Talk:History of Palestine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

History of Palestine - as separate from History of the Southern Levant

There was previously an article named History of Palestine, which was renamed History of the Southern Levant two years ago by User:Drsmoo. As such, there is currently no article for History of Palestine, making the 11 million Palestinian people the only major nationality whose national historical narrative does not have an article on wikipedia.

Wikipedia currently has many articles describing overlapping regions in this area - e.g. Palestine, Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant. These regions are all defined slightly differently, and therefore have different articles. With respect to the history of these regions, there may be other users in addition to the above-mentioned User:Drsmoo who feel strongly that the Southern Levant should have its own history article. That is fine, but that must not be at the exclusion of an article about the History of Palestine, as other users clearly feel strongly that Palestine deserves a history article - see other editors here and here and mine here and here.

The region of Palestine is seen as the "homeland" of 11m Palestinians, and in common with all other nationalisms, Palestinian nationalism views the history of the region as integral to the identity of the people. See e.g.:

• Ali Qleibo, Palestinian anthropologist: "Throughout history a great diversity of peoples has moved into the region and made Palestine their homeland: Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land. Others, such as Ancient Egyptians, Hittites, Persians, Babylonians, and Mongols, were historical 'events' whose successive occupations were as ravaging as the effects of major earthquakes ... Like shooting stars, the various cultures shine for a brief moment before they fade out of official historical and cultural records of Palestine. The people, however, survive. In their customs and manners, fossils of these ancient civilizations survived until modernity—albeit modernity camouflaged under the veneer of Islam and Arabic culture."
• Walid Khalidi, Palestinian author:"(With reference to Palestinians in Ottoman times) Although proud of their Arab heritage and ancestry, the Palestinians considered themselves to be descended not only from Arab conquerors of the seventh century but also from indigenous peoples who had lived in the country since time immemorial, including the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanites before them. Acutely aware of the distinctiveness of Palestinian history, the Palestinians saw themselves as the heirs of its rich associations."

According to google books, there are 9,000 (nine thousand) books with the title History of Palestine (as an aside, if you run the same for History of the Southern Levant, you get 4 (four)).

I therefore propose to create an article on History of Palestine, and leave the History of the Southern Levant in tact as it is. The Palestinian people have as much right as every other nationality to a wikipedia history article for their region. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bringing in info from Palestine article

1 The "History" section makes up about 75% of the Palestine article. As discussed at Talk:Palestine#History_section, this is overweight, and therefore is proposed to be reduced. As such, I have reviewed the section for information which is not already in this article, and will be moving that infomation here.

The intention is that this article contains all facts which editors have written on the History of Palestine, whilst the History section of the Palestine article contains a summary.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This has now been completed. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerry David's edits

JerryDavid89 wants to include these passages:

• The movement effected British administration of the province during World War I with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. — Since "to effect" means "to cause (something) to happen", this text says that the Zionist movement caused the British administration of Palestine. It is quite ridiculous. Besides that, Palestine was not a province, and the sentence has peculiar grammar.
• The British government was under great domestic pressure to evacuate the "troublesome province"<ref>Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 50, pp. 994-1034, 21 June 1922</ref> entirely. — The given source contains nothing of the sort, nor does it contain either of the words "troublesome" or "province".
• Bolshevism in Russia was popularly blamed on "villainous Jewish agitators", and the famous antisemitic hoax "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was widely printed in Britain and gained strong currency.<ref>Norman Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine 1945-1948", The Bodley Head, London, 2009. (p. 26)</ref> — The alleged causes of Bolshevism are irrelevant to the page, and the Protocols are at most a historical footnote since the evidence that they had a significant effect on events is lacking (i.e., it fails WP:WEIGHT).

This standard of editing is not acceptable. Zero^talk 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1) You seem to be unaware of basic historical facts. There was massive debate on the Palestinian administration in British society in the ::early 1900s - whole books and tracts have been written on the issue. On the Uganda Crisis and Beaverbrook, the Daily Express, etc.

2) Really? You have those volumes in front of you? I highly doubt it. Not only do I have access to them, but they are also quoted in Rose. ::So unless both myself and Rose are liars.... it appears you are... or at the very least, you're sorely mistaken.

3) The whole reason why the Mandate was being so actively discussed in British society was precisely because of Bolshevism and the ::Protocols. The latter were published in countless tabloids, the official newspaper of the Church of England, and eventually shown to be a ::forgery by the :London Times. "An historical footnote"? You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Your personal opinions on what constitutes an improvement to the article are irrelevant. My edits are attributable to impeccable sources. ::You have nothing to offer but your opinion. JerryDavid89 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, quote for us the sentence of "Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Fifth Series, vol. 50, pp. 994-1034, 21 June 1922" that refers to "troublesome province". Let's see who is a reliable editor here. Zero^talk 03:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see indeed. Viscount Birkenhead (p. 1014): "There are those in the press that say we should evacuate the troublesome provinces of Mesopotamia and Palestine to placate the Germans...". Humiliated, much? I expect a full apology Zero. JerryDavid89 (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So you won't mind explaining how the Hansard record of that debate doesn't appear to have it. Zero^talk 06:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Different page numbers obviously. Look, you're trying to undermine the credibility of myself AND Rose - you're not going to win. Birkenhead doesn't even appear on that page listing, so obviously there's a different system at work. Pick up a copy of Rose's book and read it for yourself. This is the second person who's thrown a hissy fit because they can't find something on Google that's in print. You just can't win. JerryDavid89 (talk) 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The page numbers for the debate match the ones you gave. It is the content that doesn't match. Zero^talk 07:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? No, I mean the page numbering system. My source doesn't say anything about Hansard. But I'm glad at least you're engaging now and not deleting contributions wholesale at your every whim. How about JSTOR or any other academic resources? You have access to those? Would you like to double-check those edits also? I encourage you, please do. JerryDavid89 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference you gave is a reference to Hansard. The pages numbers for the original printed edition are written in blue down the right side of the electronic edition and you can check that they agree with the page numbers you gave. However, I will check the printed edition tomorrow. This particular problem started when you wrote "great domestic pressure" yet even the Birkenhead statement you quote does not support that. I have access to JSTOR and most other academic journal collections. You need to always state the source where you yourself got something and never copy a citation from an intermediate source. Zero^talk 09:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The printed edition agrees with the electronic edition. The claimed statement of Birkenhead does not appear, nor any other statement of his. Zero^talk 08:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC) It doesn't appear to be in Rose's book either. Seems JerryDavid89 just made it up. Zero^talk 11:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that JerryDavid89 has been indefinitely blocked for socking, I'm going to back out most of the changes she made. Don't be misled by the apparent quality of the sources, actually she just copied them all from a single place and some of it does not even appear in the stated sources (the statement of Birkenhead and the admission to Tweedy for example). Copying someone else's sources like this is plagiarism anyway. In addition, her edits were entirely from the British=Evil point of view and dismally fail WP:NPOV. If any of the things I remove look like they should remain, we can discuss it. Zero^talk 09:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead too short

Note - The lead does not adequately summarize the contents of this article. Please expand it in preparation for a GA review. I would have reviewed it but this struck me immediately as a major issue that would risk a quick fail. Thank you for your hard work on this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice - I have expanded it as requested. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead is five huge paragraphs, without a ref in sight. Would you mind if I cut this down to just the facts that have attribution? Hcobb (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

All the info in the lead is also in the main article. All the statements are referenced in the appropriate places in the main article. They are not in the lead as per WP:MOS guidelines. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yadua the Babylonian

Per changes at Yadua the Babylonian, I propose the rename a few instances of the word "Palestine" to Land of Israel in this article. Chesdovi (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of changes at that other article - or are you joking? Land of Israel was never a political entity, only a religious conception. The Kingdom of Israel is the closest, but that was 1000 years before Yadua. Yadua and Rabbi Meir lived in Iudaea. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Palestine refers to the British Mandated Territory of that name. It includes what is Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan, not just Israel. John D. Croft (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of the Decline of the Ottoman Empire Period

The first paragraph of the Decline of the Ottoman Empire Period is perfunctory and somewhat inaccurate. Rather than engaging in what appears to be pointless edit war over whether present day territories involved in Mohamed Ali's campaign should be referred to as Palestine or Israel, I suggest that the editors involve work on fleshing out the paragraph and enhancing its historical accuracy. Also suggest that, to the extent possible, geographic territories be referred to using the Ottoman nomenclature of the time period being discussed.--Sjsilverman (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit adding information in this section on the Safed Plunder since it happened in this time period. Should I have refereed to the area as the Sanjak of Accra since it was neither Israel nor Palestine at this period in time? --DionysosElysees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

safed plunder

Could we conclude the discussion regarding sources and facts at Talk:Safed Plunder before reinserting contested text and sources in multiple articles. Copying all the sources listed there, when there reliability is being challenged on the talk page there, and pasting them here is unproductive. Tiamut^talk 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the incident is rarely mentioned at all even in book length histories of Palestine, the case for including it here is pretty weak. Zero^talk 22:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. but I did not want to remove it completely until seeing what comes up in the research for it at Safed Plunder. I thought it was strange though that it was mentioned and the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestinewas not, until I added a brief a sentence yesterday. Tiamut^talk 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Map of the Levant c 830

The current Map[1] is fairly garish. There is a derivative of this map here[2] that is essentially the same, but a lot easier on the eye. I suggest replacing the map unless there are any objections. Dlv999 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

1517, 1660, and 1834 pogroms/massacres in Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias

Several editors are exhibiting a pro-"Palestinian" bias in favor of keeping this article clear of any mention of the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1660 destruction of Safed, and the 1660 destruction of Tiberias. The original dispute with inclusion of these events especially the Safed Plunder was the source issues those articles had which have since been rectified. DionysosElysees (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Dionysos" you go all over different articles posting this same claim, even at the articles you link to the discussion pages on them show that even using the 19th century term "pogrom" there is not substantiated by the facts available.Historylover4 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Dionysos you would bring up only the two Palestinian cities of Safed and Tiberias, and mention Jewish immigrants that had been allowed to come to these cities from Europe by either the Mamluk or Ottoman rulers of Palestine. And in every case were you would charge "mass killing" or something supposedly occurred; a quick check of the wikipedia page showed this was not the case at all. There was only ever some small amount of killing in different fighting often in the 1660s in a Druze power struggle in the Galilee, and only a small amount of Jewish immigrants from Europe (who again had been allowed by the different Muslim rulers controlling Palestine to settle, after immigrating to Palestine mostly from Europe, in two specific Palestinian cities Safed and Tiberias, and even in these two cities Jews were a small minority) were killed and many would return to these two cities (Safed and Tiberias) after periods of fighting and return to their normal lives similar to how rulers of these two cities would themselves; note for example Daher el-Omar.Historylover4 (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has almost the same scope as History of Israel

This article has almost the same scope as History of Israel, till you get to the mid twentieth century, and even then the scopes are extremely slimmer, Should they be merged, or something (maybe the new name could be something like "History of the land of Palestine")? Or alternatively maybe the scope of History of Israel could be reduced to history sense the mid twentieth century, with a hatnote pointing to this page. It seams like having two articles for almost the same thing would cause a lot of wasted effort. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The second option makes sense to me. nableezy - 19:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the similarity in scope between the two articles is a problem. The issue was raised before here, but no consensus could be reached, unfortunately. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could treat this like History of Korea, and have a History of (the land of) Palestine be before the mid-20th century, and have two histories (one Isreal, and one West-bank/Gaza strip) for sense the the Mid-20th century. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. See the most recent discussion of this at Talk:History_of_Israel/Archive_3#Major_refactoring. It would take a major community push to reach an agreement on a single name for the article which covers the history of the region, given the strong views involved. Palestine has been the only geographical name covering the whole region since history writing began, but there have been other names for sub-regions (notably Judaea) during certain periods, and Rabbinic texts primarily used the metaphor "Land of Israel" (I.e. Jacob).Oncenawhile (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Palestine has been the only geographical name covering the whole region since history writing began". False. The term wasn't in common usage for centuries until it was revived (in the West) in the 18th century. For most of the period it was in actual usage (usually not as the exclusive name for the region or even the most used one), the Negev and parts of the Gallilie were not considered a part of it.

What Jayjg said in the discussion linked to above is still relevant. Allow me to quote: This has nothing to do with "duplication" or any of the other issues raised, because it is well known that the Jewish history of (and presence in) the Land of Israel was just a minor aberration in the long history of Palestine, that those paltry few centuries of Jewish hegemony mean little, if anything. No, the real concern here is that the usaly exclusive colonialist product of "European Zionism" not be allowed to usurp a history that has little, if anything, to do with Israel or its citizens (including the 20% of them who are Arab, and the further 40% who are descended from Jews from Arab or Muslim lands). Therefore, rather than focusing on the pretext for this discussion, it would probably make more sense to focus on the actual "issue" - what will we call the History of Palestine/History of Israel/History of the Southern Levant/History of the Levant article (if there is to be just one such article), and ignore the sideshow. Furthermore, we must consider whether having, for example, History of India/History of Pakistan/History of Bangladesh articles, all with considerable topical overlap (before the modern era) is actually a problem at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the state of Israel is beyond the scope of this discussion. The article about the History of the Jews in Israel/Palestine is History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, not History of Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we might already have that push. If follow the precedent of Palestine, Palestinian territories, and Israel, then History of Palestine should be about the land in general (not any particular nation), and History of the Palestinian territories about the West Bank and Gaza strip. The precedent isn't so clear on History of Israel, but to duplicate History of Palestine would defeat the purpose here, so we'd probably make that primarily about modern Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can do allot to follow that precedent with very little effort

History of the Palestinian territories was a redirect to this page, but I've re-targeted it to Palestinian territories#History primarily because this article's scope is far broader then the territories. That takes care of "History of the Palestinian territories".

Would anyone object if I added a hatnote saying "This article is about the history of the Palestine/Israel region. For the history of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see History of the Palestinian territories", like to the one the Palestine article. The scope of this article seams to be the region anyway. This wouldn't quite take care of this article because the Israeli period section is written as if the article were about the territories, but that's just one section that needs cleaning up in an article that's otherwise about the region (maybe relevant PT content could be merged into Palestinian_territories#History).

History of Israel is tricker. I don't have an easy to implement answer for it like I do for the other two. My suggestion that it's scope be reduced to primarily the history of modern Israel (with relevant Palestine content merged into this article) stands. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No one's objected, so I'll add the hatnote. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Israeli period section

The "Israeli period" section section largely, if not mostly treats this article as if it were the History of the Palestinian territories article, especially the the "21st century: sub-section, which seams to be almost entirely about the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prehistory section?

Should we include a prehistory section? Prehistory of Palestine might be of help in making one (It's very impotent to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you import content tough). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge with History of the Southern Levant?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge request was: no clear cut consensus on the merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Should this article be merged with History of the Southern Levant? The articles seem to mostly have the same scope. They talk about the same empires and states, and what they did in mostly the same peace of land. The articles present almost the same information. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - "History of Palestine" should describe the modern history of modern Palestinian geopolitical entities (All-Palestine administration, Palestinian Authority, Hamas-ruled Gaza and possibly the State of Palestine, when officially recognized by the UN).Greyshark09 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing this proposal once again, i would like to be sure i understand correctly - is this article to be merged into "History of the Southern Levant" or the Southern Levant history article be merged into this one?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Hi Emmette, see my comments above on this topic. I agree with your underlying point, but you should be aware that the reason it hasn't been done to date is because of likely opposition from certain editors who suggest that Palestine doesn't have a history (see e.g. TelAviv's incorrect and insulting commentary at Talk:History_of_Israel#This_article_has_almost_the_same_scope_as_History_of_Palestine). I think it would be easier to simply amend the scope of the History of the Southern Levant article so that it really covers the "Southern Levant" rather than the current situation where it really just covers Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion would be rather difficult to implement. From Palestine:"Palestine is a [...] geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. [...] The region is also known as [...] the Southern Levant. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the same reasons Greyshark09 mentioned. WP ist not a tool for political agendas and this suggestion seems to be of this kind. — 91.49.250.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC).

A most confusing article, accompanied by a most confusing requests to merge!

Just so we are clear, the name Palestine was created on the political geography of the Eastern Mediterranean littoral (geographic region) some 800 years after the philistines disappeared from history as a distinct population. Wikipedia says so "In 132 CE, Hadrian joined the province of Iudaea with Galilee to form new province of Syria Palaestina, and Jerusalem was renamed "Aelia Capitolina"." How than can the region have a 'history' a priori to its existence?

"Levant", Wikipedia says, "The term Levant, which first appeared in English in 1497, originally meant the East in general or "Mediterranean lands east of Italy"." For all intents and purposes the name was again applied to "The French Mandates of Syria and Lebanon, from 1920 to 1946, were called the Levant states." Before then they were of course parts of the Ottoman Empire and not known as Palestine or even rendered as such in Turkish.

The entire Ottoman period from conquest to 1830 is covered in Wikipedia by two short and virtually unreferenced paragraphs that are continued with Bilad ash-Sham history. It seems that for much of this time the coast from Latakia in modern Syria to the Jerusalem Hills was a single administrative area of Vilayet Beirut, and that to the south a Sanjak of Jerusalem governed directly from Istambul. In Europe, for Christian Biblical scholars, it remained Roman Palestine, early Byzantine period included. There is a very curious map in the article captioned ""Independent" Vilayet of Jerusalem shown within Ottoman administrative divisions in the Levant after the reorganisation of 1887–88", but how could this be if the Ottomans were not under occupation of the French?! In fact the redrawing of administrative borders and creation of the Beirut Vilayet only occurred in 1840 after the Ottomans prevailed over the Egyptian invasion.

Can anyone offer a rational reason than why this article is soooooooooo long, and includes periods during which the politico-administrative entity did not exist?Crock8 (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it's parent page Palestine is about the geographic region not just a politico-administrative entity. The Palestine region has a long history. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crock, see Timeline of the name Palestine, and you will understand. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Palestine isn't the whole Levant, it's the southern Levant. The Northern Levant is Syria, but the Ottomans used the word "Syria" to refer to the whole Levant. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Emmette Hernandez Coleman - Palestine can not be a 'geographic region' because geography "is the science that studies the lands, the features, the inhabitants, and the phenomena of the Earth." Until 1453 the Byzantine Empire and throne continued the claims of the Roman Church to the province, and although long under Islamic control, it retained the association and insisted on the name of the now Muslim-occupied lands. In the Christian Europe the 'Holy Land' and 'Palestine' were synonymous reference to the Biblical association. Whether its language of origin is Hebrew or Greek, the name can not be geographic, not even referring to the human geography since all agree that the original philistines of the Jewish scriptures had become extinct long before the arrival of Greeks on that coast. Quoting Herodotus is pointless because though his writings can be dated, his data can not be dated! He is well known for the synthesis of knowledge without the understanding of the location in time of his subjects, and often a poor understanding of space also. Its a problem of Greek sources that persisted with Ptolomey who calls the entire coast of Syria, Libania.

Note that the name Palestine is not clearly defined even as late as 1735 when one French traveller includes it in the Levant title "Mémoires du Chevalier D'Arvieux, Envoyé Extraordinaire du Roy à la Porte, Consul d'Alep, d'Alger, de Tripoli, et autres Echelles du Levant. Contenant ses voyages à Constantinople, dans l'Asie, la Syrie, la Palestine, l'Egypte, et la Barbarie, la Description de ces Pais, les Religions, les Mœurs, les Coutumes, le Négoce de ces Peuples, et leurs Gouvernemetis, l'Histoire naturelle et les événemens". Of course Constantinople had disappeared from use in the Ottoman Empire several hundred ears earlier, but the name continued in use in Europe which still hoped to recover both it, and the rest of the 'Christian lands'. The inclusion of Alger and Tripoli as the Echelles du Levant (ports of Levant) again suggests that rather than the 'north' and south' Levant of the Eastern Mediterranean coast, the European Early Modern conception of Levant was an area covering virtually the entire North African coast, and that of Asia Minor also, i.e. the Eastern half of the Mediterranean in its greatest extent. It was therefore a trade region, and not a geographic one. Levant entered usage in direct competition to the Venetian Occident, and both entered English usage as the English and Dutch attempted to wrest business from the French and Venetians/Genoans for the "Asian" market. This borrowing is fairly common where economic/political geography is concerned. Anatolia is a Greek name for Asia Minor that remains today Anadolu.

You would be better to present a case for the Human Geography and the human, political, cultural, social, and economic aspects by association, but this is my point....there is no continuity, the continued use of the term not withstanding. By this, the discipline calls for a continuity in discrete palestenianness of the human, political, cultural, social and economic populations. For this there is also an article Palestine (region), but it is likewise bereft of this data.

@ Oncenawhile - I don't really see the point of the article Timeline of the name Palestine. It is simply a collection of references to the term, predominantly in European sources. Its the only article of its type in Wikipedia. Is it not more appropriate to use the references in this article? Crock8 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

From Palestine: Palestine [...] is a [...] geographic region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. The region is also known as the Land of Israel [...], the Holy Land and the Southern Levant, and historically has been known by other names including Canaan, Southern Syria and Outremer.

From Levant: The Levant [...] is a geographic and cultural term referring to the region of the "eastern Mediterranean littoral between Anatolia and Egypt". The Levant includes most of modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Cyprus, Hatay Province and parts of southeastern Turkey, some regions of northwestern Iraq and the Sinai Peninsula." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

<proposal>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in History of Palestine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Palestine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Jesus: The Sermon on the mount: a theological investigation by Carl G. Vaught 2001 ISBN 978-0-918954-76-3 pages xi–xiv
• From Caesarea Maritima: Hohfelder, R. 2007. “Constructing the Harbour of Caesarea Palaestina, Israel: New Evidence from ROMACONS Field Campaign of October 2005.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36:409-415.
• From History of Iran: "Who's in Charge?" by Ervand Abrahamian London Review of Books, 6 November 2008
• From Napoleon: Sudhir Hazareesingh, "Memory and Political Imagination: the Legend of Napoleon Revisited." French History, 2004 18(4): 463–483
• From Essenes: Josephus (c. 75). The Wars of the Jews. 5.145.
• From Dead Sea: The first article al- is unnecessary and usually not used.
• From Norway: "The Judiciary". Norway.org. 2009-06-10. Retrieved 2010-01-27.
• From History of Saudi Arabia: David Murphy, The Arab Revolt 1916-18: Lawrence Sets Arabia Ablaze, Osprey Publishing, 2008
• From East–West Schism: Heaven and Hell in the Afterlife. Aggreen.net. Retrieved on 2012-06-02.
• From Historicity of Jesus: Sanhedrin 43a.
• From Constantinople: Rosenberg, Matt. "Largest cities through history." About.com.
• From Muawiyah I: Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship
• From Jews: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/
• From Palestinian right of return: Text at WikiSource.
• From Mount Ebal: Peake's commentary on the Bible
• From Saka: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland-page-323
• From Palestinian National Authority: "Palestinians to renew U.N. statehood drive in September". Al Arabiya. 4 August 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-26.
• From History of Kuwait: Anscombe 1997, p. 
• From First Council of Nicaea: The Seven Ecumenical Councils:112-114
• From Theodor Herzl: London Daily Mail Friday November 18, 1898 "An Eastern Surprise: Important Result of the Kaiser's Tour: Sultan and Emperor Agreed in Palestine: Benevolent Sanction Given to the Zionist Movement One of the most important results, if not the most important, of the Kaiser's visit to Palestine is the immense impetus it has given to Zionism, the movement for the return of the Jews to Palestine. The gain to this cause is the greater since it is immediate, but perhaps more important still is the wide political influence which this Imperial action is like to have. It has not been generally reported that when the Kaiser visited Constantinople Dr. Herzl, the head of the Zionist movement, was there; again when the Kaiser entered Jerusalem he found Dr. Herzl there. These were no mere coincidences, but the visible signs of accomplished facts." Herzl had achieved political legitimacy.
• From Great Seljuq Empire: Savory, R. M. and Roger Savory, Introduction to Islamic civilisation, (Cambridge University Press, 1976 ), 82.
• From Eusebius: Wallace-Hadrill, 12, citing Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.8; Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.11.
• From Israeli Jews: http://www1.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2009n/11_09_208b.doc
• From Caesarea: Government of Palestine, Village Statistics, 1945.
• From Justinian I: Procopius, De Aedificiis, vi. 2.
• From Second Temple: Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, Leen Ritmeyer, Kathleen Ritmeyer, 1998
• From Pompey: Beard, 16: for comments on Pompey's 3rd triumph, see also Plutarch, Sertorius, 18, 2, at Thayer [3]: Cicero, Man. 61: Pliny, Nat. 7, 95.
• From Umar: Al Farooq, Umar, Muhammad Husayn Haykal Chapter no:1
• From Titus: Josephus, The Wars of the Jews III.1.2
• From History of Azerbaijan: Vladimir Minorsky. A History of Sharvān and Darband in the 10th–11th Centuries.
• From Gandhara: The races of Afghanistan Being a brief account of the principal nations inhabiting that country By Henry Walter Bellow Asian Educational services Page 73
• From Ottoman Empire: Stone, Norman "Turkey in the Russian Mirror" pages 86–100 from Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy edited by Mark & Ljubica Erickson, Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 2004 page 95.
• From History of antisemitism: Steven Beller (2007) Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction: 28-9
• From Ancient Macedonians: Hesiod. Catalogue of Women, Fragment 7.
• From Antioch: Annales Herbipolenses, s.a. 1147: A Hostile View of the Crusade
• From Kingdom of Judah: 2 Chronicles 16:1
• From Charlemagne: Dutton, Paul Edward, Charlemagne's Mustache
• From Solomon: Talmud Bavli; tractate Sanhendrin; page 21b
• From Hamas: Civilian death toll rises after second day of air strikes The Guardian (UK), December 29, 2008
• From Nazi Germany: The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6(figure of 13.7 million includes 2.0 million deaths in the annexed territories which are also included with Poland's war dead)
• From Beit She'an: 3
• From Split of early Christianity and Judaism: Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on St. Paul
• From Roman Empire: Harris, "The Nature of Roman Money," in The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans, n.p.
• From Möngke Khan: Christopher Pratt Atwood Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol empire, p.579
• From Ancient Rome: [4] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. VI, Chapter XXXVIII.
• From Golan Heights: Y.Z Blum "Secure Boundaries and Middle East Peace in the Light of International Law and Practice" (1971) pages 24–46
• From History of Lebanon: "Security Council receives Mehlis report; Annan condemns new assassination in Lebanon". Un.org. 2005-12-12. Retrieved 2012-08-14.
• From Ramesses III: J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Part Four, §§423-456
• From Cyrus Cylinder: Llewellyn-Jones, p. 104

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)