Revision as of 09:55, 20 July 2006 editVjam (talk | contribs)1,407 edits →Eretz Israel← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:13, 22 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 14) (bot |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{limitedgeographicscope}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=13 March 2015 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Palestine (region)/GA1 |
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=651254734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|topic=places |
|
|
|dykdate=23 March 2015|dykentry=... that the first clear use of the name "'''Palestine'''" was in the 5th century B.C. by Ancient Greek historian ]?}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{press|author=Haviv Rettig Gur|title=Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Misplaced Pages|org=]|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100519111756/https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175660|date=16 May 2010}} |
|
|
{{ARBPIA}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
Note: We need to keep this article written from a Neutral Point Of View. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements. |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive index |mask=Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
Previous discussions may be found here: |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Israel and Palestine}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 07:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misleading or incomprehensive context in the opening paragraph == |
|
To see older commentary that was here look in these archives. |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the current version of the page: |
|
== Palestine means the WB and GS, not the history == |
|
|
|
"In the Hellenistic period, these names were carried over into Greek, appearing in the Histories of Herodotus in 5th century BCE as Palaistine. The Roman Empire conquered the region and in 6 CE established the province known as Judaea" |
|
|
It would seem, reading this, that Judaea is a name made up by some Roman conqueror, while it's more likely the Romans conquered the region from locals who already refered to their homeland as Judea. Unless we are strictly European centered, in which case only what made it in European maps and history is what counts? ] (]) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the point that is trying to be made is that the Romans called their province "Judaea", not where the name came from. Maybe say "... established the province they called Judaea"? ] (]) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Help needed adding Map that better illuminates terminology of regions under discussion == |
|
] 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
]. The Jordan River is on the right, and the Mediterranean Sea is on the left.]] |
|
No it doesn't, who said? --] 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This map should replace the satellite image in the modern boundaries section. It is taken from a different page and has explanatory information not in the other maps: it shows the names used elsewhere in context along with the terrain and political regions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ones showing the evolutions of the border lack labels, and would be worse for them as they show the change over time. The one showing the population as a dot map is great but needs this map to show how the reality of where people live corresponds to the political debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to replace the satellite image from the modern boundaries section but could not get the formatting to work. I would appreciate someone finding a good spot on the page or advising how to get the text flow to work. ] (]) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Palestine does NOT exist as a country!! It NEVER was a country! Before Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank, those areas were part of Egypt and Jordan respectively!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Greater Palestine" redirect == |
|
== Sanremo == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] redirects here, but where is the merged content? It's not at ], either, where the AfD decision originally said to merge the content to. |
|
] is the Italian city where the conference was held, at least according to Misplaced Pages. If this is incorrect please post here before reverting. ] 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mergers that factually end up being deletions, against the explicit decision at AfD, because nothing ever ends up being merged at all (the merge target is never even changed in response to the decision), are a loathsome pattern in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Palestine has NEVER been a country == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Map == |
|
Palestine does NOT exist as a country!! It NEVER was a country! Before Israel captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank, those areas were part of Egypt and Jordan respectively!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 1750 map did not gain consensus per the various comments above, so I have added back the original svg map. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that the svg map is preferred as it illustrates various periods, but could be simplified in certain areas and the color differential made clearer. Perhaps others could comment here, and once we have a clear set of changes agreed, we can improve the map further. ] (]) 09:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Can anyone provide maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns in this region prior to the establishment of the country of Israel? Thanks! --] 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maps are available at passia.org. --] 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I will repeat my proposal here then to remove the dashed green lines and keep everything else as is. This way we will have three definitions: |
|
==Eretz Israel== |
|
|
|
:1- ancient Palestine (Palestina I + II in green) |
|
|
:2- modern Palestine (Mandatory Palestine in red) |
|
|
:3- official Palestine (1967 borders in blue). ] (]) 11:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: Agree with Make&toss. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Have removed this from the intro and replaced with the Herbrew translation of Israel. "Eretz Israel" is not in any sense a translation of Palestine, and doesn't belong there. --] 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
:::{{ping|Makeandtoss|Zero0000}} How about this? ] (]) 15:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Perfect, an improvement despite the small risk of OR for the green line. ] (]) 16:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Sure it is, for more than 3 millennia. Let's keep in mind that we are talking about the region here. If this is confusing, let's return this article its earlier title, ]. ←] <sup>]</sup> 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It's good. The fine blue line could be made more prominent but it isn't necessary. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just realized I have been confusing two things together; the Roman province of Syria Palestina and the Byzantine provinces of Palestina I and II. I thought they were the same thing. Since they are different, wouldn't it make sense just to have Roman province of Syria Palestina, as this would eliminate the OR risk when combing the Byzantine provinces I and II? Also how sure are we of the eastern borders of Syria Palestina, ] (]) 08:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is a good question and the heart of the challenge. Looking at the detail within ], you can see that Misplaced Pages's suggestion that the Roman province was formally called "Syria Palestina" - as opposed to just "Palestina" - has no primary evidence, as both names were in use at the time. I suspect the SP name in scholarly works came originally from ]. |
|
|
:::Equally, the borders moved around over time, and there are no fixed lines. The best we can do is identify the best scholarly sources with these borders in them across all the available periods. ] (]) 14:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We can go with the used at the ]'s article, i.e. the Jordan River. Updating the green borders to these ones should be the last improvement possible and the best outcome of this lengthy discussion. ] (]) 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2024 == |
|
What belongs in the brackets is direct translations of the title, not alternative names which have been used at one time or another. There seems to be a perfectly good Hebrew word for the which can be used here, so why should wikipedia prefer an alternative that so clearly come with an agenda (ie it is primarily (according to ]) a religious concept and connotes (an aspiration to) sovereignty by a religious group). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Palestine (region)|answered=yes}} |
|
I don't think this issue shows up any confusion as to whether we are taling about a geographic region. "Palestine" is, in any language, a geogrpahic region. "Eretz Israel" is ideological, and should not be presented as a neutral translation. It surely ought to be obvious that if you're choosing to translate "Palestine" as (basically) "Israel" then questions of neutrality arise. --] 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Could you please just modify “The holy land of israel” and you make it seem like israel is a country but not Palestine.🇵🇸 ] (]) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] • ] • ] 03:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
: ארץ ישראל is not translated as ''Palestina''. —] 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::# The hard fact (vs. opinion) is that the Hebrew toponym for the region throughout long ] was/is "Eretz Israel". Serious encylopedias reflect facts, whether certain editors like them or not. |
|
|
::# See Hebrew interwiki. |
|
|
::# What about ] (Hebrew: Yerushalayim; Arabic: al-Quds...)? Are you going to argue for another "translation" of Arabic name? ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::According to this website I found, "Eretz Israel" is frequently used by Israelis in the context of arguments challenging Palestinian claims to nationhood and their right to land east of the Jordan River. . ] 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Like it or not, the ''fact'' is that since the times of ancient ], "Eretz Israel" is the Hebrew toponym for the region. ←] <sup>]</sup> 09:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, the fact is that it is ''a'' Hebrew toponym, and not a neutral one or a direct translation. "פלשתינה/Palestina" is clearly a more direct translation. "Eretz Israel" is no more a translation into Hebrew of "Palestine" than "Holy Land" is a translation into English. |
|
|
|
|
|
What's important here is the difference between a translation on the one hand and a synonym or euphamism on the other. What's not okay is to take the latter and present it as if it were the former. If you have a good argument for saying that an exception should be made in this case, then you should state it. --] 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with Vjam. ] 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I also agree with Vjam --] 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: One can spell in Hebrew (or any alphabet) anything, but that does not negate 3 millennia of history. The 3 points above are still unanswered. And this is not a vote. ←] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The article links to the ] as part of the History section; how could "Eretz Israel" not be a toponym? Is "Eretz Israel" some different territory? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Indeed, no amount of someone's dislike for a term can change the facts on the ground. "Eretz Israel" is not a "synonym", nor a "euphemism", but the Hebrew name for this region. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jayjg: What's not in dispute is whether "Eretz Israel" exists as a toponym, or to what land it refers. The issue is that it is not a translation of "Palestine", since it comes with additional political/theological connotations, and there exists a perfectly functional Hebrew word ("Palestina") which comes without this additional meaning. |
|
|
|
|
|
Humus sapiens: I haven't answered your above points because they are really just assertions not raising much to be answered. The answers I would give are 1) No 2) Why? and 3) Al Quds is a translation of Jerusalem - if you were to use it in an English or Hebrew sentence, you would clearly be borrowing from Arabic for some reason, so this is not a parallel case. |
|
|
|
|
|
The claim that "Eretz Israel" is in some sense a translation (I assume this is a claim that is being made) needs standing up. --] 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Where is the logic: Arabic:Al-Quds (and not Urusalim) is a "translation" of English:Jerusalem, but Hebrew:Palestina (and not Eretz Israel) is a "translation" of English:Palestina. |
|
|
: You are entitled to your POV but encyclopedias should reflect historical facts. A traditional 3+ millennia-old toponym ''Eretz Israel'' is not going to be replaced with ''Palestina'' (which is far from being politically-neutral) because of your political preferences. ←] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Al-Quds is ''not'' a translation of Jerusalem into Arabic; it is the Arabic ''name'' for Jerusalem. Humus, prior to 1948 Zionists spoke of a dream of ''Eretz Israel'' but they referred to the land as it existed then as Palestine. ] 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Humus, for your claim to be valid then the Hebrew word פלשתינה cannot exist historically yet it was in wide use prior to 1948. ] 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Just as ''Al-Quds'' is the Arabic toponym for Jerusalem, ''Eretz Israel'' is the Hebrew toponym for the region in question. |
|
|
: Why are we suddenly limiting our scope to 30 years of the British Mandate and discarding 3+ millennia of the Jewish history? BTW, that ''Eretz Israel'' was used to disambig ''Palestina''. As a compromise, I'm going to add both. ←] <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
By your argument, we should add ({{lang-ar|'''فلسطين'''}} ''Filastīn'' or ''Falastīn'') to the top of ]. Are you agreeable to this? I think I've presented a more reasonable compromise in my latest edit. ] 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I support this version. --] 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agree with Aiden who didn't like it. I think it should be within the paretheses, so I added that ''Eretz Israel'' is a ] term. See if this works better. ←] <sup>]</sup> 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've given ] the same treatment since both articles should handle the question in the same manner. ] 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Not really. The issue is that it shouldn't be presented as a translation. Eretz Israel ≈ Palestine. Palestina = Palestine. So it shouldn't be parentheses, and it certainly shouldn't be first. Plus the way you've put it is as if being a Biblical term somehow makes it better. Will alter to something I think is more realistic. --] 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Mot only "amongst Jews". Let's think how we can improve this. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Humus, should ] include a translation that reads: ({{lang-ar|'''فلسطين'''}} ''Filastīn'' or ''Falastīn'') ?] 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ''Eretz Israel'' is a historical & Biblical term. What does Arabic ''Falastīn'' (c. 7th century) have to do with the Hebrew Bible? But if other editors are OK with it, I won't remove it. ←] <sup>]</sup> 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Humus, either it's a historical and biblical term or its a general toponym, you can't have it both ways. And it seems to me that one-way translation is never possible, so I this goes a long way to proving my earlier point. And if it's not a translation then why do you want to put it ''first'' in the translation list? |
|
|
|
|
|
Also think "related concept" sounds a bit vague, but will leave it there for now since my brain is frying in the heat. --] 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Eretz Israel is a historical term, a Biblical term and a toponym. If 3200 years of history don't fit into some artificial frame, too bad for the frame. BTW, I feel that we are not that far apart, so let's work together to find a sensible compromise. ←] <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If A in one language is translated to B in another language, it must be the case that B can be translated back into A, or the original tranlsation was not accurate. That's not an artificial frame, it's just regular logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the main points of dispute, as I see it: |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''1)''' "Eretz Yisrael" is not an exact translation of "Palestine" (I get the impression we are agreeing on this part). |
|
|
:'''2)''' By convention, the reader is expecting to see, in the parentheses in the first sentence, exact translations in relevant languages. |
|
|
:'''3)''' So, it's my view that "Eretz Yisrael" shouldn't be in there. However, I don't think it's so serious if it is, provided steps are taken to ensure that no-one is misled into thinking that "Eretz Yisrael" and "Palestine" are translations of one another. This means (not necessarily an exhaustive list): |
|
|
::'''a)''' "Eretz Yisrael" should not come first in the list (I am still keen to know why you think it should) |
|
|
::'''b)''' The English translation "Land of Israel" should be included, - this makes it clear that the translation is not "Palestine". |
|
|
::'''c)''' Some (brief as possible) reference to it being a Biblical/Jewish/Religious concept should probably be included. Think the wording may need some discussion - does Biblical give too much of an impression of a kind of ceremonial usage?--] 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Your wording is more or less OK with me. I made a minor edit, hope you and others won't find them objectionable. We are dealing with ] here, so the word "translation" should be used with caution. Cheers. ←] <sup>]</sup> 05:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm not happy with this because: |
|
|
:1) "transliteration" seems designed to give the impression that we are not dealing with an actual Hebrew word, which is false. |
|
|
:2) The impression is given that "Palestina" is a transliteration from English, which clearly can't be the case. |
|
|
:3) "Palestina" may have originated as a tranliteration from Latin (I'm guessing this), which isn't unusual for a word, so why mark this out as if it is? |
|
|
:4) This is not a usual place for etymological information, so unless you can give a compelling reason, this is extraneous. --] 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
From the current version of the page:
"In the Hellenistic period, these names were carried over into Greek, appearing in the Histories of Herodotus in 5th century BCE as Palaistine. The Roman Empire conquered the region and in 6 CE established the province known as Judaea"
It would seem, reading this, that Judaea is a name made up by some Roman conqueror, while it's more likely the Romans conquered the region from locals who already refered to their homeland as Judea. Unless we are strictly European centered, in which case only what made it in European maps and history is what counts? Gezellig~hewiki (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This map should replace the satellite image in the modern boundaries section. It is taken from a different page and has explanatory information not in the other maps: it shows the names used elsewhere in context along with the terrain and political regions.
The ones showing the evolutions of the border lack labels, and would be worse for them as they show the change over time. The one showing the population as a dot map is great but needs this map to show how the reality of where people live corresponds to the political debate.
I tried to replace the satellite image from the modern boundaries section but could not get the formatting to work. I would appreciate someone finding a good spot on the page or advising how to get the text flow to work. Mrflip (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Mergers that factually end up being deletions, against the explicit decision at AfD, because nothing ever ends up being merged at all (the merge target is never even changed in response to the decision), are a loathsome pattern in Misplaced Pages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The 1750 map did not gain consensus per the various comments above, so I have added back the original svg map.
I understand that the svg map is preferred as it illustrates various periods, but could be simplified in certain areas and the color differential made clearer. Perhaps others could comment here, and once we have a clear set of changes agreed, we can improve the map further. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Could you please just modify “The holy land of israel” and you make it seem like israel is a country but not Palestine.🇵🇸 Sam9472 (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)