Talk:History of Palestine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Jesus Christ

Folks, this is the History of Palestine article, not the History of Jesus Christ article. Neither the historicity of Jesus nor his non-historicity deserves treatment here. The history of the early church, to a limited extent commensurate with the very wide scope of this article, should come from scholarly sources. Zerotalk 00:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Jesus article has done a good job of pulling together material and citations on what most scholars agree on.
I agree citations were badly needed, and I hope that the text I have just added can be a good place for further discussions. tahc chat 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an article with a very wide scope, and cannot afford the space for a historical detail. The reality or not of Jesus Christ is very peripheral and does not deserve to be here beyond a wikilink to its specialist article. Zerotalk 03:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Jesus had a big impact on this part of the world over and over a broad time. Many things already in the article are much less important, such as the whole paragraph just before.
I hope that you can also see that I have added no text on "the reality or not" of Jesus. tahc chat 04:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You added a large amount of material on exactly that subject. Explain your denial. Zerotalk 06:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Are asking why I changed my mind? You are referencing an old edit and going back to that would be off topic for this talk page if we are agreeing now. tahc chat 13:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the debate about the 'historicity' of Jesus doesn't belong this article but also that Jesus deserves a few words in this article. What about this :
Jesus of Nazareth was born during this period.[77][78] He was a Galilean Jew and lived in Galilee and Judea.[79][80][81] The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[87] Most scholars agree that his crucifixion was between 30 and 33 CE.[88][89]
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
How about if shorten the references to Jesus and swap the order of the two paragraphs, such as this:
Jesus was born around the beginning of the first century[1][2][3][4] He was a Galilean Jew and lived in Galilee and Judea.[5][6][7][8][9] The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[10] Most scholars agree that his crucifixion was between 30 and 33 CE.[11][12]
Around this time, Roman Palestine...
tahc chat 23:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I may be wrong. I am totally incult on the topic of Jesus but isn't the "historical" Jesus preferably named 'Jesus of Nazareth' ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are trying distinguish or disambiguate him from others named Jesus (and to avoid using "Jesus Christ"), then yes.
I think the key point here is that we don't need to disambiguate him from others named Jesus in this context. After all the article about him is named Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth. tahc chat 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is John the Baptist worth mentioning? This is someone with a bit part in the Gospels. Also, even though I agree that the historicity of Jesus is the scholarly consensus, I'm not at all sure that the historicity of the crucifixion is. Of course "Christian scholars" believe it is true, otherwise they wouldn't be "Christian scholars". Lots of historians are reluctant to accept events to be historical just because they appear in the gospels. Zerotalk 12:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is why I quoted from the Jesus article.
If you doubt the scholarly consensus that the crucifixion happened, then change the Jesus article. That page has a great concern for scholarly consensus, and anything you get them to accept there, I am willing to accept here.
I don't mind dropping John the Baptist.tahc chat 20:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:CIRCULAR. We link to other Wikipedia articles for the convenience of readers, but we don't use them as references for information. I think that the detailed debate should be left for specialist articles like Jesus, and this article should just state the plain facts using "according to the New Testament" for things whose only real support comes from there. Zerotalk 03:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vermes, Géza (2010). The Nativity: History and Legend. Random House Digital. pp. 81–82. ISBN 978-0-307-49918-9.
  2. ^ Dunn 2003, p. 324.
  3. ^ Meier 1991, p. 407.
  4. ^ Finegan, Jack (1998). Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. Hendrickson Publishers. p. 319. ISBN 978-1-56563-143-4.
  5. ^ Köstenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2009, p. 114.
  6. ^ Maier 1989, p. 124.
  7. ^ Green, McKnight & Marshall 1992, p. 442.
  8. ^ Borg, Marcus J. (2006). "The Spirit-Filled Experience of Jesus". In Dunn, James D. G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eisenbrauns. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-57506-100-9.
  9. ^ Crossan & Watts 1999, pp. 28–29.
  10. ^ Levine 2006, p. 4.
  11. ^ Humphreys, Colin J.; Waddington, W.G. (1992). "The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ's Crucifixion" (PDF). Tyndale Bulletin. 43 (2): 340.
  12. ^ Köstenberger, Kellum & Quarles 2009, p. 398.

Size split

This page is way long; it is about 2 to 4 times as long as it should be. See Wikipedia:SIZERULE and so forth.
While more should be done afterward... I propose we start by WP:SIZESPLITing the article into two, such as:
tahc chat 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. but the titles should be more informative. Like,
trespassers william (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying.
I will support a split at what ever point(s) gain the most WP:consensus, but to be clear the current sections and section names in the article suggest that occupation by the Ottomans (1516) would be the most natural point to split it. Splitting later would take a rewrite. What do you think of:
tahc chat 21:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Good (keep Palestine). There was a confusing "early modern" bridge section which I moved to "modern", now the watershed is clearer and more in accordance with "global" history. trespassers william (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep - no need to split, it will create great confusion.GreyShark (dibra) 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Due to the huge size we cannot keep it as it is. -- It can spilt up if different ways, or editted down drasticly, or both.
Please feel free to propose a real alternative. tahc chat 20:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This article can simply be reduced by removing redundant and repeating information. All "History of <country>" articles are built the same way and there is no reason Palestine would be an exception. See History of Lebanon, History of Jordan, History of Syria, History of Cyprus.GreyShark (dibra) 07:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
With no other alternatives, I am carrying out the split. tahc chat 20:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There was one support and one oppose to the proposal - it means in wikipedia that there is no consensus. You cannot split when you have 1:1 ratio of opinions with no administrator resolution. Do you understand that you have violated the rules?GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel not "Palestine"

This article should be deleted. Some of it's content may be transferred to the History of Israel article. But the word "Palestine" should not be used. Here's why:

The name "Palestine" came from the Philistines, a people who lived 3000 years ago. After the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), they sought revenge on the Jews. They destroyed the Holy Temple, stole treasures, expelled Jews from their historic homeland (the Land of Israel) and renamed the province from Judea (the territory of the Israelite (Jewish) tribe of Judah) to "Syria-Palestine" in order to minimize Jewish identification with the Jews' national home, the Land of Israel. *The Philistines were extinct in the time the Romans invented the name "Palestine".* This was all part of that roman revenge. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use this word.

Furthermore, Arabs living in the Land of Israel started identifying as "Palestinians" only after the 1967 Six day war, in an attempt to say that their " home" is occupied and to have the right for "self-determination" eventually to destroy the State of Israel and expel the Jews from their historic homeland. The proof: from 1948 to 1967, (almost 20 years) Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the Judea and Samaria Area ("West Bank"). Yet no "Palestinian Arab" attacked either one of these 2 Arab countries or started diplomatic negotiations with them in order to have an independent "Palestinian" state established in these areas, where today they want a state (if they have, they'll want the entire Land of Israel). They attacked Israel. And today, they claim that Israel is occupying territories where they want to establish a state. But when Israel gives them territory, like Gaza, what does it get back? TERRORISM. More then 20,000 rockets on civilian Israeli citizens from Gaza, terror tunnels, suicide bombers, etc. etc. etc. And all public buildings and public areas (UN schools, hospitals, parks, mosques...) where terrorists operate and launch their rockets from are protected by civilians like kids, woman, elderly people. And when Israel dares to defend itself, like any other country would do, the entire world shouts at it for violating human rights.

Sources:

Wikipedia: Timeline of the name "Palestine"

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/palname.html

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/palestinian_truth.htm

You'll find information on the origin of the name "Palestine" anywhere, so these are only a few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.250.8 (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're wasting your own time by posting stuff you haven't fact checked. You didn't even read your own sources - Timeline of the name "Palestine" shows the opposite of what you wrote. I suggest you go back to the person who told you this propagnda and ask them to stop wasting your time. They'll turn you into an extremist. Check your facts properly next time. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone delete the unreliable data from the bible?? and the talking about the archaeologists who use the bible as an historic source?

It's pointless and only ruins the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.14.1 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that there is unreliable data in the Bible? Why would you censor discussion of archaeologists who use the Bible as an historical source? What is your proof that your claims are true?(PeacePeace (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

Balfour Declaration

The article incorrectly states "the British government issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, stating that the British Government favors the establishment of national home for the Jewish people in Palestine."

But in reality, the Balfour Declaration states: "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". That is not the same as a "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine".

As of 1922, the "Jewish people in Palestine" accounted to only 11% of the population in Palestine, or just 84,000 people. The "Jewish people" by contrast were about 14.4 million scattered around the world (according to Jewish Virtual Library). The "Jewish people in Palestine" thus only accounted to 0.58% of the Jewish people.

The Balfour Declaration favored the creation in Palestine of a national home for all the Jewish people, facilitating Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpatico qa (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

The "Roman Period" section says "most scholars arrive at a date of birth between 6 and 4 CE for Jesus". However, the article Nativity_of_Jesus#Date_of_birth has a date of 6 BC to 4 BC. I assume this is just a typo in this article, since the author otherwise put the range in backwards chronological order. Source 103 also appears to confirm this. BMacZero (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC) BMacZero (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done The sources clearly state it, as per the requester I have changed to the correct date. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Earliest human remains', the beginning phrase from the 'Proto-Canaanite period' section should be changed to 'Earliest hominid remains'.

"The earliest human remains in Palestine were found in Ubeidiya, some 3 km south of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), in the Jordan Rift Valley. The remains are dated to the Pleistocene, c. 1.5 million years ago. These are traces of the earliest migration of Homo erectus out of Africa. The site yielded hand axes of the Acheulean type.[14]"

'Remains' in the first sentence is referring to Homo erectus remains found 1.5 million years ago. Homo erectus is not human. It is part of the greater hominid family of which humans, or Homo sapiens, are a part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Doughty from Maine (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Homo erectus is thought to be a chronospecies with homo sapiens.John D. Croft (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2017

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:  Not done DrStrauss talk 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


History of Palestine → History of Palestine (region) – to differentiate from History of the State of Palestine and in line with Talk:Palestine#Requested move 19 August 2015 GreyShark (dibra) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Request for data Confirmation

After reading the articles above History of PalestineHistory_of_Palestine, i could not have not noticed the fact that a lot of information was omitted. the article neglects to mention the massacres done to the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine.[1]. The article neglects to mention Simha Flapans Stance as a biased source,in the section of [2]. In the section [3] there is no evidence of Ben-Gurion ever Saying those words. In the section [4],there is no historical evidence or citations at all,and is more a myth in the collective mind of the Arab-Palestinian consciousness,and in some extreme groups in Israel since the late 1980's.Therefore inserting such a topic makes the article biased,and not professional.therefore and for all of the above i would like you to consider the changes i suggested and edit them.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimahagever (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)84.108.71.157 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Dimahagever

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
  2. ^ Non-recognition of a Palestinian Arab national entity
  3. ^ Territory longed for by Zionism
  4. ^ The "Transfer Idea"

Remove the "Palestinian" flag from the article

Palestine is an historic region, that has existed long before the "Palestinian" national movement began. Please remove the flag of the PLO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A042:4F8F:4182:C6A4:9038:3F6A (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

POV at Syria Palestina past

The opening paragraph of this sub-part opens up in: "Hadrian probably chose a name that revived the ancient name of Philistia (Palestine), combining it with that of the neighboring province of Syria, in an attempt to suppress Jewish connection to the land.[112][113][114] However Cassius Dio, the Roman historian from whom we have the bulk of our understanding of the revolt, does not mention the change of name nor the reason behind it in his "Roman History"." I marked the parts that indicates POV (and generally, not a proper way to write an encyclopedia article).

First marked part is completely wrong - Philistia was the ancient name of a small land strip in the South-West part of the region only, not all of the region, and it was never named "Palestine" up until the renaming (so the bracket is also wrong). So neither "Philistia" nor "Palestina" is the ancient name of the entire region.

Second marked part is a weird and out of place. The renaming reason is scholars opinions, and not from a history source. It should either be noted that "it's believed by scholars", or be removed altogether.

While no primary source exist, no scholarly source that I know of object to the hypothesis that Hadrian renamed the province to punish the Jews. It seem quite logical to me given that Jerusalem was also renamed Aelia Capitolina. ImTheIP (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

The article is explaining the history of the Palestine (region) (Southern Levant), it also mentioned the Israeli Kingdoms, the Yishuv etc. My point is that the Inbox gives the impression that the article is about the history of the Palestinian state, but it isn't. Therefore I think it should include also Template:History of Israel. It should include both of them or neither of them just like in Mandatory Palestine or Prehistory of the Levant articles. Do you think it should include both Infoboxes or none? Sokuya (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I object to either an Israeli-Zionist or Palestinian-Arab infobox. The region was ruled by countless civilizations, including about 600 years of various Christian ones, both parties in the ME conflict should not be allowed to turn the article into a nationalist circus. AddMore-III (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. History of Israel is a lost cause but we can still keep this article non-partisan. ImTheIP (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issues at Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine

The article was tagged for cleanup in 2011 with the reason, given in the box the top of the article, "The specific problem is: the article should only include events and dating broadly accepted by historians, and refrain from including events and dating recognized only in religious literature (May 2011)". There's been some short discussion on the talk page commenting that there is a problem, but no action. I've added the NPOV template. The timeline needs to be based on this article in any case for obvious reasons. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


"Graphical overview of Palestine's historical sovereign powers" is awful!

1) Crusaders are listed as independent, while Ottomans as European
2) Hebrew/Jewish rulership (Israelite, Hasmonean, Bar Kochba, Israel) does not get its own row

Deleting the graph seems the optimal way to go as there are very many issues with it.

BenjaminKay (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

1) The crusader states were as independent as Catholic England or Catholic France.
2) The seat of the Ottoman Empire was the Topkapı Palace and later the Dolmabahçe Palace, which are in Europe.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the Ottoman classification - technically - sure, you're correct by a hairline. Classifying the Antigonid dynasty (as opposed to Syrian) as European is a stretch. I would also question the Byzantine Empire and even the Roman Empire (a pan-Mediterranean empire - in Europe, Asia, and Africa) as European. I don't think the organization, as presently construed, in the graph is useful. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Trying to judge where the “center of gravity” of an empire was is too subjective.
The chart shows the location of the “capital” of the ruling empire; it’s a simple and objective measure.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Viewing Jordan as a separate entity on the graph (as opposed to "Independent") is questionable given that much of populated Jordan is included in the normal definition of Palestine. Clumping Jordan in with the Rashidun Caliphate is questionable. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The alternative is the format used at Jerusalem.
Personally I think some kind of organization is helpful to the reader. Does anyone have other alternative suggestions for grouping? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the one at Jerusalem is more coherent and readable, and the division there makes more sense. I tried tinkering with the template to cut it down to three groups (Independent, Egypt, Global/Regional power) - but gave up as it ended up in a mess of overlapping text on the chart (also after I cut down short lived changes of control).Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed – that’s exactly why the Jerusalem structure doesn’t work for the entire region. There were many overlapping periods of joint control in the region, and therefore many more changes.
Another alternative is to use the current format but categorize by religion. Personally i find that creates a misleading view - the changes from the Greeks to the Romans or from the Abbasids to the Mamluks to the Ottomans were profound, and heavily influenced by the location/culture of the leaders of those empires. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Seeing the Ottoman as European and the Seljuk as Persian...... Is a rather odd grouping. If we could do one with Jerusalem, but with short lived changes of control (e.g. the Byzantine empire briefly regaining control a few times) on the same line - that would be better. I think the current division to regions by location of the titular capital city leads to a pretty odd grouping. I think Egypt should be separate - however spreading Rashidun Caliphate (Arabia), and Umayyad Caliphate (Syria), Abbasid Caliphate (Mesopotamia) to three separate bins (when these are Islamic Caliphates that succeeded on another) is not really conductive to understanding what's what here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Likewise Ayyubid dynasty (in our chart Syria, though really very much Egypt centric) -> Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) (Egypt). Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

lede too big

I've removed 5700 bytes of text from the lede, which has now been returned to a more decent size. Please do not add anything to the lede without removing an equivalent amount of text. Thanks. T8612 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

In the lead section, it mentions Christianization of the Roman Empire. Can Constantine the Great and Christianity be linked from there please, piped as Christianization of the Roman Empire? Thanks. 82.132.232.4 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Onceinawhile (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge History of Israel and History of Palestine into History of Israel and Palestine. Discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Find a way to solve the issues of Israel vs. Palestine in history.Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews

There's new DNA research on Canaanites, can somebody edit the article and add some info about this?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/05/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews/ Sitak87 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of History of Palestine navbar/addition of History of Israel navbar

There was a discussion here recently about the idea that the history of Israel and history of Palestine be merged on the theory that the history is the "same". The conclusion/consensus was that they are two separate things.

While that discussion was going on, I noticed that the history of Palestine navbar was not in the article so I put it in.

Now editor @Sokuya: has tried to remove it and I have restored it. In response, Sokuya has added a history of Israel navbar to this article which seems entirely inappropriate. When challenged on his talk page to explain his actions, he referred to a "discussion" here (this one) and claimed that that discussion (initiated by him and with only two short responses) provides justification for there being no navbar.

Clearly, that position is entirely dubious; it seems hard to justify removing a convenience navbar of things already anyway linked in the article and I also note that the same editor appears perfectly happy having the supposedly partisan navbar present in the history of Israel article.

Before I open an RFC on the matter, I would be interested to hear the views of other editors.Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The "History of Palestine" navbar should be in the "History of Palestine" article, yes. However, I think the article is already too big and it is a bit redundant. T8612 (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything about being "happy" on the navbar in History of Israel article.
You also didn't leave a link to my explanation on my talk page, so here it is, so other can read it as well. All I did was to revert the article back to AddMore-III's edit.
In short, there three history articles:
  1. History of Palestine about the region of Palestine who had no navbar
  2. History of the State of Israel about the Israeli state that has History of Israel navbar
  3. History of the State of Palestine about the Palestinian state that has History of Palestine navbar
Each history navbar is generally focus on the ancient civilizations that existed in the land of each nation state but with some articles given more importance than others since they relate to the identity of that modern state. Also each of them have links to the nation's Wikipedia portal. @AddMore-III: and @ImTheIP: explained me why this article, about the region that was ruled by countless civilizations, shouldn't include neither of nation history navbars. Sokuya (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has the history of Israel navbar, perhaps Sokuya overlooked that one.Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason not to have a history of Palestine navbar nor do I see any reason to have a history of Israel navbar, a different thing, so I am removing that. If the objection is actually that the history of Palestine navbar is somehow unrepresentative then that can be discussed at the talk page for it. If the objection is that the history of Palestine article itself is somehow unrepresentative, we can also deal with that here in the usual way. If the history of Israel navbar is restored with invalid reason "balance" then we will need an RFC for wider editor input.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nakba

@11Fox11: Can you explain your objections to my changes in the lead? I think it is fair to mention that the Palestinians call the destruction of the agro-pastoralist society in Palestine the Nakba because it was a defining moment in Palestinian history. Is your objection only for the word Nakba?

Regarding your revert of what I called an "unimportant detail", if you think it merits inclusion can you please add a source to it? The claim has had a citation needed tag for nine years.ImTheIP (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that at the same time as removing Nakba (which ordinarily would be POV) this editor along with others is at the same time adding in to a number of articles the equally POV Israeli war of Independence for the same event. I see no problem in using either if the context is appropriate (as it is here and could equally be in the Israel article but entirely inappropriate in an article about an illegal Israeli settlement), if both are mentioned and attributed and the proper NPOV article name is also used.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the lead need to cover an Arabic POV word. This article is not about the Palestinian people, but about the history of the region of Palestine which had and has many different peoples, with the article covering some 4000 years of history. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The history of the region by necessity involves the history of its inhabitants. In Palestinian historiography "Nakba" features prominently. I don't think it is POV to mention that to the Palestinians the event became known as the Nakba for the simple fact that it is a true statement.ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing POV about the word 'nakba' any more than Holodomor. It is precisely descriptive of what happened, a 'catastrophe' and, to bristle at its use is to toe a known political position, that of Israel, which is in denial and refuses to accept the term as an accurate one for what happened to Palestinians, as ImTheIP notes.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@11Fox11: Can you please explain your edits? The stable version of the article from July did use the word Nakba: "In what is known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe"), 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes." My changes to the pages actually "softened" the wording: "known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe") to the Palestinians." If you are not happy with that, you should seek agreement for your changes, not edit when you know other editor doesn't agree with you. Because that is edit warring.ImTheIP (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

How is a "stable version" relevant to anything? "Nakba" is an Arabic word, it means nothing to 99% of Wikipedia readers and is also non-neutral. The article has a title: 1948 Palestinian exodus, which is understandable to 100% of Wikipedia readers. Why insist on Arabic words? 11Fox11 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
We are meant to educate readers, not to confine ourselves to things they already know. It is appropriate to mention the name "Nakba" because it is one of the primary names for this event. A considerable majority of books and academic articles about this event mention the word. On my computer alone there are about 350 such books and articles, so sourcing the usage is not an issue. The POV is actually the opposite; it isn't only Palestinians who call it that; the far larger group of people with sympathy for the Palestinian experience call it that too. It is not more POV than the Hebrew word "aliyah", which is used countless times even in Wikipedia's voice. Zerotalk 01:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that is what I'm thinking too. In History of Israel, we call Jewish immigration to Israel "Aliyah" which clearly emphasizes the Zionist perspective. That's a good analogy. Acknowledging that the Palestinian perspective, by mentioning the term Nakba is not too much to ask I think. After all, the Nakba is the most defining moment in Palestinian history. ImTheIP (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Map of the Levant 830 BCE

I removed this map from the page. The map appears to be a derivative of this map created in 2010 by a user named FinnWikiNo. It's a nice map but without any explanation as to why the borders are drawn where they are or what the source is, it shouldn't be in the article. ImTheIP (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have now removed it from Edom too. Elsewhere it's still in use. It has also been criticised elsewhere - and for many years now; we should centralise the issue, and the Edom talk-page would be as good a place as any. An overview of the discussions, with Edom first:
@ImTheIP and Arminden: I share your concerns and agree with the removal. Do either of you have a view as to which is the most widely accepted depiction of biblical geography from the period? I think this topic deserves its own article called Biblical cartography explaining how modern scholarship has come up with these maps given the sparseness of the source material (which I believe comes almost exclusively from just three places – the Bible, Josephus and modern Palestinian Arabic place names). Onceinawhile (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: to be honest, no, not beyond common knowledge: scholars are putting together the archaeological findings, trying to associate "pots and people" (material culture and ethnic identity), which is never a clear-cut matter, and they also interpreting the extant correspondence (royal archives to & from Mesopotamia and Egypt) and other inscriptions. The Bible is also a source, the more recent the events, the more valid it is as a source. There never were clear borders in arid regions, and the populations shifted in major ways throughout the centuries, plus the fact that similar names don't necessarily mean that the people were related (Nabatu - Nabataeans, Palistin - Philistines, etc.), so it's always tricky. That's why editors creating maps by means of research done from several sources is never a good idea, and actually a clear case of "own research". One good source, preferably mentioned in the caption ("based on...") would be best. Arminden (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
How about Finkelstein's map from 2013? Probably copyrighted, but I can recreate something like that, already have a sketch from a few months ago.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It is much better than nothing and it is better than the FinnWikiNo's map with its unknown provenance! For this article, it would be desirable if the map showed Palestine in its entirety and not just the central regions and also if the other Palestinian kingdoms were outlined, not just Israel and Judah. ImTheIP (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The map I posted is from Finkelstein's book on the Israelite Kingdom, so naturally it centers around that region. The map should reflect the political situation, so it would make sense it would show Israel, Judah, Pleshet, Moab, Edom, Ammon, and part of the northern Geshur, Damascus the Phoenician city-states. And I repeat Arminden's comment on the "Palestinian kingdom". While it is used (in an article about the Amarna period I've seen Israeli scholars refer to the rulers of the city states as "Palestinian kings"), but I would adivse not to use it, since someone might wiki link "Palestinian kingdoms" to "Palestinians" and that would not be pleasant.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bolter21, hi, in principle I happily agree, but it should be much closer to Finkelstein's map than to the current sketch. Finkelstein is highly respected (by some), but I would check if this map is a mainstream one, because more recently he and others have been in the process of rewriting much of the history of the region's Iron Age, and we should go with what's still considered the mainstream theory - not because I prefer it, but for the sake of acceptance on WP. Anyway, the issue here was not Israel & Judah, but the neighbouring states, so more space to the south (for Edom) and to the east (at least for the sake of Ammon) would be needed. The area covered by Finn's old map is very appropriate, just not the borders and a whole bunch of anachronisms. There are some sets of topographical maps available online, which are being used as a base by everybody, academics & autodidacts alike, I'm just not tech-savvy enough to deal with that w/o investing more time in it than I have. As a detail: Finkelstein does have a set of convincing arguments in favour of Judah being a vassal state of Israel, but I would at this stage definitely use the same fonts for both their names, as well as for all the other states in the region, much like Finkelstein does. And another detail: If the map is supposed to reflect the situation any time later than the late 9th century, Geshur would need to be removed. As to the copyright: I wouldn't bet me going to jail on it, but if one writes "based on Finkelstein 201..." I think it should be OK.

ImTheIP, I'm not sure what you mean by "the other Palestinian kingdoms". That idiom is never used. The term Palaestina-Palestine is much more recent than the Iron Age, and I find "Palestinian" very confusing. Do you mean putting in captions for the Philistine pentapolis capitals? Apart from that, I honestly wouldn't know what you would like to be added in terms of states. Please do elaborate. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's simple; the definition of this article is the history of the territory corresponding to Mandatory Palestine. Therefore maps should ideally show the whole territory which Finkelstein's map unfortunately doesn't. Finkelstein's map of course isn't "wrong" in any way, but a more zoomed out map which shows more of the Negev and Philistia would be preferable. ImTheIP (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, the term "Palestine" generally refers to the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, and roughly between the northern Negev and mount Lebanon. The Negev, as well as the Arabian/Syrian deserts further east in Transjordan, are never included. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant divides the Levant into four main regions: Cisjordan (Israel/Palestine), Transjordan (modern-day Jordan), Syria (nodern-day Syria with parts of Turkey as well) and Lebanon. This division is based more on research than on real historical realities since the historical realities are not really known to us and are highly debated. The territory of Israel and the Palestinian territories are surrounded by arbitrary borders, but they are confined to the field of Israeli Archaeology. Jordan is confined to local Jordanian as well as Biblical Archaeology. The war-thorn Syria and Lebanon also have two different schools of research, with different time periods and stages of research. This causes a lot of confusion since what is in Israel the "Intermediate Bronze Age" is in Jordan the "Early Bronze Age IV" and I don't think they have the same dates for beginning and ending. The map should simply show the polities we know of in the 9th century that existed in the southern Levant (i.e. Israel, Judah, Pleshet, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Geshur (with respect to Arminden's remark) and also show the southern parts of Aram-Damascus and the Phoenician city-states. The map should not be accurate, because such a map is impossible. Finkelstein's figures are usually suggestions of how the map may have looked like. My proposal, not to go too harsh trying to reconstruct the political situation because there are many more questions than answers in that matter. Instead of borders, I can try giving color to each state and simply fade it away where the sphere of influence of its king ends. Also, if I am going to make a map that is generally for the 9th century BCE, I can mark areas of conflict, such as Moab (the conflict mentioned in the Mesha Stele) and the border between Israel and Aram-Damascus. But first I'll make a map with the main cities. It may take some time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your main points. Historically, the southern frontier of Palestin was the northern Negev and the northern border either the Litani river or Mount Lebanon. Since then, the borders have shifted and Mandatory Palestine included, as you know, the southern Negev including Eliat but ended a few kilometers north of Akko. So the question is what to include in the definition of Palestine? In my opinion, the sources should decide. The Edomites are usually included in texts about Palestinian history so it makes sense for their territory to be included in maps. Same thing for at least the southern Phoenician city states whose domains also extended into Palestine. In my opinion, the area included in this map [1] is pretty good. Btw, I'm working on improving the Iron age and Classical antiquity sections of this article. Freel free to pitch in! ImTheIP (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Important note, the borders of Mandatory Palestine are almost completely arbitrary. Israeli archaeologists are moving away from the idea of "Archaeology of the Land of Israel" and for most periods, both banks of the Jordan River are treated as the same geographic and cultural region, labeled the southern Levant, which has clear geographic boundaries with the northern Levant. Therefore I think that for the Iron Age, Edom is no more important than Moab and Ammon. The article should tell the history as we know it, with an emphasis on Palestine, because you cannot understand the history of a geographic region with fixed borders and you must be flexible.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I am referring of course to the prehistoric and ancient periods. From the classical period, there is a wealth of historical record that allows for more than anthropological analysis of the trash left by the inhabitants.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't an ok solution be to just "zoom out" the map a bit? There is no harm in including some Moabite, Ammonite, or Phoenician territory, whether it would count as being inside some definition of Palestine's borders or not. ImTheIP (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Other names

In the lead there is, tagged for citation:

"Other terms for approximately the same geographic area include Canaan, the Land of Israel, and the Holy Land."

I think we could usefully have a section entitled Names or Naming, something like that, where this can be expanded (who used what name when etc) at the same time as digging up appropriate citations and then summary in the lead.

If there is no objection, I can make a start on it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It should not duplicate the Timeline of the name "Palestine". Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All the names should get some basic data, I'm not talking about a POV exercise here. I'm also OK with just deleting the uncited material and not even bothering with any of this. Whatever people think is best.Selfstudier (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I tagged it with citation needed. I don't think the sentence is untrue, but a citation would be welcome regardless. :) Also, our article on Canaan implies that it was a much larger region than "Palestine" so I wonder if it is correct to say that Canaan ~= Palestine? ImTheIP (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a more complicated question than it looks, the problem is, apart from the question of geographical extent as you point out, this also varies with when and the usage of these three (and there are others) varies with who is saying it and when. Then there are the "biblical" aspects. You could almost write a whole article about nothing but this apparently simple statement. The more I think about it, it should be removed for now (I will do) and we should keep the discussion going here for a bit until there is some more opinions about it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The main article on this at the moment is Names of the Levant. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that, that will save some work for sure:)Selfstudier (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This as well, I suppose, Greater Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo and incorrect link "Rosh Pina" linked to.

I would have fixed this myself, but it looks like everything is locked down. There is a link to "Rosh Pina" that should be "Rosh Pinna" (two 'n's) that erroneously links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Pina when it should link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Pinna.

 Fixed Wakari07 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  • This is a central article. Long paragraphs with no supporting sources should be removed.
  • When did Shoshenq I Campaign in Palestine?
  • Missing: Babylonian exile, compilation of the Torah, birth of Monotheism.
  • Word count (excluding references): 22401 words, a limit of 30k words seems reasonable.
  • Provenance of each map should be tracked somewhere. E.g. "This map is drawn by Wikipedia user XXX based on original by Real Author (YEAR) p. XY"
  • "Thematic" subsections.
  • Maps
    • Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia[1][2]
    • Jund Filastin, al-Urdunn, and Dimashq[3]
    • Crusader states, c. 1200[4]

ImTheIP (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Correction to a grammar error and a spelling error at the following locations: (1) Section: Persian Period; 9th paragraph "Their temple cult centered around Mount Gerizim competed with the Jews' temple cult centered around Mount Moriah in Jerusalem..." Correction: Change "Their temple cult centered around Mount Gerizim competed with..." to "Their temple cult, centered around Mount Gerizim, competed with..." by adding commas after the words "cult" and "Gerizim". (2) Section: Persian Period; 10th paragraph "The political pendulum swung back and forth as territory was conquered and reqoncured." Correction: Change the misspelled word "reqoncured" to "reconquered". Goman1 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of wording "final solution" in fifth paragraph

Using the words "final solution" is not appropriate and it should be changed.

Quote from the page:

In 1993, the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the PLO established the Palestinian National Authority (PA) as an interim body to run parts of Gaza and the West Bank (but not East Jerusalem) pending a final solution to the conflict.

Searching the internet for the term final solution brings up millions of hits about what this means. Final solution unambiguously refers to the killing of Jewish people.

Whoever wrote this sentence either was ignorant of the meaning of the words or has deliberately chosen this wording.

I think the wording should be changed to something like "pending a longer lasting solution to the conflict" or "pending a permanent ceasefire" or something along those lines. 203.0.3.2 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it to "permanent solution". Zerotalk 04:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Typo in Seleucid era subsection

The very first line of the Seleucid era subsection (under the Classical antiquity section) begins with: "The Seleucids defeated the Ptoleies in 201." "Ptoleies" should clearly be changed to Ptolemies.

Fixed, thanks. Zerotalk 12:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

It is said in the article that Rome annexed Palestine in 6th century BCE but I'm reality it's 63 BCE 2409:4053:307:63E2:0:0:13E5:48A0 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

2A00:A040:192:D533:40BC:3B55:8E69:CEDE (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, You can't call this page History of Palestine, because Palestenian people came from Jordanie, and here you are talking about where Knaan was and Knaan was 7 "clan" descendent of Abraham the language was Phoenician language and Hebrew. Not Arabic like the Palestinian are talking or Jordanian or Lebanese etc.... I will apreciate if u change this page or the name page because you making people wrong. Thank you.

P.S: you can check my fact in all history books.

References

  1. ^ Avni 2014, p. 26.
  2. ^ http://www.mideastweb.org/caliph2m.gif
  3. ^ Avni 2014, p. 28.
  4. ^ Asbridge 2010, p. 443.
Not done. If you want to change the title of an article, it requires a move request, not an edit request. As an IP user you are not eligible to propose one so you will need to convince someone to do it for you.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

2A10:8001:9C39:0:F163:C2BE:1F3A:EBE3 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello the page say that Palestine is over millions years old but it’s not true

 Not done: It's speaking of geologic age. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ramesses III prisoner tiles

Could you please restore this imagen? It's very appropriate for topic and section has no other images: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033186394

Thanks! 37.142.172.72 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@37.142.172.72: hi. I see you've landed twice on my talk-page and reverted again re. "Ramesses III prisoner tiles: Glass and faience inlays found at the royal palace of Medinet Habu depicting Egypt's traditional enemies. From left to right: a pair of Nubians, a Philistine, an Amorite, a Syrian and a Hittite". I have reconstructed your post, including a "signature" (which was missing) and placed it here, where it might be of some interest.

I'm not dealing with that topic, but at a first glance, "Nubians, a Philistine, an Amorite, a Syrian and a Hittite" as "Egypt's traditional enemies" on the page History of Palestine is slightly tricky, and whoever has reverted it might have a point - or not. Nubians clearly don't fit. Philistines, on Ramesses III prisoner tiles, refers to the battles preceding their settlement on the coast of Palestine, so it fits only indirectly. Amorites: the Hebrew Bible seems to use the term very liberally, for a whole host of pre-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan. The Amorites mainly inhabited regions more to the north and northeast of historical Palestine, as far as I know. I see that the Amurru kingdom disintegrated around 1200 BCE, so a little before the reign of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BCE). Hittites were indeed traditional enemies of Egypt, but they had their kingdom further north (Anatolia), with the biblical "Hittites" from Palestine only being remotely related to them, so the latter are not "Egypt's traditional enemies". Remain the "Syrians", whom you might indeed regard as synonymous, from a 12th-century BCE Egyptian perspective, with the Canaanites, but that needs to be clarified: who are the "Syrians" from the tiles? Is it a generic term, like "Asians", or is it connected to the territory of modern Syria? My my two-penny worth on the topic. Arminden (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I would also note that the identification of the people (or peoples) depicted on the Ramesses III prisoner tiles is entirely speculative. They just compared them to the Medinet Habu picture of a Peleset – the only place in all of archaeology where the name Peleset is labelled near a picture. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Palestine was named by the romans in the 5th century.

It is NOT 1.5 million years old. This is ridiculous absurd and just fictional. Fix this. Marie far30 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article and the underlying sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Page contains falsities

Palestine, or officially “Provincia Syria Palaestina,” was a name invented by the Romans in 135 CE as a replacement for “Judea,” in an effort to eliminate all expressions of Jewry in the region following the defeat of Bar Kohba in the Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire. 2600:1700:1FE0:3460:ACDB:3C61:3A4D:E4C3 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Source? Which part of the article "contains "falsities"? See Timeline of the name Palestine . Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinions Aside - This page is very misleading

Just wanted to voice my concern that, all opinions and personal beliefs aside, it’s really troubling that the entire historical portions omit Israel. There’s talk of the Syrians, Babylonians, taking control of the land. No mention at all of what lands they invaded, what civilizations they destroyed, who they fought. Israel. I know some people may not want to recognize this, but this is historical, black-and-white, scientific, archaeological, fact. The fact that it’s omitted, really sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia being factual. As a journalist, will look at addressing this on an alternate platform as well. 2A00:A040:19F:A639:F84C:D124:D91A:E57F (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You may need to re-read the article. Neither the Israelites, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, or the ancient Jewish civilization in Palestine in general has been omitted from this article. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


UPDATE

the paragraph about the "Prehistoric period" starts with the sentence; "The earliest human remains in Palestine were found in Ubeidiya, some 3 km south of the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias), in the Jordan Rift Valley. The remains are dated to the Pleistocene, c. 1.5 million years ago. These are traces of the earliest migration of Homo erectus out of Africa. The site yielded hand axes of the Acheulean type" this has nothing related to Palestinian history BUT is used to make a simple google-search such as "how long palestine existed" to make it, google, answer it wrongly with just "1.5m years ago". this is not just a coincident. yet another mockery way to spread more lies...

If you ask Google a meaningless question, you should expect to get a useless answer. Zerotalk 02:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
As the article Ubeidiya prehistoric site says, The prehistoric site is named for the historical Palestinian village of Ubeidiya. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem here is not really with the article but with Google, which is kinda out of our reach. Indeed the earliest hominid artifacts in the region were discovered near Ubeidiya, but it doesn't mean that "Palestinian history" begins in 1.5 million kya. An example that came into my mind was Cilicia, whose history, based on the article, begins in the Neolithic. This still doesn't mean that the term "Palestine" is not used to describe the land in prehistoric research. I wouldn't say the "History of Palestine" begins in some time, the Roman period, or the appearance of the Philistines, or the Canaanites, or the Neolithic or earliest Paleolithic finds. The article of Israel does exactly the same. I would argue that the article Prehistory of the Levant should be the main framework of prehistoric finds in Israel/Palestine rather than this or History of Israel or Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really concerning

The area was not known as "Palestine" (Palestina) until the 2nd century CE, when the Roman Empire tried to erase any Jewish presence in the region following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. 2600:1700:95C0:A250:5DF:745:2E42:C203 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Any references for that? Editor2020 (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
See Timeline of the name Palestine. Editor2020 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert

This nonsense

and

"Leave hate & knee-jerk at the door & you'll live longer" is the kind of editing that one should strive to avoid in WP.

This recent discussion refers to the point at issue rather than indulging in personal attacks and topic irrelevancy.Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Goman1 (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple grammatical typo corrections to the article as follows: (1) Section: Herodian dynasty and Roman Judea; 4th paragraph; 2nd sentence; Add pereiod mark after "...as High Priest" to make "... as High Priest.[199]" (2) Section: Jewish-Roman Wars; 4th paragraph; 2nd to last sentence; Change "The sheer scale and scope of the overall destruction, according to a late epitome of Dio Cassius's Roman History, where he states..." to "The sheer scale and scope of the overall destruction is described in a late epitome of Dio Cassius's Roman History, where he states..." to make a properly flowing sentence. (3) Section: Province of Syria Palestina; 2nd paragraph; 2nd and 3rd sentences; Remove period mark after word "revolt" at end of 2nd sentence and change "Though" to "though" at beginning of next sentence to make "...the Bar Kokbha revolt[228] though the ban was..." These two sentences should be just one.

 Done Huldra (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022 (2)

Grammatical typo corretion: Section: Byzantine Period; 2nd paragraph; 2nd sentence; Change "...including Mar Saba, is still in use..." to "...including Mar Saba, which is still in use..." by adding "which" after "Saba". Goman1 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

add

For the sovereign state, see History of the State of Palestine.

in the hatnote so that readers can go to that page if they're looking for the history of the country instead of the region IntoTheNightSky (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo

In the "Classical Antiquity" Section, under "Hellenistic Period", the fourth paragraph contains "king's", which should read "kings".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireship4 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Kingdoms of the Levant Map

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_of_the_Levant_Map_830.png This map has a few errors on it. There is now an updated map that is essentially the same at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_around_Israel_830_map.svg I suggest that you change the link to point to the revised map.

1. Petra is shown which did not exist at the time. The actual capital Bozrah (modern Bozairah) has been added 2. Umomium / Urmomium is a fake place name that has been removed (Ur mom... etc) 3. Ashtaroth has been added 4. Arabu has been replaced by Arubu 5. Philistine States has been replaced by Philistine City States

Please check that label for "Philistine City States" shows up. For some reason it does not show up on all thumbnails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchado (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

"Remnants of the their temple at Mount Gerizim" 80.1.114.146 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done but I used "their". Thanks for reporting. Zerotalk 05:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Typos

In 1936-1939 Revolt section: The first paragraph of this section begins "The revolt of 1936-1936" instead of "1936-1939."

In the Byzantine section: The second to last sentence in the second paragraph refers to "The eucemenical council in Chalcedon in 451"; the correct spelling is "ecumenical."

I'd fix these, but I'm currently prohibited as a "new" editor. (I'm not a new editor; I've been one for many years but apparently with fewer than 500 edits overall, which the prohibition uses as a criterion for "new editor."). Will someone of a higher caste please fix them?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopczar (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done --NSH001 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The history of Israel is a topic that started when the UK gave Palestine to the Zionist in 1948

Before that, it was the holy land or Palestine . The rest is just fake history.

Classical / Islamic Rule

What goes where. 160.72.81.106 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Belvoir Castle is incorrectly linked.

Should link to: Belvoir Castle (Israel), not Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire. Mac12t (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo in Gaza-West Bank Split section

The original text says: "The raid caused Israel to large several large-scale invasions", but this should says "launch" Flyin Hive (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

'christened' - poor use of English

Para 3 of the Overview begins "In the 4th century, as the Roman Empire christened, ..." This makes no sense. Recommend replacing with "In the 4th century, as Christianity gained momentum in the Roman Empire...' Alexwent1 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Convention of London (1840), not Treaty of 1841.

In the section on Centralization (sub-section Egyptian period), in the 4th (last) paragraph, there is a reference to the "Treaty of 1841". This is erroneous, as it doesn't match with other Wikipedia article. It should be changed to the "Convention of London (1840)" and a link should be given. The article on the Convention of London (1840) provides additional details about this period. 

   Apparently, editing access to the History of Palestine article is locked, so I can't make this repair. I hope someone with access can do so. Jetstream423 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I found a typo

In the Bronze and Iron Ages (3700–539 BCE) section, specifically the Emergence of cities subsection, near the end of the first paragraph... it says "During the last two hundred years of that period and following the Unification of Egpyt and pharaoh Narmer, an Egyptian colony appeared...". It says Egpyt and not Egypt. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:FDB8:B49B:A013:6DDD (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

OVERVIEW, END OF PARAGRAPH 4: "Palestinians [ADD were ordered by their leaders to] flee or were driven out of the territory that Israel conquered, and were not allowed to return, in an event that became known as the Nakba ("Catastrophe") to the Palestinians. Starting in the late 1940s and continuing for decades thereafter, Jews in Arab countries [ADD were persecuted, forcing] about 850,000 Jews to flee, most of which immigrated ("made Aliyah") to Israel." 77.126.93.121 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done. No sources provided and the proposed changes appear POV driven. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

In the early history chapters the choice of language implies the perpetual existence of Palestine as a territory. This is misleading. It would be more appropriate to say for example ‘modern day Palestine’ or ‘the area now known as Palestine’z

Take this section for example…

“During the Iron Age, two related Israelite kingdoms, Israel and Judah, controlled much of Palestine, while the Philistines occupied its southern coast.”

This implies Palestine was in existence and divided into three jurisdictions. That is not accurate. It would be less contentious to say “During the Iron Age, two related Israelite kingdoms Israel and Judah, controlled much of the area now known as Palestine, whilst the Philistines occupied its southern coast.”

There are citations like this throughout the text, Alexander the Great did not conquer Palestine but he did conquer territories that today make up modern day Palestine. Writing it as it is misleadingly puts Palestine into historical legacy. Wikipedia is most people’s first port of call for information. Misleading phrasing in historical articles has the potential to be incendiary.

Please could the editors consider the text in these chapters and revise the phrasing as suggested above? 77.103.30.31 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The region is customarily known as Palestine in serious literature over all historical time periods, even for time periods earlier than any contemporary name is known. This usage does not imply that there was a political division of that name; it is just a convenient way to refer to the region. Consider the multiple uses of "South America" in historical and archaeological works even though the name is quite young (much younger than "Palestine"). Zerotalk 00:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Palestine/Archive_2&oldid=1217412786"