Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names

Sorting

Suggestion to order list by scriptural mention (e.g. Genesis, Exodus) by default, and have a separate table for Old and New Testament. If possible also a good idea if "sort arrow" (not sure what it's termed) could be added to top row so sorting can be changed by users as they'd like. Just my 2 cents. Contributor613 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I think that it is an excellent idea to make two separate tables; one for the Hebrew Bible, and another for the Christian Bible.Davidbena (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Contributor613, shalom. In compliance with your directives, I separated the two sources. The place names are arranged in alphabetical order. This is much better than having everything "kila'im."Davidbena (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

• Opposed to merger. I, personally, am against merging this article with List of biblical places, because its approach and format are different. Whoever started the article obviously intended to also mention place names in the Christian Bible, for which reason we decided to make two separate sections for easy recognition of these place names and their respective origins.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria

@Davidbena: I think your changes contravene WP:ARBPIA2 (see also WP:ARBPIAINTRO). All the other provinces / regions in the table are the modern names, not the ancient names. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

My friend, the article's main emphasis is on "biblical place names" as the title implies. Biblical sites were, as you know, in existence before the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It just so happens that the article also translates the places into their common names.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: OK, but we should be consistent. In a single column, either we should use biblical region names, or modern region names. But this should be throughout. Since this article is a "list of modern names for biblical place names", perhaps the answer is to show both columns? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena, this is crazy. EG, Khirbet Almit is in Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, not "Judea" etc, etc. Also, along what Onceinawhile says: "North Sinai Governorate" or "Khūzestān Province" doesn't sound like Biblical names to me.... Huldra (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Huldra, it's borderline. I can agree to changing it to "Samaria." As for Onceinawhile's suggestion, I agree that there should be consistency. The problem, however, is that the naming conventions limits us to either "Samaria" or "Judea." North Sinai was actually neither, so, we settled for the next best thing. Perhaps though we can make a suggestion there (in the Naming Conventions) that they make a provision for new regional names (e.g. Galilee, Gaulan, etc.). As for the "modern names", we have listed them, just as they appear in the modern vocabulary, and their regions have also been noted as either "Palestinian territory" or "Israel," although in my view this seems totally unnecessary. Giving two distinct titles for the same country, when prior to 1948 it was all one county, is - to say the least, trying to force a political issue. Remember that it was Great Britain who first suggested dividing the country into an Arab and Jewish sector, which had never been done before, and only temporarily done by Jordan (1948-1967). The ideal solution would be to make the country apolitical and neutral to all readers by writing Israel/Palestine, since both titles were used for the country long before the political morass.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Josephus mentions the extent of boundaries of Judea, as it breaks off from Samaria. I'll try and determine whether Khirbet Almit was included in this boundary.Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your logic here...to me it looks as if you are forcing the Biblical names "Judea" and "Samaria" into an area where it wasn't meant ......creating confusion instead. Gath (city) present name is Ramla?? This is just stupid. I suggest that we place their current Governorate/District in the Province/Region field, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you look at the edit history, at first there was only the "Administrative districts/regions" mentioned for each place, and there was complete uniformity and consistency at that time. Then, our friend Onceinawhile came along and he changed all that, by adding separate countries for one and the same country, and removing the "Administrative districts" for the country of Israel. It created far more confusion. The idea behind this article is to stress the biblical cities, and to recognize them today. Since the country is still disputed between the Israelis and Palestinians, but controlled by Israel, it would have been better had he remained as neutral as possible about it. People recognize the country for what it is. To avoid confusion, in my humble opinion, the country designation should NOT have been turned into a political issue, but designated as "Palestine/Israel". As for the boundary of Judea, I see in Josephus (Antiquities 14.3.4) where he says that the "first entrance into Judea [as one comes from Samaria through the midland countries] is Coreæ." Elsewhere, Josephus says (Wars 3.51) that "the frontier village of Anuath Borceos is the limit of Judea on the north" (See: Wars of the Jews, 3.51). As for Ramla, it was thought to be the ancient Gath, which had long been destroyed, until the emergence of the new city (Ramla) over its ruins. At least, that's what some historical geographers claim. Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This is how it looked before any of us were involved. All three columns on the right showed the modern names. Today that is still mostly the case, except where a minority of the fourth column shows comtemporary region names. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just noticed the same. That was a much better version! I suggest we return to that (including the extra places) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will change the Province/Region field back to its former longstanding consensus....unless I hear some opposition, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The original edits only mentioned the modern-day status (Administrative district/region) as opposed to "Samaria" and Judea". Of course, this depends on what we wish to stress here. Wikipedia's Naming Conventions is very explicit here. The original editors and myself included preferred the older edits, before the changes made by Onceinawhile.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I think you are misunderstanding. In the cases where one place was known to be in Biblical "Samaria" or "Judea," we can say that...in the article about the place itself. Not elsewhere. And the article history is very clear: nobody used "Samaria" or "Judea" in the article before you started editing.....Now the district/region field is a mess......two Biblical names, and the rest modern names.....Ugh. Huldra (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you that there is a mess. It is true, however, that we were using the modern-day designation, such as Judea and Samaria Area,which gave more consistency. When this was decided against, in preference for the Wikipedia Naming Conventions (as mentioned explicitly by Onceinawhile in his edit summary), then it became necessary to go the full-gamit. If there is no objection, I will restore the modern-day designation of Administrative areas. Davidbena (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: your last edit was helpful, but I think it now directly contravenes the Naming Convention you linked to? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case, since the article deals with both old and new, and since there was a consensus to resort back to this usage for consistency, Wikipedia respects community consensus. It looks much better.Davidbena (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about "Country Name"

Question about "Country Name"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the current article which treats on the modern names for biblical sites, there is an entry for the "Country Name." As is known, many of these biblical sites are in Israel, also known as Palestine, being the same geographical country. However, there has been an attempt to politicize the "Country Name," by writing either "Palestinian territories" or "Israel," as if it were two separate countries. It is my view that we ought to be apolitical about the "Country Name," and that wherever these two designations apply in this particular article, we should write both "Palestine/Israel." In this way we keep this issue neutral, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy in Palestine-Israel articles. Any other views on how we should proceed here? Please add your comment.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Keep separate Palestine/Israel, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Separate - we should follow convention used throughout Wikipedia. David, I share your frustration with this throughout the encyclopaedia - for example, the significant overlap between the History of Palestine and History of Israel articles - it would be much better if for history we had a single name that everyone is happy with. But until wide consensus is found to change it, we refer to everything within Israel-1967 as Israel and everything within Gaza and West Bank-1967 as Gaza and the West Bank. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC) @Onceinawhile - How should a case like Shiloah/Silwan be treated?...It's currently listed on the table as "Israel," but in 1967 (before the war) this was part of the West Bank, then administered by Jordan. Since then it, along with the rest of East Jerusalem, has been effectively annexed by Israel, but under the system you describe above it should be listed as "Palestinian Territories," since it's part of the West bank, and was not under Israeli control before 1967. And outside of East Jerusalem there are numerous other towns and highways in the West Bank which have been de-facto annexed into Israel, so making distinctions can get pretty messy. -2003:CA:83CB:8100:AD6C:7400:E6F5:B509 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC) We have actually two issues here, in addition to the above country status, we also have the field Province/Region in the Old Testament places. Should be use Judea/Samaria there (in addition to present Governorates), or should we use the present Governorate, for all? Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Present Governorate, for all, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC) @Huldra: since this article makes an infusion between old and new, where there is an entry for "Province/Region" perhaps we can agree to restore its original designation, where only the administrative districts were used as defined in Districts of Israel. Why would anyone want to politicize this article, by giving separate designations for "Israel" and "Palestine"? It makes no sense to me, and it betrays the reality on the ground (i.e. it's one country occupied by two peoples).Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC) My opinion on these two questions is that we should stick with the modern designations and status quo, e.g. Israel or Palestinian Territories, and the modern name for the region or province. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Why would anyone want to politicize this article, by giving separate designations for "Israel" and "Palestine"? Because the Palestinians that live there are not citizens of Israel, they are stateless persons who are recognized by the international community as having certain rights, but do not have full citizenship rights in Israel or freedom of travel (either within the country or abroad). Also Israel voluntarily entered into certain agreements with its allies regarding those boundaries, and that seems to be the strong preference that is reflected in these agreements. Third, Israel is not able to administer the areas as regular law enforcement jurisdictions because they are not part of Israel, and the Defense Regulations are in effect. It is legally and technically a belligerent occupation. This is not "politicizing". There are probably other issues as well, but until these issues are resolved, I don't think we will find WP:RS to support a name change.Seraphim System (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @Seraphim System:, you have articulated your case very well. If I might but ask your indulgence for a little while, allow me to explain Israel's position vis-à-vis the Arab population that shares the same country with us. If we were to re-track in history, we'd see the whole picture a bit better. Jews and Arabs who lived in Palestine prior to 1948 were both subject to foreign powers: the British, the Ottoman Turks, the Mamluks, etc., etc. During the British Mandate (Mandatory Palestine), strong national feelings began to rise among both sides, each ethnic group hoping to establish its own independent state. Tempers flared and there was general unrest. This led to a political struggle and, eventually, a military struggle, each side vying for the control of Palestine. A country that had, heretofore, been undivided, suddenly became divided in 1948 by Jordan's conquest of regions now known as the "West Bank" of the Jordan River, and Israel's hold of the other maritime regions of the country, with half of Jerusalem. In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel restored the county's territorial integrity as it had been before 1948 when the Egyptians captured Gaza, and before 1946 when the Syrians took over the Golan Heights held by the French. You see, Israel saw the country as indivisible, although the Arab States and most Western countries agreed to the country's proposed partition (an idea, mind you, that was first suggested by the British in 1937). Even before the rise of the Jewish State of Israel there had been a long history of hostility between local Jews and Arabs, where the local Arabs prevented land sales unto Jews, and discouraged Jewish immigration to Palestine, and where both sides had had altercations, and, sadly, this same mindset and temperament has been carried-over unto the younger generation, with perpetual wars and fighting. This then is the reason why Israel has implemented "Martial law" in the conquered territories, until such a time that conditions change. As for Israeli hegemony or "sovereignty" of the country is concerned, I think that if we were honest with ourselves, this cannot be denied. Even the Palestinian Authority acknowledges Israel's authority, however unpleasant it might be. As another editor here once wrote, the same can be applied here: "You may not like it, your government may not recognize it, the United Nations can denounce it, but that doesn't change reality. Whether Israel is in lawful possession of the territory, whether the United States is in lawful possession of Washington, D.C., or whether they were stolen from their previous inhabitants, doesn't change the fact that they are the custodians of the land." Hopefully, the condition of our fellow Arab citizens will improve in this country, and both sides will lay aside all hostility, working together to build a common and shared future.Davidbena (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC) One more thing: You say that the areas under discussion are "not part of Israel." Then, if I might humbly ask, what are they? "Occupied territories"? That, my friend, is a misnomer, perpetrated by the media. In historical terms, many Israelis who took part in the wars to reclaim the country of Palestine (from Jordanian occupation) were themselves formerly called "Palestinians" prior to 1948, and whose fathers were evicted from places in the "West Bank." This is a fact that cannot be denied. "Palestinian Jews" (now called "Israelis") – both they and their children – simply restored Palestine's old borders in 1967. Secondly, for these lands to be called "occupied territories" would have first required there to have been a sovereign in those territories, but this was not the case, as the country had formerly been under the control of foreign powers (Great Britain and Jordan).Davidbena (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Davidbena: Some facts for you: "Occupied territories" refers to Military occupation (see also List of military occupations). At its simplest, it means control of a country without providing citizenship. Israel have not "annexed" the West Bank (like they have for East Jerusalem and the Golan), so the only other form of control is occupation. This is an either-or scenario. If they annex it and provide citizenship, it will no longer be technically an occupation. Look at the table and charts in United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_partition. You will see that your characterization of the situation is a gross exaggeration. There were a tiny number of Jews in the area which became the West Bank. As to sovereignty, firstly Jordan did not "occupy" the West Bank, they "annexed". See Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Residents became full citizens of Jordan. Secondly, the Palestinians today have the same amount of sovereignty over the West Bank as Israel does over 1948-Israel; this is ultimately based on , the UN Partition Plan and international recognition. Finally, no partition plan, peace plan, great power or world organization, at any point, proposed that the West Bank should become part of the "Jewish state". Why? Because it was 99%+ Arab. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Our debates have possessed our dear friend, User:Onceinawhile, so fully of the subject that he has put forth "hard facts" to our alternative way of looking at this country. This rejoinder will admit of no doubt as to the soundness of our position, and will dispel the difficulties raised by him. First: Israel has no need to "formally" annex the country, as Jordan did, since Israel holds the country as de facto annexation, rather than de jure annexation. The reason for this is that Israel wishes to avoid a situation whereby it provokes an international or public outcry, who, for the most part, have taken a stance against Israel and its legitimate claims to the country. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. If there were ever a "tiny number of Jews in the area which became the West Bank," it is merely because of the history of the Jewish nation in its own country, a people who were expelled from their own country, and where it was even outlawed by Hadrian for Jews to settle in Jerusalem! I will remind you that Vespasian put the entire country of Judea to the sale (see Sicaricon)! This will explain why the Jewish population was diminished, whereas foreigners came for purposes of husbandry and took over these former places belonging to native Jews. Prior to the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, Jews had been evicted from East Jerusalem, Silwan, Hebron, and the older Kfar Etzion. Before then, because of Palestinian riots and disturbances, there had been a fluctuation of populated Jewish areas, namely: Ein Zeitim, Safed, Beit Shean, Kfar Uria, Hartuv, among other places. Now, if the criterion for citizenship is the prevalence of a demographic majority in spite of the changing times, as you propose (when you thought that the Arab population should take over the helm of government in this country owing to their being the majority in the "West Bank"), then the traditional pre-1949 borders of Palestine proper does indeed have a Jewish majority at this time (excluding Gaza), and they are therefore entitled to their right of governance over the land. By "Jewish State" is simply meant Israel's ancestral homeland. This view is still in keeping with the age-old tradition of allowing non-Jewish citizens to settle the land. As is known, foreigners have always lived within the traditional boundaries of the "Land of Israel," as defined by the boundaries settled by the returning exiles from Babylonia. Today, the term has more of a political connotation, insofar that a secular Jewish government controls the country whose borders coincide roughly with the traditional boundaries of the "Land of Israel." The 1947 UN "partition plan", though recognized by many nations, was merely a proposal, and, therefore, it is not binding upon Israel. This was overshadowed by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and where all sides (Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel) entered and retained parts of Palestine only by force of arms and, as events later came to be known, by the merciful protection of the 1949 Armistice Agreements, even though Syria and Jordan and Egypt could offer no tenable legal justification for their presence within the frontiers of the former Mandated Territory of Palestine. No sooner had the 1948 Arab-Israeli war come to an end and the armistice agreements signed without UN approbation than another war was in the brewing, this time over the innate hatred of the Arab states for Israel and their refusal to accept the objective existence of Israel, and their repeated declarations and intention to annihilate the State (considering themselves to be in a formal state of war with Israel). Thus, after the applicability of the "traditional law of war" following the breach in the terms of the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1967 (which terms you can see here), and where one of the stipulations of the Armistice Agreement states: "No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other," Israel found the legal basis on which to restore the country's territorial integrity, national sovereignty and unity. Violation of one of the terms meant, in effect, a cancellation of the agreement signed between the two parties. The 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan was dissolved, in accordance with an old Jewish maxim: "If the terms of the testament have been cancelled in part, it is deemed as cancelled altogether!" (כל דייתיקי דבטלה מקצת בטלה כולה) - Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:6). The entire country became, at that time, "free-for-all." As for your continued assertion that Palestinian Arabs are not "citizens" of Israel, that is incorrect. They are, in fact, citizens with a different set of laws, similar, if you will, to China's "one state and two systems" policy, with respect to Hong Kong. You see, the people of Hong Kong enjoy more privileges than those in Mainland China. It is Israel's prerogative to define its own laws in accordance with its security needs. Still, we accord due respect and safety under the law to all of our citizens. Be well. References Davidbena (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Davidbena: my mind is caught in a conflict, because (1) I can’t see how this discussion is helping us build an encyclopedia, (2) you seem like a good person who is open minded (so I enjoy the discussion), and (3) every topic we discuss starts from the base level of propaganda nonsense (so it’s hard work). So let me try to answer quickly, as a compromise. I am very familiar with the legal “debate” about occupation. It is a propaganda technique to ensure people “miss the wood for the trees”. I could debate the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN resolution and the Armistice agreements with you for weeks and months, and we would not get any closer to a mutual understanding. Everything in this world can be justified through legal reasoning, in both directions, if you try hard enough. It’s why OJ Simpson was acquitted, and why the supporters of Apartheid South Africa or the Jim Crow laws couldn’t see just how abhorrent the subordination of their fellow human beings had been. If your brain is relying on such technical legal arguments to feel comfortable about the inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, I hope your heart is telling you the truth. On a related point, your Jewish exile statements are also significantly distorted by propaganda. See for example Israel Bartal here [1]. “Jewish state” means different things to different people. The issue at the heart of the conflict is that the Jewish state concept has always been seen to imply subordination to the Palestinians. It doesn’t have to be so, but the ultra-right wing in Israel has never been kept properly in check. Most importantly, why can’t it be a “Jewish and Palestinian state”? After all, many Muslim and Christian Palestinians were once ethnic Judeans, if not religiously Jewish (note the double meaning at Ioudaioi). I am not sure what you mean by “foreigners”; the region has always had a mix of religions. There is no single “native” religion in the region. Again, “Jewish and Palestinian state” would go a long way to solving this problem. On the demographic majority, your point on carving out Gaza is exactly what the Israeli right wing have in mind. From a moral point of view, why not carve out Tel Aviv as well? Tel Aviv is in the “Biblical Philistine” area after all! Fantasy aside, the idea of excluding two million Palestinians in order to ensure Jewish majority in a fully annexed state may be attractive to Jewish nationalist, but it is horrifically amoral given what it would mean for the Gazans. Most importantly, it will mean that the regional anger against Israeli policy will not dissipate, and hatred will continue. It’s a simple question - Israel can choose the path of reconciliation or continue to be seduced by the disease of exclusivist nationalism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Onceinawhile:Your suggestion of using " “Jewish and Palestinian state” - as if Palestine was antithetical to anything Jewish, or as if "Palestine" was dichotomous or different to the "Land of Israel" - is grossly misleading. The word "Palestine," being a geographical place, should not be used politically, but rather apolitically. Israel is a Jewish country by history, in spite of its diverse ethnic groups, just as all of Europe is comprised of countries of Christendom, though it too may have diverse ethnic and religious groups among them, and the Arabian Peninsula is an Islamic region of our world, although other religions may actually live there.Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) @Drsmoo: @Davidbena: the beauty of "Jewish and Palestinian State" is exactly because there is nothing antithetical about the two terms. The terms overlap in a Venn diagram, such that it includes everyone who claims the right to the land. Separately, when you say "Israel is a Jewish country by history", what do you mean? If you mean that the land between the river and the sea is only (or even mainly) Jewish by history, please note that that is an ignorant, damaging and bigoted view, held only by those who have never read the history of the region or else the most ignorant of ultra-nationalists. See History_of_Palestine#Graphical_overview_of_Palestine's_historical_sovereign_powers for example. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC) My friend, your comment arouses wonder. On one hand, you speak of the words Jewish and Palestinian in terms of ethnicity, saying that there is nothing antithetical about the two words for the same country, yet find it strange to say that the country is steeped more in Jewish history than in any other history. Why do you wish to expunge this fact? Of course, this is not saying that the histories of other peoples (e.g. Crusaders, Arabs, Byzantines, Romans, Grecians, etc.) did not also play a role in shaping the history of the country. Of course they did, just as the Berbers played a role in shaping the history of Christian Spain (Andalusia)! Even a cursory review of history will show you that. The important thing to remember, however, is that in all of these foreign conquests of Palestine ("the Land of Israel"), the Jewish nation has been central to their conquest. Even a Jew told Omar where to build the shrine known as Kubbat es-Sakhra (later, the "Dome of the Rock") on the Temple Mount. Look at the history of the Temple Mount and you will see Jewish history written all over the place! Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Sure. The same can be said for the other two Abrahamic religions, both of which are a similar age and heritage to Rabbinic / Talmudic Judaism, and both similarly resulted out of the classical Ioudaioi. No modern group has a supreme claim over the history of the country; anyone claiming their group does simply hasn’t looked properly. I’m sure there’s a whole other debate to come out of this, but I respectfully wish to bring this discussion to a close, as it is now too far removed from the point of the article. I will not respond further. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Why do you think that I should have included Gaza in the territorial census for the "West Bank", since, after all, Israel lays no claims to Gaza and Israel has given to them autonomous self-rule, which it still has (aside from strictures put into place around the Gaza Strip because of its militarization)? You look upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with "western lenses" and you seem to slight the logic of Israel's rightful claims to its own country. We can just agree to disagree here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Davidbena:, your historical story missed some crucial points (e.g. it was the Jewish Agency and the WZO which pushed for partition), your description of the concept of sovereignty is incorrect, and you ignored the crucial point in this whole mess - citizenship. Citizenship is the key problem, not “martial law”. Israel controls the lives of millions of people to whom it is not accountable. That sounds bland, but it is a fundamental misalignment, and is the main reason that Israel feels “different” to other countries, and the main reason that the state is able to treat Palestinians like animals. Why won’t Israel offer citizenship? The answer is known as the “demographic threat”. The reason that the position you have described is so abhorrent and inhumane, is that you imply that the land belongs to Israel but the people do not. You might say “oh I think we are all the same”, and you’d be right, but if Israel offered citizenship to all Palestinians, it would not be a Jewish state any more. It would be a country for all religions, the way it was for thousands of years before 1948. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Even so, it was the British government that first decided in 1937 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948," published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166: "The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews." The UN also took the same position in 1947. The Arabs, however, rejected the 1947 proposed UN Partition Plan. War soon broke-out, with Egypt sending troops into the country to help secure the country for an Arab state, without any recognition of Israeli sovereignty. In the end, the borders were defined (delineated) by the outcome of war, and the Jordanian army taking-up positions within the territories meant to be part of the Arab state (at least by the failed plans of the British and UN), although in scope considerably less than what was originally intended. While Jews may have agreed to the partition at first, soon the territorial integrity of Israel/Palestine became the primary objective in the minds of the country's political elite. As for the Arab citizens of our country, Israel has tried many times to ameliorate their condition. However, what Westerners often misunderstand about Israel's policy towards its multi-ethnic citizens is that, like in other Middle-Eastern countries, Israel wishes to preserve the Jewish characteristics and make-up of the State for which it was founded. The Arabs are, indeed, our fellow citizens of this country. Aside from security check-points in areas prone to insurrection and violence (and where suicide bombers have passed in the past), they are not discriminated against, and are often given work permits in Israeli towns and cities. They have their own municipalities and local councils and governing bodies, each made-up of their own people (the Palestinian Authority). Yet, because of the long history of hostility, the majority are also excluded from holding government positions in the Israeli government, but can hold them in their own local councils. Like in other Middle-Eastern countries, Israel in this regard is not a completely democratic state, since the ensured security and safety of its Jewish citizens and their lifestyle within their ancestral homeland, along with fraternal considerations and religion, take precedence over democracy. Still, we can respect our fellow Arab Muslim, Christian, Samaritan and Druze citizens, and accord them with all the protection and human dignity guaranteed by the law.Davidbena (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @Davidbena: the Palestinians are not citizens. They cannot vote in Israeli elections. That has nothing to do with “safety and security”. As a result, Israel has slowly built policies which treat the Palestinians as animals, without any accountability. Few Israeli voters care; it has been going on longer than most have been alive. Those impacted have no recourse. They can’t vote against. So the Palestinians suffer, whilst in Israel the majority of otherwise educated and good-hearted citizens look away. To get back to the point related to this article, Israel simply cannot have sovereignty over the land without making the people citizens.Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Of course they're citizens! Each person born in this country, or naturalized therein, has his/her State ID. Arabs can vote for their own municipalities. Perhaps you are confusing "citizenship" with "governance." Perhaps you should be reminded that Jews have lived in the country known as the Land of Israel (Palestine) for 2,000 years while being subject to foreign powers. This did not take away from their citizenship. Even when there were Jewish kings in the country, the first being King Saul and the last one being Agrippa II, there were foreign nationals or citizens of other ethnic backgrounds living in the country who were always subject to the ruling class. They paid taxes and did not dare to fight against the ruling power. Moreover, in a monarchy, no one votes! Authority is passed down from father to son. This did not make the people any less citizens! Today, however, our situation is different. The vast majority of Israel's Arab or non-Jewish citizens are happy and live quiet, unmolested lives. The few that are chastised, are those who challenge Israel's authority. Enough has been said about this.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC) "The vast majority of Israel's Arab or non-Jewish citizens are happy and live quiet, unmolested lives. The few that are chastised, are those who challenge Israel's authority." Lol, who taught you this fairy-tale? Huldra (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @Huldra: the most amazing part is that David is including West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinians in that statement. David, please don’t believe anything that anyone tells you, including me of course. Just go and see for yourself, with your own eyes and ears. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Clarification: I was referring here to the majority of the Arabs living in the so-called "West-Bank," but I was not referring to Gaza. In their case, it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC) "it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves" ..I think this is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen you say. Blaming the victim much? I wonder....if anyone said that the Holocaust was caused by the Jews themselves...how long would it take for that person to be lynched? Not long, I suspect. Rrrrright, we get it: all Jewish victims are 100% innocent, while for all Palestinian victims "it's fair to say that they have brought their hardships upon themselves". Huldra (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Truthfully, space should not be allotted here for a discussion about Gaza, since Israel lays no claim to Gaza, anymore than it does to Sinai. Here, we're talking about the Jewish State of Israel and overlapping that term with the "Palestinian territories" in the West Bank. If though you're questioning Israel's humanitarian role towards Gaza, Israel expressed its willingness in 1993 to give autonomy to the people of Gaza, and Israel duly disengaged from Gaza in 2005, when the Gazans were then given full-autonomy. However, the militant sort in Gaza sought innovations against Israel by importing lethal weapons to be used as part of their "armed resistance" against Israel. This led to Israel putting a naval and land blockade on Gaza in 2007. This, however, did not prevent the militant sort in Gaza from making home-made rockets which they indiscriminately used against Israel. Tunnels were also made for smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and also to wage attacks against Israeli positions in Israel. What does a country like Israel do under such circumstances? Sadly, the innocent children are the largest sufferers, who die from the collateral damage inflicted by bombs meant for those firing rockets at Israeli positions.Davidbena (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) @Davidbena:This article explains the reality. See point 6 on citizenship Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC) What Israel does to the belligerent sort in our country is largely dictated by Israel's special security needs. Don't forget that there is a long history of hostilities. Gaza is a perfect example of this, where Israel gave to them full-autonomy, but they used this liberty to import lethal weapons to be fired at Israeli cities. Even so, Israel provides them with water and electricity! What is needed is a time of healing and introspection. Your "Huffington Post" article is terribly misleading and inaccurate. It describes Israeli settlements in the country as being in "occupied Palestinian territories." If it means by "occupied territories" that Israel ought to return to the pre-1967 borders, bear in mind that Jordan held "East Jerusalem" and the "West Bank" between 1949-1967, and that its inhabitants were under occupation by Jordan as well; in saying so, we're back to square one. If it means, however, "occupied territories," in the sense that native "Palestinians" are being held under the dictates of an Israeli government and that Israel should return to the pre-1967 border without its own presence in that territory, this too is problematic, since Jews living in the country prior to 1948 were also called "Palestinians!" This, therefore, makes them just as much a part of the "Palestinian equation" as are Arabs, and they would be equally entitled to the land as anyone else. In the final analysis, the question has little to do with "occupation" in the pure sense of the word, but rather with wanting to be given a sovereign state and territory of their own (which they've never had before), at the expense of Jewish hegemony. Peace can be had if the Arabs, generally speaking, will agree to live with Israel, without any pre-conditions. Mutual respect and goodwill are needed, and which for the most part already exist between the two peoples. You'd have to come here to see it for yourself. I, for an example, being an Israeli, work at a place where there are Arab co-workers, and they come from areas controlled by the PA. Be well. PS- if you wish to discuss in depth the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is not the place. We cannot use Talk-Pages as a chat forum.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Agree with your last sentence, per WP:NOTFORUM. The rest is hopelessly confused. You clearly care passionately, perhaps too much. Anyway, good luck to you. If you ever want to understand another perspective, you know where to find me. As to this article, I think the debate is resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC) After "re-wording" some sentences, here and there, I think now the Israeli position is very clear to our readers. Happy editing!Davidbena (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ”The Israeli position”?! I thought I was discussing with you an individual, not the national propaganda! Onceinawhile (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC) You are discussing these issues with me, and I have done my best to show the reality as most Israelis see it. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC) The Feedback service asked me to comment on this, but the topic has turned into a political debate. I suppose Israel/Palestine would be my preferred solution, but I have no intention of becoming embroiled in the debate. Nobody is going to win the debate anyway: TIME magazine: Seventy years after Israel’s declaration of independence, the conflict appears to be returning to its roots. The Israeli government is demanding that Palestinians recognize the right of Jews to their own state in historic Palestine. The Palestinians are demanding the right to return home. The two goals cannot be reconciled. And the passing of time has done little to quell the yearning for them. http://time.com/5273108/back-to-the-future-israeli-palestinian-conflict/ Peter K Burian (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks, Peter. As someone once wrote: "What was once imagined as a single land has become an assortment of territories. These territories bear multiple names and different legal statuses, and their boundaries are often blurred" (END QUOTE). The "Historical Palestine" is now construed with the politically-charged word, "Palestine", the country so-called by all its inhabitants prior to 1949, and home of the Arab-Palestinians who long for a state of their own. Likewise, the "Historical Land of Israel", at least in the minds of Arab-Palestinians, is now construed with the modern, political State of Israel. To many, both words (Palestine vs. Israel) seem to be mutually exclusive, when they ought not to be. The proper way of addressing this issue in articles such as these and which are plainly apolitical in nature, is, in my view, to add the neutral words of "Israel/Palestine" for the country's geographical location. I have seen this done in peer-reviewed articles where the writer does not wish to offend anyone.Davidbena (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area

Davidbena, you have now introduced Judea and Samaria Area under Province/Region. This is a construct which is recognised by exactly ZERO other nations (outside Israel). This will have to go. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do you say that no one recognises it, when even the Palestinian Authority recognizes it! It is Israel's law, and it is upheld by all in this country. We do not live in a fantasy world! This is a reality, and even the nations accept it. This has only to do with provincial administration, not a political state.Davidbena (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

They are illegal settlements under international law (thieves, in the eyes of much of the world). And having Judea and Samaria Area under Province/Region, then having Palestinian territories under Country Name: again, it makes zero sense. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No one referred to settlements. We're referring to the equivalent of "Governorate" in the territories controlled by Israel under the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993. As I recall, you supported this idea here. You seem to be confusing Statehood with provincial administration, which latter we are talking about here.Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As for why we have Palestinian territories under Country Name is because the areas under discussion are not yet a separate and sovereign (independent) State.Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

From the Judea and Samaria Area article: "Judea and Samaria Area [...] is the Israeli government term for the administrative division encompassing Israeli-controlled Jewish-majority civilian areas of Area C of the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem." Huldra (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And my vote here, was referring to the administrative areas which were in place before you Davidbena, started all this mess. That is, say using say Hebron Governorate for Hebron, etc, etc. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra:, Actually, if you look closely at the edit history, the Administrative settings that I restored were there before I even touched this article. They apply to all citizens of the country, until a further peace agreement can be reached.Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This is how it looked like on 9 January 2017, the last version befor you started editing. Hebron was in Hebron Governorate. Now it is in Judea and Samaria Area! Ridiculous. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So I'm correct in saying that I did not introduce the use of "Administrative regions." It was there before me. The only innovation that I took was to separate the Old Testament biblical towns from the New Testament towns, and even this was at the request of another involved editor.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, AFAIK you were also the person who unilaterally changed Hebron Governorate to Judea and Samaria Area. Huldra (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean a certain biblical village in the "Hebron Governorate." If I changed the region for Judea and Samaria Area, it was unintentional. I see nothing wrong with restoring the designation to Hebron Governorate, if it makes you feel any better.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever your stance on the politics, it makes no sense to use the Israeli region name when we clearly state the places as being in the Palestinian territories. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is defined under Jerusalem District. Note that it says there: "The population of 1,083,300 is 66.6% Jewish and 31.8% Arab." This, too, is merely for administrative purposes. The Palestinian Arabs throughout the entire country are affected by these terms, and therefore they are still valid. It brings conformity to the whole list, unlike before where we had simply "Samaria" or "Judea" and which kindled the ire of our fellow editors.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel under the Jerusalem Law. The West Bank has not. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, But does that really matter? Under the Oslo Peace Accords, these administrative regions affect all populations - Jews and Arabs alike. In the case of the Judea and Samaria Area, it states there: "The Judea and Samaria Area is administered by the Israel Defense Forces Central Command, and military law is applied. Administrative decisions are subject to the Command's chief." You see, this is the situation at present because of the current state of hostilities. It will change when the situation gets better. Still, dislike for the current situation doesn't make it null & void. Davidbena (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am changing it back to what it was, before you, Davidbena, changed it unilaterally. AFAIK, you have zero support from anyone else for your view, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You have no right to revert the current edit until a consensus can be reached. Meanwhile you have none. Besides, the Administrative regions are a system in place for all peoples in this country, Jews and Arabs alike.Davidbena (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Which country? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was obvious. We're talking here about the country which has gone by many names: Canaan, Land of Israel, Palestine, Judea, the Promised Land, the Holy Land. You see, it's all one and the same country.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To pick just one example from this article, the residents of Taffuh are not citizens of Israel. You should go there tomorrow and see for yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, I have already changed the designation for Taffuh, placing it in the Hebron Governorate. With that said, it doesn't change the reality on the ground, does it? These places are still under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority control. Be well, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If it makes Huldra feel any better, we'll designate Hebron as being in the Hebron Governorate.Davidbena (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To repeat, to use Judea and Samaria Area under any Province/Region is unacceptable, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you are just interested in fighting, as - upon further consideration - I see that there has never been an entry for Hebron, which you claimed should have been classified under the Hebron Governorate. Sigh. The earliest edits, before my involvement, were as they are now for the "Province/Region."Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That really isn't fair...the last thing I want is "fighting for the sake of fighting" (I am actually here to write an encyclopaedia!). And if you look at the last version before you srtarted, 9 January 2017 ...then search for Hebron and Hebron Governorate...you will find it. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I had overlooked the word, since I was looking for "Hebron" instead of "Qiryat Arba".Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dislike for the current political situation agreed upon by the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority doesn't render it "null-and-void." It is the current reality in our State.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena, until you get consensus for your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)#Proposed_Amendment, this discussion is a waste of time. J&SA currently contravenes the guideline, and must be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that my suggestions are "wrong" or "out of place", or that they "contradict" Wikipedia's policies, then feel free to take the issue to a higher body for resolution. So far, I do not see that our current edits contradict Wikipedia policy in any way.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we reached an agreement on this one. Phewwww! Good work, User:Huldra, who is really a "work-horse". Hahah.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Phewwww indeed! ...now, hopefully, I can go back to what I was doing: adding sources to various articles on old monasteries...Huldra (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

First identified with modern location

@Davidbena:, thanks for your work on this over recent months - it is very interesting.

I have a suggestion for you. Since the modern identification of these sites are often disputed, it would be helpful to add a column stating when it was first identified with the modern location.

For many, of these, the first formal identification will have been in Biblical Researches in Palestine. And for those that were identified previously, Robinson will often provide the backstory.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many of these sites are indeed disputed. The problem, however, is that for some there are multiple identifications. I think that perhaps to mention some of these contested identifications it would be wise to mention them in an adjoining footnote. Of course, the main identification should always follow the preponderance of academic research. Feel free to add these other "suggested identifications" in their proper footnotes. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit

User:Zero0000, how, in your opinion, can we make the following edit more appropriate, not argumentative and not dubious?

Palestinian territories [NOTE]: Strictly speaking, the phrase ‘Palestinian Territories’ refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, some places jointly run by Israel and the PA. Places here named may include the Judea and Samaria administrative area of the West Bank, an area agreed to and regulated by the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Sept. 1995, and which are semi-autonomous regions. These areas hold a Jewish population of 501,856 (BBC 2017), and an Arab/Bedouin population: 40,000 (excludes Area A and B), and a predominant Arab Palestinian population. The territory has been under Israeli control since the 1967 Six-Day War but not annexed by Israel, pending negotiations regarding its status. On the one hand, the territory is also part of historic Israel, the borders of ancient Israel overlapping those of Galilee and the modern West Bank. In spite of the complicated legal, political, and human rights situation in the West Bank, it remains home to some important archaeological and spiritual sites – holy to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The West Bank also encompasses significant, ancient biblical cities such as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus, alongside more modern cities like Ramallah and Ariel, a fact which leads to politically contentious issues. The same territories have an old and rich Arab culture, dating back more than 1,000 years. Tel Shiloh in the West Bank, for example, has yielded remains spanning over a 3,700 year period. It was not only the site of Israel's ancient Tabernacle, but it also holds three Byzantine-era churches and two mosques. Since the future status of the region is a key factor in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is currently not recognised by the UN and most nations as part of the modern State of Israel, but is also not yet autonomous, although the Israeli government views the same lands as "disputed territories," for which reason these territories are currently held under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority jurisdiction. Some areas remain illegal under Israeli law for Israeli citizens to enter, whereby security arrangements and travel permits for local Jewish residents are coordinated between the Palestinian Authority and Israel via military administration of the West Bank (COGAT).

References

--Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

David, I'm sure you know that "Palestinian Territories" refers to the entire West Bank (incl. EJ) and Gaza according to the UN and the overwhelming majority of sources. The fact that you found one source (BBC) with a different meaning doesn't mean you can ignore the majority. Also, a good thing about this page is that (for once) it can be written in a way that doesn't touch on modern political disputes. So I think that adding a footnote about those disputes is a negative step. Zero^talk 02:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So, if the problem is with the population count, we can either update it or remove it altogether. As for what you said about not "touching on political disputes," either way you choose to look at it, it still hammers home the political morass of the country, as it gives a distinct "political" term for the ancient land of Israel/Palestine by calling part of the country "Palestinian territories." Our solution at least tries to show the historical connection of the land with all of its indigenous peoples.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Why the list excluded Ethiopia?

Ethiopia has been mentioned in either Old Testament and New Testament about 20 times. For instance, the country has been mentioned in King James Bible. Why this list excluded Ethiopia? The Supermind (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The exclusion was not done intentionally. It's just that the list is so-far inexhaustive and requires others to put-in the other place-names, be wherever they might be.Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

New name: "Identified biblical places"

@Davidbena, Onceinawhile, and Huldra: "Identified biblical places" would be much more useful.

"List of modern names for biblical place names" is not just very long and terribly awkward, but it adds nothing, as in literature dealing with biblical sites, the word always used is "identified", "identification", so WP users would most likely search for that. Also, the "modern names" as such are in no way important, what is interesting here is where to look up on the map place-names from the Bible, and the wikilinks to the respective articles, both offering a geographical and background orientation in a familiar modern context for long-gone places & events. That is the actual benefit of this page, and the name should be in accordance with that. Arminden (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden:, I agree with your suggestion to rename this article. Let's see what our fellow editors have to say about it.Davidbena (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How about "List of identifications for biblical places" or "Identifications for biblical places"? "Identified" is too definitive; many of these are based on very little evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think "List of identifications for biblical places" is the best of the names suggested so far. Zero^talk 03:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's more accurate, and (see David's comment here-below) many if not most identifications are little more than speculation, but I cared for brevity when I suggested the name change in the first place. Replacing one endless name with another isn't really worth the hassle, or is it?

Ideally, I would prefer an article "Identification of biblical sites", with an explanation of how it has been done throughout the centuries, and with the list attached to it. But there comes the over-politicised Place names of Palestine and grabs the lion's share from this topic, but w/o openly acknowledging what it's about and making a mess of it, because, you know, 'Bible' and 'Palestine' don't go under the same hat. Does that sound ridiculous to you to? Well, yes, because it is. But maybe we can still import the parts which fit well here from there and have a nice "Identification of biblical sites" article, a topic which obviously interests a lot of people, laypersons as much as academic researchers. If that's not in the cards, which very long name we agree on is a bit less interesting.

What about "Modern location of biblical sites"? It lacks the (search-)word "Identification", but that can be sorted with a redirect, and we really don't need to be over-cautious about the title, we can place all the needed caveats in the intro. Arminden (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What ever word we use, I would prefer plural, ie "identifications" (not "identification"); or "locations" (not "location"). Many of these biblical places are still very unsure (and I suspect: will remain so). (eg, Shuafat is 3+ proposed places), Huldra (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with using "Identifications" (rather than "Identification"), as even in our most latest archaeological reports, some sites are still disputed by contemporaneous archaeological journals.Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Outdated identifications (see Gath)

Gath (city): Tell es-Safi is the mainstream opinion, supported by much of the ongoing excavation results. Ramla it can't possibly be, as that is an Umayyad new foundation. Findings in the wider area around Ramla are far less convincing than Tell es-Safi, and only Ramla is Ramla. Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1355!!) had no way to know, he was smart and well-read, but as much as one could be in the early 14th century. In the 1950s, B. Mazar also had little to go by in terms of archaeological excavations.

I didn't fully remove Ramla, I leave that to those who need convincing, but we should. Arminden (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As most of our modern-day identifications of biblical sites, unless we're talking about Jerusalem and Hebron, almost all are tentative identifications, with disputing opinions by scholars. We can't do much about that, except to list the divergent opinions. As for Ramla, the present city was, indeed, built in Umayyad period, but beneath the new foundations there is also a ruin (excavated site) that pre-dates the modern, Ummayad-period. When Ishtori Haparchi says that the ancient Gath was Ramla, no doubt that is what he had in mind, or else some similar archaeological site nearby. Here, we're simply talking about oral tradition passed down throughout the ages. I'm not saying that one has to believe Jewish oral-tradition, but what I am saying is that it, too, is a source worthy of note.Davidbena (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to listing identifications from oral tradition in a separate column, except that the table would be too wide then. As for Haparchi, sorry David but I think it more likely shows his ignorance of archaeology rather than his knowledge of it. Incidentally, the older remains are not in Ramla but a few kilometers to the south. Nothing was there in Haparchi's time and if there was something there he wouldn't have called it Ramla. Zero^talk 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, both Isaac alias Ishtori and the equally famous E. Robinson went a lot by the existing place-names from their own time. Ishtori was a Provencal, not a local, who knew the Jewish written sources in and out and probably talked to locals of all ethnoreligious backgrounds, and managed to pinpoint quite a few correct locations that way. Where all those who used existing place-names were bound to make mistakes, is where later toponyms resembled biblical or classical ones, but without sharing a common origin. Ramla probably resonated in Isaac's analysis with some biblical heights, Rama(h) or Ramat(h)-something, but it was actually named by the Umayyads who founded it after the Arabic word for sand. Oral tradition works quite well, or rather: memory of names coupled with adaptations in accordance with folk etimologies giving new meanings to old names when languages or circumstances change. I'm the last man to argue against it, but it's far from always being a safe bet. Anyway, archaeologists are under permanent peer scrutiny and have to offer a mix of material evidence, supported by the ancient and scriptural sources, otherwise they can never reach a consensus. Tell es-Safi though is for the time being a relatively safe front-runner. So I'm not disregarding oral traditions of any kind, but they're by now only one of several useful "tools in the toolbox", to use an en vogue term. And if current research gives preference to A over B, I'd say WP has to go with A first. Arminden (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Gibeah & Gibeon clearly different

I don't know enough about Gibeah, but there is no doubt about Gibeon = el-Jib.

I have disentangled the two. The problem is: there was a lot of comment to the wrongly mixed-up Gibeah & Gibeon, and I cannot tell what was referring to which, as the only source that matters isn't accessible online:

"Disputed identification. See H.B. Tristram, The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, London 1865, p. [https://archive.org/details/landisraelajour01trisgoog/page/n220 169]; cf. David ben Abraham al-Fasi (1936), The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible known as Kitab Jami al-Alfaz (Agron) of David ben Abraham Al-Fasi, the Karaite, Solomon Skoss (ed.), New Haven: Yale, introd. p. xxxviii; cf. {{cite book |author= Tsafrir, Y. |author-link= Yoram Tsafrir |author2= Di Segni, Leah |author3= Green, Judith |title= Gabath Saulis |work=(TIR): Tabula Imperii Romani: Judaea, Palaestina |publisher=[[Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities]] |location= Jerusalem |year= 1994 |isbn= 978-965-208-107-0 |page= 127 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=8XJtAAAAMAAJ }}"

Tristram is long outdated, doesn't even deserve a mention. The medieval al-Fasi even less. And I have no access to Tsafrir et al. - are they offering new theories, or just listing old ones? I guess the former. Negev & Gibson write the obvious: the mainstream opinion since Albright is that Gibeah (of Saul) = Tell el-Ful, with a couple of authors (Miller and Arnold) holding out with a different opinion, i.e. Jaba NE of er-Ram. Israel Finkelstein has contradicted Albright in 2011{{cite journal |last= Finkelstein |first= Israel |author-link= Israel Finkelstein |title= Tell el-Ful Revisited: The Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (with a New Identification) |pages= 106–118 |journal=[[Palestine Exploration Quarterly]] |publisher=[[Palestine Exploration Fund]] |location= London |volume= 143 |number= 2 |year= 2011 |doi= 10.1179/003103211X12971861556918 |url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233648523_Tell_el-Ful_Revisited_The_Assyrian_and_Hellenistic_Periods_with_a_New_Identification |access-date= 27 December 2021}}{{subscription required}} (I can't remember how I got the PDF, but the abstract does the job as well). He seems to me to agree with Miller (1975) and Arnold (1990) that Gibeah is the same as Geba = Jaba, but he's focusing on indentifying Tell el-Ful rather than on finding Gibeah, and he finds el-Ful to be almost out of the question, w/o claiming that this can be proven without a doubt.

So: mainstream for Gibeah (of Saul) = Tell el-Ful, with Miller (1975) and Arnold (1990) offering an alternative ID (bibl. Gibeah = bibl. Geba/Gaba = modern Jaba), and Finkelstein (2011) concludes that "the identification of Gibeah/Gibeah of Saul at Tell el-Ful (is) highly questionable, probably impossible."

If anyone wants to add any comment to Gibeah, and a source etc. to el-Jib (which is a firm ID, no counter-theories anymore), pls do, I won't. Arminden (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I now have access to Tsafrir et al.'s book, and all they write is essentially "GABATH SAULIS - Tell el Ful. Titus’ last camp before Jerusalem, thirty stadia to the north. See also Gaba of Benjamin." The book is only a gazetteer of Hellenistic to Byzantine sites, so I guess it focuses on identifications common at the time and of course on what was almost consensual in 1994, before Finkelstein moved in to trouble the waters, but after Miller and Arnold. Btw, the page is 127, not 126; I have fixed it here-above and added some details, in case smb wants to put it back in. Arminden (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Much of the list is outdated or "popular science" level

There are no straightforward identification options for many sites. Ishtory, E. Robinson, the 19th-c. PEF, Albright were all very honourable people in their own time, but time has passed and science has moved forward. We should use many more question marks and be more cautious. Even the respective WP articles are often more up-to-date and more cautious than the categorical and often wrong statements of this list. That is most definitely the case with almost all of the Exodus sites, but I found several such mistakes re. sites connected to events placed by the biblical narrative in more recent times, which raises somewhat the chances of them being historically accurate. Very honourable effort, but please, much less categorical re. really old places. Arminden (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

flags

How many times do readers need to see the flag of the same country? I propose that all flags be removed. Zero^talk 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)