This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestine (region) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first clear use of the name "Palestine" was in the 5th century B.C. by Ancient Greek historian Herodotus?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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."
"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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
[1][2][3]
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. Zerotalk09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply