶ τόδε τεκμήριον γίνεται· Φοινίκων ὁκόσοι τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἐπιμίσγονται, οὐκέτι Αἰγυπτίους μιμέονται κατὰ τὰ αἰδοῖα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων οὐ περιτάμνουσι τὰ αἰδοῖα."

Text is from Godley's translation of Herodotos, Loeb Library, 1st ed, ISBN 9781296575090

Historiaantiqua (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans" Not surprising. Either they were obscure in this era, or non-existent. Judea is a term coined much later. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The oldest inscription we have with the name of Jerusalem is only from the 1st c BCE. Gmirkin (2019) in "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" posits a terminus post quem for the Torah at 280 BCE; his evidence is convincing. Ronny Reich's excavations, together with those of Silberman and Finkelstein do not support an occupation consistent with a city on the site of Jerusalem before at the earliest late 700's, so 8th c BCE. The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c. Archaeology shows that at the time Nebuchadnezzar sacks Jerusalem in 586 BCE, it was the size of a small town - with no Temple of Solomon. There was only ever one and the same Temple.

A German excavation on Mt Gerizim in Nablus, the Samaritan temple, established it two centuries older than Jerusalem itself. The inscription of Yahweh at Kuntillet

Ajr- our oldest one - names him as Yahweh of Teman and Samaria, Teman being Yemen. He is therefore clearly the god of the Samaritans before he is the god of the Jews. In the ensuing years as the Judeans and the Samaritans fight, the Judeans would prevail, and in first century they convince Herod to annex Samaria into the Roman province of Judea. The irony here is that the Roman-allied Judeans were erasing the culture and history of the local Samaritans using the power of the Roman state. You can see Yaakov Ben Aaron, "The History and the Religion of the Samaritans," for more.

ud

That Judeans were seen as "Syrians" and "Phoenicians" in many contexts of the ancient world is clear to those of us who know this part of the world. And that what is frequently conflated as "the Kingdom of Israel" or "Northern Kingdom" - was never called by either name, and was always Kingdom of Samaria. The Samaritans are therefore simultaneously erased - by having their ancient identity conflated to give Israel a claim of antiquity, and not considered Israelites at the same time. There is even a story in the New testament of Jesus meeting a Samaritan woman who is surprised that he speaks to her "since Judeans have no dealings with the Samaritans." The racism is obvious - the Canaan woman is compared to a dog by the gentle Jesus meek and mild. One of the most convincing bits that Jesus was a real person is precisely this - a fictional character would probably not have racist slip-ups.

So, you're very correct. All of the claims of ancient Israel, are actually, about Samaria. Wikipedia is full of such conflations. The earliest mention of Israel - in the Amarna letters - look into it more - is actually a mention of the House of Omri, after whom Samaria is named - not Israel. The Bible itself calls the language as Canaan or Judean, never as Hebrew. And "paleo-Hebrew" is another made up idea - it's literally the Phoenician script. Historiaantiqua (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c." So what? The Biblical narratives are little more than fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That was my point. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Main image

Is the current main image really the best option, as opposed to, say, a medieval map showing Palestine? For me it seems to overemphasize the 20th century mandatory Palestine delineation, while the green lines are frankly a little bit hard to understand. Also, this is specifically not an article about the occupied territories, so why are those also on the map? I suspect that for a lot of newcomers this makes it altogether more muddling and confusing than a more simple image might. I'm not convinced this means it performs as the lead image (as what one expects to see for this topic, as in other tertiary sources) particularly well. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to understand the green lines from the information given. Zero^talk 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Note also that File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg has colorblind accessibility issues. Wracking ^talk! 21:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Philistines - Missing connections - Wiki

In reference to the below, there should be the mention, and link to the Philistines.

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

It is also clear from archaeology & DNA testing that the Philistine community was indeed European migrants.

It would be appropriate at the encyclopaedia to include a revision with Philistines after the people.

• Note: Unable to log in using public PC to sign. D.Cardo.

194.73.217.219 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this request, what is it you want to add and where, WP:EDITXY ? Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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

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

This has been done, but a comment about the current conflict's mass casualties could also be useful in establishing context of Gaza's population

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-says-gaza-death-toll-still-over-35000-not-all-bodies-identified-2024-05-13/ autumn (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Palestine is a semi-presidential country

why does it say Palestine is a semi-presidential country. what does that mean? Gsgdd (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ups... its in State of Palestine -> Government and politics Gsgdd (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested Withdrawn

Palestine (region) → Land of Palestine – Since Palestine is also known as Land of Palestine - im proposing this change. Please see [[11]] Its official name may be Land of Palestine [[12]] Gsgdd (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose I have never heard of the term "Land of Palestine" in RS. Google search results linked prove that whenever the term "land of Palestine" was used, it was used as an adjective not as a common name. This is not analogous to the Land of Israel, as Israel refers to the prophet. While Palestine is simply the name of the region. Clearly, "Palestine" is the WP:common name. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

proposal withdrawn Gsgdd (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, not a common name. This proposal is a non-starter. Zero^talk 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Historic Palestine

Historic Palestine is an alt name for the collective history of pre-1948 Palestine in all is vicissitudes and variations that is obviously used for natural disambiguation purposes vis-a-vis the modern Palestinian state (as exemplified in this Britannica educational reference work). Is this then perhaps a better name than the current parenthetically disambiguated title? (Also bearing in mind that WP:NCDAB favours natural disambiguation.) Just throwing this out there informally at this point for input. Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tricky, this and (historical) are a bit troublesome, I mean I get it, but use is likely to lead to argument imo, especially if the pre 48 part (and I guess back to Herodotus) is not spelled out. We have SoP, Mandate and Roman links, maybe should be an Ottoman and such as well? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ottoman Palestine is a bit of a gap, but for sure on the to-do list. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

While indeed often used in RS, it is less used than the more common name of just "Palestine". Also, this name would become to be used as it is, i.e. changes will be made to all articles linking to this one from [Palestine (region)|Palestine] to [Historic Palestine], which would be redundant. But I understand the reasoning behind this proposed move, so maybe we can add Historic Palestine in the opening paragraph or other lede paragraphs instead? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already added it as an alt name. Perhaps that's enough for now. Not convinced on the merits of the move myself either. Might cause search trouble, and get confused with the history page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Image

@Iskandar323: I think we need to find a better/more modern map; this one gives off mythical vibes to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for a ye olde map, but perhaps there's a less mythical one somewhere. I don't think we want anything too modern either though. This is about historic Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The map added as lead image a couple of days ago is the worst possible type of map for this article, as it is a Biblical / imaginary map. See Cartography of Palestine for an explanation of the difference between those maps and the contemporary depictions that the cartography article focuses on.

The boundaries of the region of Palestine changed over time, and in all periods had undefined borders on the south and east. The cartography article shows this well. Mandate Palestine was the first version of Palestine with known and clearly delineated eastern and southern borders. The Mandate Palestine borderline is also what defines today’s Palestinians.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I see I kicked the hornet's nest. That's all well and good. I was always interested in a discussion. That's what the discussion above was for, but it received little response. The prior image was unclear, had a broken key, and was an obvious issue for the colour blind. That was three strikes. As for the image I replaced it with, I did think there might be a tad too much myth, though the history of Palestine surely reaches back into myth. I do not, by contrast, think that the should be undue emphasis on mandatory Palestine. That may define Palestinians, but it does not define historic Palestine. For much of its history, Palestine was taken to include northwestern Jordan, for instance. Mandatory Palestine is a mere 30-year snapshot out of thousands of years of history, and this is not the page on mandatory Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the prior image back in 2012. Then I built the Cartography of Palestine article in 2019-20. Agree it’s time for a fresh discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me to Cartography of Palestine. The Jacob Ziegler map is gorgeous. I actually think something like this, slightly abstract, better reflects how the region of historic Palestine has been somewhat fluid in nature. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I am not a fan of the Ziegler map because, while a milestone in the cartographic history, it doesn’t depict a contemporary period – rather it is a mishmash of various older sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bachiene is also a rather joyous blend of German and Arabic, and also fairly accurate spatially. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also liking its co-location of names like Esdud and Azotus – it aggregates names across several eras. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

If we want the purest “classical” definition, the Ptolemy map is the place to go. It is also the only one with a boundary. It therefore bring huge educational value. The downside is that it is in Greek.

In terms of modern maps, Jacotin was the big milestone. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Bachiene's map is good without the folds, but personally I found the previous map in WP template to be better, namely because it is spatially accurate and serves an exclusively informational purpose in showing just the region; while I find historical maps also have a (distracting) artistic side to it and also gives off a Narnia vibe to the topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's more Tolkien than Narnia, although I think that's a little of a discredit to the map maker, who I'm sure was trying their best with the information available. Incidentally, one issue with the previous map that I didn't mention is that I believe it got the Syria Palaestina boundaries (or those of its successors), slightly wrong. It also ignored the Islamic, including Ottoman Palestine, period, which, while somewhat ill-defined, is obviously a notable period. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I also struggled to properly comprehend the old map. Also, no offense at all to the map maker, it is not about the map as much as it is about the map choice for a WP article, if you know what I mean. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Boundaries of the Roman province 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)

  Borders of Mandatory Palestine

  Borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) which are claimed by the State of Palestine as its borders

@Iskandar323: do you think your concerns with the svg map could be addressed with specific improvements? We could produce a list of proposed changes and then request help from the experts at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Potentially. But where are we getting the information from? The sourcing notes on the current image file only appear to yield sources for the mandate period onwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we start from scratch on the sourcing. Wikipedia editors' knowledge of this topic has increased very significantly since the map was first created in 2012. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Three questions come in mind and are all related to the pre-modern period since the Mandatory period and current borders will necessarily have to stay:

1) Were the three Palaestina Roman provinces ever considered one geographic territory; if not, is it possible for us to combine them and just simply say the three Roman provinces of.., instead of showing each?

2) Do we need an exact political boundary or can we use a geographic one similar to the ones used in Ottoman, or more preferably, older Greek maps, instead of the Roman provinces?

3) Were there any province in history that had the name Palestine in it over the past 2,000 years, other than Jund Filastin and the Roman provinces (the older the better)? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: historians have pieced together the classical provinces using the available fragments, without total clarity on the ever-changing borders - this is as true for Palestine as it is for all classical regions. For Palestine, we list the primary sources at Timeline of the name Palestine - some give reasonably clear boundaries, such as Herodotus, Pliny, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This map has a very unusual boundary for Syria Palaestina. It's rather curious. Not sure how credible. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the 1865 book that the map accompanies. See "XXVI. Phoenice, Coelesyria, Decapolis, Iudaea Herodiadarum tempore". It doesn't explain the borders shown, but it is clear throughout that it is building on earlier 19th century scholarship. Those works were chronologically listed by Edward Robinson in 1841, Titus Tobler in 1867 and Reinhold Röhricht in 1890 (see the intro to Travelogues of Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the carving out of Scythopolis is presumably based on something tangible – especially as it is consistent between the Roman Judaea (as a part of Decapolis) and Syria Palaestina (as a part of Arabia Petraea)-era maps. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Actually, maybe I overcomplicated this. Maybe there’s an abstract of a general Palestine region borders over the millennia in RS that we can use for the map? Or is it better to have something political and specific like a province? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've stated my problem with the svg map before. Namely, I don't think that the information provided is enough to decode the green lines. That is, one cannot unambiguously label the regions based on that description. For example, is "Syria Palestina" the part inside the solid green lines or the whole region enclosed by any type of green line? On the other hand, I don't think we should start with a biblical myth map that extends even further north than Beirut. Zero^talk 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss @Onceinawhile @Zero0000: This has somewhat stalled hasn't it? Anyone have any suggestions on how best to progress? Do we want just a better, possibly less biblical old map, or do we want something bespoke from the graphics people? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It has; I am more in favor of something with the WP template; but as we were discussing, the issue remains on the borders of Palestine prior to the British mandate; the older the reference the better. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I liked the previous map that Oncenawhile made in 2012 showing the approximate borders of the region from the 1st to the 11th century AD. Its main problem, besides the colors, was that it included Palaestina Salutaris whose territorial extension goes beyond what the map shows. By excluding Salutris from the map and changing the line colors, this map could be used alongside the map from the Ottoman period in the infobox. I don't think we should use a map from the period before Christ since Palestine as an administrative unit did not yet exist. Mawer10 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with this proposal. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Which map is being referred to here? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: This File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg. Mawer10 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: @Mawer10: So basically the removal of the below green dashed line but not the above? I would be inclined to remove both green dashed lines, which would make Palaestina I and II a single unit, and make the map much easier to comprehend. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the big question is what exactly we are trying to speak to with the image. The region of Palestine is a classically broad concept. The modern state of Palestine boundaries are specially something that is not being spoken to here. The mandatory ones are well defined but relatively fleeting in the overall historical arc. The Roman ones bounce around a little but have the pedigree of age and relative longevity on the historical record. In the mix, we are missing the Palestine that the Greek historians such as Herodotus spoke to, as well as what conceptions of Palestine existed in the Islamic period. All of this complexity, and the risk of editorial over-selectively or omission, is one reason why it could be safer to stick with a sourced image. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The image should portray three things: modern Palestine (1967), historic Palestine (1948), and ancient Palestine (whatever period whose borders can be defined, the earlier the better).

As previously mentioned it seems that the only definable ancient Palestine is the Roman administrative provinces, in contrast to Herodotus' Palestine for example (unless the rough region is portrayed by some RS).

While I agree it is safer to stick with a sourced image, which we have not found so far, I think the proposal to omit Palaestina III is the lesser evil, and we can avoid it being misleading by specifying in the caption that the portrayed region are of Palaestina I and II, and does not include Palaestine III. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should it portray the post-1948 or post-1967 Palestinian territories? That isn't actually the subject here is it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to pre-1948 and post-1067. Because these are the two most prominent definitions of the Palestine region. Clearly, post-1967 is less relevant but wouldn't hurt to have it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to keep the line separating Palaestina I and Palaestina II on the map because they later became Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdunn respectively during Islamic rule until the 11th century. But for the sake of clarity of the map, I do not object to deleting the lines. An interesting fact is that the borders of Palestine proposed by the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement is almost identical to the borders of Roman Palestine, which shows its importance. Mawer10 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, never noticed; although 1916 curiously cut II by half and avoided east of the Jordan river. I am also fine with either option, but now I am much more comfortable supporting deleting the lines between I and II given this piece of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with this. On the question of the early sources that defined historical Palestine - much of it (everything I have found over the years) is quoted on Timeline of the name Palestine.

The earliest surviving map in existence is a 700-year-old copy of Ptolemy's map, and no maps or their copies have come down to us from any earlier authors. Before Ptolemy we are reliant on quotes from narrative works, none of which are detailed enough to construct a detailed picture of the borders. Ptolemy, therefore, holds primacy in this question. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Main problem with Ptolemy's map is that it is rough and does not show clearly defined borders, in contrast to the Roman provinces map. What are you suggesting? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)