Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tagging

Chesdovi needs to attempt a justification for all the tags added to this article today, or they will be removed. Can I please ask anyone commenting on this article overall to first review the external references section of the article, in particular:

• Jacobson
• Feldman
• Gerber
• Also, Edward Said's A Question of Palestine

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that you have gathered from early sources, however these being only translations. i.e. I doubt very much whether in Jewish Midrash the word Palestine appears. It is only referred to as such by the translator, but does not appear in the original text. It seems in this case, it appears only in the notes. The whole page needs to be based on tertiary sources. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:PSTS, which says that articles should be based primarily on secondary sources whilst primary sources can be used with care so long as any interpretation is supported by secondary sources.

This article is based primarily on secondary sources - in particular, the four listed above. Where primary sources have been used, no interpretation is given - only the source quote.

To your point on the midrash, you only needed have read the secondary sources above - see e.g. Feldman who says "...the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 90.6), commenting on the word "land" in Genesis 41:54, presumably as Krauss mentions, reflecting official nomenclature, explains that the reference is to three lands in the region - Phoenicia, Arabia and Palestine."

Nice talking to you as always. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To my amazement, I have checked the original Hebrew midrash text and lo and behold the word Falastini indeed appears! So I am sorry and acknowledge that I should have checked first. Thanks is also due, as now I can use this piece of infomation elsewhere. Regards and speak to you soon, Chesdovi (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure - thanks for letting me know. Speak soon. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though Chesdovi was mistaken in this instance, his general point is valid. Very few traditional Jewish sources use the name "Palestine". A few years ago I asked a friend who is an expert on this sort of thing, and he came up with these examples of "Palestine" or "Palestinians":

• 3-4 uses in Midrash Rabbah
• one quote from Midrash Rabbah around 1300 CE
• R' Saadya Gaon (around 900 CE) in his Arabic commentary to the Torah
• R' Ashtory HaParchi (around 1300CE) in his travel book Kaftor VaPerach calls the city of Ramleh "Palestine" (this is known from non-Jewish sources too).

Zero^talk 04:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

IP 74.240.225.109 has just added the following: "It is important to note that the root is traced to a meaning that means, "usurper" or "invader", and that the Biblical Phillistines did not refer to themselves by that name. This is how the term "invaders" is spelled in Hebrew: פולשים. It has the same F/P-L-S semetic root. It is a fact that is routinely ignored by Palestinian nationalists, who are either too ignorant, or afraid of the truth. In reality, it is beyond amusing that any modern people would choose to refer to themsleves as "invaders". Why on earth would you willingly refer to yourself in your own language, by a term that literally means "invaders", and was a deragatory term used by a non-Arab people to refer to another non-Arab people who are completely unrelated to you? That makes no sense.<http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php>" Can anyone provide a reputable source for any of this? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This claim of the origin of the word "Philistine" (by Zionist propaganda) is not supported and only thrown out by "Biblical scholars" and even the root itself is not certain at all and can possibly mean migrant as well. The real scholarly view (putting aside so-called "Biblical scholars", an oxymoron to be sure) is the following that Philistine comes from "Jacobsohn and supported by others, is that the name derives from the attested Illyrian locality Palaeste, whose inhabitants would have been called Palaestīnī according to normal grammatical practice". And this fits with the other scholarly fact about the title Caphtor where the Philistines are said to be originally from according to the "Bible" that "Scholars variously identify the land of Caphtor with Cyprus and Crete and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean." Illyria is around the generic term eastern Mediterranean and the Philistines movements are impossible to document other than again somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean so it could very possibly be a Philistine migration from Illyria (the Balkans, modern day Albania, etc) were they started out and then say Crete or Cyprus and then to Canaan (Palestine).

Also being called something by someone else and having the word stick is not "unique" at all in world history anyway even IF this propaganda claim the person above posted from an infamous Zionist propaganda source was supposedly "true" at all. Just see for an unrelated example (that makes this point) the word "Christian" being something enemies of what the New Testament says were the Apostles of Jesus, first called the "Christians" as an insult in Antioch and the name stuck clearly Christianity; Acts 11:26- ... And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (KJV)

And then just finally to conclude, Palestinians are shown to be mostly related to the old indigenous people of the land (in this Canaan, Palestine, Israel, etc) as even Israeli academics and geneticists have largely acknowledged themselves http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2000/10/30-01.html. The whole issue about Palestinians being Semites or Arabs today has to do with them having been Arabized culturally and linguistically, regardless of where the Philistines (who most certainly have given DNA to the Palestinians as the Palestinians have the DNA of all the people who have lived in the region throughout history be they Philistines, Canaanites, Israelites, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Mamluks, Kurdish Ayyubids, etc etc). If one holds say Jewish people to the statements this piece of Zionist propaganda mentiond above gives, then even according to Zionist mythology and the "Bible"; the Hebrews (putting aside nobody on earth can prove if they are descended from the Biblical Abraham much less most Jews who have lived with and intermarried in Europe in particular for centuries) the Hebrews themselves won't have originally been Semites as Abraham is said in religious lore (in particular the Bible) to have come from Ur (Iraq) which was not a Semitic place at that point either. Just see the Sumerian language in old Mesopotamia it wasn't Semitic! Meaning even Abraham, the Patriarch admired by three world religions, would not have been Semitic himself even and would've had to undergo a process of being turned Semitic culturally and linguistically (as terms like Arab, Jewish, are not "races" they are cultures and linguistic groupings, obviously more so Arab then a term like Jewish which just denotes a follower of Judaism and one can convert to the religion of Judaism, etc)Historylover4 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

For a start where are your sources for this claim of Palestinians being decedents of Peleshet or Philistines that you mention above? Secondly your use of the term "Zionist propaganda" is rather telling seen as anyone who supports the self determination of Jews in the world is technically a Zionist. For your information there is no Cabal of "Zionist Elders" and Zionism is only a dirty word to Islamists and antisemites on both the extreme right and the extreme left. 82.25.201.64 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the biggest load of islamist propaganda I have ever seen. 69.22.242.52 (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Regardless of being Zionist or not, the fact the root PLŜ comes from "INVADER" is even supported by the Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A9. --Wolfman12405 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a reliable source for our purposes and anyway the Philistines are not mentioned there. On the other hand, whatever use is made of the "invader" theory today, I don't believe it is a Zionist invention. It comes from the days when every word in the bible was provided with a Hebrew etymology regardless of how strained it was. Scholarship has moved past that point. Zero^talk 01:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The root of the name "philistines" comes from PLŠ (פלש)

which in both Canaanite and Hebrew (a Canaanite dialect) means: "Invader" (פולש). ANYONE WHO SPEAKS HEBREW, YES EVEN NON-ZIONISTS, KNOWS THIS! all u haters - Try to hold ur breath if it makes u feel uncomfortable, because NON-ZIONIST GENETICISTS have also found that the "palestinians" are not homogenous group and that most of them are identical to arabians unlike Jews, Druze and lebanese for instance.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance disagrees:

James Strong (2009). Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson Publishers. p. 1559. ISBN 978-1-59856-378-8. H6428 palas; a primitive root; to roll (in dust):— roll self, wallow self.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, one needs to be careful with modern (and even Mishna) Hebrew - modern concepts, such as invade (as opposed to war), are often grafted onto prior roots. These are the non-Philistine attestations in the bible - all of which are wallowing/rolling in dirt -

1. אַֽל־תִּשְׂמְחִ֤י פְלֶ֙שֶׁת֙ כֻּלֵּ֔ךְ כִּ֥י נִשְׁבַּ֖ר שֵׁ֣בֶט מַכֵּ֑ךְ כִּֽי־מִשֹּׁ֤רֶשׁ נָחָשׁ֙ יֵ֣צֵא צֶ֔פַע וּפִרְי֖וֹ שָׂרָ֥ף מְעוֹפֵֽף׃
2. הֵילִ֤ילִֽי שַׁ֙עַר֙ זַֽעֲקִי־עִ֔יר נָמ֖וֹג פְּלֶ֣שֶׁת כֻּלֵּ֑ךְ כִּ֤י מִצָּפוֹן֙ עָשָׁ֣ן בָּ֔א וְאֵ֥ין בּוֹדֵ֖ד בְּמוֹעָדָֽיו׃
3. בַּת־עַמִּ֤י חִגְרִי־שָׂק֙ וְהִתְפַּלְּשִׁ֣י בָאֵ֔פֶר אֵ֤בֶל יָחִיד֙ עֲשִׂ֣י לָ֔ךְ מִסְפַּ֖ד תַּמְרוּרִ֑ים כִּ֣י פִתְאֹ֔ם יָבֹ֥א הַשֹּׁדֵ֖ד עָלֵֽינוּ׃
4. הֵילִ֨ילוּ הָרֹעִ֜ים וְזַעֲק֗וּ וְהִֽתְפַּלְּשׁוּ֙ אַדִּירֵ֣י הַצֹּ֔אן כִּֽי־מָלְא֥וּ יְמֵיכֶ֖ם לִטְב֑וֹחַ וּתְפוֹצ֣וֹתִיכֶ֔ם וּנְפַלְתֶּ֖ם כִּכְלִ֥י חֶמְדָּֽה׃
5. וְהִשְׁמִ֤יעוּ עָEthnopunk (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)לַ֙יִךְ֙ בְּקוֹלָ֔ם וְיִזְעֲק֖וּ מָרָ֑ה וְיַעֲל֤וּ עָֽפָר֙ עַל־רָ֣אשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּאֵ֖פֶר יִתְפַּלָּֽשׁוּ׃
6. בְּגַת֙ אַל־תַּגִּ֔ידוּ בָּכ֖וֹ אַל־תִּבְכּ֑וּ בְּבֵ֣ית לְעַפְרָ֔ה עָפָ֖ר (התפלשתי) [הִתְפַּלָּֽשִׁי]:

Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems more likely that the Egyptians were referring to the Peleshet as the 'Sea People'. An unknown people who came from the Aegean, often taking prisoners, or engaged in wars with Egypt and only really known about due to Egyptian records. There is no real connection proven between the Peleshet and later Philistines, if they even exist.

I find it troubling that the source for the term is the Tanakh.

For example, a page from the online Jewish Library "then the name is believed to be derived from the Egyptian and Hebrew word peleshet, which appears in the Tanakh no fewer than 250 times. Roughly translated to mean rolling or migratory, the term was used to describe the inhabitants of the land to the northeast of Egypt – the Philistines. The Philistines were an Aegean people – more closely related to the Greeks and with no connection ethnically, linguistically or historically with Arabia – who conquered the Mediterranean coastal plain that is now Israel and Gaza in the 12th Century BCE."

The article even contradicts the page on Philistines. The reference and usage here is tenuous at best and should be removed, since its really just an attempt to place Palestinians in Egypt as an alternative to a well-known foundation story surrounding the Hebrews and the Bible in order to fulfil the objectives of replacement theology. See also Supercessionism. Ethnopunk (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"just an attempt to place Palestinians in Egypt" — in decades of reading on this topic I have never heard of this interpretation. I think you are on the wrong track altogether. Zero^talk 04:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

genesis 21:34 needs inclusion

Genesis 21:34 refers to Abraham dwelling in Palestine, used to refer to the entire country, and should be referenced as it would predate the rest of these sources.129.215.130.11 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Added as requested. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Genesis 21.34 refers to Abraham living "in the land of the PLISHTIM for many days". In Genesis 21.32, Abraham and Abimelekh having "made a treaty in Beer-sheba", Abimelekh then "left [Beersheba] and returned to the land of the PLISHTIM". Ts-lin09 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with lack of context of pre-Hadrian usages

There may be a lack of context problem with the way the pre-Hadrian "Palestine" uses are presented. While it's interesting to give a complete (and they do look fairly complete) list of Greek/Roman citations, they could mislead the casual browser to think that "Palestine" was common pre-Hadrian, it wasn't. It's misleading that Strabo's non-use of the term is not mentioned given Strabo is the main Herod-the-Great era geographical source on the area.

“Palestine” did not come into official use until the early second century ad, when the emperor Hadrian decided to rename the province of Judaea; for its new name he chose “Syria Palaestina.”49 The new name took hold. It is found thereafter in inscriptions, on coins, and in numerous literary texts.50 Thus Arrian (7.9.8, Indica 43.1) and Appian (Syr. 50), who lived in the second century ad, and Cassius Dio (eg, 38.38.4, 39.56.6), who lived in the third, referred to the region as “Palestine.” And in the rabbinic literature “Palestine” was used as the name of the Roman province.

— The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa 2006 p37 Getzel M. Cohen

The article needs to show more clearly that "Palestine" jumped from not being a very common name for the region to the common name with Hadrian. Inserting a comment on Strabo would be a good way to do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem in principle, but I don't find in any of the three sources you gave a clear statement that Strabo never used the word. I only found statements that Strabo used "Coele Syria". Did I miss something? If not, it seems like original research. Zero^talk 04:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What I've seen in this historical account is an evidence based record of what this land has been called in a timeline throughout history, not to "mislead the casual browser to think that "Palestine" was common pre-Hadrian" as what you're saying is that there is evidence in the article that states that the name Palestine was a common name pre-Hadrian, show where in the article that makes a clear indication of someone making a case that the name Palestine was a common name pre-Hadrian as all I see is an evidence based article, not an opinionated, preachy one.

You must also understand that what you're saying is misleading as you're making a statement that is not backed by evidence, that "mislead the casual browser to think that "Palestine" was common pre-Hadrian, it wasn't." do you have any evidence that supports that the name "Palestine" was not a common name of this land pre-Hadrian? If not, was this only based on your opinion? As if you make this sort of statement without evidence you could mislead people into believing something that is not true, as what if many people of this area referred to this area in their dialect as their variation of the word "Palestine"? Is your concern with only the Greek/Roman or do you also disagree with the Assyrian dialect "Pa-la-áš-tu", "pa-la-as-ta-a-a" or ancient Egyptian "P-r-s-t"? Can you give a good argument to delete most of the article to only show Hadrian and onward or have another opinion that should be apart of this article? Maybe you want to add to the article that "We don't mean to mislead you to believe that this land was called "Palestine" pre-Hardian? What's your goal? Tell us it and maybe it can be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkL22137 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

sources missing

There are two references to "Lewis, 1993" but no such source is identified. Similarly for "Kaegi, 1995", "Sharon, 1988", "Marshall Cavendish, 2007", "Lassner and Troen, 2007" and "Room, 1997". Maybe others too. I guess some things got lost in past page splitting. "Studies in Hellenistic Judaism ：Louis H. Feldman" needs page number. Zero^talk 12:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The details for most of the short citations seem to be available in the Bibliography section of the Palestine article so they could be copied over if there is agreement to include this material. The crystalinks source doesn't look like it qualifies as an RS. I can't tell what the Jastrow 2005 is meant to be as the link doesn't go anywhere. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language link doesn't go anywhere useful. The enotes ref is a circular Wikipedia reference. I don't have any view about whether this material should be included (other than that the unsuitable sources should be replaced) but I've watched the edit warring over this material develop. I hope Tritomex stops trying to put it back until the issues are resolved and there is consensus for inclusion. Tritomex, please can I encourage you stop returning this material to the article until all issues have been resolved and there is consensus.Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

.<http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php> Most of my previous information's are given here as well. If my previous sources are questioned (although my previous source provided much deeper perspective to the etymology of the name Palestine, I can use this source too. I don't think that I should agree in self-censorship, as I gave valid links to all facts mentioned.As the books are currently unavailable I will replece part — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

palestinefacts.org is a self-published web site that fails WP:RS. We can't use it here, and we aren't allowed to copy sources from places like that either. [1] is entirely out of the question as it is a wikipedia mirror. There is only one thing that needs fixing in the article as far as I can see. When the Hebrew usage of the word Peleshet is mentioned in the lead, the word "Philistines" doesn't appear; that seems to be a mistake. Zero^talk 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation

By my count, Tritomex has violated WP:1RR three times, and has refused to attempt to gain consensus for the proposed addition. I would note that I warned the editor two months ago about WP:ARBPIA. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology - the whole article?

There have been repeated attempts to add an "etymology" section to this article. The proposed section says that the word Palestine means the Biblical Philistines, and that these Philistines were not Arabs or Semites. The section does not make any sense in this article for the following reasons: (1) This whole article is about etymology. Having it begin with a section on one person's interpretation of where the word came from is absurd (2) The sources being the Seattle Times and Palestine Facts are not experts in etymology, they are experts in politics (3) This article is not the right place to talk about who the Philistines were, where they came from, or what they called themselves (4) Focusing only on the biblical interpretation, versus the whole history of the word (which began in Egypt, before the bible was written) is not NPOV. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree except that Palestine Facts is not expert on anything. It is just some private propaganda site that obviously fails RS. One thing that can be added to the article (though not in this way) is an expert opinion of how the name "Palestine" came into English. When I get a chance, I'll cite the Oxford English Dictionary for that. Zero^talk 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote on my talk page: Seattle Times is a reliable source, they frequently publish scientific articles, and unless anyone here wants to go to the RS noticeboard and gain consensus disproving them as such, the reference should stay. The origin of the name has nothing to do with the modern definition, it is a sourced fact, and attempts to conceal that are plain agenda pushing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it is you who has to justify the insertion. I having nothing against the Seattle Times as a newspaper, but it is embarrassing to have a newspaper feature used as source in an article that otherwise relies on professional historians. The article already has a whole section on the Philistines. If you spend some time looking at serious sources, you will find that nobody knows what "Peleshet" originally meant, or even if it was a Semitic or Indo-European word. You will find that scholars have many different theories. You will also find that "Kaftor" is usually taken to mean "Crete", but that isn't known for sure either. These questions belong at Philistines anyway. Zero^talk 09:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The burden requirement has been fulfilled by providing a reliable source, now it's up to you to discredit what has been already established as credible... or are you suggesting I need to reinvent the wheel every time another editor has doubts against established consensus? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hearfourmewesique, I understand that your comments are made in good faith, but what you said on your talk page suggests you think there is not good faith on the other side? I find this hard to understand - please could you respond to each of Zero's points in his post above as it might help us understand where you are coming from. Also please have a look at the External References in this article. And please explain exactly what part of the Seattle Times article is saying something different to what is currently in this article - personally I don't even understand what specific point you are so focused on. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rabbinical refs

Rabbinical literature is full of apophthegms that express the positive passion of the teachers of Israel for the soil, the air, the water, the physical being of the national land. 'Whosoever walks four cubits in Palestine is assured of the world to come.' 'It is better to dwell in a Palestine desert than to live in a land of plenty abroad.' 'To live in the land of Israel outweighs all the commands of the Torah.' 'The air of Palestine makes men wise.' 'Even the chatter of Palestine is worthy of study.' 'Palestine is the microcosm of the world.' 'Rabbi Abah used to kiss the rocks of Palestine. Rabbi Chazah used to roll in the dust of Palestine.' The whole doctrine of the rabbis in regard to the national home is summed up in the sentence: 'God said to Moses, "the Land is me and Israel is dear to me. I will bring Israel who is dear to me to Land that is dear to me.' Here is the triple thread which is Judaism -- God, the Jewish people, the Jewish land. What the rabbis taught and felt, the Jewish people believed and felt. Quotes from here should be added [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.50.114.94 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy with respect to pre-135 A.D. uses

At a minimum, the Pausanias reference seems to be inaccurate, since Pausanias referred to Judea as being "above" Palestine (i.e. in the hills inland from the coast), and not "in" Palestine. The Greek words huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης "above Palaistine" can be seen at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0159%3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D9 . As far as I can tell, among those who had specific knowledge of the area (as opposed to those dependent on secondhand reports from coastal-sailing merchants, at a time when Judea did not extend to the coast), the word Παλαιστινη / Palaestina predominantly referred to the coastal plain area (old Philistia) before 135 A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of Philo and Josephus' uses then?! They were Judeans / Jews. If you want to understand this you should read the Jacobson reference. He states very clearly "In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense." Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your quote, I have added a translation used by two unrelated specialist scholars in to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pausanias again

The article seems to be completely rewritten (and have a different title) since I left the remarks above, but it still omits the fact that Pausanias refers to the Hebrews as being "on" or "above" Palestine (i.e. living in the hills inland from the coast -- the coastal plain being the commonest meaning of the term Peleshet/Palaistine before 135 A.D., especially among those who knew the area firsthand). See the Perseus@Tufts link above... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi AnonMoos, did you see the scholarly sources I added to support the translation?

To your second point re "commonest meaning ... before 135 AD" you are incorrect - the sources here show that clearly. I suspect what you mean is "commonest meaning as used in the bible", in which case you would be right if you judged commonness by "number of uses of the word" and wrong if you judged commonness by "number of books the word is used in". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources here only show anecdotal evidence the term was used. Does any of them explicitly support this was the common term, or is that just what this article is designed to lead a reader to believe? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi NMMNG, I think you might misunderstand the debate here (the first point). My second comment was as an aside - we do not write this anywhere in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what those are, or whether they're supposed to be loose indirect paraphrases or actual translations. Click on the box on the Perseus site if you want to see what was printed in the famous series of green-backed books -- which was definitely a direct translation, and says "above Palestine"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Zionist propaganda

All references to Zionist propaganda must be removed as deeply offensive. 'Zionists' do not publish false information. The Torah commands the Jews to not bear false witness, the Koran commands Moslem's to use Al Teqiyya (false witness)in the furtherance of Islam. Who would you believe? John, London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.78 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to HistoryLover's comments above? I'm not sure whether that breaches policy, I defer to others on that. I am sure however that your last sentence was obscene racism, and is totally unacceptable here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about "obscene racism" (whatever that means), but it's pretty dumb, since taqiyya is mainly a Shi`ite thing, while the majority of Muslims in the Levant and Egypt are Sunnis -- and taqiyya actually mostly deals with dissimulation for self-protection in the face of persecution, anyway. There's plenty of lying in the claims of some Arab nationalists (the "map on the wall of the Knesset" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam) but I'm not sure whether there's more lying than in other forms of nationalist historiography, and the great majority of it has nothing to do with Qur'anic doctrines... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. My reference to obscene racism is based on the user's suggestion that adherent muslims are untrustworthy. His inference is as clear as daylight, and there is no place for such absurd generalisations about any race, religion or peoples in wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit by Mainstreamegypt

User:Mainstreamegypt added a new source (here in "A Commentary on Herodotus") in order to justify the statement: "Scholars are divided on whether his usage of the term only refered to the coastal strip (Philistia)".

Having read the source, it is silent on this question, and the user is making an WP:OR argument from silence. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed the Google books link, but Herodotus did use the word Palaistine to encompass Judea. However, since Herodotus appears to have gotten his information from coastal traders, and knew almost nothing about inland areas in that part of the world (he was certainly dismally ignorant about Jews), this therefore provides very little evidence as to how someone with more solid and detailed knowledge of the area (inland, not just the coast) would have used the word. As the usage of Pausanias etc. suggests, the more knowledgeable people often tended to use the term mainly to refer to historic Philistia, (i.e. the southern coastal plain), which is also the etymologically original meaning of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article title

I think it is illegal to use "" tags in wikipedia article title. Anyways shouldn't the name be Etymology of Palestine ?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymology has more to do with ultimate name origins... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess then it should be Name of Palestine, in accordance with other articles titled "Name of <country>".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of those are redirects to etymology sections of main country articles. Zero^talk 22:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

GreyShark you had it right, Etymology of Palestine. -- Etymology is the correct term = "A history of a word". Please punish AnonMoos. He is trying to hide the existence of this page and corrupt wikipedia, on many "Palestine" talk pages, he is posting that Hadrian invented the name Palestine after exiling the Jews 135CE. AnonMoos in on a Religious Crusade to keep this article from coming to light. -- 20:19, 31 January 2014‎ User:DigDeep4Truth

Whatever -- I haven't edited this article at all, as far as I remember. What I have done is call attention (on this talk page) to a highly-relevant quote from Pausanias, which the self-appointed apparent article "owner" refuses to include. And it's nonsense to say that the Emperor Hadrian "invented" the word Palestine, and I never claimed any such thing. Instead, I pointed out that before about 135 A.D. the word most commonly meant the southern coastal plain (i.e. Philistia), and that some of those who extended the meaning of the word beyond the coastal plain were those who were most ignorant about anything inland (this includes Herodotus). The emperor Hadrian made the previously less-common extended meaning of the word official in Roman administrative terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You opposed Greyshark09 's insightful Motion to fix the article title and blocked his Motion recognize this article as an "Etymology of Palestine" -- "The History of a Word". And even though you have read this article you posted on Multiple other Palestine related Talk pages that Palestine did not exist before Rome and Jesus. DigDeep4Truth (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your wrath would appear to be misdirected, since I've had basically zero influence over the text of the article up to this point. And if this article were renamed "Etymology of Palestine", then it would be much more narrowly focused on the ultimate origin of the term, and there wouldn't be too much to say other than that it was came from the name of the "Philistines", of unknown original meaning. The word Palestine or slight variants of it certainly goes back to 1000 B.C. or so, but before 135 A.D. it more commonly meant "Philistia" than "Palestine" in the modern sense... Furthermore, I've removed pointless and meaningless remarks of yours which are in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lassner and Troen quote

The sentence from Lassner and Troen in the lead "Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arab caliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible" is incorrect / misleading. They do not "offer a different view" to that of Moshe Sharon. The source states simply that Muslim geographers made the etymological connection to the Philistines, but the source does not say either (a) that this connection was made at the time they first started calling the region Jund Filastin, or (b) that the making of this connection was the reason they called it Jund Filastin. Frankly, we don't even know who the Muslim geographers being referred to were and / or when they wrote.

Removing the WP:OR synthesis of "offer a different view" makes the sentence redundant, as the fact that some geographers who happened to be Muslim at some point made a possible etymological connection between Filastine and the Philistines does not appear notable, at least not without more specificity regarding who / when / what context. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are definitely better sources for etymologically connecting Palestine to the Philistines. For example, as Moshe Gil has pointed out,* the connection was made by Epiphanius, who died in 402 CE, well before the dawn of Islam. Citing a 2007 work to make a similar point smacks of WP:RECENTISM. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

*Gil, Moshe (February 27, 1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge University Press. p. 113.

Article purpose

What is the actual purpose of this article? IMHO it is nothing more than an attempt to establish a "Palestinian" claim to SW Asia through a name that may or may not fit any of the current inhabitants thereof. The whole subject is fraught with controversy yet nothing is said of this controversy in the article. Things like all the above differences on where Filistia actually was at any one point. Just saying.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To provide a list of historical references to the name in English, in line with scholarly studies on the subject from at least the last 300 years. See the bibliography section: e.g. Reland, Noth, Gerber, Jacobson and Grief.

The controversy is about the name in Hebrew, not the name in English. It is referred to in the article in the entries for 1920, 1926 and 1936.

To my knowledge there is no controversy about the name in English, and none of the scholars in the bibliography refer to one.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Degen Earthfast, you make a Straw man claim that this article is something that it is not —If the cited sources do have "differences on where Filistia actually was at any one point" then this article is truly a fraught-full "attempt to establish a 'Palestinian' claim to SW Asia". 96.28.43.27 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

MM edits

To clarify (its a bit hard to tell), in the first paragraph I added the identification of Peleset with the Philistines by scholars, the hebrew word for the Philistines, and the region of the Philistines as described in the Hebrew Bible. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please self revert as you have crossed 1RR.

Then please explain ALL of the parts of your edit, one by one, on this page. Much of what you added contradicts properly sourced material already on this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Current	MM edits
In the 20th century the name was used by the geopolitical entities commonly known as "Mandatory Palestine" and the "State of Palestine". Both incorporated geographic regions from the land commonly known as Palestine, into a new state whose territory was named Palestine.	In the 20th century the name was used by the British to refer to "Mandatory Palestine", a mandate from the former Ottoman Empire which had been divided in the Sykes–Picot Agreement. The term was later used in the eponymous "State of Palestine". Both incorporated geographic regions from the land commonly known as Palestine, into a new state whose territory was named Palestine.

@Monochrome Monitor

1. Why did you remove the term 'geopolitical entities' ?
2. Are your edits appropriately concise for the lead section ?

96.28.43.27 (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tacitus. Removed for discussion

• c.100: Tacitus, Histories: In describing Palestine, Tacitus says that in all it productions it equals Italy, besides possessing the palm and the Balm of Gilead (Hist. 5:6).
• Tacitus isn't discussing 'Palestine' in this passage. He is discussing Judea/Samaria, the Jewish part, which he locates with Arabia to the east, Egypt to the south, Phoenicia and the Mediterreanean sea to the West, and Syria to the north.
• 'in all its productions it equals Italy' is crap, a dog-Latinist garbling of the original.

Rari imbres, uber solum: exuberant fruges nostrum ad morem, praeterque eas, balsamum et palmae. Tacitus, Histories IV:6

'Rains are rare; the soil is fertile: its products are like ours, save that the balsam and the palm also grow there.'

I.e., Judea produces all the things Italy produces save for balsam and the palm.Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that regional geography is a moot point, the following wry note is on regional geography;

salubria: this and uber solum would refer more especially to Galilee. Judaea itself was far less fertile, although a 'land of milk and honey' in contrast with the surrounding deserts. (Cornelius Tacitus (1898). The histories of Tacitus. Macmillan. p. 272., Image of p. 272 at Google Books)

96.28.43.27 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Lrm

The bot, User:Yobot, removed ‎ from "פלסטיני‎&#8206;". What is the correct use of Unicode Character 'LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK' (U+200E) ? -thanks 96.28.43.27 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC) and copyedit 96.28.43.27 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider using {{Lrm}}. -- Yobot (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Palaestina ex monumentis

Per Adriaan Reland's Palaestina ex monumentis. (Reland, Adrien (1714). "CAPUT VII. DE NOMINE PALAESTINAE". Hadriani Relandi Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata: tomus I [-II] (in Latin). Vol. 1. ex libraria Guilielmi Broedelet. pp. 37–42.) p.37 The country that the Jews inhabited was called Palestine. i. The hebrew writers, Philo, Josephus, et al. who have used this name. ii. פלסטיני (Palestine) in ancient Jewish writings. p.38 iii. The name is used by gentile Greek & Latin writers. iv. From nummary specimens, "PALESTINA" is read, but poorly. v. Christians commonly used the name. In passages from; Eusebius, Jerome, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Epiphanios & other productions. vi. Among Mohammedans, this name is also known. vii. The Palestine region inhabited by the Philistines, is commented upon. Quod ad Judaeos attinet. Philo of Alexandria, On Abraham: The country of the Sodomites was a district of the land of Canaan, which the Syrians afterwards called Palestine. Philo of Alexandria, On the Life of Moses: Palestine, which was at that time called the land of the Canaanites, the borders of which country were three days' journey distant from Egypt. Josephus quoque, licet nomine Palaestinae plerumque intelligat regionem a Philistaeis inhabitatam, tamen Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, libro viii. cap. 4. etiam terram Israëliticam nomine Palaestinae Syrorum videtur complecti, scribens τῶν ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ Σύρων nullos circumcidi exceptis Judaeis. [262] φησὶ δὲ καὶ Αἰθίοπας παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων μεμαθηκέναι τὴν τῶν αἰδοίων περιτομήν: ‘Φοίνικες γὰρ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ ὁμολογοῦσι παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων μεμαθηκέναι.’ δῆλον οὖν ἐστιν, ὅτι μηδένες ἄλλοι περιτέμνονται τῶν ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ Σύρων ἢ μόνοι ἡμεῖς. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἕκαστοι λεγέτωσαν ὅ τι ἂν αὐτοῖς δοκῇ. (J. AJ 8.262 ) "The Ethiopians learned the rite of circumcision from the Egyptians, with this addition; that the Phoenicians and Syrians that live in Palestine confess that they learned it of the Egyptians." Yet is It evident that no other of the Syrians that live in Palestine besides us alone are circumcised. But as to such matters let every one speak what is agreeable to his own opinion. (Antiquities of the Jews.8.4) p.39 Nathan ben Jehiel, Arukh: R. Nathan in Lexico Aruch  פלסטיני Παλαιστίνη [Palestine] in the Genesis Rabbah. In Genesis Rabba 90.6, ויהי רעב בכל הארצות: בשלש ארצות בפנקיא ובערביא ובפלסטיני [There was famine in three lands: Phoenicia, Arabia, and Palestine]. In Lamentations Rabba (Midrash Echa Rabbati) Folio 67, column 2 (דוכס דפלסטיני) Dux Palaestinae [Palestinian duke]. Gentes quoque, & in iis scriptores Graecos, hoc nomen usurpasse liquet ex Dione Cassio, & aliis. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, lib. XXXVII. ita de eo disserit, Ταῦτα μὲν τότε ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ ἐγένετο· οὕτω γὰρ τὸ σύμπαν ἔθνος, ὅσον ἀπὸ τῆς Φοινίκης μέχρι τῆς Αἰγύπτου παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ἔσω παρήκει, ἀπὸ παλαιοῦ κέκληται. Ἔχουσι δὲ καὶ ἕτερον ὄνομα ἐπίκτητον· ἥ τε γὰρ χώρα Ἰουδαία καὶ αὐτοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ὠνομάδαται· [17] Ἡ δὲ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐκ οἶδ´ ὅθεν ἤρξατο γενέσθαι, φέρει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ὅσοι τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἀλλοεθνεῖς ὄντες, ζηλοῦσι. 37.16-17 Illa quidem tunc in Palaestina gerebantur. Ita enim antiquitus tota illa gens vocabatur quae a Phoenice usque ad Aegyptum juxta mare internum extensa est. Habent et aliud nomen adscititium: regio enim ipsa Judaea, pouli Judaei nuncpantur. Hoc cognomen unde origem acceperit ignoro. Certe etiam illi qui ex ea gente non sunt, modo secundum leges eorum vivant, Judaei dicuntur. (This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. [17] I do not know how this title came to be given them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs.) p. 127 & Roman History, 37.16 Julian, Against the Galilaeans: That little tribe ...(Jews) who lived in one part of Palestine. Photios, Bibliotheca, on Aristides: "Non alieni ab impiorum Palaestinorum moribus." Photius; Hoeschel (David); Schott (Andreas) (1653). Photiou Myriobiblon, e bibliotheke. p. 661. Images of p. 1311 at Google Books {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) → 158. Phrynichus the Arabian, Rhetorical Equipment → Aelius Aristides compares Cynic philosophers—whom he is denouncing—to “those impious men of Palestine" who “do not believe in the higher powers,” and that they resemble the Christians because they too “have defected from the Greek race, or rather from all that is higher.“ (Aristides, Orationes:3.671) Judaeos vocat τῆς ἐν Παλαιστίνη δυσσεβείς [ασεβείς] impios Palaestinae incolas (the wicked inhabitants of Palestine). Latini quoque scriptores, tum in soluto tum ligato sermone, hoc nomine usi funt. Cicero meminit regionis Palaestinorum. Flavius Vopiscus, "Divus Aurelianus (Life of Aurelian)" in Augustan History. p.40 Statius, Silvae: Latian prince hath bestowed the standards of the East and the bridling of the cohorts of Palestine. Silius Italicus, Punica: While yet a youth, he shall put an end to war with the fierce people of Palestine. Ovid, Fastis: "When Jupiter took up arms to defend the heavens, came to Euphrates with the little Cupid, and sat by the brink of the waters of Palestine. Ovid, Metamorphoses: ...Dercetis of Babylon, who, as the Palestinians believe, changed to a fish, all covered with scales, and swims in a pool. Ovid, Metamorphoses: "There fell also Mendesian Celadon; Astreus, too, whose mother was a Palestinian, and his father unknown. Adde Nummos Veteres, uti Vespasiani cum Inscriptione PALESTINA IN POTESTATEM P. R. REDACTA. Ex qua Inscriptione PALESTINAM, non PALAESTINAM, esse scribendam quidam censuerunt. Sed quum iisdem illis nummis inscripta quoque haec sint DE JUDEIS, & in aliis legatur JUDEA CAPTA, etiam Judei scribendum esset, non Judaei. Sed & ejusdem commatis nummi hanc Inscriptionem PALAESTINA praeferunt, & Graece [Palaistina] constanter scribitur, non [Palestina]. In aliis tamen nummis est etiam PALESTINA COLONIA P. R. & in aversa facie TRIUMPH, DE IUD. Christianis autem, tum primis ecclesiae Christianae doctoribus tum aliis, in frequentissimo usu est Palaestinae nomen. - Patrologia Graeca Jerome, Hieronymus on Ezekiel: iuda et terra israel ipsi institores tui in frumento primo; balsamum et mel et oleum et resinam proposuerunt in nundinis tuis. (lxx: iudas et filii israel isti negotiatores tui in frumenti commercio et unguentis; primum mel et oleum et resinam dederunt in nundinis tuis). uerbum hebraicum 'phanag' aquila, symmachus et theodotio ita ut apud hebraeos positum est transtulerunt, pro quo septuaginta 'unguenta', nos 'balsamum' uertimus. dicitur autem quibus terra iudaea, quae nunc appellatur palaestina, abundet copiis frumento, balsamo, melle et oleo et resina, quae a iuda et israel ad tyri nundinas deferuntur. Origen, Commentaries on Job: "in regione Arabiae et Palaestinorum asini, qui veloces sunt similiter ut equi." Anonymi [not-Origen] (1844). Carl Heinrich Eduard Lommatzsch (ed.). Origenis Opera omnia quae graece vel latine tantum exstant et ejus nomine circumferuntur. Vol. XVI. Anonymi in Job commentarius. Adamantii de recta in Deum fide. Sumtibus Haude et Spener. p. 24. John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty: "Did he [Abraham] not endure hunger in a foreign land? Did he not, like a wanderer, move continually, from Babylon to Mesopotamia, from there to Palestine, and from there to Egypt?" p.41       p.42 Theodoret, Commentary on the Psalms (59): Ἀλλοφύλους μέντοι καλεῖ τοὺς Παλαιστι νοὺς ἡ θεία Γραφὴ, οὐχ ὡς τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν ὁμοφύ λων ὄντων, ἀλλ' ὡς τῶν ἄλλων μὲν ἀφεστηκότων, τούτων δὲ οὐ μόνον ὁμόρων ὄντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ με ταξὺ κατοικούντων. (01712) Alienigenas apellat Sacer Codex Philistaeos, non ita ut aliae gentes censeantur posse dici ejusdem generis cum Judaeis, sed quod aliae gentes longius distent a terra Israëlitica, Philistaei non tantum finitimi sint, verum etiam inter illos habitent. Theodoret, Commentary on the Psalms (82): Ἀλλοφύλους οἱ ἄλλοι Φιλιστιαίους καλοῦσιν ἑρμηνευταί· οὓς ἡμεῖς ὀνομάζομεν Παλαιστινούς· οὗτοι γὰρ μόνοι καταλειφθέντες ἐκ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Χαναὰν, καὶ παρὰ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ οἰκοῦντες, εἰκότως ἀλλόφυλοι διαφερόν τως ἐκλήθησαν. (05067) Alienigenas alii interpretes Philistaeos appellant, quos nos nuncupamus Palaestinos. Hi enim solí ex genere Chanaan relicti et juxta Israëlem habitantes merito alienigenae potissimum nuneupati sunt. (The other translators give to foreigners the name Philistines, whom we call Palestinians: they were the sole survivors of the race of Canaan and dwelt alongside Israel, and so most of all were rightly called foreigners.) Theodoret, Commentary on Jeremiah (47): ἀλλοφύλους δὲ καλεῖ τοὺς τὴν Ἀσκάλωνα, καὶ τὴν Γάζαν, καὶ τὴν Ἄζωτον, καὶ τὴν Γὲθ, καὶ τὴν Ἄκκαρον οἰκοῦντας. (03677) Alienigenas appellat incolas Ascalonis, Gazae, Azoti, Gath et Accaronis.

Edit Log: 96.28.43.27 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC) 74.138.106.1 (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Several items are not yet parsed out or translated from Palaestina ex monumentis. Chapter 7. Palestine. Take a crack at it, as you may. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying Units of measurement

There are two occurences of lieues in the article which are currently referenced as "French: lieues", giving no hint on what it means. This pre-1789 Revolution unit of measurement has no meaning but for a handful of French reading scholars. I propose to change this for a link to League_(unit)#France, which would help further understanding of what it means. Input request as this would remove the present "French:" annotation. --kozaki (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree and if possible use the silent form of the template {{lang|fr|lieues}} 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Create a link between Palashtu and this article!

Palashtu seems to be the more probable form, but WP has decided to give precedence to Palastu: Palastu, not Palashtu, is automatically linked to this article! Several other articles use Palastu. I suggest at least ALSO creating an automatic link between Palashtu and this article. Arminden (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Arminden

You don't need to suggest. It's called be bold. Click the Palashtu redlink and paste there the same source text as in Palastu. trespassers william (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Vespasian coins

Thanks to IP 96... for bringing the Vespasian coin references. This is really interesting, because it seems to contradict the common view that Palestine was not an official Roman name prior to 135. I have seen a number of references to these coins in old books written between the 17th and 19th centuries, but not in modern books. I also can't find any photos of these coins. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

General Info

• PALESTINIAN CITY COINS
• 1797 Britannica:Roman Coins, a-x
• 1797 Britannica: Roman Colony Coins
• Roman province of Armenia, the Roman Senate issued coins: ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P.R. REDACTAE
• Obelisk of Montecitorio: Aegypto in potestatem populi romani redacta soli donum dedit

96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC) && 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not here: Vespasian+Pal compare +IVD

Curiously, there is one not-ruled-out-as-1st-C-ce inscription from Caesarea: [3] trespassers william (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I now removed this. For the record:

* c.70: [[Vespasian]], Coins stamped ''PALESTINA IN POTESTATEM P. R. REDACTA''<ref>Reland, Vol 1, p40: "Adde Nummos Veteres, uti Vespasiani cum Inscriptione PALESTINA IN POTESTATEM P. R. REDACTA. Ex qua Inscriptione PALESTINAM, non PALAESTINAM, esse scribendam quidam censuerunt. Sed quum iisdem illis nummis inscripta quoque haec sint DE JUDEIS, & in aliis legatur JUDEA CAPTA, etiam Judei scribendum esset, non Judaei. Sed & ejusdem commatis nummi hanc Inscriptionem PALAESTINA praeferunt, & Graece [Palaistina] constanter scribitur, non [Palestina]. In aliis tamen nummis est etiam PALESTINA COLONIA P. R. & in aversa facie TRIUMPH, DE IUD"</ref> and ''PALESTINA COLONIA PR'' (Populi Romani)<ref>{{cite book|author=M. CHRISTIANUS FRIDERICUS |title=Specimin philologiae numismatico-latinae|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6NNVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA103|year=1708|page=103|quote=Image of [https://books.google.com/books?id=6NNVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA103&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U20Rs_KL1Az-LqCX0y6S6FZW_I9zw&ci=80%2C860%2C830%2C332&edge=0 p. 103] at Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Rasche|first=Johann Christoph|title=Lexicon universae rei numariae, veterum|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Brf4hFSEMsAC&pg=RA1-PA417|accessdate=21 January 2016|year=1787|publisher=Gleditsch|pages=417–418|quote=Image of [https://books.google.com/books?id=Brf4hFSEMsAC&pg=RA1-PA417&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3NUmrQ5JNRvlyPlTMtewGGIWssGw p. 417] at Google Books}}</ref>

The refs are from 1649, 1714, and 1829. Needless to say the interest in Palestine didn't diminish after that. If someone wants to explore Reland's opinion in French rather than Latin, here.

Here someone said the phrase was of a Trajan coin: [4], and as linked above, there is certainly a coin "ARMENIA ET MESOPOTAMIA IN POTESTATEM P.R. REDACTAE". Palestina might have been conflated into this text. It would also be strange if the Empire issued both this and Judaea Capta coinage. BTW, Check out the paragraph about acceptable forgery of medals in early modern time, here. trespassers william (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I looked in a lot of places. Already the Lexicon ref says it's suspicious, and Lepsius ups this : [5]. It appears nowhere on newer catalogs or in a heap of monographs about Roman Palestine and the like. You know, an answer might be more interesting than a revert. trespassers william (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to document the use of the name Palestine or the ethnonym/toponym Palestinian?

Because some of these quotes mention "Palestinians" and not "Palestine", which makes the whole endeavor feel motivated more by modern nationalism. History of the term "palestinians" would also be interesting, but without context it's not appropriate to hyperlink to modern Palestinians (as is done twice in this article), as the term has meant Syrians and Jews. However, quotes where Jews are referred to as Palestinians are not included. There needs to be a standard or else anyone can mine quotations they like. For instance, the quotation "Jerusalem is still regarded as the capital of Palestine" is used to bolster claims not made before the 70s, while the quotation from the same work describing the region Palestine that includes the word "Judea" is not used. Some works are listed but not quoted, some quoted works are not translated. There must be a better way to do this. Like searching for the term in google books and using the first quotation in the work with the word, or only using sources with X number of references. While this article is called "Timeline of the name 'Palestine'", by it's usage a more apt title would be "Timeline of the name 'Palestine' as related to modern Palestinians".--Monochrome_Monitor 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never read it in that way, but that perception is not how this article should be so feel free to edit it and make it broader as you see fit. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page needs to be archived. It took me like a minute to find this section. XD--Monochrome_Monitor

Dux Palaestinae

• Dux Palaestinae

The following units or detachments of units, and a prefect and his legionary unit, are listed as being under the command of the Duke of Palestine (the numbers in front of the names refer to Ingo Maier's numbering scheme):

59.11 Equites primi felices sagittarii indigenae Palaestini, at Sabure or at Veterocariae (see notes)

along with the following units from a "lesser register":

59.29 Cohors IIII Palaestinorum, at Thamana

• THE ROMAN ARMY AT DURA-EUROPOS —The marriage contract of a soldier of the Cohors XII Palaestinorum (P. Dura 30, in Greek with Latin witness signatures), for example, was deposited in Dura in 232 CE.

Salwa, Benet (14 February 2014). "Putting the World in Order: Mapping in Roman Texts". In Richard J. A. Talbert (ed.). Ancient Perspectives: Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. University of Chicago Press. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-226-78940-8. Aurelius Gaius, on the tombstone that he erected for his wife, Iulia Arescusa, near Cotiaeum in Phrygia around 300. Having listed his advancement through the ranks, he says that he had "circled the empire" (tēn hēgemonian kykleusas), a claim that he then expands upon with a list of at least twenty-three provinces, two cities, and four regions beyond the empire's borders: Asia, Caria [Lycia?, Phrygia?], Lydia, Lycaonia, Cilicia [Isauria?, Armenia?], Phoenicia, Syria, Arabia, Palestine...

Laterculus Veronensis - Oriens: [1] Libya Superior; [2] Libya Inferior; [3] Thebais; [4] Aegyptus Iovia; [5] Aegyptus Herculia; [6] Arabia (Nova); [7] Arabia; [8] Augusta Libanensis; [9] Palaestina;...

74.138.106.1 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC) && 03:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)