Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 6

message: According to the Arab League's website, "Palestine" is a member of the League of Arab States. However, they do not refer to it as either:
#an original member; or,
#a "country" which joined later
Rather, they say:
:"The Palestine Liberation Organization was admitted in 1976." 
So, how should the article describe this? We could be concise and say this:
*The League of Arab States lists Palestine as a member, but not as a "country". Its seat is held by the PLO.
--Uncle Ed 16:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab League

message: Can anyone comment on the claim that "Philistines" means "invaders" in Hebrew?  My Biblical Hebrew dictionary, which supposedly contains every word in the Old Testament, only gives hitpalesh = "roll in dust", not a word likely to be connected! - Mustafaa 05:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind.  I'm looking for a few veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future.  The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part.  I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account.  But in general, I'm interested in any and call comments, preferably on my talk page.  Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal 

message: It's commonly stated that a nation by the name of "Palastine" does not exist, and has not existed since 1948 before the attempted invasion of the state of Isarel.
:What point are you trying to make? Jayjg 14:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A state is not the same as a nation.  A nation has culture, language, history.  A state has government, borders.  State is objective, nation is subjective.  No state of Palestine has existed since 1948, but arguably the Palestinian nation still exists. --Zachbe 13:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably no "Palestinian nation" existed before 1948. Jayjg 15:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palastine 

message: Jerusalem - a divided city of disputed status... is "divided city" factually accurate at this time? Lance6Wins 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem - a divided city 

message: I'm not sure what "pro-Palestine" is supposed to mean. Jay just said above that Palestine is a region, not a country. Would we use the term pro-Palestine to mean actions which benefit the region called Palestine? Like, suppose Bill Gates gave $1,000 to everyone in Palestine... Would Jordanians get any of that money? How about Israelis (Jew, Arab or other)?
Or do you mean favoring the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine? 
This is an English-language encyclopedia, so you have to use words that English speakers can understand. And please read definitions of Palestine. --Uncle Ed 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link title is "Pro-Palestinian", not "Pro-Palestine", which is quite different. Jayjg 03:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "Pro-Palestine"

message: Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981. Do you dispute those facts? If so, provide contrary evidence. If not, cease your POV edits. 
Israel did not completely return Sinai territory to Egypt until Taba was returned. Do you dispute this? Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy?
The Puerto Rican Olympic team has no bearing on the Palestinian recognition by the Olympics. For that matter, why not discuss Timor Leste or Macedonia? You just keep stepping on everything you can find that conceivably impart a negative light on your beloved Israel, like the Al Mezan center for Human Rights. Your POV pushing is outrageous and reprehensible and you do this all the time, day in and day out like some traumatized Holocaust survivor. Except when you are editing pages to promote your views of circumcision(+) and Jesus(-). You seem to think your view is the only authorized view and no one else has a right to an opinion. You refuse to discuss issues and just keep pushing your POV. You have no more authority than anyone else Jayjg. You need help Jayjg, serious mental help from a competent Jewish psychiatrist, like your father. Alberuni 01:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg you persist in your edits without discussing and without evidence 

message: The article says:
During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Philistines') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922" (Mandel, page xx). However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.
Who is Mandel, and where did he say this?  What is page "xx"?  Why does the article cite him, and then immediately state he was wrong, by making a number of unsubstantiated claims and using un-defined non-English terms? Jayjg 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that, and welcome back Mustafaa; I suspect a footnote would work better.  "sanjaq" is an undefined non-English term.  And the entire sentence However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone. is unreferenced. Jayjg 17:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandel reference 

message: Cut from article:
:In Roman times, the term "Palestine" (or rather "Syria Palestina") referred to an area roughly equivalent to the geographical region today bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea, minus the Negev and plus northeastern Jordan.
I checked the link provided, and it did not mention Palestine or Syria Palestina, but rather Judaea. The reference is to a "Map of Judaea" with a tiny portion shown in red. No rivers or other details appear on this map.
I am not disputing the facts this sentence mentions, but merely saying that it is not up to Wikipedia standards of accuracy and clarity. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaea map

message: :Between 1920 and 1922, Palestine was sometimes considered to be the area bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and short stretch of ocean coastline between the latter two.
Please do not remove this port of the region's history from the article.  The future is not clear to us. about 65% of Jordanians are Palestinians.  Palestine may be established east of the jordan river.  it may be established west of the river, or cover both banks.  its is not for us to decide.  neither it is for us to eliminate history of the region. Lance6Wins 15:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920 to 1922/3 

message: The picture caption talks about the golden domed Al-Aqsa mosque? But it is the Dome of the Rock - Qubbat as-Sakhrah that is golden, not Al-Aqsa. Either replace the pic with one clearly showing Al-Aqsa (which is not golden) or change the caption to talk about the Dome of the Rock. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the picture. The article talks about the region, not Muslim Palestinian aspirations to Jerusalem, subject to negotiations. Alternatively, we can insert pictures of the Jewish holiest sites, as well as Christian, and commence a religious war here. Another alternative, we can place a page from Palestinian school textbooks about the region. I dare anyone to find a map with the state of Israel on it, then talk about "Palestinian aspirations". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Domed Al-Aqsa mosque?? 

message: Mustafaa, what do you mean by "not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories"? Jayjg 16:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories" 

message: How about adding a link to Israeli-Palestinian_conflict? (I think that article is weak, but nonetheless, it is relevant). Sivamo 21:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: link proposal

message: Syria's "encouragement" for Jews to stay was nothing more than a sham.  Jews were effectively driven out of Arab countries, either by overt force or threats of force; or by intimidation, discrimination, and the like.
:To the contrary, Syria's Jews were forced to stay there; that's one of their principal complaints against Syria.  You cannot coherently claim that the term "driving out" includes "forcing to stay"! Moreover, they left many Arab countries, notably Yemen and Morocco, where no more oppression was happening than at any other time. - Mustafaa 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll forgive the comparison, Jews were also forced to stay in Nazi concentration camps, but it would take some imagination not to characterize the few who escaped as anything but refugees.  Of course they were refugees, as were those from Yemen. --Leifern 13:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, the Jews of Syria certainly fled Syria, whenever they had the opportunity, always at great risk, and sometimes at the cost of their lives.  As for Yemen, after the partition vote in 1947 Muslims responded with a progrom, killing over 80 Jews in Aden, and destroying hundreds of homes and businesses.  In June 1948 in Morroco Muslim riots killed over 40 Jews.  Other incidents occured in subsequent years.  If the Arabs in Israel (the majority of whom never even saw an Israeli soldier) "fled", then the Jews in Arab lands certainly "fled" as well. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 14:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I agree, that's not a fair statement, but I didn't insert it that way.  I added "or were expelled" after "left" or "fled". Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish refugees

message: This is a small matter, but i find it somewhat odd that the first link on the Palestine page is Eretz Issrael and the second is Zionism. These are undoubtably related, but the message sent by having those as the first entries is blatantly pro-Israel. Furthermore, this ordering does not serve to educate people about Palestine. If someone is interested in Zionism or the concept of Eretz Israel, they will look them up. If they want information on Palestine, they will come to this page. These terms (Palestine, Eretz Israel and Zionism) are not at all symonymous. Zinnling 16:36 UTC, 7 Jan 2005
:Zionism and Eretz Yisrael are certainly topics related to Palestine, as much as any of the others.  Zionism is all about Jews returning to Palestine.  In deference to your point about POV, I've moved the links farther down the list, and replaced some red-linked "See also"s that do not exist. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 18:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of 'related topics' 

message: can we please turn this into Palestine (disambiguation) and let the article about what we normally refer to as Palestine be the main article? --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be better.  "Palestine" should go directly to what is now called Palestine (region).  I'll raise this on the Palestine (region) talk page. --Zero 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Add another vote against Palestine being a disambiguation page. -- Dissident (Talk) 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And another. It's ridiculous - like searching for Europe and getting redirect links to EUEFA, Eurovison etc. --Vjam 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, all you need to do is look at the many links that need to be disambiguated. It is patently obvious that disambiguation is needed. --Leifern 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: At the moment things are screwed up, with the article and its talk page going to different places.  I'm trying to fix it.  Consensus is for "Palestine" to point to its main page. There is no reason to treat it differently from other pages on countries or geographical regions. --Zero 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tell me what you think of my solution (see my contributions). -- Dissident (Talk) 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: What is the reason for the Arabic language to be listed first? I relisted the langs in order of historical appearance in the region: Hebrew (10+ c. BCE), Greek (3 c BCE), Latin (1 c BCE or later), Arabic (7 c CE). Please correct if I'm mistaken. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These terms, as well as others like Canaan (which I am planning to add) were used for this geographic region with changing borders. The article Spain talks about the country not geographic region. The removal of Eretz Israel won't fly because this is how Jews called it for millennia and even during the British Mandate, as can be seen from אי on the Mandatory coins. For the record, I wouldn't have a problem adding "al-Andalus" to Iberian peninsula. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "direct, relevant translations" of what? Remember we are not talking about a stable country but of a geographic region with changing borders. For at least 3,000 years, the Jews called this region Eretz Israel and to remove this toponym from Hebrew box is a POV. True, it has religious connotations but we don't describe them here in depth. OTOH, the term Palestine clearly has political connotations (even more so after creation of the PLO), that is why (א"י) was inscribed on Mandatory coins and banknotes. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is acceptable as a compromise. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages in order of historical appearance in the region 

message: Have removed the reference to the boundaries being undetermined, since this does not seem to be supported. Article 25 of the Mandate document , which was cited in support of the statement says no such thing - it provides for greater discretion in governance (a power to withold application of the Mandate) over the territory between the Jordan river and the eastern frontier. --Vjam 09:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined" which implies that they hadn't been determined yet.  However, it is hard to see what point the sentence is making and why it is important, so I'd say to leave the sentence out. --Zero 10:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it is kind of important to a section entitled "British Mandate" to know whether the boundaries were certain or not, so I'd say it should go back in if its true, but it needs supporting. I'm not sure what can be read into "ultimately determined". I'm guessing this might be about uncertainty over the future of what is now Saudi Arabia. Whatever's in there, it should be supported and clear. The phrasing in the article originally implied that all the boundaries of the mandate were uncertain - I doubt very much whether this can be supported. --Vjam 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that particular phrase was in reference to that square-shaped chunk of Jordan that points towards Iraq.  My dim memory is that its fate had not been decided yet when the mandate document was written.  The Jordan-Iraq border is still a bit uncertain today, apparently.  In 1920 there were also uncertainties about the border with Syria (see Golan Heights) but these appear not to be mentioned.  My personal opinion is that these issues were too minor and technical for mention in this article.  --Zero 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Mandate of "uncertain boundaries" 

message: The basis of this page and discussion is that it should be filled with facts that neither Palestinians nor Israelis would disagree with.  What about Turks?  Egyptians?  Romans?  Canaanites?  Why are we dividing truth amongst the two groups which currently fight over it?
Furthermore, there is an inherent Jewish bias (NOT diametrically opposed to the Arab or Islamic view) to the article as a whole.  Geography and history are termed with reference to historical Jewish representations.  The history commences and concludes (i.e. continues to the present) from a Jewish point of view.  "The Bible" this, and "the Bible" that...  Not everyone reading the article wishes it to be presented from a Jewish/Christian/Islamic point of view.
::"The Bible this" and the Bible that" because we are dealing with a region that the Bible speaks about extensively. If the article was about Troy then it would have the Iliad this and the Iliad that. If it was about Mexico then it would be the Aztec Codices this and the Aztec Codices that. Get real. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I would recommend that you register and sign your entries). At this moment, the article largely reflects edits written by someone who wanted to represent the "Arab perspective" on the article; I think the article suffers, but it's not because there's a bias - it's because assertions are made that are false and does nobody's perspective any credit. --Leifern 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove bias? 

message: Siddiqui, it is against Wikipedia policy to hold up many objections because you want some other, unrelated question asked. But for the sake of courtesy, let me address the question (I believe) you're asking.  It relates to your sentence:
:"Several names for the region are found in the Bible: Eretz Yisrael "Land of Israel", Eretz Ha-Ivrim "land of the Hebrews", "land flowing with milk and honey", "land that [God] swore to your fathers to assign to you", "Holy Land", and "land of the Lord"."
There are a couple of problems here:
* It is not clear to me what the purpose of this sentence is. I assume that you are including biblical scriptures as historical sources (rather than religious prooftexts). If we are going to discuss the various names of this area that are mentioned in biblical texts, we should include names found in other texts as well. 
* We should distinguish between descriptive names ("land of milk and honey," "the land that I promised to your forefathers") and proper names (Canaan, Eretz Israel, Zion, Judah, simply Eretz, etc.)
* Various names should have a separate section that includes not just Hebrew names, but names in other languages
* All names should be properly referenced. If they are descriptive names, there should be a good reason why they are included.
There, now can you please address our points?
--Leifern 23:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siddiqui's "initial questions" 

message: I've been thinking of incorporating a table such as below into the article. The dates need some fixing/referencing. 
 Toponyms of the Holy Land (or the Land of Israel or Palestine)
Name                         	Geographic region                                                                       	Language (pronunciation)                                  	Earliest use
Canaan                       	According to Exodus, lies to the west of the Jordan river and includes Sinai.           	he: כְּנַעַן                                              	19th century BCE ?
Canaan                       	According to Exodus, lies to the west of the Jordan river and includes Sinai.           	gr: Χανααν                                                	4rd century BCE?
Canaan                       	According to Exodus, lies to the west of the Jordan river and includes Sinai.           	ar: کنعان                                                 	7th century CE ?
Holy Land                    	?                                                                                       	he: ארץ הקדש (Eretz ha-Kodesh)                            	13th century BCE ?
Holy Land                    	?                                                                                       	la: Terra Sancta                                          	1st century CE ?
Holy Land                    	?                                                                                       	ar: الأرض المقدسة (al-Arḍ ul-Muqaddasah)                  	7th century CE ?
Land of Israel               	According to Genesis, extends from the Nile to the Euphrates.                           	he: ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael, also ... ארץ Eretz Ha-Ivrim)	13th century BCE
Judea                        	Roughly the territory of the southern West Bank                                         	he: יהודה (Yehuda)                                        	13th century BCE ?
Judea                        	Roughly the territory of the southern West Bank                                         	gr: Ιουδαία                                               	4rd century BCE ?
Judea                        	Roughly the territory of the southern West Bank                                         	la: Provincia Iudaea                                      	1st century BCE
Land flowing ofmilk and honey	?                                                                                       	he: אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ
(Eretz zavat halav udvash) 	6th century BCE
Philistia                    	Small coastal area, roughly the territory of the Gaza Strip.                            	he: פלשת (Pəléšet)                                        	11th century BCE ?
Palestine                    	A Roman province, borders varied.                                                       	gr: Παλαιστίνη Palaistinē                                 	5th century BCE
Palestine                    	A Roman province, borders varied.                                                       	he: פלשתינה (Palestina)                                   	2nd century CE ?
Palestine                    	A Roman province, borders varied.                                                       	la: Syria Palæstina                                       	2nd century CE ?
Palestine                    	A Roman province, borders varied.                                                       	ar: فلسطين (Filasṭīn or Falasṭīn)                         	7th century CE ?
Outremer                     	The territories of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other crusader kingdoms.                	(fr)                                                      	11th century CE
Rechenu                      	?                                                                                       	aeg: (R-h-n-u)                                            	19th century BCE ?
Zion                         	Originally a name of a mountain in Jerusalem, became a synecdoche for the Promised Land.	he: ציון                                                  	6th century BCE ?
#  Merneptah Stele
#  Ex.3:8
Would it be of any use here? If so, please edit right here before inserting into the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find annoying about this sort of thing is that the names are not really the same region. The borders of Canaan for example are defined in Exodus and it lies exclusively to the west of the Jordan and includes Sinai for example, the various regions called "Palestine" don't include Sinai and Mandate Palestine before Trans-Jordan was split off included much land east of the Jordan. Philistia was a small coastal area. Land of Israel according to the ideal borders in Genesis extends from the Nile to the Euphrates. Judah was roughly the southern West Bank. Why lump all these together as if they all refer to identical regions when they don't? Kuratowski's Ghost 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact so many different names are being lumped together one could even include "Syria" and "Phoenicia" as they are just as roughly the same area. To see how silly it is imagine if this was done to Spain say and the names: Iberia, Spain, Catalonia, Hispalis, Hispania, Valencia and Portugal were all lumped together as different names for the "same" region.  Kuratowski's Ghost 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case your annoyance is not with me, I share it. As we all know, fluctuating borders is the nature of the region, and this is far from being unique. Almost all borders in the world were unstable. The question is, can we systematize the toponomy of this important region over history in an encyclopedic manner. If we decide to use some kind of a table, we could add a "Notes" column. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a list of names can be produced, but would agree with Kuratowski's Ghost that the title doesn't match the table - it's really a list of historical/biblical places within the region. I'd also query the datings. Whilst it's not something I know much about, surely there can't be any historical evidence for any placename being used over 20,000 years ago (?). I'd caution against using the Bible as an authority on this, if that's where the dates come from. --Vjam 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that may be the point of the article, and perhaps an interesting one, too. The area in question only has some geographical boundaries (e.g., the Jordan River, Golan Heights, etc.), but these have corresponded to political and ethnical boundaries in varying ways in the last 3,000 to 4,000 years. This would take a lot more research to uncover, but the good news is that there are lots of historical atlases for the areas. --Leifern 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, the dates are to be fixed. Where did "20,000 years ago" come from? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 19th BCE is over 20,000 years ago, or is my maths funny? Any dates need credible citation.--Vjam 00:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your maths is funny :) 19th century = +/- 2nd millenium BCE = +/- 40000 4000 years ago Kuratowski's Ghost 23:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  millenium = 1000 years, century = 100 years. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I need a calculator...All the same, dates need standing up. --Vjam 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am adding the geographic region column. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toponyms 

message: This passage seems questionable at best:
"British terminology applied the word Palestine to the part west of the Jordan River and Trans-Jordan (or Transjordania) to the part east of the Jordan River. This terminology was applied consistently during the Mandate period and it is difficult to find any official documents that use any name other than "Palestine and Trans-Jordan" when referring to the whole area of the Mandate. Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse. (see History of Palestine, History of Jordan)."
First of all there is no sourcing given for this assertion. Secondly, the phrase "British terminology" and the general thrust of this paragraph is vague. What "terminology." By whom? There is no question that the Mandate itself applied to both sides of the river Jordan. What is the contradiction to this historic fact? 
The overall thrust of this paragraph seems to be to contradict, without evidence, a historic fact. It detracts from the neutral POV of the article and should be removed if it cannot be substantiated. Even if it can be, to say that Palestine was "considered" is not correct. It indisputably was. --Mantanmoreland 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage seems fairly clear and fairly accurate.  "British terminology" means the terminology used by the British government.  For example, starting in 1924 the annual reports from the British government to the League of Nations are titled "REPORT BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER MANDATE OF PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN" (sorry about caps).  This use of terminology was quite consistent from then on.  --Zero 17:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact the name "Transjordan" or "Transjordania" appeared quite a while before it was separately governed, as the name of  a poorly-defined geographic region (just as "Palestine" was poorly-defined).  An example from 1921 (spelled "Trans-Jordania") is here.  You can see that it refers to "Palestine and Trans-Jordania" both being included in the area of the Palestine Mandate, illustrating that even in 1921 British terminology sometimes restricted "Palestine" to west of the river.  An example of a 1921 non-government usage is here.  Official examples from 1922 are here and here.  Those are not the earliest references in the English language; for example the Oxford English Dictionary lists a usage in 1898.  --Zero 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Transjordan" had no political significance prior to the division of the Mandate.  The assertion that it did is nothing more than a blatant and rather shameless rewriting of history.  That the area was called is not relevant.  The passage in question falsely claims that the area east of the river was politically separate prior to the division, which is wishful thinking.  References to "Trans-Jordania" from 1921 indicate that that a move was underway at least 3 years prior to the division of the Mandate to distinguish between the two, but (and hopefully this doesn't come as any great surprise) that's not proof of the statement that they were never both considered equally integral parts of "Palestine", it's only proof that geopolitical changes aren't spontaneous.  That the OED refers to the area east of the river as Trans-Jordan as early as 1898 is even more moot, since at that time the area was a political nowhere backwater of the Ottoman Empire, and utterly irrelevant to the offical status of the territory once it became part of the Mandate.  That said, the more important point is that Jewish settlers went to settle "Palestine" prior to the Mandate and settled "Palestine" indiscriminately on both sides of the Jordan.  Tomertalk 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder what your point is.  The discussion above refers to geographic terminology and not to political or historical importance.  --Zero 12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Passage 

message: Fawzi Kaukji has orgenized an army called "Rescue Army" in fact it had several parts "the Syrian Rescue Army" the Iraqi one, the Lebaneese one etc... Those non palestnian iregular forces ("militants") have invaded  Palestine as Early as Jan 1948. In fact they took part in the decicive battle of Feb 1948 on Tirat Tzvi (Tirat Zvi) - after they lost that battle many Palestinians from the area just left to Jordan because they saw the lose as the first time orgenized Arab forces loosing to Jewish defenders of Tirat Tzvi.
The Arab_Liberation_Army article need to be corrected and include facts about the invasion of the army into Palestine already in early 1948 ( before  the state was decalred:  Zeq 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This apply to 1948 war as well