Talk:History of the Southern Levant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment

There is currently a debate at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300. We would appreciate opinions from other editors who are familiar with the subject matter. --Elonka 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols? (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300? (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols? (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300? Any opinions on these questions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i'll just point out that speaking of christian-mongol alliances is somewhat redundant because the most widespread religion within the expanding mongolian empire was nestorian christianity, especially during the period around 1300. so, that term should definitely be avoided. terms such as crusader-mongol alliance, european-mongol alliance or even christian alliance should be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I'm curious as to what this article is meant to cover - what is the Southern Levant? Modern Israel plus Occupied Territories plus Jordan? Does it include any of modern Lebanon or is that Northern Levant? And why should this area have it's own history article anyway - a history of the Levant, ok, but just the southern part? PiCo (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is a compromise after "History of Palestine," "History of the Holy Land" etc generated much heat. It ain't great, but it seems to be something most can live with. Solicitr (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see that any attempt to write about this area would generate heat. Still, it might be an idea for the lead to define the geographical area being covered. PiCo (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've C&P'd the lead from the article Southern Levant to provide a geographic def. Solicitr (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have an historical article?

I came to this article because the historical section in "Israel" is seriously lacking, and the "Land of Israel" one is mostly biblical (As it should). Every other article dealing with the past of the area ends up in the same biblical accounts.

Would it be possible to have here a space where we could have just the archaeological account of the time before Rome? If this article with its overtly vague name was created to avoid the conflict we can see in the other ones mentioned, I think we should stick to the facts that can be proven.

Things like the Ghassulian culture, a more extensive explanation of the Canaanite culture, that kind of issues. There are plenty other places to discuss the old testament and its possible accuracy.

Leirus (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page Archaeology of Israel already exists. The Old Testament as 'history' is, yes, problematic: but not really any more or less so than many other early 'histories.' It's what we've got, and it strikes me as as being non-rigorous either to accept such an obviously syncretic and polemic text at face value, or simply to reject it out of hand simply because it's "religious" (as if e.g. the Egyptian material isn't!)

The best really we can do is label passages so derived, e.g. "according to the Book of Chronicles" etc., and let each reader attach such weight to them as he thinks they deserve. Personally I think the books from Genesis up through Judges are a hodgepodge of myth and folk-legend, and those of Samuel and perhaps I Kings heavily revisionist to fit a political agenda; but on the other hand most of Kings and the Chronicle History line up with archeology and foreign records fairly well, except in their overt hostility to the North Kingdom which seems in actuality to have been significantly richer and more powerful than Judah. Solicitr (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that, in most places, the biblical record is all we have, and there is no attempt to explain any other issue, even in the Israel page, and that one is a featured article. I agree (more or less) with what you say about the biblical accuracy, but sentences like "The Israelites dwelt in tribes amongst the other local inhabitants until the installment of King Saul in 879 BCE" sounds to me like a history of Rome starting with the war of Troya or the She-Wolf finding Romulo and Remo, without any advertence (I am not trying to be offensive here, I know this is a matter of faith for a lot of people).

Oddly enough, the best article I have found, which does exactly what I mean and is more complete than the alledgely main one, is this [[1]]. So we have two articles covering the same, with one of them being (in my opinion) better, but under a name that makes it harder to find. Not an ideal situation in my view...

Leirus (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is incosistent on king dates

How can Saul's ascension be on 879 BCE but Solomon's death is 925 BCE?? We need the article to be at least coherent. If there are disagreements about the dates you could state that in the article. 114.75.189.253 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think it would be best if such dates were omitted entirely; the OT as a source is shaky enough, but then to impose dates which have been calculated centuries later by Biblical exegetes gives an impression of precision which simply isn't warranted.Solicitr (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River

There is no indication of who "considered" this. Perfect example of "weasel words". Any objection to deleting this? 24.64.166.191 07:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) So I have deleted the sentence: "Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse." If someone can say who "considered" this (and when) and tell us what this "political discourse" is about I will be interested to read it.24.64.166.191 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionists did, and many still do, and it is often brought up in political discource, particularly when people argue that Israel currently occupies only 17.5% of the original mandate.[2] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps could this map be of some interest : it seems the Roman Syria Palæstina was including some (much) of the geographical Transjordan, and much of Lebanon (Middle East map). |frdm¦✉|01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)|

Well the article Transjordan says Transjordan on the east side of the Jordan River was part of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1921-21, although it seems to be unclear whether post 1921-22 there was one mandate or two, although Transjordan was administered seperately by Britain Hugo999 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

change

i change the "Today the southern Levant is roughly the same area as that occupied by the modern states of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza Strip)" to more correct and less political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.113.28 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit may have been from me and i forgot to log in? Unsure. Drsmoo (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored title to History of the Southern Levant

A more accurate title, describing the geographic area which has been in place on the article for over two years. It is a more reasonable and accurate title the politically charged and completely inaccurate "History of Palestine" Drsmoo (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile should also check out the relevant wikipedia articles which deal with the same subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant

Drsmoo, the attempted middle ground of History of Palestine (region) was stable for more than two weeks until you changed it back to the name you prefer. Your renaming away from the original and WP:Commonname title of History of Palestine was made only c.200 edits ago - this is not a frequently seen article. Since this article is in the I/P space, your original change of name was always going to be controversial - the fact that you did not use Template:Movenotice was a violation of the guidelines and resulted in the problem we are now facing.

Separately, you have just violated WP:1RR.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

here is no 1RR rule listed as being in place for this article anywhere.

The current common name of most of the area is Israel. I say most of the area because the borders and names of the country have changed throughout time. It is factually wrong for you to claim that the common name is Palestine, it is not, just as it is factually wrong to claim that my edit was controversial, it was not. You will notice there are multiple articles on the Southern Levant for example "Prehistory of the Southern Levant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant, these articles describe this same region as this. There is also an article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah This article is a description of the history of the southern Levant, an equally detailed article on the history of Palestine could and should be written. However to have an article that describes the Southern Levant as a region in all its incarnations and call it "Palestine" is not only blatantly manipulative, it is also plainly wrong. There was certainly no disagreement when I changed the title of the article. I hope other editors will opine as well. Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you accuse others of being political, while having a clearly political agenda yourself. Israel is the current common name of the area? Nonsense, and you can't support it - Israel is the name of a country within the area. The common modern name for the area is the Middle East, but that's too broad for us to use here. Among scholars (historians and archaeologists) the common name is Palestine, although Levant and southern Levant are used sometimes. I have no objection to calling the article Southern Levant, but we need to include the fact that Palestine is the common name for the area in at least the Bronze Age to Classical period (my area of interest) in scholarly literature. You need to examine your own motives and ask yourself just what it is you're trying to achieve here. PiCo (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To say that the common name of the archeological field is Palestinian or Syro-Palestinian archeology correct, to say that the common modern name of the area is Palestine is incorrect. Do you not see how writing that the area comprising the states of Israel and Jordan is synonymous with Palestine could be construed as political? I think Natty4bumpo's edit adds the right context. I'm not going to edit the introduction any further as I have been pretty uninvolved with this article overall. Drsmoo (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the common modern name for the region is Palestine - it's not. I said that the term Palestine is used in scholarly works to refer to the region. This covers historians, archaeologists, and possibly others. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored title to History of the Southern Levant

A more accurate title, describing the geographic area which has been in place on the article for over two years. It is a more reasonable and accurate title the politically charged and completely inaccurate "History of Palestine" Drsmoo (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oncenawhile should also check out the relevant wikipedia articles which deal with the same subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant

Drsmoo, the attempted middle ground of History of Palestine (region) was stable for more than two weeks until you changed it back to the name you prefer. Your renaming away from the original and WP:Commonname title of History of Palestine was made only c.200 edits ago - this is not a frequently seen article. Since this article is in the I/P space, your original change of name was always going to be controversial - the fact that you did not use Template:Movenotice was a violation of the guidelines and resulted in the problem we are now facing.

Separately, you have just violated WP:1RR.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

here is no 1RR rule listed as being in place for this article anywhere.

The current common name of most of the area is Israel. I say most of the area because the borders and names of the country have changed throughout time. It is factually wrong for you to claim that the common name is Palestine, it is not, just as it is factually wrong to claim that my edit was controversial, it was not. You will notice there are multiple articles on the Southern Levant for example "Prehistory of the Southern Levant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Southern_Levant, these articles describe this same region as this. There is also an article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah This article is a description of the history of the southern Levant, an equally detailed article on the history of Palestine could and should be written. However to have an article that describes the Southern Levant as a region in all its incarnations and call it "Palestine" is not only blatantly manipulative, it is also plainly wrong. There was certainly no disagreement when I changed the title of the article. I hope other editors will opine as well. Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you accuse others of being political, while having a clearly political agenda yourself. Israel is the current common name of the area? Nonsense, and you can't support it - Israel is the name of a country within the area. The common modern name for the area is the Middle East, but that's too broad for us to use here. Among scholars (historians and archaeologists) the common name is Palestine, although Levant and southern Levant are used sometimes. I have no objection to calling the article Southern Levant, but we need to include the fact that Palestine is the common name for the area in at least the Bronze Age to Classical period (my area of interest) in scholarly literature. You need to examine your own motives and ask yourself just what it is you're trying to achieve here. PiCo (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

To say that the common name of the archeological field is Palestinian or Syro-Palestinian archeology correct, to say that the common modern name of the area is Palestine is incorrect. Do you not see how writing that the area comprising the states of Israel and Jordan is synonymous with Palestine could be construed as political? I think Natty4bumpo's edit adds the right context. I'm not going to edit the introduction any further as I have been pretty uninvolved with this article overall. Drsmoo (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the common modern name for the region is Palestine - it's not. I said that the term Palestine is used in scholarly works to refer to the region. This covers historians, archaeologists, and possibly others. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)