Talk:Palestinian rabbis

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Palestinian rabbis → Israeli rabbis – I suggest changing this thread's name to Israeli rabbis or Jewish rabbis in ancient Israel since no rabbis from Israel (zionist rabbis) call themselves "palestinian rabbis". palestinians were the enemies of the Israelites in the tanakh, why should a religious zionist jew call himself a palestinian? Someone35 (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we've been over this in the course of a recent deletion-discussion. The subject/title of this whole deal was the crux, and it was decided that, evidently, there were "Palestinian rabbis". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree. For (one of) the same reason(s) that is disagree with the present name: the possible confusing between the present political entity "Israel/Palestine" and the geographical area implied. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another 14 year old.... Chesdovi (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) This refers to User:Someone35 who in addition to 14 year old User:Jusmine, seems to have limited knowledge of usage of the term in relation to Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep name This was a clear keep in the AFD. Only a few editors have entertained such a name change/move. The consensus is to keep, although the discussion may continue here for any further thoughts, and/or new information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep name Only rabbis since 1948 have been called "Israeli rabbis". Zero^talk 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep name. "Why would a religious zionist rabbi call himself a palestinian?" Because that is what religious zionist rabbis who lived there called themselves before 1948, (see Ezras Torah Fund for Relief of European and Palestinian Rabbis.) The anachronistic term is a valid classification for rabbis of the relevant period. N.B. Doubtful whether the ancient Philistines of the Bible are related to today’s Arab Palestinians; today’s Israelis are of course related to the ancient Israelites though! Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose move (or keep name if you like). The sources call these rabbis "Palestinian rabbis". The dislike of the term "Palestinian" by particular editors of Wikipedia should have no bearing on the content of articles. As this request is not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline and is simply just a stream of unsourced assertions regarding the feelings of unnamed rabbis from Israel (who apparently must without a doubt also be Zionist), it should be dismissed as being wholly without merit. nableezy - 15:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment seb az- show me a single mainstream israeli rabbi that called himself a palestinian (or פלשתי in hebrew which is a philistinian who were the enemies of the israelites in the tanakh). not that was called by others a palestinian but that considered himself as one.
• chesdovi- jusmine is 18 years old (check out her hebrew wiki page and translate it using translate.google.com) which is probably older than you.
• ism schism- that's because most people there seem to be nableezy's friends.
• zero- but they never mentioned themselves (at least the mainstream ones didn't) as palestinians.
• chesdovi- they were called palestinians by others (that the word "zionist" doesn't appear in their page for example). Calling an orthodox Jew in the name of the Jews' enemies in the tanakh is as far as I know an offense isn't it? it's like calling somebody a traitor

  You are 14 and have a lot to learn, but hey, that's what wiki is here for. (Btw, Jusmine was 14 when she made the relevant edit). Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin did not seem bothered about any association between Jews being called Palestinian and the ancient enemies of the bible era Jews. According to your reasoning, we should refrain from calling people like Ludwig Bamberger German. Chesdovi (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• nableezy- It is a non neutral POV for a lot of people (since the term "palestine" mostly refers to people from the west bank and gaza strip these days and because of its name's origin), not for just "particular editors"-- Someone35 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Your personal feelings on the suitability of the word Palestinian are completely irrelevant. Reliable sources call the subjects of this article "Palestinian rabbis". That is what matters here, not the political feelings of random people on the internet. The only thing that matters is what do the sources call these people. It is clear that the sources call them "Palestinian rabbis". The end. nableezy - 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not that simple. We do not blindly use all sources (even reliable ones). We make an encyclopedia here, and our usage of sources is geared towards this. And the more so for the language we use, which does not have to be identical to the language of sources we use. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you lost the AFD. On this talk page as well, there are very few who agree with you. You may keep making your case; but you are very short of consensus (aside from yourself and one other... both of which have presented no reliable sources - just POV!). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ism schism, please don't try to pick a fight with me. Have you at all noticed that I also oppose the requested move? Your POV accusation also is hardly helpful. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is that simple. Wikipedia has naming conventions which stipulates that article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. We do follow the sources, blindly or otherwise. Neither you nor Someone35 has given any indication that there are policy based reasons for not using the commonly used name for the subject of this article; instead you have both relied on the unsupported premise that "Palestinian" cannot apply to Jews. However, the sources trump the views of Wikipedia editors. You dont like the words the sources use? Tough. As you said, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not cater to the political demands of users who dislike the terms that are used by reliable sources. nableezy - 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That things are not as simple as you make them look, can be seen from disambiguation pages and disambiguated names. Take e.g. the article Jill Bennett (American actress). Sources call her just "Jill Bennett", but we have to be a little more precise, because this is an encyclopedia. Likewise the term "Palestinian" is nowadays first and foremost associated with the Palestinian nationality and ethnicity, not the geographical area. We should take this into account when naming our articles. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You really are going to say that based on a disambiguation being included in one article title that means that the naming conventions do not apply? Well, okay, let's play this game. Why is Jill Bennett (American actress) not at Jill Bennett? Because there are multiple possible targets for the article Jill Bennett. So we have the Jill Bennett article point to both of those targets and have each targeted article contain a necessary disambiguation in the title. It is not because we need "to be a little more precise, because this is an encyclopedia", it is because it is necessary to distinguish between this Jill Bennett and this Jill Bennett. Are there some other target for Palestinian rabbis that would require us to include a disambiguation in the title? Because we also have a policy on that, which says that we add disambiguate titles when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles. As far as I know there is no other Wikipedia article that would be covered by the title Palestinian rabbis, and as such your complaint lacks substance. nableezy - 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just making the point that we have to be careful when using ambiguous terms on Wikipedia. I think that argument has been made rather forceful, and it applies very much to this article. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be your point, it however does not reflect Wikipedia policy. Disambiguation is necessary when there are multiple possible target articles for a single title. That isnt the case here. nableezy - 00:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser’s argument that Palestinian is foremost associated with the modern nationality and ethnicity and should therefore only be used in that respect is surely not correct. There are hundreds of words have different connotations, and they can be used in each of their respective contexts without concern of confusion. Compare Coke: To millions over the globe, the word refer to that dark brown fizzy beverage. But to many of today’s deprived youth, the words more significantly refers that white powdery substance. Yet ask anyone involved in the mining or fuel industry, it chief meaning refers foremostly to the carbon based fuel. Can we not ever use the word coke in any form lest people think locomotives are run on Coca-Cola? Maybe some odd person will mistake "Diet Coke" as being a drug suitable for obese people? Sure we have a disambig page, but that is not the issue here. "Coke" is still used is the various articles with it different meanings, and so can the word "Palestinian." People who are well versed in the history of rabbis in the Land of Israel will know that a significant proportion of academics will call these rabbis Palestinian. Please do not be blind to this fact. Why would anybody pretend to be? Chesdovi (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing for disambiguation. I am saying that since the foremost meaning of the word "Palestinian" is other than the meaning which is used here, we should use alternative terms. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You arent arguing for disambiguation? Then why on earth did you raise an example of an article with a disambiguation here? You, again, fail to see that Wikipedia has policies about precisely these sorts of issues to negate the possibility of the political impulses of certain users from interfering with the encyclopedia. We rely on reliable sources for names because we expect them to settle the issue about what a word means in what context. We dont need to have conversations about whether or not Palestinian can apply to non-Arabs, we just need to look at what the sources call these people. They call them Palestinian rabbis. The end. nableezy - 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. Or as we say in England: Ditto. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep name or "oppose move", if you like. Prevailing usage by reliable sources.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep name - For its use by RS. -asad (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep name - The article is about centuries of history, during almost all of which the region was known as Palestine. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep name - The connection between the name "Palestinians" and the local Arabs is a modern one. Since this is an article about history, I see no problem with the name. Maybe "Rabbis of the land of Israel" would be more fitting, but this name is too long. TFighterPilot (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jerusalem Talmud

In Jewish sources that Talmud is called "Talmud Yerushalmi", the "Jerusalem Talmud". A quick look at Google shows that this term is about 4 times more in use than the term "Palestinian Talmud". Which is probably also the reason that "Palestinian Talmud" is a redirect to "Jerusalem Talmud" here on Wikipedia. So with all due respect for this term, which is a valid secondary name, it is better to use the term "Jerusalem Talmud" on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please provide some sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As this page is specifically about Palestinian sages, I would have thought that the term is quite apt for use on this specific page. Anyhow, to call it Jerusalem Talmud is a tad misleading. During the period of it compilation, Jews were forbidden from residing in Jerusalem and most were based in the northern towns of Tiberias and Sepphoris from where the "Jerusalem" Talmud emerged. ([1], [2]) Other sages from other towns in Palestine also contributed, bar Jerusalem. So "Palestinian Talmud" seems to be the more encompassing and unambiguous name, particularly on this page. Chesdovi (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The name to use for the rabbis and the name to use for the Talmud are different issues and there is no reason to adopt the same solution for both. Debresser is correct that the name Jerusalem Talmud is now more common in English (though by only a small margin in scholarly writing). Chesdovi is correct that the name Palestinian Talmud is more historically accurate. I can live with either. On the matter of the rabbis, though, no better name than the current one has been proposed as far as I know. Zero^talk 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This indeed would have been my reply to Chesdovi's suggestion. That these are two different issues, and in relation to the talmud, the name Jerusalem Talmud is to be preferred, for the reasons mentioned. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would actually go with accuracy + common, rather than just common, esp. on this page about Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The accuracy argument is mentioned in the article without a source. In addition, you actually propose that accuracy - common supersede common. Moreover, the term "Palestinian rabbis" is the best example of an inaccurate term, since none of these rabbis hold Palestinian nationality or are of the Palestinian ethnicity. So you'd better keep quit about inaccuracy. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

AI Kook held Palestinian nationality. Chesdovi (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If that were to be sourced (not here, spare us, please), then he would be the first real Palestinian rabbi. But all of this is irrelevant to the argument concerning the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 sources about the inaccuracy of the term JT provided here for Debresser's conveinience. If you - common and - common, you are left with accuracy. Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "Palestinian Talmud" except for anti zionists and people who seem to really like the name "palestine". Jerusalem Talmud is its official name in any language and in Hebrew (which is the language it's written in) the word "palestine" isn't even mentioned there (most Jews referred to "palestine" as "israel" even after the romans changed its name in 132 AD). As Debresser said, "Jerusalem Talmud" has x2 results in Google than "Palestinian Talmud". You want a proof? Go look for it in yourself, ism chism-- Someone35 (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note Saul Lieberman and Lawrence Schiffman are two examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Someone35's comment isn't completely true. And it was 4 times on Google. Anyway, I think it is clear that "Jerusalem Talmud" is the better term. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They are both accurate; with multiple reliable sources to back up both claims. The two are not mutually exclusive!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing what to name to use for the actual page on the P/JT. As this page is about Palestinian rabbis, it makes sense on this page to call the Talmud they produced the "Palestinian" one. Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I just wanted to be clear on my reasoning in that there are reliable sources that clearly show that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree, as do Zero and Someone35 for the very simple reason that Chesdovi's argument is a non-argument. The simple fact of two terms using the same word, in this case "Palestinian", is no reason to use the less known term against Wikipedia's naming rules. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Was that suppose to make sense? Please explain. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that Debresser is revealing his ignorance by calling the "Palestinian Talmud" the "less known term." He also reveals his selective understanding of other peoples comments: Zero clearly said either is acceptable. That makes 1 neutral user, 2 users "for" the term and 1 plus a 14 year old "against". Is this now settled? Chesdovi (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your comments are full with bad demagogy. I have already shown that "Jerusalem Talmud" is the four times better known term, and the term used by Wikipedia. And I differ with you as to the interpretation of Zero0000's opinion on this issue. Saying that he can "live with either" does not negate that he agrees with my argument. So yes, this is settled: as use "Jerusalem". And please, do not respond further: the issue is settled, remember? Debresser (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The article is not about rabbis of Palestinian-Arab/Palestinian nationality, therefore in my opinion it is very important that we change the name of this article to "Palestinian-Jewish rabbis" per Palestinian Jews. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The word Palestine, in use for two millenia, does not historically figure ethnicity, but is toponymic. Nationality is itself ambiguous referring either to where you were born, or the natio (ethnic group into which you were born), the distinction between geopolitical reality and ethnic origin so many confuse. 'Greek Rabbis' like those from Salonica, weren't Greek ethnically. The esteemed Elio Toaff is Italianissimo, but ethnically Jewish. If we we write that he is an Italian Rabbi, no one will be thinking he's 'Italian' rather than 'Jewish'. He's both, the former culturally, linguistically and in terms of political nationality, the latter in terms of ethnic group to which he belongs. To treat the word Palestine here as exceptional is not advisable, and somewhat needlessly politically nervous. If you read the Toaff interview in full, on the one hand he uses 'Italians' to refer to his non-Jewish compatriots, the overwhelming majority, but he also uses the word to refer to himself. It's exemplary.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (see Wikipedia:Article titles. The term Palestinian Rabbis exists in the literature, but many sources refer to them as the Rabbis of the Land of Israel, which is consistent with their self-identification, and with the Hebrew name of this geographical region (Eretz-Yisra'el). The term "Palestinian" is indeed somewhat overloaded since since today "Palestinian" is not only a name for people from a specific geographical region but also a name of a specific nationality, and most likely an upcoming state. While both names are used in reliable English-language sources, Rabbis of the Land of Israel is more recognizable to readers and less ambiguous, and that would be my choice. Marokwitz (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethno-religious preference should not override nor override traditional usage. 'Land of Israel' would denote the political reality of Israel to English speakers, and not the historical millenial world which is part and parcel of Western cultural and linguistic hertiage. This is a patent no-goer, and the alternative is far more overloaded with subliminal suggestion than 'Palestine' which doesn't even exist as a state, but is vivid as a word conjuring up the Bible. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This name is used by plenty of reliable sources (check for yourself), and is the standard name on Wikipedia as well (see Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel). If many if not most reliable sources use this name without being accused of subliminal suggestion, I can't see why this would be a "patent no-goer". "Ethno-religious preference" has nothing to do with it, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should follow them. Marokwitz (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The common English name for the region is Palestine, not Land of Israel. Wikipedia articles are based on the common English name of the subject. If you can demonstrate that the common English name for the subject of this article is Rabbis of the Land of Israel then by all means make that case. I find it difficult to believe that this is true, as the sources cited in the article call these rabbis Palestinian rabbis. You are right on one thing, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should follow them. Here the reliable sources call these rabbis Palestinian rabbis. So to should Wikipedia. nableezy - 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki categories have no bearing, since anyone can slip their POV into them, and provide no guideline. The fact is 'Land of Israel' is Hebraic and Israeli usage. It means something completely different in English. If heard by English ears, it yields up meanings different from those Hebrew-speakers have. It would be taken to mean 'Israel, and would have no no religious connotations at all to native speakers of non-Jewish extraction. We've had this debate over Judea and Samaria. The result was to privilege, in line with the protocols, standard English over partisan and parochial and POV-loaded terms (POV because Land of Israel, and you can google up any number of sources on this, is a term with very specific political connotations in contemporary Israeli cultural, and religious-nationalist debates). Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "Palestinian rabbis" also yields up meanings different from those intended, both to English speakers, to Hebrew speakers and to any non-Arabic speaker - namely it would widely be perceived to mean Palestinian-arab rabbis. To avoid such a misconception we must use a more informative and less loaded name.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but thinking that perhaps the real intention behind the suggestion of using the ambiguous and loaded term "Palestinian rabbis" might be completely different – namely, to strengthen the affinity of the Palestinian-Arabs to the historical region of Palestine while at the same time to obscure the connection of the Jewish settlement to this region. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Come again!!!!!. You write:

' the loaded term "Palestinian rabbis" . .strengthens the affinity of the Palestinian Arabs to the historic region of Palestine'!!!!!!!

Good god. That made my day. Well, off to bed, with a cuppa and a book of the usual good prose.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• How about "Rabbis in Palestine"? Palestine (not Israel) is the name of the geographic location, and is the geographic name used in the sources cited in the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's state the obvious. The 'Land of Israel' is a theological term referring to an entity whose geographical dimensions have never been exactly established by rabbinical law. In one reading of the phrase, it could mean Rabbis born in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, as well as Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, many of the rabbis included in this article were not natives of Palestine. Rather, the article scope is rabbis who worked in Palestine. Many of them had emigrated to Palestine from places like Spain and Babylonia (and some were exiled from Palestine to places like Spain, Egypt, and Syria). --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a general note, the two editors most qualified to comment on this Reqmove – by which I mean User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser – probably won't be able to sooner than Saturday night in their respective time zones. For my part, I would support User:Orlady's proposal, which gracefully avoids the ambiguity of the word Palestinian – although Rabbis of Palestine strikes me as a better and more consistent formula than Rabbis in Palestine.—Biosketch (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a belated Shana Tova to all.

Fair enough. But I am rather obsessed by the idea of encyclopedic consistency. If Rabbis of Palestine, then Rabbis of Iraq, 'Rabbis of France, Rabbis of Germany, 'Rabbis of Poland. Since the objection to 'Palestine' rests on the ambiguity between political nationality and ethnic nationality which all 'nations' have, we should not make an exception of Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency in article titles may not be much of an issue here, due to the absence of other articles like this one. The Category:Rabbis by country series does use the "French rabbis" format for category naming, but there don't seem to be many (if any) other articles about the rabbis of a particular nation. Additionally, those categories focus on the nationality of the rabbi, which doesn't necessarily apply to this article (see my comment above). --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Look further at these categories Category:Polish rabbis, Category:Danish rabbis, Category:Dutch rabbis, Category:French rabbis, Category:Egyptian rabbis, Category:Syrian rabbis, Category:Iranian rabbis, Category:Iraqi rabbis, Category:Lebanese rabbis. There are several dozen and they all exhibit a uniform adherence to Cat-nationality-rabbi. Any issue one raises is best resolved by reference to general principles, since the end goal of any book, encyclopedia is a uniformity of taxonomy, not arbitrary exceptions to a rule observed throughout in other classifications.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Category naming does not necessarily constrain article naming. Anyway, those categories are all used for biographical articles about individual rabbis of a certain nationality. The categories are not collectively about the rabbis or rabbinical tradition of a certain geographic location. I have found only one article page in that category hierarchy that is about all rabbis associated with a particular place, List of Polish rabbis, but it is a list of individuals (not an article about the collective situation). Anyway, the geography-associated "rabbis" categories that are most closely related to the temporal and geographic scope of this particular article use the "Rabbis in" and "Rabbis of" nomenclature; I refer to Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, and Category:Rabbis in Safed. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The category 'Palestinian rabbis' perfectly conformed to several dozen other templates. It refers to a territory that no English speaker would confound. 'The Land of Israel', to the contrary, in Jewish and rabbinical usage have various meanings and the range of possible ambiguity is considerable. We are being asked to replace a term that is specific, with one that embraces, technically, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, at least, while those who wish the change, I suspect, have no intention whatsoever of collapsing Category:Lebanese rabbis, for example, into the proposed new brand of 'Rabbis of the Land of Israel.'

If you wish to replace 'Palestine' with 'Land of Israel' (and please do not read up the wiki articles on these subjects which are lamentable) then a huge can of worms is opened up, which, to avoid going into great detail by citing the large rabbinical discussions on the concept we are asked to adopt, I'll summarize via a small excerpt from Gudrun Kramer's general overview.

'(Eretz Israel/Land of Israel . . . . The land that according to Jewish tradition Abra(ha)m and his children were promised through a covenant with God, that was later renewed with Moses ad is known in the Jewish tradition as "the borders of the patriarchs" and in the Christian tradition as terra promissionis, appears in the Hebrew Bible in various forms, some of them quite vague, if not outright contradictory. As much as they differ in detail, they include not just the territory of later Palestine, but also Lebanon as well as most of Syria. What the exegetes differ about is whether the Transjordanian lands south of Lake Tiberias ("Gilead," "Moab," and "Edom") should be viewed as part and parcel of the Promised land or Eretz Israel (Land of Israel). ... The broader conception of the "ideal borders" of Eretz Israel, in which the land east of the Jordan is included as part of the promise, appears to have arisen later, but was eventually to gain wide acceptance. We find it in Genesis 14:18.21, where the borders reach far beyond the land of the Canaanites. . Here we already find the famous "from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates", or even more succinctly, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" which plays such a prominent role in modern disputes over the aims of the Zionists and their alleged expansionist intentions.' Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine, Princeton UP 2008, pp.5-6

Does one need to spell out further the complex categorical, linguistic and referential confusions which would emerge were one to adopt this relatively unfamiliar (to modern anglophone ears) calque from Hebrew usage into an English encyclopedia? Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to one move proposal at a time. This is not a discussion of renaming the category hierarchy. The only item under discussion is this article. As I see it (please correct me if I'm wrong) the proposed names (and objections raised against them) are:

• Palestinian rabbis - The current name. Objections have been raised because the primary meaning of "Palestinian" relates to Palestinian people, who are not Jewish.
• Palestinian-Jewish rabbis - Suggestion does not seem to have been received as a serious proposal. (Are there any non-Jewish rabbis?!?)
• Rabbis of the Land of Israel - Objections have been raised because of the myriad religio-political implications of "Land of Israel" (in contrast with "Palestine," which is a recognizable geographic name) and because of the potential for "Land of Israel" to be confounded with the modern Israel.
• Rabbis in Palestine - Objections raised because of lack of parallelism with the "Cat-nationality-rabbi" naming convention perceived to exist due to the existence of category names such as "French rabbis". Also the preposition "of" is somewhat preferred over "in," particularly as a way to identify people born in a particular country.
• Rabbis of Palestine - Objections raised because of lack of parallelism with the "Cat-nationality-rabbi" naming convention perceived to exist due to the existence of category names such as "French rabbis". Also, the use of a preposition chosen to indicate country of nativity is not appropriate here because this article is not about rabbis born in Palestine, but rather about rabbis who worked there.

Can people discuss these proposals without digressing into unrelated tangents? Please?

For what it's worth, I still like my suggestion of Rabbis in Palestine. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Rabbis of the Yishov in the region of Palestine or Rabbis of the Yishov in Palestine? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... That term wouldn't mean anything to me (that doesn't prove much...), but it might be good if it is applicable to the scope of the article. From this article and Yishuv, it appears that "Yishuv" is a relatively modern term, having come into use in the late 19th century and not necessarily applying to times earlier than perhaps the 17th century. The scope of this "Palestinian rabbis" article goes back more than a millennium before that. --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A thank you to those who noticed that many editors could not contribute to this discussion because of the Jewish new year. The term "Palestinian rabbis" is unlucky. For the reasons mentioned above. That is, the possible confusion with the nationality and the ethnicity. This has been noticed a long time ago already by many editors. As to the argument that the same objection is not being made about other nationalities/ethnicities. First of all, these do not have articles like this one. And secondly, there is a lot less reason for confusion, since the territories occupied by Jews in Israel and Palestinians in the Palestine territories are a matter of hot political argument, which is not the case with almost all other countries.

Even though the term "Palestinian rabbis" is found in English literature, this is in many cases a (bad) translation of "rabbanei Eretz Yisrael", that is: rabbis of the Land of Israel. The same is true btw for Palestinian minhag which is a (bad) translation of "minhag d'Eretz Yisrael". As I have argued before, in this case, where there is reason for confusion and the matter is generally sensitive, my opinion is that for these reasons Wikipedia should use the more correct and neutral term "Land of Israel" even though this is at odds with WP:ENGLISH. I see objections to "Rabbis of/in Palestine", mainly but not exclusively because it still uses the word "Palestine", but still think it much preferable to the present misleading and awkward "Palestinian rabbis". Debresser (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish scholars writing in English are not making 'bad translations' when they write 'Palestinian rabbis'. They defer to standard English usage. What you are implying, if one can infer the general principle here, is that all English terms which have a corresponding Hebrew idiom should be rephrased so that natural English usage can be replaced by calques, something which would engender a huge range of neologisms. Thirdly the term 'Land of Israel' is neither 'neutral' nor intelligible in the sense you and others understand by it, to native non-Jewish speakers of English. It does not have the historic depth of 'Palestine', and assertions to the contrary defy both commonsense and academic usage.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Historic depth? :) And as soon as we find out what that is, I'll assert the opposite. I think that "Land of Israel" has a lot more historical depth than "Palestine", and is in any case less ambiguous. Anyway, how is "Rabbis of/in Palestine" to you? Debresser (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

'Historic depth'. I am speaking as a philologist with regard to Western languages, and esp. English. Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the only argument against the current name is because "the primary meaning of "Palestinian" relates to Palestinian people, who are not Jewish", there first needs to be an explanation as to why this is indeed an issue. It is common for Jews to be classified by their respective demonyms. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have answered this question above. In addition, you do not have to understand everything. If you see that many editors oppose you, you have no consensus, and you can not proceed. In this respect, I'd like to note here, that you have started again changing articles and adding the word "Palestine" in places where such is inappropriate or at least under discussion (here). Do not make non-consensus edits! How many times do we have to tell you that? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing information on the Mandate period

The following announcement in the official Gazette shows that the few sentences we have on the Mandate period are seriously deficient. We need to find a source that spells out the details; I have a few but I'm not satisfied. As far as I can figure out, there was an "Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi" and a "Sephardic Chief Rabbi", but there was also at least for a time a "Chief Rabbi of Palestine", which is what the announcement is about. Neither of these Chief Rabbis of Palestine are even mentioned in the article, indicating that we have some work to do. Bring some sources, please.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that under regulation 21 of the Regulations prescribing the system of election or appointment of the Rabbinical Council, Rabbinical Offices and Rabbis of Local Communities, made under rule 9(1) of the Jewish Community Rules and published in the Gazette No. 582 of 9th April, 1936, RABBI BEN-ZION MEIR HAY UZIEL has succeeded to the office of Chief Rabbi of Palestine with effect from the 27th June, 1939, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late CHIEF RABBI JACOB MEIR. By His Excellency's Command, J. S. MACPHERSON. Chief Secretary. 14th July, 1939. (Supplement No.2 to the The Palestine Gazette, No. 906 of 2, July 20, 1939. Page 527) Zero^talk 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I found the regulations published in 1936, mentioned in the above. It clarifies things thus: The position of "Chief Rabbi" was to be held by two rabbis, one Ashkenazi and one Sephardi. The persons appointed to the position were to be chosen by an Electoral Committee half selected by the Rabbinical Council and half by the Va'ad Leumi. I'm not sure of the situation before 1936. Note that some communities, like "Jaffa and Tel Aviv" also had a "Chief Rabbi" and this should not be confused with Chief Rabbi of Palestine. Zero^talk 01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Mandatory period is missing, since the topic is clearly about Mishnah rabbis and not New Yishuv rabbis. The lead even says "These rabbis lived between 150 BCE and 400 CE and during the Talmudic and later Geonic period".GreyShark (dibra) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. although there was a lot of ado about this issue a few years ago. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In order to make some order in the meaning of this page, I think the best way is to split it to Mishnah rabbis (per category:Mishnah rabbis), Rabbis in Ottoman Syria (per category:Rabbis in Ottoman Syria) and Rabbis in Mandatory Palestine (per category:Rabbis in Mandatory Palestine). This page should become a disambiguation page with the completion of the split.GreyShark (dibra) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: The term "Palestinian" on "Land of Israel" Rabbis just doesn't fit. None of those Rabbis referred to themselves as Palestinians and some lived before the name "Palestine" was the main name for the region. It should be either this, or "Rabbis in the Land of Israel" although the proposal is better, because it distinguishes between the Rabbis from the time of the Mishnah, the Rabbis in the time of the Ottoman rule and the Rabbis of the Zionist period in the Land of Israel/Palestine/Holy Land/whatever--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it makes a difference what these rabbis called themselves. It is what 21st-century RS refer to them as. (I will add that during the late 1800s and early 1900s rabbis living in the country were indeed referred to as "Palestinian rabbis", e.g: the NY based charity was called Ezras Torah Fund for Relief of European and Palestinian Rabbis.) Chesdovi (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are trying to promote is a WP:FRINGE idea that some single naming utilization is reason enough to make a retroactive anacrhnostic rename of identity in a region. This idea that you can create a Palestinian King David and Palestinian Simon Bar Kokhba is both amusing and ridiculous, unless you go with the Islamic revisionism view, which often allows such an anachronism in Dar el-Islam in the name of the higher cause.GreyShark (dibra) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wholly unrelated to WP:SPLIT. Yall tried an AFD to get rid of the name, yall tried a move request to get rid of the name. The fact remains this is the name used by reliable sources, and even if this article is split into those, this can still be the parent article to both and summarize both. This aint gonna be the silver bullet you were hoping it would be. nableezy - 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as well, for the same reason as the nominator of this proposal. This article name was a mistake from the beginning, created by an editor who is rightfully topic banned. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA: "This article name was a mistake from the beginning, created by an editor who is rightfully topic banned." Please retract. Chesdovi (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Most certainly not. There is no personal attack in stating the fact that a person has a POV. Especially where that POV has been well established, and re-confirmed recently at WP:AE. In addition, I am not sure you are allowed to participate in this discussion, and I recommend you to check that first. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your wording insinuates that the page was created by a maverick. That is an uncalled for attack against me. Try to discuss the content, not the contributor. For example, what exactly do you mean by "making some order in the meaning of this page." Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What it means is that those are different subjects, and should be treated in different articles. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Really now? I wonder if there is such thing as an "inverted" POV fork, where one article is split up to bolster a certain POV? The common denominator is that all were rabbis active in the same region. I do not buy you assumption that they are "different subjects". This page documents the same subject matter which spans various eras. If I may quote Ravpapa:

"The article discusses an important and well-documented Rabbinical tradition in Jewish history. These rabbis, who are identified in all the historical literature by this name, were instrumental in defining key elements of Jewish tradition, including the structure of the Jewish Bible, the rules of Hebrew grammar, the codification of the Mishnah, and more... It is not about a bunch of "unrelated rabbis" but about a consistent school of thought over a number of centuries that had a decisive impact on the Jewish religion..."

Please answer the following question: Why should rabbis in this specific region be treated differently from all others in that they should not be known by their respective demonym? Chesdovi (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no compelling reason to split this page which cites solid RS referencing Palestinian rabbis throughout the ages. Chesdovi (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Firstly, as Debresser and Bolter, then, since we are talking about Rabbis, it does seem to make sense to have it as Land of Israel, since that is the geographical name used. Palestine is used here solely as a means of POV by Chesdovi as Debresser and others routinely point out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 1. "It does seem to make sense to have it as Land of Israel, since that is the geographical name used." You imply that Palestine is not used??
  • 2. "Palestine is used here solely as a means of POV." That's your POV and a huge WP:AGF failure. As far as I'm concerned "Palestinian rabbi" is a neutral term used widely in contemporary WP:RS. Why don't you reveal why you really have a problem with the term "Palestinian rabbi", because I cannot fathom it. Chesdovi (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose split, no reason from WP:SPLIT given. As far as the problems that people have with the title, the common name for the region for the time period covered is Palestine. I really do not understand the motivation to suppress that non-controversial fact, except for a misguided belief that anything "Palestine" is diametrically opposed to "Israel". nableezy - 20:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well then, why wouldn't Israeli Rabbis make sense? They are all rabbis from the land of Israel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • See above. Chesdovi (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, what makes sense is to follow Wikipedia policy on article names, specifically Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Look at how the reliable sources cited in the article deal with the topic. E.g. The social structure of the rabbinic movement in Roman Palestine, The Jewish settlement in Palestine, 634-1881, The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine, Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine 70-400 C.E: History and Geographic Distribution. The geographic area talked about in this article is and was known as Palestine in English reliable sources. The rabbis discussed are called Palestinian in English reliable sources. I'm not entirely sure what strain of Zionism involves dissociating itself from the term Palestine as though that weren't part of its history, but that really shouldn't matter here. This article is about a period of time where the area it covers was called Palestine. The sources call the people covered Palestinian. The political inclination to ignore that in favor of anachronistic terms should be rejected not because of the politics of it, but because it has no basis in the sources and as such is invalid as an argument on Wikipedia. I respect Greyshark09 a great deal from our past encounters on Wikipedia, but this is a misguided proposal and most of its support is based in politics, and not in any of the reasons that WP:SPLIT gives for splitting an article. nableezy - 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it makes sense to split this article, because this article combines distinct classes of rabbis, based on an incidental common attribute.

Secondly, just like I would propose to rename "American rabbis" to "Rabbis in America", because it is the more precise term. After all, what makes a rabbi "American"? Being born there, being a citizen, having lived there for a certain period? To avoid these questions, we should use the more precise term. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

First, the history of Judaism and Jews in Palestine is a well covered cohesive topic. That topic is cohesive because that place, Palestine, is not an incidental common attribute. Its a fairly important attribute. Second, on Wikipedia, what would make them American is reliable sources calling them American. nableezy - 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It is incidental to their function and actions as rabbis, so for this specific article it is incidental.

Nope, reliable sources can prove or be an indication that they are American, but they do not make them American. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry, but on Wikipedia it does. If reliable sources report somebody is an American, absent some other reliable sources disputing that, then on Wikipedia that person is an American. nableezy - 03:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you seem not to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In any case, as I have had the opportunity to point out ta few times over the years here on Wikipedia, although on the one side we must stay true to our sources, at the same time we must understand those sources correctly, and we should not repeat their inaccuracies. See also WP:PARAPHRASE for a another argument against copying the precise wording of sources. Debresser (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Youre really stretching here, thats an essay about not plagiarizing. The policy on article titles is however fairly clear. Youve tried this argument at the AfD, where there was a consensus that this is a coherent topic titled correctly, and the requested move. The policies that led to both attempts have not changed, and here they support both the article title as it stands and not splitting the article. nableezy - 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That is why I said "See also" instead of "See".

You were the first there to oppose me, and I still think the argument is correct and the conclusion of that Afd was erroneous in this regard. I am afraid that in this area, sometimes opinions are not based on logic and analysis of the meaning of words in a certain language. Also please notice that the Afd does not set a precedent, not for other AFds and certainly not for a discussion to split an article.

Also, my first argument is independent of this disagreement. Debresser (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser proposes renaming "American rabbis" to "Rabbis in America" because it is "the more precise term," while a mere glance at Category:Rabbis_by_country reveals the single anomaly in this regard. Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I know. And still I think that is the correct thing to do.

By the way, this just comes to show you that my opinion is not because of the word "Palestinian". Debresser (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support There is a great deal of difference between the theology of rabbis’ in late antiquity compared to the post 614-640 period and again in Mandatory Palestine. The demographic and political changes are also large enough that each could be handled in its own article.

Although not directly related, I also feel that anyone who has read the writing of these rabbis would know that they thought they were living in the Land of Israel and they never stopped thinking that.

There is nothing wrong with this very Jewish way of thinking which simply ignores the objective world. Although some editors may see this as an attack on the Palestinians it is not even correlated in any form and just shows how silly and petty this debate is. Palestinian while being acceptable is very much an anachronism of colonialism. I do feel that in a post-colonial world groups are best defined using their own terminology although this is rarely the case.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - at this point the opinions are 5 supporting and 2 opposing, some 8 months from the onset of discussion. Since i'm the initiator of this proposal, i'm not eligible to close it. Shall we wait more, before i ask an uninvolved admin?GreyShark (dibra) 20:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The onset actually began on 27 March 2016. I suggest we wait at least a month. And remember, this is not a WP:VOTE. Chesdovi (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright.GreyShark (dibra) 20:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This page has survived AFD and two page rename attempts. Those discussions should also be taken into consideration. Chesdovi (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Community consensus may change - there is nothing wrong with it. It might however remain this time as well.GreyShark (dibra) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if any previous editors have indeed changed their views. Chesdovi (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not me. Since Foo-ian rabbis are rabbis who are Foo-ians, and these rabbi were certainly not Palestinians in the modern sense of the word, and also because of the argument by Bolter21 that none of these rabbis called themselves "Palestinian" rather "of Eretz Israel", and also because of my previous argument, that these rabbis lived in different areas and met different challenges, while the region they lived in (Palestine (region)) is completely incidental, because of these three reasons I am more sure than ever, that this article needs to be split. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for any of those statements? But thank you for laying bare the POV motivation for splitting the article. It has exactly squat to do with anything in WP:SPLIT, it is strictly because you dislike the term Palestinian being applied to them. Truly a by hook or by crook method of removing the term, you couldnt with an AFD, you couldnt with a requested move, so now a split that has exactly zero basis for it in WP:SPLIT nableezy - 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that "it is strictly because you dislike the term Palestinian being applied" is clearly disproved by my arguments, and shows more of your POV than of mine. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your actions here and at any number of other articles are fairly clear, but you said, in what I responded to, was Since Foo-ian rabbis are rabbis who are Foo-ians, and these rabbi were certainly not Palestinians in the modern sense of the word. You really want to argue that doesnt show you dislike the term Palestinian being applied to them? Because you kind of explicitly said that, not to mention the AFD and the requested move. I note once more, there is exactly 0 support for this proposal that is based on the policy that supposedly covers article splits, and that nearly every comment in support of it ignores that. nableezy - 22:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, you are really doing yourself and all of us a disfavor. I gave a sound, logical argument. There is nothing in my post to hint at my personal likes or dislikes. Please stop this attempt to turn this discussion into a personal attack on me. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not just own it? You have repeatedly tried to remove "Palestinian" from this and any number of other articles. Why not just say that is why you support a split, because your supposed sound argument doesnt have anything to do with WP:SPLIT. I was unaware directly quoting from you is doing anybody a disfavor, except maybe in demonstrating the inconsistencies in your supposedly logical argument. nableezy - 18:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, are you suggesting we do not call Ephraim Zalman Margolioth a "Galician rabbi" as in the modern sense of the word, Galician refers to people from Galicia (Spain) ? Chesdovi (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Galicia is a disambiguation page, which includes both Galicia (Spain) and Galicia (Eastern Europe), so I am not convinced modern usage precludes referal to the historical region in this specific case. In addition, I have heard the latter term many times over the last 20 years, but the first only over 20 years ago. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Palestine? Chesdovi (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What about it? The argument is analogous. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is Rashi considered a French writer? We should use what people would search for and what they use nowadays. Rashi is French because he lived in what is now France. The rabbis in the Palestinian rabbi, are not Palestinians. When someone comes to search, that is not what they're going to put in. In the article, you can mention where they lived, etc. But we should split it to make it easier on the end user and follow common convention. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah is not considered an "Iraqi rabbi". The rabbis featured in the Palestinian rabbi article were Palestinian as attested to in WP:RS. On the contrary, "Palestinian" is the common WP:NAME for such rabbis. There is no compelling reason to change the page name to Rabbis in Palestine, for that fact is accurately conveyed by using the prefix "Palestinian". Chesdovi (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

He lived in Babylonia and it was called Babylonia. The same is not said on Palestinian Rabbis. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

They lived in Palestine and it was called Palestine, so why can they not be called Palestinian? What was Palestine called? Chesdovi (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

lol, Sir Joseph do you really not see the parallel here? You are fine with calling a rabbi who lived in Babylonia when it was called Babylonia a Babylonian rabbi, but a rabbi who lived in Palestine when it was called Palestine cant be called a Palestinian. All that demonstrates is that the motivation here is political, nothing else. It is strictly about using the word Palestinian and Palestine. It has jack to do with anything else, and whoever closes this should completely disregard that argument at is at odds with the policies of this website. nableezy - 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Except it wasn't called Palestine in those days. That is what I and Debresser are pointing out. And bringing in politics is funny considering this article was started by Chesdovi who has a need for pushing in the word Palestine whenever he can get a chance. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And it was called...... ? Chesdovi (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait what? Your argument is that it was not called Palestine? Because Im pretty sure that isnt Debressers argument, presumably because he or she (feel free to delete the incorrect one) knows full well the common name of the place under discussion in the time period under discussion is "Palestine". But you would do well to read Timeline of the name "Palestine". Heres a brief summary: from the time of the Romans following the Jewish revolt through the British mandate this place was commonly known as "Palestine". nableezy - 21:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I could answer that Rashi was a French rabbi, because at least the place was and is France, as opposed to this area, which was not always called Palestine, and is most surely not called Palestine now. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Babylonia was not always called Babylonia and is most surely not called Babylonia now. Chesdovi (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Instead of this back and forth, after all this time it's reasonable someone take it to WP:ANRFC and seek a close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment In considering whether to support or decline, a few questions hit my mind. How big are the the actual distinctions? Ottoman Syria has enough of a distinction that it certainly merits a split from the article on the Ottoman Empire, as an example of a proper split that exists on wikipedia. There's alot of back and forth here. I wonder though, an article on Mishnah rabbis, would there be a distinction in the article from this specific article. Certainly apply the same logic to the other 2 suggested articles for the split. If the answer is yes then there's a reason to split, per WP:CONSPLIT. The reverse would be true, if you can show there is no distinction then there would be no reason for a content split. Consensus is not a matter of popularity or voting. If you can show that the suggest articles would be distinct then you would have a consensus here to split. If you can show they are not distinct then you have a consensus there is no reason to split. And if everyone feels they have made their case and they have a consensus but you can't come to an agreement on what the consensus is, an effective dispute resolution process would be to go over to WP:ANRFC and ask an experienced and uninvolved editor or admin to assist in closing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: apparently the Mishnah rabbis already has an article - Tannaim. The issue is then mainly Ottoman and British eras.GreyShark (dibra) 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Tannaim seems to be an era name 0-200 CE or there about. The current being Acharonim I think. The conversation could perhaps shift in that direction. With the conversation losing momentum on on April 7 I have to agree with the position that it would be apt to consider an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Greyshark's POV is to systematically invent geographic categories designed to elide the use of the word 'Palestinian' with regard to anything prior to 1948. This is based on the unfortunate confusion among the uninformed about the meaning of 'Palestine', the uninformed thinking that it refers to a state of the Palestinian people, as opposed to what standard English usage commends: i.e. that 'Palestinian' is the default term in historical writing for anything in Israel/Palestine preceding the modern era. Most editors supporting this, elsewhere, would replace Palestine with Eretz Israel, a religious-nationalist term, which is unacceptable for the same reason.

This disappearing of the standard term is done in defiance of the usual rule for establishing name, as can be ascertained by any google books ghit analysis,a as opposed to git opinionizing.

• rabbinical+Palestine =1,110,000
• rabbinical+eretz israel =27,900
• "Palestinian rabbi" 1,790
• "Palestinian rabbis" =4.060
• "eretz israel rabbi" = 297
• "eretz israel rabbis" =6
• "Palestinian talmud" =34,300
• "Palestinian Christianity" =7,240
• "Palestinian tannaim" = 229
• "tannaim of eretz israel" = 0
• "eretz israel tannaim" =1
• "Palestinian amoraim" =2,180
• "eretz israel amoraim" =3
• "Palestine+Savoraim" = 367
• "eretz israel +Savoraim" = 152

The conclusion is obvious. Scholarly writing has no problem with using 'Palestine/Palestinian' as a geographic marker for historical figures and events in this area, and no other general noun or adjective gets anywhere near to approximating this frequency of usage. Chesdovi is correct.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, this is the sort of thing that requires an RfC, since opinions here are rather predictable.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A very nice essay to serve an example of radical nationalist editing in Wikipedia. Aren't you concerned that stating "'Palestinian' is the default term in historical writing for anything in Israel/Palestine" is the exact violation of ARBPIA? Just for that you can get banned.GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, because sources invariably use the term Palestine for that region. nableezy - 15:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.