Talk:Palestine (geographic region)

message: I'd like to make one of those ubiquitous "article series" boxes for Definitions of Palestine and Definitions of homosexuality and similar articles which discuss problems of defining terms used in important articles. I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but one at least should be the threshold that when the meanings of terms are so problematic and thorny that it's hard to edit the articles, then we need an article about the terms. This will let us "stay neutral" so we can keep editing and contributing. --Uncle Ed 13:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating articles

message: Yes, absolutely it did. Gzuckier 14:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: British Mandate Palestine did not include Jordan, except for the years 1920-22. See, for instance, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/fd4d250af882632b052565d2005012c3?OpenDocument , a report to the League of Nations from 1936 which gives Palestine's boundaries quite clearly near the beginning.
There was no League of Nations Mandate prior to 1922. The Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified. Treaty of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of Independence and the parties signed and ratified the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Article 25 of the League of Nations Mandate excludes Jordan from the Palestine Mandate.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British mandate included Jordan?

message: Sources: Any reliable history of the region.
Pappe: History of Modern Palestine
Khalidi: Palestinian Identity
Salibi: A House of Many Mansions
Please don't change it again unless you can provide counter evidence.
 John Ball
"As Trans-Jordan became a separate political unit on May 15, 1923 and the Mandate came into force in July 1922, it is the case that Trans-Jordan and Palestine were the same political unit during the Mandate period. Thus, it is clearly the case that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine."
--This passage seems strange to me. Do you mean that the fact that it was a part of the mandate for less than a year means that it was the same political unit DURING the mandate period? If that is the case it should be stressed that it was for a very brief period. I have a feeling that the text is written in this manner to support an argument. Is there some POV hidden in this? I would change the sentence to "..the same political unit for a short time during the Mandate period. Thus, it is clearly the case that it is possible to argue that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine." or something like that.
Pertn
:This section does seem to me to be designed to make a case of some kind (possibly along the lines "Jordan is part of Palestine so Palestinians who want a state can just go there"). I'd suggest that the whole of the section needs looking at and sourcing. For now I've removed the conclusion "it is clearly the case that Jordan can be considered part of Palestine" which is POV and derived from a non sequitur. 
:This does mean that the question in the title of the section goes unanswered, but I don't really have an answer of my own that I can back up with sources (other than "don't be daft").
:--Vjam 11:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Jordan Historically Part of Palestine?

message: This whole paragraph needs to be replaced.  It is written as an argument for a particular conclusion, which we don't do here, and it also has various problems of fact. Tweaking a sentence here and there isn't going to do it.  I seem to recall that there is a better description of this issue in some other article, anyone know where? --Zero 05:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Jordan" paragraph under dispute

message: Jaakobou, in this diff you make a number of additions to the article without citing any sources. These are problematic for a number of reasons. For one, your choice of terminology is controversial. I don't think the Romans intended to insult the Jewish people by changing the name to Palestine. If they did, you need a source for that claim. You also change the title of a sub-section describing the relationship between Jordan and Palestine from a question format to a statement format, event hough this is inappropriate given the content of that section which explains how Jordan did and did not form a part of Palestine at different points in history and by various definitions. Third, you added that people are opposed to Jews and/or a Jewish state in a later section. No source for that and it's an odd statement. Please stop reinserting these POV additions which were first made by an anon and for which no sourced have been provided. Thanks. Tiamut 12:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's actually common knowledge that the romans got fed up with the jewish revolts and decided to make an example of them. changing the name of the country, killing more than a hundred thousand jews and making many slaves and dispersing them across the roman empire and declaring judaism illeagal. i've added a source and fixed up the levant history during the 1800-1900 timespan, if you feel a source is still missing for something, please add the  tag rather than delete it - everything (as far as i'm aware) is correct at this moment. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. not all anons make bad edits (and this case is a nice example), in fact - wiki is founded on the anon contribution idea and therefore people are not forced to register to make an edit. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's common knowledge, you should have no problem finding a source. But instead of offering one, you've ignored the request. Further, your edit reinserted POV and inaccurate information without addressing the points I've raised. I don't understand your obstaincy in this regard at all. I will be changing your edits once again, once I find reliable sources to add to the article so as to improve its sourcing, which is practically nil at the moment. I would appreciate it if you would self-revert the unsourced additions you have made. But I won't hold my breath. 13:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I came here from AN/I, and I have to say that while this article is overall worded in a careful and neutral fashion, the edit in question by Jaakobou prompts me to ask for citations. Specifically, for the addition of the motivation of the Romans, and second, for the expanded assertion that people not only object to a Jewish State but to Jews in general. Both of those edits create a serious sense of Anti-Judaism and/or Antisemitism on the parts of others, and should be backed up with fact. I'd also, to a lesser extent, prefer to see some higher level of citation, perhaps each section having a general sourcing, as to the varied definitions. That said, I read this article and found the overall level of care and attention in the writing to be, frankly, shockingly well done for a topic that seems like it would draw fire daily. ThuranX (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it is highly dubious, for example, referring to the "re-establishment of the State of Israel" is just silly, since the ancient kingdom of Israel was not a state, and the state of Israel was founded by a "declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel". <eleland/talkedits> 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify: the Kingdom of Israel fit the definition of a state and might well be retroactively classified as one. But it was not the same as the State of Israel founded in 1948, and nobody believes that it is. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced POV additions

message: per 
ver 1
:Before the establishment of the British mandate, most of the...
ver 2
:Before the establishment of the French (Syria, Lebanon) and British mandates in the Levant, most of the...
i'm not certain of the encyclopedic value of removing the historical note that there was a redistribution of the area (ver 2), i can understand that the subsection is called "Jordan and Palestine", but usually an encyclopedia wants to be informative and this seems like a fitting place to add this information that doesn't appear anywhere else on the article. i believe its inclusion without violating WP:TOPIC, by adding 3 words on the subject is beneficial to the project. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jordan and Palestine 

message: The romans changed the name of palestine during the greek empire to Syria!
The Arabs revived the greek name of the area ( exact palestine area with out jordan) as Jund Filastin.
ref is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.88.121 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need sources before making that edit again. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Romans did not name Palestine!!

message: The artcicle that was used as a reference that some excluded samaritans and Dom people , there is nothing like that in the artcle!!!
To the contrary the article says that samaritans are both israelii and whenthey go ro rthe west bank they are registered as palestinians.
so where this lie come from??
and where is the difinition of Palestinians according to the Palestinian authority: it clearly states all people who were living in palestine before 1918 British occupation, and all their descendents unless they renounce their citizenship. this is the only difinition I know of by the palestinians for themselves.
The difinition by the british does not count because they were occupiers . Imagine if we the palestinians invade England and decide who is english or not or who gets citizenshup or not including the queen, even if we were appointed mandate on England by ourselves ( the futuristic pax worldana league for example, do you accept that british??75.72.88.121 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, avoid attacking others with conspiracy theories. Second, if there's a source, that's generally preferable to no source. As to your comments about the palestinian citizenry, that needs citation, and not just the vague 'anyone in palestine before the british', since the borders of Palestine weren't fixed, because it wasn't a nation before then. ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Samaritans are Palestinians

message: This article is very neatly divided into two sections, one that deals with the definition of Palestine, the other deals with the definition of Palestinian.
Perhaps we should seperate this article into: Palestine (term) and Palestinian (term).Bless sins (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, I thought I'd replied to this hours ago... I typed it up, hit save... odd. Anyways, I don't think so. I think the two terms neatly compliment each other, and create a fuller definition, as the two are inseparable. I think it's a reasonably well written article overall, and to split it would set up two new messy articles which would have huge overlaps in content. ThuranX (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate 

message: The "definition" of Palestine and Palestinian SHOULD not be this difficult. People reclassify themselves and rename their nationalities all the time throughout history. Read any basic 101 on nationalism or historiography in college and things will become more clear. Basically, Italians immigrants to the United States mostly think of themselves after a few generations at Italian. Jewish European immigrants to Israel rarely see themselves as German or Romanian but instead "Israeli". Lets set aside the politics and go straight to who the people who call themselves "Palestinian" consider themselves. Some were surely recent immigrants, some have surely been there for many hundreds of years. Either way, thats NOT what is being argued here. We are simply trying to arrive at a definition as used by most of the media and the people themselves. I propose we break it into a few definitions 1) As defined by the PLO/Palestinian Authority(as the representative of ethnic Palestinians). 2)As defined by the international community (the Palestinian Authority IS an observer of the UN, etc.) and maybe add another section for "Other Uses" including European definitions (such as how Germans called Jewish populations in the 19th century the "Palestinians among us"), Palestinian Jewish defintions (some such as Uri Averny call themselves a Palestinian Jew and support a Palestinian state, others see themselves as Israeli).  This is a contentious issue and YES this is a hard debate but, lets just stop politicizing such simple terms.Achamy (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization/note on historiography

message: i propose to make some meaningful improvements to this article, which does not appear to have had much focus at all in recent years. Wikiknowledge has moved on since this article was first put together, and there is a lot of scope to make this article into a good introduction to (1) the etymology and (2) the different historical boundaries of the region. In order to make this a quality article I propose to remove the definitions of Palestinian into a separate article (Definitions of Palestinian), which although a related topic, is strictly no more related than Canada and Canadians. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope to improve and streamline article 

message: Shouldn't this page have a section for the Palestinian territories. The section that was called "Palestine as the region of the Palestinian territories" was recently renamed "Palestine as the Palestinian Authority" which I agree with because the section's scope seamed to be just about the PNA and Hams administered parts of the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and wp:Boldly add one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs some work. It looks more like something you'd see in a disambiguation page then an article, but it's a start. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian territories