Talk:Palestine (region) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vjam (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 20 July 2006 (→Eretz Israel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:18, 20 July 2006 by Vjam (talk | contribs) (→Eretz Israel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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.

Previous discussions may be found here:

To see older commentary that was here look in these archives.

Palestine means the WB and GS, not the history

Robin Hood 1212 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, who said? --Vjam 22:12, 30 June 2006 (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!!!!

Sanremo

is the Italian city where the conference was held, at least according to Misplaced Pages. If this is incorrect please post here before reverting. Arker 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine has NEVER been a country

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!!!!

Prore to the establishment of the Irish free state there was never an indepented country of Ireland this does not mean that people recondised it as a seperate country to britian. The suitwhich of northern Ireland is the excat same as Palestine a mase expsermension of on enthinic group so it can be replaced with a nother and a fictional country created and people live the lie for so long the belive in it.

Prier to the establishment of the Irish Free State there was never an independent country of Ireland this does not mean that people recognized it as a separate country to Britain. The state of northern Ireland is the exact same as Palestine a mass expsermension of on ethnic group so it can be replaced with a another and a fictional country created and people live the lie for so long the believe in it.

Can anyone provide maps showing Jewish immigration and settlement patterns in this region prior to the establishment of the country of Israel? Thanks! --TimeDog 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps are available at passia.org. --Ian Pitchford 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Eretz Israel

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. --Vjam 16:13, 13 July 2006 (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, Palestine (region). ←Humus sapiens 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages) a religious concept and connotes (an aspiration to) sovereignty by a religious group).

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. --Vjam 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ארץ ישראל is not translated as Palestina. —Aiden 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The hard fact (vs. opinion) is that the Hebrew toponym for the region throughout long Jewish history was/is "Eretz Israel". Serious encylopedias reflect facts, whether certain editors like them or not.
See Hebrew interwiki.
What about Jerusalem (Hebrew: Yerushalayim; Arabic: al-Quds...)? Are you going to argue for another "translation" of Arabic name? ←Humus sapiens 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. . Dionyseus 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, the fact is that since the times of ancient Kingdom of Israel, "Eretz Israel" is the Hebrew toponym for the region. ←Humus sapiens 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. --Vjam 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vjam. Dionyseus 14:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Vjam --Oiboy77 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. ←Humus sapiens 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article links to the History of ancient Israel and Judah as part of the History section; how could "Eretz Israel" not be a toponym? Is "Eretz Israel" some different territory? Jayjg 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. Pecher 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. --Vjam 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. ←Humus sapiens 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. Homey 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. Homey 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, here is an evidence that Eretz Israel was used to disambig Palestina. As a compromise, I'm going to add both. ←Humus sapiens 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By your argument, we should add (Template:Lang-ar Filastīn or Falastīn) to the top of Land of Israel. Are you agreeable to this? I think I've presented a more reasonable compromise in my latest edit. Homey 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. --Vjam 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 Biblical term. See if this works better. ←Humus sapiens 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given Land of Israel the same treatment since both articles should handle the question in the same manner. Homey 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. --Vjam 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mot only "amongst Jews". Let's think how we can improve this. ←Humus sapiens 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Humus, should Land of Israel include a translation that reads: (Template:Lang-ar Filastīn or Falastīn) ?Homey 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. ←Humus sapiens 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. --Vjam 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. ←Humus sapiens 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?--Vjam 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 proper nouns here, so the word "translation" should be used with caution. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 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. --Vjam 09:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept the current version as a compromise. BTW, there is nothing wrong with transliteration, it's a common practice for Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns. ←Humus sapiens 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem is not directly translated to Arabic as al-Quds; it is the common name for the city in Arabic, which is why it is listed in the Jerusalem article. In much the same way, it makes no sense that we should translate a Latin word into Hebrew when the Jews already have a common name for the region they've used for 3,000 years. —Aiden 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aiden. No, it is a translation. "name for the city in arabic" (in this case) = translation. It's not a requirement that the two sound similar or have the same literal meaning (cf "Germany" <---> "Deutschland"). The difference with "Palestine" compared to "Ertetz Yisrael" is that the two do not mean exactly the same thing, which has been gone over above.

Regarding your recent reverts, your premise is false. Misplaced Pages does not necessarily prefer the most commonly used name for a thing. See, for example Western Wall or Repuplic of China. In any event, in the present case, what is the most commonly used translation would be the question. --Vjam 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)