Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:00, 3 June 2016

	History of Palestine was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 23, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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. Zero 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 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. Zero 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 04:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You added a large amount of material on exactly that subject. Explain your denial. Zero 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 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. He was a Galilean Jew and lived in Galilee and Judea. The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Most scholars agree that his crucifixion was between 30 and 33 CE.

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 He was a Galilean Jew and lived in Galilee and Judea. The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Most scholars agree that his crucifixion was between 30 and 33 CE.

Around this time, Roman Palestine...

tahc 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 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. Zero 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 20:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIRCULAR. We link to other Misplaced Pages 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. Zero 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. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDunn2003 (help)
3. Meier 1991, p. 407. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMeier1991 (help)
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. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKöstenbergerKellumQuarles2009 (help)
6. Maier 1989, p. 124. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMaier1989 (help)
7. Green, McKnight & Marshall 1992, p. 442. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGreenMcKnightMarshall1992 (help)
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. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCrossanWatts1999 (help)
10. Levine 2006, p. 4. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLevine2006 (help)
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. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKöstenbergerKellumQuarles2009 (help)

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))

Size split

It has been suggested that this page be split into pages titled History of Palestine (Ancient and Medieval) and History of Palestine (Modern). (discuss)

This page is way long; it is about 2 to 4 times as long as it should be. See Misplaced Pages:SIZERULE and so forth.

While more should be done afterward... I propose we start by WP:SIZESPLITing the article into two, such as:

• Pre-modern history of Palestine
• Modern history of Palestine

tahc 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. but the titles should be more informative. Like,

• History of Palestine till Napoleon and History of Palestine from Napoleon or
• History of Palestine to the First World War and History of Palestine since the First World War.

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:

• History of Palestine (Ancient and Medieval)
• History of Palestine (Modern)

tahc 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 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 20:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There was one support and one oppose to the proposal - it means in[REDACTED] 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:

Misplaced Pages: 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070617112914/http://www.arab.net:80/Egypt/et_fatimid.htm to http://www.arab.net/egypt/et_fatimid.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of "Palestine"

Since the Palestinian Mandate included more land on the East side of the Jordan than on the West, should the definition of the word focus on territory west of the Jordan River? Are there not two states today in that region, namely Jordan & Israel? So should the definition of Palestine be Israel + Jordan? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles