Talk:Palestine

Note: We need to keep this article written from a Neutral Point Of View. An ideal article on this topic should avoid statements which either Israelis or Palestinians would disagree with, unless it is clearly identified which side makes these statements.

Previous discussions may be found here:

To see older commentary that was here look in these archives. Talk:Palestine/Archive 1
Talk:Palestine/Archive 2
Talk:Palestine/Archive 3
Talk:Palestine/Archive 4
Talk:Palestine/Archive 5

Contents

1 Arab League 2 Articles with a section on Palestinian refugees 3 Claims that pro-Palestinian links must go first 4 Etymology 5 Correction required for: Status of territories occupied in the Six-Day War 6 Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal 7 Newly released Churchill documents on Palestine, during World War 2 8 Borders of Palestine 9 Palastine 10 Jerusalem - a divided city 11 "Pro-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian" is a huge misnomer 12 Meaning of "Pro-Palestine" 13 Disambiguation page 14 Jayjg you persist in your edits without discussing and without evidence 15 Civil discourse 16 Mandel reference 17 Judaea map 18 Why... 19 1920 to 1922/3 20 Josiah 21 Region, state, or what? 22 What other sources say 23 MCAT proposal 24 Disambig paragraph 25 Palestine as nation or region 26 Golden Domed Al-Aqsa mosque?? 27 "not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories" 28 link proposal 29 Events leading up to the 1948 war 30 Jewish refugees 31 The flag 32 Cleaned out 33 Ordering of 'related topics'

Arab League

According to the Arab League's website, "Palestine" is a member of the League of Arab States. However, they do not refer to it as either:

1. an original member; or,
2. a "country" which joined later

Rather, they say:

"The Palestine Liberation Organization was admitted in 1976." [1] (http://www.arab.de/arabinfo/league.htm)

So, how should the article describe this? We could be concise and say this:

• The League of Arab States lists Palestine as a member, but not as a "country". Its seat is held by the PLO.

--Uncle Ed 16:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/english/details_en.jsp?art_id=847&level_id=11

The link above is incorrect. I believe the one i just wrote is the more official Arab League website which lists Palestine as a country called the State of Palestine.

Articles with a section on Palestinian refugees

Just how many different articles need a section called "Palestinian refugees", all with the same quotes? There's already an article on the subject; we should link to that. - Mustafaa 21:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mustafaa,

O.K.,

I will not change what you wrote, even though I believe it could have been written better. But please let me send readers to another version, and don't erase my links.

Thank you

Mike

Mike, Wikipedia does not have other "versions" of topics. Any content that is appropriate to add—verifiable and NPOV information—should be combined into the single article unless it's divisible into another topic (not another perspective). If you don't like what's there, you can't just create an alternate to "send readers to." And if you change what's there, it's always of course subject to being undone or further edited by the wikipedia community if they disagree with the changes, particularly if you just replace everything that has been built up over cumulative edits on a controversial subject with your own "version." Postdlf 7:40 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, Postdlf, Wikipedia DOES have other versions of topics. In fact, we keep a COMPLETE set of versions for all topics on our server farm. So Mike can link to an old version if he wants to; that's what they're THERE for. --Uncle Ed 21:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He was trying to create a second article on Palestine, not to link to an old version. - Mustafaa 21:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Claims that pro-Palestinian links must go first

Pro-Palestinain links should be first, not Pro-Israeli links. Pro-Israeli links first causes page to be biased. Cellsy

That's irrational. If your logic was true, then putting pro-Palestinian links would make the article look to be biased towards Palestinians! In that logic, no set could be put first. RK 22:35, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

J 5:15, Dec. 26, 2004 (UTC)

 Ditto

That's rather silly. People looking for real information will try to read a mix of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli pages regardless of which comes first. And people trying to justify their own ideals will read only what they want to hear. But if we're going to get all-up-ons about it, put the UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased. --Caliper 03:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

UN links first because they should be the most factual and least biased....now that's funny! Lance6Wins 16:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about pro-Israeli links first because it is alphabetically in order? That seems the most logical solution.

The UN links should be placed at the very bottom of the list since the UN provides the LEAST factual and MOST biased point of view. Any person who has followed the issue and has enough knowledge on current affairs will recognise this as true. The reason for this is the fact that there are over 20 specifically Arab countries and many more Muslim countries in the UN who always vote as a block, which gives a skewed and inaccurate impression of the situation. As to whether pro-Israeli or pro-palestinian links, I honestly think that a person looking to seek out the truth would visit both links, read the articles and then formulate their own opinion. However, in this day and age, people tend to spread received information, without checking its veracity or fully understanding it themselves, in order to convince others that their worldview is the correct one. News agencies have self-interest at their core. Financial considerations are their number one priority and the result is bias! If we were to take CNN International as an example, the majority of its advertising revenue is derived from screening advertisements for Arab publications, Arab companies and holiday destinations in Arab & Muslim countries. The result? They mainly propogate a one sided view. The word "terrorist" thus becomes an 'emotive term' and a person who blows himself up on a bus of civilians is therefore a militant. They also fail to cover stories which don't go along with the worldview of their financial backers or if they do, it is covered in passing. We live in corrupt times!! To think that people argue about such petty things as to what link should come first is frankly pathetic. They are all printed on the same page and the one who is looking for a pro-Israeli link would look for that link even if the pro-Palestinian link came first. My point is that people should stop wasting time on such futile arguments. ay786 (pf70)

The UN vote is biased?

Dude, have you checked out the U.N voting records on issues regarding Palestine? The votes usually end 163 to 2. You want biased. Three guesses who are the guys that usually disagree. Jewish people have gotten the shaft end at times in history but in this particular case there really isn't much controversy on the matter.

The Palestinians have got the shaft in this. Only in the U.S., a little in Great Britain and of course Israel is there any real debate about this.... which incidentally are the nations with the largest Jewish populations. That's bias if I've ever heard of it. If you don't believe me the General Assembly's voting records are online. I've looked at every single vote on every topic over the last fifty years. Just a weeks work if your actually interested in promoting facts rather than misinformation.

If the U.N. should be ashamed of something is that they've let guilt regarding the holocaust and powerful U.S.influence cloud their judgment of what needs to be done for Israel and Palestine to coexist peacefully.

If the U.S. wants to continue to play hardball on the subject let them run away from the U.N. Do they really want to go back to a world of isolationism and protectionism? They'll lose the bluff if the U.N. members have the audacity to make the call.

The U.S. don't pay their UN bill anyways. Besides 75 percent of the worlds economy (and growing), 55% of the military and 95% of the worlds population easily trumps their influence. The U.S. has ended up fighting a war that's not theirs and perpetuating a global crisis that could easily end if the U.N. votes to send in peacekeeping troops and give all (or most) resolutions voted lands to the Palestinians while puting promises in place to protect the state of Israel. Some (not all) Israelis would then be free to make another association that they are being persecuted again because they are Jewish.

Boo hoo.I'm persecuted because I'm Black, I'm white, I'm Arab. Whatever works for you just get out of my face.

At the vary least give them some sort of continious land they can call a home, free of persecution so that they may have some sort of dignity. I thought that was the whole point of the Balfour accord and why Israel was created. Surely someone is Israel can empathize with that?

Sure they'll continue be the die hard Palestinian terrorists that want to kill all Jews and it will upset a lot of Ultra Orthodox Jews (many who are just as blatently racist), but it sure is better than having 300 million Arabs trying to kill you. Time will pass... people will move on.

The alternative of course is continue with the Israeli strategy of the last fifty years (settlements then cry Holocaust when someone trys to defend their territory) and to wait until Al Qaeda enlists enough support to aqquire WMD and decides to unannouced blow up Tel Aviv and Washington in one day. You think they care that Israel will respond? They're all going to G~d anyways.

Diplomacy will resolve this dispute not weapons.

BTW - Tell me I can't spell... or that some point is inaccurate.... but before someone warns me of Nazis and anti-Semitism... I'd like to warn you that you've lost all credibility by libeling me and making such an extreme associations because I simply disagree with you. Take it up with your priest, Rabbi, or Allah.. leave the rest of us alone and in peace.

J 5:15, Dec. 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why is the UN biased? They are not biased to most people in the world. It is just israel who think that. Because Israel breaks international law and the UN complain, which is obviously unfair? PHussein 20:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Israel, as a sovereign nation should, has protected and continues to protect its citizens from the excesses of its enemies. Enemies that have consistently denied its right to exist. The UN is biased, as stated in the previous article. DBR

The UN General Assembly voting records may be biased by the number of Arab countries who vote, but I'd bet that UN agencies and declarations are generally fairly balanced since the US has veto power and UN agencies are bound by the charter.

As far as which should go first, I would say that things that directly relate to Palestine should be listed in alphabetical order, that there should be no segregation between pro-X and pro-Y links. That would seem the sane way to do it.

Etymology

Can anyone comment on the claim that "Philistines" means "invaders" in Hebrew? My Biblical Hebrew dictionary, which supposedly contains every word in the Old Testament, only gives hitpalesh = "roll in dust", not a word likely to be connected! - Mustafaa 05:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In hebrew the word for "invade" is "palash" (the 3 base letters are p.l.sh), so now you can easily see how "Plishtim" (the way it's pronounced in hebrew) comes from "invaders". And another comment: In arabic the word for invade is "ghaza" (with the second 'a' pronounced longer), which is very similar to the palestinian city Gaza. --(unsigned)

Actually it is pure conjecture based on the old assumption that every name in the Bible must have a Hebrew derivation. Given the reference in Egyptian sources before most scholars regard Hebrew as existing as a separate language, other possibilities should be considered. There are any number of speculations in the literature but the bottom line is that nobody knows. --Zero 11:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Correction required for: Status of territories occupied in the Six-Day War

It is more of a small factual error; but I think that Sinai should be included in the list of territories, including its final status today. It could be said that it was returned to Egypt, after Sadat's historic visit to Israel, and the final peace agreement between those two countries.

Just a thought, I thought I would ask before actually changing it.

Thoughts on this? Joseph 03:07, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. - Mustafaa 22:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could someone else do it? or has it been done? because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance if someone does it. Joseph 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the odd wording that the status of Sinai was still subject to dispute, since it is not. If someone wanted they could add in the negotiations that led to the return of Taba, etc. - but it is fair to say that this is resolved.

Why include the Sinai or Golan Heights at all? This is an article on Palestine, neither are part of historical Palestine.

If this was an article on France you wouldnt include Poland and Ukraine on the list of territories they camptured in ww2.

Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal

This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind. I'm looking for a few veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Brynosaurus) that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future. The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and call comments, preferably on my talk page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brynosaurus). Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Newly released Churchill documents on Palestine, during World War 2

As time progresses many more newly released secret documents will be made public. There is today newly released documents, that I think may help to balance out this article. Would someone like to take a stab at looking these over? I am not sure how one could look them over on-line, but here is a link to the BBC story anyway, seems fairly factual and NPOV to me see: UK archives reveal Palestine plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3681840.stm)

Again, because of my personal feelings on Palestine, and the constant deleting and censure of anything I write, I would prefer someone else write it up. I think it is called a conflict of interest. I will just end up getting upset anyway, so I kindly ask that as a favour. Thanks in advance again if someone is willing to tackle this. Joseph 14:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Borders of Palestine

Isn't the following disputed?

Palestine is the area bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea.

This amounts to a statement that Jordan is not in Palestine. Which is the same as saying that the definition of Palestine has changed, and that Jordan no longer is in it. Did I miss something? When did this happen? Jordan is not in Palestine!!!!!!PHussein 20:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather see a statement like:

• Palestine, as defined by X since the year N, is the area bordered by... Before that, it also included Jordan; or,
• Historically, Palestine was the are bordered by Egypt, the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, etc. Then in year N, the portion roughly east of the Jordan River was designated by X as an Arab territory and by the year N-2 eventually become what is modern Jordan. Now Y and Z refer to the portion roughly west of the Jordna River as Palestine and no longer refer to the entire region by that name. Q and R, however, still call the entire region Palestine.

Or am I wrong? Am I the only person left in the world who still thinks Jordan was or is part of Palestine? And does Israel, the US, the PLO, Jordan and everyone else all happily use "Palestine" for the western portion of the British Mandate and "Jordan" for the eastern (larger) portion? --Uncle Ed 20:17, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palestine was a region, not a country, so exact borders are hard to define. That said, Jordan was definitely part of Palestine when the British captured it in 1917. When the League of Nations ratified the results of the San Remo conference in 1922, the part of Palestine east of the Jordan was re-named "Trans-Jordan" and removed from Palestine (and from Jewish immigration). The Golan Heights were also part of Palestine until 1923, when it was transferred to the French mandate of Syria under a Franco-British agreement. Jayjg 20:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exact borders are hard to define for Israel too, since they seem to be constantly expanding...

Um, not really. Israel's borders have been constantly contracting since 1968, and it now controls only a small percentage of the land it controlled then. And please sign your posts. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative answer. (I was afraid you weren't talking to me any more, after the 'abuse of admin' scandal. I still consider myself on probation. I'm making hand-crafted mahagony napkin holders at Martha Stewart's estate in the Hamptons; tomorrow we'll pot some marigolds to decorate her prison cell ;-)

Maybe we need separate articles on Palestine (region) and Palestine (country)? Anyway, see ya Monday... --Uncle Ed 21:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course I'm talking to you Ed. I didn't approve of your actions, and I thought your e-mail on the list was quite unfair, but I still like you. As for Palestine (region) vs. Palestine (country), that wouldn't make sense, as there is no country of Palestine and never has been. There have various adminstrative units designated as "Palestine" over the centuries, but none have been countries. Jayjg 21:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See how many mistakes I'm NOT making, just by using talk first? Hmm. Maybe I'll stay in the Hamptons for the rest of the weekend... --Uncle Ed 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palastine

It's commonly stated that a nation by the name of "Palastine" does not exist, and has not existed since 1948 before the attempted invasion of the state of Isarel.

What point are you trying to make? Jayjg 14:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A state is not the same as a nation. A nation has culture, language, history. A state has government, borders. State is objective, nation is subjective. No state of Palestine has existed since 1948, but arguably the Palestinian nation still exists. --Zachbe 13:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arguably no "Palestinian nation" existed before 1948. Jayjg 15:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One might make such an argument, though ample evidence to the contrary can be cited. However, I can't see how anyone could argue that a Palestinian nation, in Zachbel's sense of nation, doesn't exist now. - Mustafaa 15:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestine has existed since Rome created it thousand of thousand years ago.PHussein 20:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rome, or the Roman Empire, powerful as it was did not CREATE Palestine. They simply conquered the existing kingdoms, dispersed its people (the Hebrews) and RE-NAMED the area as Palestine. Furthermore, if this is an argument as to why a Palestinian state should be formed then it is also a validation of Israeli occupation and annexation of territory. DBR

Jerusalem - a divided city

Jerusalem - a divided city of disputed status... is "divided city" factually accurate at this time? Lance6Wins 16:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The most accurate description of Jerusalem would be that it is physically unified under Israeli control, but that the status of the East is still contested. Most East Jerusalem Arabs do not hold Israeli citizenship (though a large minority do) but rather permanent residency cards which allow them freedom of movement throughout the state, so politically there remains a division between the two sets of inhabitants. Socially speaking, since the Al-Aqsa intifada began there is little if any interaction between the two Jerusalems -- so in that sense, the city is very much divided. But the city is currently unified (for what it's worth).

It's worthy of note that, for the purposes of international law, even Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem is not universally recognized, since the whole city was earmarked for special "internationalized" status under the partition plan. Legal scholars would probably agree that customary international law would favour Israeli rights to sovereignty in the west, though of course East Jerusalem remains open to discussion. (anon) 23:07, 26 Nov 2004

"Pro-Israeli/Pro-Palestinian" is a huge misnomer

The links should be listed based on their political orientation, not as "Pro-Israel" or "Pro-Palestine." Many people and organizations are both and surely many are neither... There are more than 2 sides to this conflict and we should not create this false binary in an attempt to simplify it.

---

I agree. How about "Palestine Soldarity Links" and "Pro-Zionist links" ? I mean, there are pro-settlement links on the list of pro-israeli groups. Meanwhile lots of the groups on the "Pro-Palestine" list also consider themselves to be doing what's in Israel's best interests.

I agree, originally when we first started adding links, many of the links I put up were vandalized with awful names, even the Birzeit University Guide to Palestinian Websites, the 50th anniversary of the Nakba (Palestinian cataclysm) Website, The Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center of Palestine, etc...

Some kind writers, corrected them, but the vandalism and disputes continued unabated. They would rename them this terrorist Website, the terrorist cultural centre, etc...You know, I even added the original Israeli Government Main Page - English and the Israeli Defence Forces Main Page - English links thinking it may aid others in seeing both sides of the issue, and no I did not name them badly, just as they appear now.

I do not care for the new names too too much, but perhaps it is better to have those, than the way they were before. In any case I defer to cooler and wiser heads with better ideas!

The Palestinian header is ok, I think, not great, but OK and liveable. What about 'Israeli and Zionist links' for the latter, it sounds better than 'Pro-Zionist and Anti-Palestine' links, the -anti-and -pro- sounds too negative? JMHO Joseph 15:08, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of "Pro-Palestine"

I'm not sure what "pro-Palestine" is supposed to mean. Jay just said above that Palestine is a region, not a country. Would we use the term pro-Palestine to mean actions which benefit the region called Palestine? Like, suppose Bill Gates gave $1,000 to everyone in Palestine... Would Jordanians get any of that money? How about Israelis (Jew, Arab or other)?

Or do you mean favoring the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine?

This is an English-language encyclopedia, so you have to use words that English speakers can understand. And please read definitions of Palestine. --Uncle Ed 16:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link title is "Pro-Palestinian", not "Pro-Palestine", which is quite different. Jayjg 03:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, then let me tweak my question, but it's pretty much the same:

Does pro-Palestinian mean benefiting the people who seek the establishment of a new nation to be called "Palestine" and having territory somewhere in the region known from ancient times as Palestine? or favoring their cause?

Or does it mean benefiting all residents of Palestine, including Jordanians, Israeli Arabs, etc.?

You see, I'm from a scientific background and I like clear, unambiguous terminology. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

The term Palestine is used in at least three different contexts:

1. the historical region
2. a political division of that region
3. a prospective state in either of the above

I therefore propose that we stop having an article entitled "Palestine" and that every Palestine link in Wikipedia either:

• redirect to Palestine (disambiguation) - if context is not clear; or
• refer to a specific article:
  • Palestine (geographical region)
  • Palestine (political division)
  • Palestine (nation)

In the old days, I would just go ahead and do this boldly, but I fear it would disturb others and detract from cooperative editing. So I'm going to wait a week or so for discussion. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree:

• Palestine is a historic geographical region. this is what this article is (or at least should be) about.
• There is currently no political division called "Palestine". Such a devision existed (in modern history) only between 1918 and 1948, and is covered by the British mandate of Palestine article.
• The word "nation" is problematic as it refers both to a political organization (a state) and to a group of people (a people). There is currently no nation in the political sense called "Palestine" (unless you're referring to the self-declared "State of Palestine"). There does (arguably) exist a Palestinian nation (or people). This subject is covered by the Palestinian article. (A useful analogy here is the article Jew, which is completely independent from the article on Judea, even though the Jewish people originally got its name from the name of the country).
• As for the prospective state, we already have a Proposals for a Palestinian state article.

If you'll take a look at the list of articles pointing to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Palestine) you would notice that almost all of them refer to Palestine as a historic and/or geographic region. So there's really no need for a disambiguation page.

I think we have quite enough articles on this subject as it is. Adding more will just add to the confusion and create more places for Zionists and Arabs (and their respective supporters) to bash each other.

For the same reason, I am in favor of merging History of Palestine (and probably also Definitions of Palestine) into this article, and also removing from this article anything having to do with post-1948 political history. This subject is already well covered in Israel, Palestinian Territories, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If at any point in the future there will be an actual state called "Palestine", my posion will change, and I will then support a disambiguation page with links to the current article and the article about the (hypothetical) state.

-- uriber 10:58, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

But there is a State called Palestine and recognised by more than 2/3 of the worlds countries and is popularily acclaimed by the absolute majority of the earth's population. I don't know about you, but that seems like a state to me.

Jayjg you persist in your edits without discussing and without evidence

Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 and the Golan Heights in 1981. Do you dispute those facts? If so, provide contrary evidence. If not, cease your POV edits. Israel did not completely return Sinai territory to Egypt until Taba was returned. Do you dispute this? Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? The Puerto Rican Olympic team has no bearing on the Palestinian recognition by the Olympics. For that matter, why not discuss Timor Leste or Macedonia? You just keep stepping on everything you can find that conceivably impart a negative light on your beloved Israel, like the Al Mezan center for Human Rights. Your POV pushing is outrageous and reprehensible and you do this all the time, day in and day out like some traumatized Holocaust survivor. Except when you are editing pages to promote your views of circumcision(+) and Jesus(-). You seem to think your view is the only authorized view and no one else has a right to an opinion. You refuse to discuss issues and just keep pushing your POV. You have no more authority than anyone else Jayjg. You need help Jayjg, serious mental help from a competent Jewish psychiatrist, like your father. Alberuni 01:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civil discourse

I suggest we all review my favorite article, Wikipedia:staying cool when the editing gets hot and avoid making personal remarks such as:

• Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? Better to say that you disagree with the statement's accuracy.
• You need ... serious mental help from a ... psychiatrist. Better to say that you think the statement is fantastic or incredible.

Alberuni, sometimes how you say something speaks louder than the points you are making. Please avoid personal remarks. --User:Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"

Why do you persist in perpetuating innacuracy? is not a personal remark, it's an accurate observation of what is going on here. ----style 07:45, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Mandel reference

The article says:

During the 19th century, the "Ottoman Government employed the term Arz-i Filistin (the 'Land of Philistines') in official correspondence, meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922" (Mandel, page xx). However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone.

Who is Mandel, and where did he say this? What is page "xx"? Why does the article cite him, and then immediately state he was wrong, by making a number of unsubstantiated claims and using un-defined non-English terms? Jayjg 16:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What undefined non-English terms? As to Mandel, I assume xx was meant to be p. 20 of an introduction, but I could be wrong. I suggest checking the edit history; that sentence has been in this article (under the older section #The Name, which overlaps a lot with #Boundaries) for a long time, and probably got garbled at some stage. - Mustafaa 16:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess sometimes pages do go backwards; look how much more detail [there was a while ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestine&oldid=2716718]! - Mustafaa 16:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hah. Never mind checking edit histories; just read the bibliography at the bottom of the page! - Mustafaa 17:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, and welcome back Mustafaa; I suspect a footnote would work better. "sanjaq" is an undefined non-English term. And the entire sentence However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine." Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone. is unreferenced. Jayjg 17:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sanjak can fortunately just be linked. There is no need for references on "However, the translation he gives is incorrect: Arz-i Filistin (أرض فلسطين) translates as "Land of Palestine.""; this sentence (which I added) is common knowledge and can be confirmed from any Arabic dictionary, the more so since the Philistines don't even feature in Islam. The second sentence "Amongst the educated Arab public, Filastin was a common concept, referring either to the whole of Palestine or to the Jerusalem sanjaq alone." is indeed unreferenced in and of itself - though obviously true, given the common occurrence of the term in medieval literature; I rather suspect the bibliography explains that as well, though. An edit history check might be able to track the energetic writer who put this information together (possibly Zero?), if you want to know which book it came from. - Mustafaa 22:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judaea map

Cut from article:

In Roman times, the term "Palestine" (or rather "Syria Palestina") referred to an area roughly equivalent to the geographical region today bordered by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Mediterranean Sea, minus the Negev and plus northeastern Jordan.[2] (http://www.unrv.com/provinces/judaea-map.php)

I checked the link provided, and it did not mention Palestine or Syria Palestina, but rather Judaea. The reference is to a "Map of Judaea" with a tiny portion shown in red. No rivers or other details appear on this map.

I am not disputing the facts this sentence mentions, but merely saying that it is not up to Wikipedia standards of accuracy and clarity. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair point - and this article once contained a much better and more precise summary, which I think I'll readd. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestine&oldid=2716718. - Mustafaa 22:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why...

does Israel direct straight to the modern nation-state, while Palestine directs to this hotchpotch of borders, refugees, and history? The commonest referent of "Palestine" in modern discourse is far and away the nation and would-be state, as a quick Google check [3] (http://www.google.com/search?q=Palestine&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) confirms; and "Israel" has at least as much historical ambiguity to it as "Palestine" (see Israel (disambiguation)), so that's not a reason. I suggest applying the same solution as in the case of Israel: adding a disambig page and reserving this page for facts the modern-day State of Palestine and Palestinian Authority. - Mustafaa 09:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because the term "palestine" has multiple meanings. the most common is one of several names to refer to a particular piece of real estate. currently, there is no "state of palestine" and the "palestinian authority" is neither a "state of palestine" (that has achieved reasonable world recognition, just as taiwan has not) nor known as "palestine". as for the olympics having palestine...well, they also have puerto rico, a united states territory (at this time and since 1898(? spanish american war)). Lance6Wins 15:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lance, I have to side with Mustafaa on this one: it should be the same for both, so that Wikipedia (a) does not take sides and (b) does not even appear to be taking sides. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I second that.--Josiah 16:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hmm.....either way is taking a side on the issue. one side is that of the United Nations (no palestinian state), the other is the side of the Organization of Islamic States (there is a recognized palestinian state). America does not point to United States. Persia does not point to Iran. Tanganyika does not point to Tanzania. German South-West Africa does not point to Namibia. Transjordan does not point to Jordan. British Mandate of Palestine does not point to Israel. Palestine should not point to State of Palestine. Lance6Wins 17:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Palestine should link to Palestine (disambiguation) then. I've also created a Definitions of Palestine page. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might this be a good time to find the various palestine pages and see if we can create a better set of links to them? such would include (among others): Palestine, State of Palestine, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian Liberation Organization, British Mandate of Palestine, Transjordan. Lance6Wins 17:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please read my comment from Oct 15 on this page, for why I strongly oppose Mustafaa and Ed's suggestion. The analogy between "Israel" and "Palestine" is invalid. Israel *is* a state, "Palestine" isn't. Also, "Israel" did not have, in the last 2500 years or so, any political-geographical meaning, so "Israel" is not ambiguous. "Palestine", on the other hand, had been, and still is, a historic-geographical term (unrelated to Palestinians, "State of Palestine"" etc.) Please see the list of articles linking to this article, and you'll quickly realize that having this article talk about a 21st-century political entity (or even a 20th century national movement) is a very bad idea. -- uriber 08:54, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Israel is:

• a post-1948 state, with some combination of the following statuses according to various sources:
  • not recognized at all;
  • in the 1948 armistice borders;
  • those plus the Golan Heights and/or East Jerusalem;
  • those plus the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
  • with or without the Shebaa Farms
• a biblical kingdom, also with fluctuating borders;
• a term (Eretz Yisrael) which has been given as a Hebrew equivalent for the English areal meaning of "Palestine" before 1948.

This strikes me as rather a lot of geographical and political ambiguity - and unsurprisingly, most of it precisely parallels the ambiguities in the political definition of Palestine. - Mustafaa 10:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You kind of made my point:

The fact that the borders of Israel are disputed doesn't add anything to the ambiguity of the term "Israel". Israel is a state, not "recognized" by some, with various disputed borders. All of this is exactly one, unambiguous, item.

The biblical kingdom is not commonly referred to as "Israel". Anyway, as it existed in the very remote past (as I said, about 2500 years ago), it is not commonly referred to at all. (This is in contrast with "Palestine", which existed as a separate geographical entity at least until 1948, and has numerous references in Wikipedia. Did you check out the list?).

"Israel" is (and was) never used in English as a synonym for "Eretz Yisrael" (and hardly ever used that way in Hebrew, for that matter). So no ambiguity here.

Bottom line: over 90% (I'm being conservative here) of the places where Wikipedia makes references to "Israel" it is to the modern State. Over 90% where it makes references to "Palestine", it's the historic-geographical region (you're welcome to challange these numbers). Which is why the "Israel" article should be about the modern state, while "Palestine" should be about the historic region. -- uriber 14:59, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

I agree to a point. How would you deal with the after 1948 "Palestinianism." Surley you are not saying like Ms. Golda Meir that there is no Palestinan nation, people, or any existance in the modern world! While, truely, Palestine is a historic region and a historic referent, is is also a modern and future entity and a territory claimed or recognised by many in the modern world. --A.Khalil

1920 to 1922/3

Between 1920 and 1922, Palestine was sometimes considered to be the area bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and short stretch of ocean coastline between the latter two.

Please do not remove this port of the region's history from the article. The future is not clear to us. about 65% of Jordanians are Palestinians. Palestine may be established east of the jordan river. it may be established west of the river, or cover both banks. its is not for us to decide. neither it is for us to eliminate history of the region. Lance6Wins 15:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Josiah

Please do not remove the history of the area between 1920 and 1922/3, without discussion. Lance6Wins 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It has already been covered with the valid point that user Mustafaa raised, which I and others agreed with.--Josiah 18:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me to that information (valid point that user Mustafaa raised) please. I do not see it anywhere on this page. I do not see anything here regarding Transjordan, nor anyone agreeing that the original inclusion of Transjordan within the Mandate should be removed. The only reference appears to be Jayjg and Uncle Ed's comments indicating the inclusion and date of separation. Nowhere agreement to remove this information. Lance6Wins 18:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The myth that Transjordan was a part of Palestine should be laid to rest by Article 25 of the Mandate, if nothing else: "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined," which clearly implies that the eastern boundary of Palestine was not determined by the San Remo agreement which established the Mandate. - Mustafaa 11:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To my mind, quoting an article from a document that is less than 100 years old to settle a point about the geography of a region which was renamed almost 2,000 years ago, in order to put forward a political point of view, namely that Jordan should stand independent of Palestine, is either disingenuous or not not well thought through. DBR

Thanks for that bit of historical fact, Mustafaa. One of my biggest handicaps in trying to edit this article is my utter lack of any historical knowledge of the Middle East! "All I know is what I read in the newspapers."

It seems that there have been various definitions of Palestine over the millenia, with each empire making their own definition.

Perhaps the British Mandate of Palestine represents the geographically largest of these definitions. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Region, state, or what?

Regarding what Uriber said above, I'd say that the State of Israel is a rather well-defined sovereign nation -- despite having disputed borders.

But what is "Palestine"? And how do we use the word at Wikipedia? Or, again, how do people in English-language books and periodicals and broadcasts use the word?

We're going to need to refer readers to a Definitions of Palestine article to keep track of all the different levels:

• geographic (Palestine seen as a region)
• political, e.g.,
  • a division of an empire or protectorate (British Mandate of Palestine)
  • a prospective sovereign nation (State of Palestine)
  • territory which could become sovereign, if only Israel or Jordan would give it up: (occupied Palestinian territories)

For someone like me who is fluent in English but didn't study Middle Eastern history, a description of the geography and history of the region is the most logical starting place. I can't even begin to understand the claims and counterclaims and nationalistic aspirations without knowing this. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Or, again, how do people in English-language books and periodicals and broadcasts use the word?" - as Google shows, they overwhelmingly use it in the modern political sense (Ed's last two sub-senses, the latter being identical to or a superset of the former, depending on definition of "occupied".)

"how do we use the word at Wikipedia?" - well, if you have a look at what links here, just about every possible usage of the term is represented, but as noted, a surprisingly large proportion of the links relate to usages which, looking at Google, one might reasonably call virtually obsolete. Part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia has a rather extensive coverage of parts of history that impact this region; part, that Wikipedia has an extremely poor coverage of aspects of Palestine other than the purely political (look at all the red in List of Palestinians), say.

Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page; however, looking through its history, it is clear that a lot of good material has been lost, and some intensive restoration is called for. It's absurd to have a page on Palestine which doesn't so much as contain a flag, or a map, or a mention of the role of Jerusalem... - Mustafaa 11:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I may have been guilty of removing the flag.

I agree that Jerusalem should be mentioned; it's easily the most important city in Palestine -- whether geographical region, political division or other entity.

However, I think the flag should go in State of Palestine. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a Google search is the right way to determine the correct (or even most common) usage of a word. If you look at the top results on Google, you'll see they're almost all strongly-POVed websites dedicated to the creation of a state called "Palestine". So this merely prove that the word is used in this sense by people holding a specific POV, not by the general public. Also, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very much in the news, and nowadays much of the fighting is taking place on the Internet, Google results are heavily-skewed towards "hot", disputed topics. Wikipedia's mission is quite different. It is here to give the reader deep background information, including information about scholarly topics which do not make it to the newspapers (or web pages) on a daily basis. Palestine (the historic region) is one of these topics, and it deserves a full, detailed, article, which is not infected by current disputes. This is why I suggest having this article deal with the period until 1948 (perhaps even only until 1918), accompanied by a clear reference (perhaps at the top) to other articles which deal with the history of the region after 1948 (or 1918), and with it's current status.

"Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page" - No. covering two very different, and very vast, topics on a single article is a Very Bad Idea. That this has been the historical goal of the page is exactly why the page looks like it does - a big mess. Concentrating on one of these meanings would give a much better chance of producing a decent article. For what you call the "modern definition" we have the Palestinian state and State of Palestine articles (which perhaps should be combined), and there is no reason to spread that content over to an additional article (this one).

That there is no flag here is a good thing. Historic regions (and especially ones which such long histories) don't usually have a (single) flag. Various flags have been used by the occupants and occupiers of Palestine over the generations. As Palestine is not a separate political entity today, but divided among several such entities, it does not have a flag.

A map would be a good idea, but only if you can find one which does not show any specific borders. Any depiction of specific borders will start a never-ending fight here. And since Palestine's borders are not (and never were) something clear-cut, any depiction of such borders would be misleading. (Of course, having a series of maps showing the borders of specific administrative or political units called "Palestine" at various times throughout history could be a good idea - but none of them can be simply titled "Map of Palestine").

Jerusalem, of course, should be mentioned, as it has been the chief city of Palestine for most of its long history. -- uriber 16:46, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

---

The State of Palestine article intro says:

The State of Palestine was unilaterally proclaimed on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the PLO, in Tunis.

At the time, the PLO did not have control over any part of Palestine (or any other territory), and therefore the State of Palestine did not fulfill one of the typical roles of a state - namely, occupying a territory. However, it laid claim to the whole of Palestine, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, rejecting the idea of partition.

Is this really true? I find it hard to believe, as it would seem to include Jordan, which everyone has been saying is NOT part of Palestine.

Someone please straighten this out for me, once and for all:

• Is Jordan part of Palestine?
  • Who says so?
  • Who says not?
• When were the various definitions made and unmade, and for what purpose?

Because this all bears on the mainstay of the argument for "a Palestinian state":

• there ought to be a Palestinian state, in Palestine, for "Palestinians"
• there is no such Palestinian state
• Jordan is either:
  • not a "Palestinian state"; or,
  • not in Palestine; or,
  • not hospitable to Palestinians

And also the definition of "Palestinians" is also related. I say they they are:

• stateless Arab residents of Palestine (the historic or geographic region)

Mustafa says they are a distinct ethnic group (like the Kurds), or that they have some sort of "identity" akin to ethnicity which has intrinsic value and deserves perpetuation.

The upshot of all this is that "Palestinians" deserve a homeland, but they don't have one because Israel is in the way, so Israel should let go of as much land as is required to create the one and only state of Palestine; and if it loses its Jewish character or even its sovereignty in the process, who cares? They're a bunch of thieves, anyway....

Sorry if I've stepped on any toes with this summary, but I really am trying to get a complete statement of the significant points of view here, so I'm just rushing this all out in one torrent. Don't worry, it's only a first draft and I'm not planning to throw any of it into the articles absent confirmation that it's accurate. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

To Uriber:

"Covering both its historical definition as a region and its modern definition as a would-be state in this article is a reasonable compromise between these two, I suppose, and has been the historical goal of this page" - No. covering two very different, and very vast, topics on a single article is a Very Bad Idea.

In that case (and I do see that argument), this should be a disambig page, as I believe Ed suggested at some point. It would be POV to the point of offensiveness to claim that the "region" sense of Palestine is more important than the "political" sense - indeed, I would claim the political sense is of interest to a lot more people than the regional.

To Ed:

Is this really true? I find it hard to believe, as it would seem to include Jordan, which everyone has been saying is NOT part of Palestine.

British Mandate Palestine did not include Jordan, except for the years 1920-22. See, for instance, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/fd4d250af882632b052565d2005012c3?OpenDocument , a report to the League of Nations from 1936 which gives Palestine's boundaries quite clearly near the beginning.

• Is Jordan part of Palestine? - no. Most of it, by area, never was; some parts have often been.
  • Who says so? - a lot of Israelis; the Jordanian kings, during the period immediately following 1948 when they still had hopes of taking over the rest of Palestine
  • Who says not? - every Palestinian I've ever met, the whole Arab world, every nation that recognized both Palestine and Jordan
• When were the various definitions made and unmade, and for what purpose? - I think the article as it stands covers that.

Mustafa says they are a distinct ethnic group (like the Kurds), or that they have some sort of "identity" akin to ethnicity which has intrinsic value and deserves perpetuation.

Not akin to Kurds so much as akin to, say, Algerians - a relatively homogeneous group of people with a shared history and culture who have been forged into a true nation, rather than a mere cultural area, by a serious common threat of national annihilation. Come to think of it, a comparable ethnic group might be Israelis themselves - to pick a comparison bound to outrage all sides concerned - though Palestinians come from a much less diverse set of backgrounds.

The upshot of all this is that "Palestinians" deserve a homeland, but they don't have one because Israel is in the way, so Israel should let go of as much land as is required to create the one and only state of Palestine; and if it loses its Jewish character or even its sovereignty in the process, who cares? They're a bunch of thieves, anyway....

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, a two-state solution will always be second best. The Palestinians should have their land back; let the Israelis stay by all means (no "pushing them into the sea" nonsense), but if they want land, let them buy it, not steal it. If giving the Palestinians their land back means making Israel a majority Arab state - or renaming it - so much the better; I fail to see why its "right" to remain ethnically homogeneous (after forcibly reversing the ethnic balance) should trump the much more concrete fact of the Palestinians' title deeds. - Mustafaa 11:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What other sources say

Here are the first sentences from the "Palestine" entry on several mainstream on-line English reference sources:

• "A historical region of southwest Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea and roughly coextensive with modern Israel and the West Bank." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via dictionary.com [4] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=palestine&r=67)
• "1. ancient region SW Asia bordering on E coast of the Mediterranean & extending E of Jordan River; 2. former country [...] now approximately coextensive with Israel" - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [5] (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Palestine).
• "historic region on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, at various times comprising parts of modern Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Egypt; also known as the Holy Land." - Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, via encyclopedia.com [6] (http://encyclopedia.com/html/P/Palestin.asp).
• "Region, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea." - Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service [7] (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9374416).

These sources all disagree with Mustafaa that the most common usage of the term "Palestine" is a modern political one. Furthermore, none of them even mentions that such a usage exists. I suggest we stay in line with these respectable sources, and not promote a usage of the word which (according to a quick Google search) is used almost exclusively by holders of a certain POV. -- uriber 12:43, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Have you heard of the difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics? The word "Palestine" is used far more widely by news media than by historians talking about the region, simply because news media publish more (note, for instance, Google News (http://news.google.com/news?q=palestine&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn).) The state of Palestine is recognized by two-thirds of the world's nations. To attempt to restrict its meaning to a historical region would be manifestly prescriptive, and indeed - given that most English speakers live in the minority of countries which have not recognized Palestine - could reasonably be attributed to systemic bias. - Mustafaa 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did hear about the difference. I believe most modern dictionaries (including the ones I quoted) take the descriptive way, i.e. they reflect the way a word is actually used by native speakers of English (as opposed to, say, "news sources published in English). The American Heritage dictionary, for example, has many entries for slang (and even vulgar slang) terms which were never "officially" accepted into English in any way. The dictionary includes them simply because they're actually being used. Which is why I think we can trust it to reflect actual usage also in the case of "Palestine".

This is the English Wikipedia, and I believe that it should reflect the usage of words by English-speaking people. Is is very much possible that the word "فلسطين" in Arabic has a different meaning than that of "Palestine" in English. However, this is irrelevant here, since this article is about "Palestine" (as used, over many generations, by English speakers, which tend to live in English-speaking countries), not about "فلسطين".

Thanks for the link to systemic bias - I haven't seen it before. I do believe we have an issue with systemic bias here, except it's in the opposite direction than the one you're pointing to.

Systemic bias, according to the page, occures when "[for] structural reasons, [...] Wikipedia gives certain topics much better coverage than others" . Also "Wikipedia is biased toward over-inclusion of certain material pertaining to (for example) [...] anything already well covered in the English-language portion of the Internet".

Issues related to Palestinians and the Israeli_Palestinian conflict are a great example of such a case. Since many Wikipedians seem to have a strong interest in the subject, and since (as you demonstrated) this subject is heavily covered by online news sources and other web pages, it seems to get a disproportionate coverage on Wikipedia. Other topics, related to history and geography (such as Palestine, the region), on the other hand, tend to be neglected by Wikipedia. This is what I'm trying to fix.

-- uriber 13:53, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

For a potentially comparable example, note our treatment of Western Sahara, a country entirely under Moroccan occupation which was effectively never independent, going more or less directly from Spanish to Moroccan hands, but which is widely recognized by other countries. Incidentally, its name can obviously be taken to refer to a region - and if more Moroccans were on Wikipedia, I have no doubt some article on the "Western part of the Sahara" would already exist. - Mustafaa 13:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Western Sahara" is much more like "West Bank" than it is like "Palestine". "Western Sahara" was never widely used to convey anything other than this clearly-defined geopolitical unit (although in theory it could have). See how many Israelis there are on Wikipedia, and yet no-one wrote an article on the "Western Bank of the Jordan River". This is because the term "West Bank" (like "Western Sahara") has a single, clear, well-defined, modern geopolitical interpretation. "Palestine", on the other hand, has had for the last couple of millenia, and still has, a fuzzy, historic-geographical interpretation.

-- uriber 14:08, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Uriber and Mustafaa, first of all, thank you for addressing my questions and comments at such length -- as well as answering dispassionately. I was trying to sum up (not stir up!) the dispute, and your calm responses have been of immense help.

Secondly, I have no wish to enshrine any particular version of Palestine as some sort of official Wikipedia definition. There is an ambiguity, and it must be addressed. I regard Mustafaa as probably the most authoritative source of, er, Arab opinion -- so I figure if we can find a formulation which satisfies all his concerns we are probably going to reach a stable consensus (without resorting to voting). On the other hand, Uriber raises some interesting points, too.

So how about this?

• Palestine (geographic); and,
• Palestine (political)

Or Geography of Palestine and Politics of Palestine, respectively.

Everything about the definitions of Palestine relating to borders could be merged into the geography article -- which might also mention climate, crops, etc.

Everthing about the political history, such as 4 millenia of immigration, invasion & conquest could go into the politics article -- or at least be outlined there: sort of a backbone article with many ribs, eh? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I kind of like it. But how do "religious" "ethnic" and "cultural" fit under there? Geography is fairly bland, unless your dealing with borders. Borders by nature is political, (lots of links between them I guess). Politics in some views doesnt necessarily cover religion, ethnicity and culture (in fact most people dont seem to really care to separate very well between these four). Backbone with ribs and various appendages seems logical - but how to share control over the wedding tackle? -SV 22:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The political history can not be separated from the geography, and that's not the separation that Mustafaa was suggesting anyway. And as Stevertigo noticed, you'll have constant problems with what to put in which article (probably resulting in two overlapping articles). So I don't think this is agood idea. -- uriber 08:31, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I notice that German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A4stina) seems to have opted for basically this. It sounds like a good idea in principle, and Definitions of Palestine would make a great starting point... - Mustafaa 22:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has an articles about Palestine (the region)[8] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A4stina_%28Region%29), the Palestinian Authority[9] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A4stinensische_Autonomiegebiete), and the "State of Palestine"[10] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A4stina_%28Staat%29), just like the English Wikipedia currently has. The only difference is that the article about the region is called "Palestine (region)" instead of just "Palestine", and there is an additional disambiguation page (called "Palestine") pointing to these three articles.

I can live with that solution (although I don't really like it), as long as someone goes over the >500 existing links to "Palestine", and changes all of them to point to "Palestine (region)". -- uriber 08:31, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

MCAT proposal

I decided to name my suggestion MCAT - which stands for More Crap At Top. Thanks to Stevertigo for the name (see below). -- uriber 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. Leave the article names as they are now, and add the following at the top of the Palestine article:

-- uriber 09:04, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I like the German solution better - A "deep disambiguation" page for Palestine is important here - otherwise a sidebox with all the various articles should be included. More crap at top is a bad idea IMHO. -SV 16:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What "various articles"? -- uriber 17:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ones related to the concept of Palestine, its history and its variants... ?? -SV 22:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palestine (disambig)
    Biblical Palestine
    History of Palestine
    Palestine (region
    [[
    #U.S. cities named Palestine
Palestinians
    Philistines etc...
    Palestinian refugees

I disagree that a sidebox with all of these links should be included (included in what article, BTW? If you're saying this should be on the Palestine article, then your first link is a self-link).

Biblical Palestine and Palestine (region) don't even exist, so there's certainly no need to link to them. History of Palestine should, IMO, be merged into this article. Palestinians is included in my MCAT proposal, so no need to include it in a sidebox. Philistines and Palestinian refugees are not directly-enough related to this article to be included in a sidebox. Philistines will be linked when they appear in the main text, and Palestinian refugees can be linked from Palestinians (and a whole bunch of other articles) - but do not need to be linked from here. -- uriber 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense to move most of this article to Palestine (region)... - Mustafaa 23:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambig paragraph

"land claimed by the Palestinians" is unnecessarily narrow; many Palestinians will no doubt still call Jaffa "Palestine" even if Arafat signs away all claim to it, and many Arab countries would probably still call it Palestine even if every single Palestinian renounced it (or died, for that matter.) "Land seen by the speaker as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians" is more accurate. - Mustafaa 23:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"land claimed by the Palestinians" is highly accurate and not-prejudical of the matter. "Land seen by the speaker as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians"...it would be better to replace "the speaker" by the person's name. Lance6Wins 14:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one would know that when referring to "Palestine", the "speaker" believes that the land "rightfully belongs to Palestinians"; surely many people mean it in a geographical way. On the other hand, "land claimed by the Palestinians" is undeniably true. As for the whole "2/3rds recognize etc." part, it seems too tendentious and politicized for an opening paragraph, and invites return responses like "however, no Western countries, nor the UN" which just gets the opener further bogged down in claims and counter claims. I think it's better form to just briefly describe the geography and claim involved in the introduction, and then get into the detail in the detailed sections. Jayjg 14:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to add; as I pointed out above, "land claimed by the Palestinians" is not undeniably true. - Mustafaa 15:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, the idea that when referring to "Palestine", the "speaker" believes that the land "rightfully belongs to Palestinians" is idle speculation, and that the 2/3rds business is tendentious detail which invites further debate and doesn't belong in an opening paragraph. Please respond to those issues. Jayjg 15:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right about "speaker", actually: better to return to my previous wording: "Land seen as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians".

As for the 2/3 business, it's relevant insofar as it prevents people from deleting the whole thing on the tendentious grounds that it's "not a proper state". But I suppose there may be less comment-inviting ways to do that; any suggestions? - Mustafaa 15:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Palestine" is land seen as "rightfully belonging" to Jews as well as Palestinians, so your proposed wording is even less accurate. I don't see anyone deleting the article or even attempting to. And I don't understand what's wrong with this basic wording:

In present-day usage, the name is most commonly used in a more specific political sense, referring to areas of the former British Mandate of Palestine claimed by Palestinians. These areas typically range from a claim to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and part of Jerusalem, to the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine, including Israel (see State of Palestine). The Palestinian Authority considers itself the forerunner of a Palestinian state. Jayjg 19:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That ""Palestine" is land seen as "rightfully belonging" to Jews as well as Palestinians" is irrelevant; the fact that some people see it as the former does not somehow imply that other people don't see it as the latter. - Mustafaa 22:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well then, shouldn't your opening say "rightfully belonging to both Palestinians and Jews"? And what exactly do you object to in the latest formulation? Jayjg 02:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. "Palestine" in this sense means "land considered (by whom? depends on context, hence my use of the ambiguous passive) to rightfully belong to the Palestinians." That said, I don't object too strongly to your latest formulation (although it's missing one of the links); however, I prefer my suggestion below, of turning this into a disambig page, to either. - Mustafaa 00:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the description will have to go somewhere, won't it, even if this is turned into a disambig page? What link am I missing? Jayjg 03:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The new Palestine (nation) page should have room for about a subheading per link, I should think. The missing link is Palestinian territories, previously linked to from "land" (though that is perhaps not the best way to link to it anyway.) - Mustafaa 23:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So can I make the change then? Jayjg 04:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestine as nation or region

I have started an article called Region of Palestine. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's really sad. I'm very sorry to see that Wikipedia is once again resorting to creating new stubby, awkwardly-named, and completely unnecessary articles, instead of fixing existing ones. I wish the procedure for creating a new article was as complicated as the one for deleting an article - then we might have been seeing less quantity and more quality. Anyway - since it seems my input on this was not really helpful, I think I'll say goodbye again and go back to persue my other interests. -- uriber 15:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia that is resorting to this, it is a couple of people, and one determined admin in particular. Your points were well taken, and you would be quite helpful in striving to curb this silliness. Jayjg 15:47, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The way to fix this article is not to try and squeeze everything into this article, nor to attempt the Solomonic solution of removing sections related to its national, or conversely its regional, name, only to see new visitors readd stuff about the other meaning. Rather, the solution is to split this article along the lines discussed, and merge much of the Palestine stuff back into one of the resulting articles. I think two articles would likely suffice:

• Palestine (region)
• Palestine (nation)

plus, of course,

• U.S. cities named Palestine

From the former, one could link or cover to such topics as:

• Canaan
• Eretz Yisrael
• British Mandate of Palestine
• Syria Palaestina
• Philistaea
• Jund Filastin

From the latter, one could link to or cover, to edit Uriber slightly:

• The West Bank and Gaza Strip (collectively known as the Palestinian territories).
• The Palestinian Authority, governing parts of these territories.
• Proposals for a Palestinian state
• The "State of Palestine", proclaimed by the PLO in 1988.
• The Palestinian people

I prefer the idea of covering them, since an article covering the topic as a whole seems to be surprisingly lacking. - Mustafaa 16:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like your outline, and I hope Uriber will stick around long enough to give his opinion, too. By the way, I agree with Jay's criticism of my reckless spawning of mini-articles. But I only do it in the hopes of ultimately reducing the total number. You have have to have some place to put the stuff when you're sorting it, and private subpages just doesn't seem to do it for me.

If we're not working at cross-purposes, then putting everything out into the open ought to help. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:06, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to sabotage this beautiful working relationship, but I just found this little gem:

The concept of "Palestinians" is one that did not exist until about 1948, when the Arab inhabitants, of what until then was Palestine, wished to differentiate themselves from the Jews. Until then, the Jews were the Palestinians. [11] (http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/palestinians.html)

Is this merely Israeli POV, or what?

It's important to me, because I know that I have a hard time distinguishing between objective truth and mere POV. If one side in a dispute asserts something which I regard as objective truth, that makes it even harder for me to take a step back and say, "Hold on, the article can't assert this, it can only attribute it to an advocate."

So help me out, because I'm having the flat earth problem here! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it's flatly not true; Palestinian newspapers were already addressing its readers as "Palestinians" in 1911, and the nisba "Filastini" was being used in the 1st century AH (see Palestinian#The origins of Palestinian identity. The story has its origins in the half-truth that Palestinians did not for the most part see their identity as a national one until the 20s or so, with some holding out until the 70s; ie, for many people, "Palestinian" was a term that could be argued to be more analogous to, say, "Virginian" or "Yorkshireman" than to "Frenchman" or "Japanese". - Mustafaa 19:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many Jews also considered themselves Palestinians until after 1948; and I believe it's more accurate to say that most Palestinians did not see their identity as a national one until the 1960s. Jayjg 19:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, Mustafaa and Jay, I am hearing 2 different points of view here. Is one of you simply "wrong", or shall I try to accommodate both POVs in a neutral way? (ha, ha, trick question ;-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2 different POVs? The only point on which we disagree here, I think, is the date when most Palestinians came to see their identity as national. The rest is purely factual. I think the strength of the Palestinian nationalist movement in the 30's shows otherwise, but I'll see about tracking down some good citations later on. I don't suppose any professional historians, or Zero, are listening? - Mustafaa 20:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey Mustafaa, see comment above in Disambig Paragraphs section. Jayjg 20:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. I just might break my rule about not accessing the 'pedia over the weekend. :-) Good sabbath to all! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On Palestinian national identity, btw, turns out Zero has already covered it in Talk:Palestinian - Mustafaa 23:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

> It is real chutzpah for RK to quote from a book called "Palestinian Arab National Movement" (Volume 2 even) in order to prove that there was no such thing. What RK doesn't tell us, probably because he doesn't know, is that the Palestinian nationalists had gained the upper hand by the next Congress (Dec 1920). They passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine. Then they wrote a long letter to the League of Nations (which I have) about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war." In this letter they even call themselves "Palestinians" (in which name they included Jews other than Zionists).

Interesting that the small number of elites (often Christian, I believe) who were involved in the Congress felt that way. However, I was talking about how "most Palestinians" felt; something, I admit, which is much harder to gauge. Jayjg 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My orthodox Jewish grandfather defined chutzpah as "colossal nerve". RK is taking an enforced 4-month break from Wikipedia. I hope when he comes back he can be cooperative, because I value his insights. How he contributes them is another story. Perhaps it is universal that getting upset distorts one's equanimity (either that, or I'm the only one). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Golden Domed Al-Aqsa mosque??

The picture caption talks about the golden domed Al-Aqsa mosque? But it is the Dome of the Rock - Qubbat as-Sakhrah that is golden, not Al-Aqsa. Either replace the pic with one clearly showing Al-Aqsa (which is not golden) or change the caption to talk about the Dome of the Rock. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removing the picture. The article talks about the region, not Muslim Palestinian aspirations to Jerusalem, subject to negotiations. Alternatively, we can insert pictures of the Jewish holiest sites, as well as Christian, and commence a religious war here. Another alternative, we can place a page from Palestinian school textbooks about the region. I dare anyone to find a map with the state of Israel on it, then talk about "Palestinian aspirations". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories"

Mustafaa, what do you mean by "not part of the Israeli govt position on the territories"? Jayjg 16:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I mean that, as far as I'm aware, the curiously interpolated (and ungrammatical) "Indeed, that these areas were set aside by the League of Nations for a Jewish National Home as the British Mandate of Palestine" forms no part of the "provisions" that "the Israeli government cites ... as proof that the areas in question are "disputed" and not "occupied."". - Mustafaa 16:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

link proposal

How about adding a link to Israeli-Palestinian_conflict? (I think that article is weak, but nonetheless, it is relevant). Sivamo 21:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Events leading up to the 1948 war

It would be fair to say that a low-intensity war was well underway between the partition resolution and the end of the Mandate. To say that "most of the land allotted to the Palestinians was in Jewish hands" is misleading at best and possibly false. If we were to include such an assertion, we should also include information about the attacks made by Palestinian irregulars and the Arab Legion on Jewish communities in what was to become Northern Israel and the Kfar Etzion block.

Jewish refugees

Syria's "encouragement" for Jews to stay was nothing more than a sham. Jews were effectively driven out of Arab countries, either by overt force or threats of force; or by intimidation, discrimination, and the like.

To the contrary, Syria's Jews were forced to stay there; that's one of their principal complaints against Syria. You cannot coherently claim that the term "driving out" includes "forcing to stay"! Moreover, they left many Arab countries, notably Yemen and Morocco, where no more oppression was happening than at any other time. - Mustafaa 11:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you'll forgive the comparison, Jews were also forced to stay in Nazi concentration camps, but it would take some imagination not to characterize the few who escaped as anything but refugees. Of course they were refugees, as were those from Yemen. --Leifern 13:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To begin with, the Jews of Syria certainly fled Syria, whenever they had the opportunity, always at great risk, and sometimes at the cost of their lives. As for Yemen, after the partition vote in 1947 Muslims responded with a progrom, killing over 80 Jews in Aden, and destroying hundreds of homes and businesses. In June 1948 in Morroco Muslim riots killed over 40 Jews. Other incidents occured in subsequent years. If the Arabs in Israel (the majority of whom never even saw an Israeli soldier) "fled", then the Jews in Arab lands certainly "fled" as well. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 14:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term being inserted was a straightforwardly false blanket statement "were expelled", not "fled" - which is rather closer to the original wording, "left". - Mustafaa 15:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree, that's not a fair statement, but I didn't insert it that way. I added "or were expelled" after "left" or "fled". Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 19:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The flag

Since the moderate position seems to be a partition of the land and WP is not supposed to take sides, I strongly feel we should either include both flags side-by-side, or none. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 23:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which flags? Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 01:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's only one flag that's commonly associated with the name "Palestine". The other side thinks that it should be renamed "Israel", and has done just that to those portions of it that it has annexed. - Mustafaa 02:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article says: "Palestine... is a region in the Middle East extending inland from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Its political status is hotly disputed.". Why add even more controversy to the conflict and take extremist exclusionist position? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think Humus Sapiens is right to point out that the article rather explicitly refers to the area currently known as Israel, more than once. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 02:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the Israeli flag should be presented here is ridiculous. The classical region of Palestine arguable encompasses numerous countries... Israel, Jordan, probably Syria, and Lebanon. Should we line up all of these nations' flags together? No, we should treat the term "Palestine" in its contemporary meaning as described in the second paragraph of the article. [[User:Blankfaze|]] 04:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article ends: "The boundaries that a Palestinian state would or should have are hotly disputed. Areas typically cited include (at the lower end) the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and part of Jerusalem, and (at the higher end), the whole of Israel as well" That would seem to rule out Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, but definitely include Israel. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 04:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See British Mandate of Palestine which reads, "This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan". See Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian which reads:

In historical contexts, especially predating the rise of 20th century Zionism, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek, Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of the Jordan River.

[[User:Blankfaze|]] 04:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right, but this article is quite clearly referring to a more specific and restricted territory in its second paragraph (as you yourself pointed out). The two flags would not be appropriate for the British Mandate of Palestine or Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian articles, but it seems odd that an article referring to a territory of which a large majority consists of the State of Israel, and the rest the Gaza Strip and West Bank, would include the flag for the smaller portion, yet not for the larger. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 04:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, this article focuses on the contemporary usage of the term Palestine: "In present-day usage, the term is used in political advocacy to refer to land the speaker considers as belonging to the Palestinians, particularly the State of Palestine..." [[User:Blankfaze|]] 05:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of duplication between State of Palestine, Palestine (region), Definitions of Palestine, etc. Perhaps, this article shoud be a disambig between them? Perhaps it should explain how and when the Arabs hijacked the name "Palestine" (Falastin)? In any case, as the article says, the region includes Israel, so either include its flag or none. Sidenote: Note how one side offers ways to avoid controversy, as the other side seeks how to throw Jews into the sea. Reminds anything? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I proposed making this a disambig page months before HS did, though I'm glad to see the suggestion revived. However, as the article stands now, it deals primarily with the political idea of Palestine, Region of Palestine-related content (including the story of how the Arabs began to call the region Palestine from the 1st century AH, if not earlier) having been spun off into its own article. This is rather appropriate, since the term is used far more widely in the political context than anything else. Jayjg's argument that, since the article mentions that some proposed political entities of Palestine would include a reconquered Israel, it should include the Israeli flag, is untenable; several Israeli parties advocate annexation of at least some of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, so shall we include the Palestinian flag in Israel? Or, if it comes to that, shall we add the Moroccan flag from Western Sahara, or the Russian flag in Chechnya? Or remove the current flags from both articles? - Mustafaa 06:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The patent is yours, I wasn't watching the discussion here. The suggestion is definintely a sound one, with such multitude of derivatives. Now to the subject: article State of Palestine contains its own flag, State of Israel its own, and to include only Palestinian flag here (IOW, to exclude Israeli flag) is to spill over anti-Israel political campaign to WP. The region includes Israel, and the article is not (and shouldn't be) only about the State of Palestine. I invite you to drop exclusivist extremism and work together on creating moderate mainstream encyclopedia. Since there is a controversy, what do we lose if we do not include any flag? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right now, the article is primarily about the political meaning of Palestine, and almost entirely excludes the region. If you don't like this, the solution is to help turn it into a disambiguation page, not to weaken it as it stands by not including the only flag ever connected to the name of Palestine. - Mustafaa 07:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The very first line says Eretz Israel. Consider my removal of the flag(s) here as the first step in the right direction. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned out

From what I can tell, we've been arguing about issues that are covered in other articles. I think it's cleaner, easier to read and more neutral to simply describe the term and point readers to specific articles.

Please note that I have not tried to favor one side or the other with this edit; my whole point is that its current form was all over the place and had become a discussion forum on many issues that are "discussed" elsewhere. Let's try to avoid gaps and overlaps, ok? --Leifern 04:00, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Ordering of 'related topics'

This is a small matter, but i find it somewhat odd that the first link on the Palestine page is Eretz Issrael and the second is Zionism. These are undoubtably related, but the message sent by having those as the first entries is blatantly pro-Israel. Furthermore, this ordering does not serve to educate people about Palestine. If someone is interested in Zionism or the concept of Eretz Israel, they will look them up. If they want information on Palestine, they will come to this page. These terms (Palestine, Eretz Israel and Zionism) are not at all symonymous. Zinnling 16:36 UTC, 7 Jan 2005

Zionism and Eretz Yisrael are certainly topics related to Palestine, as much as any of the others. Zionism is all about Jews returning to Palestine. In deference to your point about POV, I've moved the links farther down the list, and replaced some red-linked "See also"s that do not exist. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 18:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)