Talk:Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine

Page rename

HG has had several days to make a good argument against renaming this article properly as Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine which is what the contents is. I will ask Stan to do this for us as he is both an admin and a philatelist who knows the topic already. He can decide if he wishes to delete, or redirect, this page. Thanks for all the work on the article content chaps. ww2censor (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought my argument was rather good. This article should have a different name than those using the "by country" formulation. In addition, I think something like Holy Land could be more appropriate, but absent that, then we esp need to avoid the "by country" format. Furthermore, this article does not deal very much with stamps and does not intend to, which is part of your concern. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry HG, but neither I nor Tiamut| agreed with your argument if you look at the sequence of the above discussion. Perhaps you missed it above but the "by country" formula is not cast in stone but should make sense to visiting editors. Palestine is the term used for the stamps and the postal history of the area, that's just the way it is; I even gave you some examples. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's impolite to say "that's just the way it is" -- and also wrong, esp. since other terms are also used, such as "Holy Land" and "Israel." I'd venture that numerous articles about Israel, JNF, the minhelet ha'am issues, the Safed stamps, etc., are written from the perspective or "Holy Land" or "Israel" and not merely "Palestine." There are also philatelic articles that use "Israel and Palestine" (or vice versa). HG | Talk 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, an article with a half-dozen stamp images and only one cover is clearly including both stamps and postal history. ("Proper" postal history exhibits are frame after frame of buff-colored paper, doncha know. :-) ) "of Palestine" can imply "used in" or "relating to" just as much as "issued by", and in fact the ambiguity is desirable in a way, because this is an overview and we're wanting to touch all the bases, not be pedantic about trying to exclude material. And on that note, for an article like this that has a number of legitimate titles from which we can choose, we want to prefer a combination of common terms combined in obvious ways, because that will maximize the chances of it being found by searches, both from Google and friends, and from inside WP. Stan (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. We don't have to worry about google searches. I tried Postage stamps of X and Postal history of Palestine came up in the first google page with X as Palestine, Holyland, Israel, Israel and Palestine, interim period, JNF, Israel forerunners, and British Mandate of Palestine. Cheers. HG | Talk 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it's not focused on a single postal authority, then, what are the implications of "we want to prefer a combination of common terms" for the title?

Ww2censor's original argument against the "Israel and Palestine" version was: There is no such country, stamp issuing authority, or postal authority as "Israel and Palestine" and the WikiProject Philately creates article for the country stamp issuing authority. Indeed, the first welcome I got for starting this article was it's "not a valid name." However, insofar as you accept that the format is not cast in stone but should make sense to visiting editors (as above) then it would make more sense to name this article Postage stamps and postal history of Israel and Palestine. This would have, as Stan says, "a combination of common terms."

Alternatively, I would also consider Postage stamps and postal history of the Holy Land a good philatelic, encyclopedic name -- which Ww2censor wisely proposed as a compromise (but retracted). I don't think it'd be hard for readers/googlers to find either name, esp given that a number of legitimate titles can be given redirects. (Plus, google works mainly off of links and article content.) If you don't mind my saying so, this isn't about voting but thinking collaboratively about an article name. I've been told my earlier title was invalid, now it appears that it's legitimate. I've been offered a compromise and that's been retracted. There seemed to be an understanding (above) that this article needed to be distinguished from the country articles, and now that's being retracted (or revisited?). Whether or not the "by country" approach is consistent, our collaborative reasoning really should be consistent. Therefore, if we can live with this article as an exception to the "by country" approach, then we should not use "Palestine" but rather either "a combination of common terms" (i.e., Palestine & Israel) and/or Holy Land (itself a combo). Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All the reliable sources used to construct this article use the term "Palestine". I don't understand HG's continuing problem with the use of this term (both here and elsewhere). I find it particularly odd given that Wikipedia's own article on Palestine makes clear the shifting boundaries for this geographical and political entity over time and the contesting claims over who it belongs to and what it should be named. Palestine, by the Wikipedia article's definition, doesn't even refer to the State of Palestine (which by the way has been strangely renamed Proposals for a Palestinian state). In other words, Palestine, as constructed by Wikipedia, has been reduced to a totally NPOV term, that treats Israeli and Palestinian claims to the entity/term on par (which to me is unfair/ridiculous, but that's the way it is). I don't understand why we have to change an NPOV title to a euphemism for "Palestine" when the sources indicate that "Palestine" is the most used term. Adding Israel to the title to "balance" out the inclusion of "Palestine" is not NPOV or logical, because Israel refers to the modern nation-state (exclusively claimed by Israelis) and we have an article on that country's postal history. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article isn't called Postage stamps and postal history of Israel. Israel is the current state in the territory described here, and this is what is done for all similar situations - see, for example Postage stamps and postal history of India Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion above. We write using reliable sources. Reliable sources use the word "Palestine" to discuss the postal history of the region. Israel is a nation-state that has existed for only 60 years and only in parts of Palestine. It is historical revisionism to title this article Postage stamps and postal history of Israel and flies in the face of what the reliable sources cited say. Tiamut^talk 11:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Stan's comments below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg does make a logical point, and if we had more philatelic articles, there would be a bunch of other semi-illogical naming situations. To some extent, the traditional divisions seem to be based as much on collecting preferences as anything else, so for instance German East Africa is maybe separated from Tanzania because the one is part of specializing in the "German area" while the other is "British area". But then again, the Philippines are typically treated as a single entity, despite successively being "Spanish area", then "US area", then independent, maybe "Asia area" to some. So the least-maddening approach is to follow our sources, not get too hung up on wiki-purity, and cross-reference profusely. Stan (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

HG, let me try to convince you, as the main opponent, that renaming IS necessary AND what that name should be. Firstly I must say that Jayjg's Postage stamps and postal history of India example bears virtually no similarity to Postage stamps and postal history of Israel as a suggested name because India was the name of the territory since before stamps were issued there (except for the Scinde Dawk and the East India Company periods) and the Indian post office has been the postal authority for all that time while Israel was carved from the territory that was, for half of the 20th century known as Palestine and this article contain only a short reference section to Israel and the post-1948 postal info of that nation. That aside, I am sure there are better examples, but let me address the renaming of this article.

This article IS an article about postage stamps AND postal history, so it should be called Postage stamps and postal history of xxx. Calling it only postal history is a false name, so that needs to be changed no matter what; no one can argue convincingly about that. So what are we really trying to determine? Just the name of the territory to describe the contents of the article as it is now. If, as Jayjg suggests, it is called Postage stamps and postal history of Israel then it should only contain post-1948 information with a short section on the pre-1948 history, but HG, Bleddynefans and Tiamut have done a great job on this article that contains lots of pre-1948 AND non-Israel specific information, so that name would be improper for the content too, besides which we already have a great postage stamps and postal history of Israel article. So, what territorial name do we use to describe the contents of this article? As HG says, quite a while ago I suggested a compromise name of "Holyland", (which I did not retract, I just did not promote it strongly), but HG initially did not like that either however now seems to be in favour of such a possibility. There is just one problem with using Holyland; it is not commonly used, so fails the naming conventions. Actually I visited the library today looked at the Scott catalogues where Palestine is used as the territorial term for the EEP & British Mandate periods until 1948, (I did not look at 1948-1994) after which they give the PNA is a separate section. Looking backwards, having just received a David Feldman auction catalogue, Palestine is even used by DF for the Austrian POs in Palestine in 1907. Tiamut quite clearly points out that all the philatelic literature he has used and seen makes Palestine the term used for the area in question and that it is synonymous with Holyland. Where does that leave us? Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine or Postage stamps and postal history of the Holyland are the only possible choices. At this stage I don't have a strong opinion one way or another but Palestine is more commonly used and accurate, so let's get it done one way or the other. There are few enough active philatelic editors who are needed to get on with constructive philatelic editing instead of this occupying our time. ww2censor (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I hope we're not opponents in general, though we've disagreed here. As I said before, I would gladly accept Postage stamps and postal history of the Holy Land. (For the sake of harmony and brevity, I won't discuss alternative names, their use in the literature, WP policy, etc.) I appreciate your willingness to revisit this suggestion and hope that we can both agree on it now. So, are we agreed on this name? Thanks again. HG | Talk 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: Dear Ww2censor, I've been really busy. Would you mind emailing me when you respond? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG. As I'm sure you are aware, I have strong reservations about using Holy Land. As I have said many times previously, Palestine, particularly when used to refer to a geographical region and not a state, is a neutral and appropriate name for this entry. This is demostrated by the sources used in the article, which all do in fact use Palestine to refer to the area throughout the historical period covered. I don't see why we should use a euphemism like Holy Land, which is not used by all the sources cited, and is less commonly used in phliatelic circles, as pointed out by Ww2censor above. I'm all for achieving WP:CONSENSUS, but not at the expense of other core guidelines and policies which emphasize that (particularly when discussing controversial subjects) we should base our assessments on a review of what the reliable sources on a given subject say. I do think your efforts here have been in good faith and I do recognize that you have been trying to compromise by giving up the original title you had preferred. I'm also aware that my own repeated insistence on using Palestine could be viewed as a stubborn refusal to compromise from my end; however, I hope that you too will assume good faith. My viewpoint here has little to do with my political views or identity, and much to do with ensuring that we represent the subject as it is represented by the scholarly sources on the subject. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tiamut that the most appropriate name is Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine but only suggested Postage stamps and postal history of the Holy Land as a compromise even though the sources don't support it. Holy Land, or Holyland, is not my favourite choice and fails the naming conventions, but I could live with it so long as it gets consensus but that is not happening here. Basically it is 2 to 1 against you HG, and Stan appears to be of the same mind, so that makes 3 to 1. Perhaps Bleddynefans will weigh in with his opinion soon. Hey, don't take this personally, as Tiamut says, you have done a good job on the article(s), but in my mind being adamant about the title serves no useful purpose other than seemingly to put us on opposite sides when all we really want to do is make constructive edits to philatelic articles. Come on HG, let it slide and we can work together on something else—there is plenty to do. If this was any other discussion I am pretty sure it would be done and over long ago. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this isn't about being against (or in favor) of HG, but rather about the name(s). In Wikipedia, for better or worse, it also isn't about voting. If it were, then Jayjg might wonder why you didn't count him. (And if it were, then we could simply ask folks to line up behind Jayjg and Tiamut, as sometimes happens.) Also, I think it's unwise to encourage Bleddynefans to get involved in wikipolitics, better to ask for and take advantage of his expertise, which brings me to... the sources:

Sources on JNF, interim period and Israel

The sources. I do agree that we need to be attentive to naming policy and the sources. So let me ask a question. The article includes (A) JNF stamps, (B) Safed and other interim period postal history, and (C) the state of Israel.

1. What sources refer to these 3 different philatelic entities (well, B is a group of entities) under the rubric of Palestine?
2. What sources refer to these 3 entities under another rubric, such as Israel or the Holy Land?
3. Is the number and quality of sources that use Palestine less than or greater than the sources that use another rubric?

Ww2Censor rightly mentioned auction houses as a source. The David Feldman auction, which he mentioned, puts (A) JNF under Israel not under Palestine. Likewise, David Feldman puts (C) Israel under Israel not under Palestine. Indeed, lot 50620 has "Palestine covers" included within the Israel category. While he obviously has Palestine material, he does use the term Holy Land, too.

I'd like to see more data to answer the 3 questions above. Let's look at the top quality catalogs, auction houses, and philatelic journals. Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Stanley Gibbons. Catalogue (online version) only uses Palestine for the British Mandate, not for (C) Israel. Also, doesn't use "Palestine" for the PNA either.
• Bale. Premier catalogue on (B) Interim period and (C) Israel. Not listed under Palestine but under "Israel." HG | Talk 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• H.R.Hammer (top US auction house): In this sale, lists (A) JNF under Israel not Palestine, and (B) Interim Period as Holy Land Forerunners. HG | Talk 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cherrystone (high quality US): The 2008 auction Lists (A) JNF and "Forerunners" under Israel not Palestine. And here they list (pre-1917) Ottoman, French, and Russian issues under heading of Israel - Holyland not Palestine. HG | Talk 06:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point HG. However, rather than changing the title of the article to reflect this content, why not simply move the content that uses the term "Israel" to the article on Postage stamps and postal history of Israel? Tiamut^talk 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiamut. But it's not just Israel, it's also Ottoman period, interim period, JNF stamps, too. (Yes, we could delete content to fit an article name, but now we're trying to fit the article name to the content.) Be well, HG | Talk 06:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment was made before you added any material on the Ottoman and interim periods, as you can see from the page history here. Now that you have brought forth other examples and continue to do so, I will wait to see what turns up before commenting further. Have fun! Tiamut^talk 06:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You're sweet and I'm glad you're not bitter that I'm more crazy about my stamp than archaeological hobby. HG | Talk 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• BAPIP. Top journal, formerly called "The British Association of Palestine-Israel Philatelists" is now "The Holyland Philatelic Society" so now all their vast literature on the topic -- the index includes (A) JNF, (B) Interim Period and (C) Israel -- all these philatelic entities are under Holyland not Israel and not Palestine (though arguably under "Palestine-Israel" prior to the change to Holyland). HG | Talk 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• American Stamp Dealers Association (ASDA) here lists as specialties both Israel and Holyland but not Palestine. Scope of Holyland not given.
• Tel Aviv Stamps run by top expert Y Tsachor puts the early post offices under "Palestine forerunners" with (A) JNF under "Judaica," (B) Interim Period (Safed, Nahariya etc) under "Israel" not Palestine, and (C) Israel under Israel. (As is common, only EEF and British Mandate are under "Palestine.") ... HG | Talk 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Charles Leski (premier Australian auctions) users "Palestine" for the Mandate period. See example index from which it lists Austrian Post Offices within "the Holy Land" and (B) Interim Period, including Nahariya and French, under "Israel - Interim Period." HG | Talk 06:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Palestine Philatelic Society. (BTW they list some interesting items we don't have yet.) Obviously they cover "Palestine" and they do list the Mandate and Ottoman period under Palestine, but (A) JNF, (B) Interim Period, or (C) Israel is not listed under their view of Palestine. HG | Talk 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Postalhistory.org -- They list "Israel/Palestine Resources." (n.b. not just Palestine). They list 12 presumably topnotch books which only use "Palestine" in their titles for the mandate period, plus 2 use Holy Land -- one for Ottoman period and one (Loebl) for 1925-1981. They list two major postal history collections: Michael Sacher of (mandate) "Palestine" and "Foreign Post Offices in the Holy Land" and "The Van Doorn Collection of the Holy Land, Palestine & Israel." They list only six auction houses, including Bale (i.e. "Negev Holyland Auctions") above, Tsachor above, and I'll add others below. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Romano House of Stamp Sales. Latest auction lists Ottoman period as "Forerunners" or "Palestine Forerunners" or "Holyland Foreiners (sic)" for Ottoman period, "Palestine Mandate," and for our (A) JNF under "Judaica," (B) Interim Period under "Minhelet Ha'am" and our (C) under Israel.
• Unistamp (auction house listed by postalhistory.org) uses the main heading Israel & Palestine with our (A) JNF stamps under "Judaica" heading. HG | Talk 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Scott catalogue. They don't list (C) Israel under "Palestine." They don't cover (A) or (B).
• Michel catalogue (German). The online version seems to have the British Mandate, Egyptian and Jordanian Palestine, and (C) "Israel", but nothing under "Palestine." I don't think they cover (A) JNF or (B) Interim period.
• Important book, new to us: Joseph Aron. The Holy Land: 3000 years of Prephilatelic Postal History (2004) 224pp (not sure I can afford it and not even Harvard has it). Here's the table of contents, including section on Disinfected Mail?! PhilatelyBooks.com lists the book twice under both Israel and Palestine, as does Harvard for his smaller 1988 book. He covers part of Ottoman period but not our A,B,C. Cheers, HG | Talk 08:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Observations on the JNF Interim & Israel data

Well, maybe I'm too tired to review the data so far. But it seems that "Palestine" is not much of a contender for (A) JNF or (B) Interim Period, and nobody lists Israel under Palestine. For an umbrella term for our article, it looks like the main contenders are either Palestine & Israel (w/maybe Holyland) combo or the term Holy Land/Holyland alone. For the pre-1918 various postal authorities, Holy Land may also be the preferred term. Thanks, HG | Talk 08:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some preliminary observations:

• There seems to be a rather strong consensus among these sources that British Mandate Palestine and EEF are categorized as Palestine.
• There seems to be a rather strong consensus among these sources that JNF stamps are categorized as Judaica or Israel.
• There seems to be a rather strong consensus among these sources that the Israel stamps are categorized as Israel. Tiamut^talk 08:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right about these as subunits, but not sure I'd frame it this way when looking at the overall picture. For sources who are trying to cover the whole range, like BAPIP, Loebl, van Doorn or postalhistory.org, terms such as HolyLand or a combo are useful. See what I mean? HG | Talk 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I need more time to look over the sources you have provided here and review those used throughout the article. As I said previously, every piece of information I added to the article used the word "Palestine". There may be a case for splitting the article into different sub-sections per the preliminary notes I made above. However, if there is substantial evidence of the use of "Holy Land" to refer to the pre-20th century postal history of the region, I will reconsider my position on the title. Give me time to look it over more intensely. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I have been mulling over the issue for some time. After the additions by Bleddynefans, I have re-read the article a couple of times fresh, keeping in mind the discussion over the name change proposal. To me, Postal history of Palestine and/or Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine remains a good name for the article. The content and sources that it has use the word far more often than "Holy Land". Even those sections that discuss JNF era stamps or others that are often classified as "Israel", do largely use sources that use the word Palestine, which the text currently reflects. I don't think "Holy Land" is a concept that is as clearly defined as Palestine (as per our Wiki article name too). Much of the early history should not be covered under the name "Holy Land", and the name is something of a religious euphemism that is inapt to our purposes here.

As regards adding "postage stamps" to the title - I'm totally fine with that. But we might consider leaving the title as is and creating summary-style sections for the stamp-issuing bodies. Just as we have articles for Postage stamps and postal history of Israel and Postage stamps and postal history of the Palestinian National Authority that link back here, we can have ones on Postage stamps and postal history of the Ottoman empire (with a section on Palestine that includes much of the information in our section here). For other things like the JNF, we can cover some of it here, when the sources use Palestine, and go more in-depth in a section at the Israel article. What do people think? Tiamut^talk 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, thanks for your response. I'm not sure what to make of your objection to the Holy Land, which is a common term in philately. Indeed, in the Palestine article itself it states: "Other English names for this region include Canaan, Land of Israel, and Holy Land." I also don't see much evidence that Palestine is used much (if at all) for JNF or esp Interim period authorities or Israel, whereas Holy Land (or "Palestine and Israel") does serve the full scope of the article. Further, there is much evidence that Holy Land is used for the early history (e.g. Ottoman). Our task is to choose a neutral and prevalent name for the geographic region, which is the focus of the article. Holy Land may be a religious euphemism, but how is that a drawback? WP policy doesn't mind if places have religious names. I think it's a far less serious drawback than using "Palestine" (by itself) which nowadays is a politically-weighted term if used for the current geographic region. It works very poorly as a descriptor for 1948 and afterwards. While it's ok that you like the name Palestine, it's not helpful that in order to justify keeping your preferred name you would keep info out of the article that clearly belongs to the geographic region.

Looking now at Holy Land, it does seem quite well-defined and "generally refers to the historic geographical region of Israel." While I know that you don't like Israel, Tiamut, what would your preference be between "XXX of Palestine and Israel" (or vice versa) or "XXX of the Holy Land"? What WP criteria would support that preference? Thanks, HG | Talk 10:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

HG, please don't write things like "while I know you don't like Israel". I could easily respond with "while I know you don't like Palestine", but I don't think that is helpful to the discussion. I based my response to your proposal on an examination of the sources and text present in the article. "Palestine" is used far more often that "Holy Land" or "Israel". I don't see the problem with having a brief summary section on Israel and the JNF in this article, under the heading "Palestine" which links back to the "Israel" article. I do strongly object to including "Israel" in the title, since it's only applicable to some postal history in the twentieth century and as I said, I think "Holy Land" is a religious euphemism for "Palestine" that is less clearly defined than the latter.

If I might remind you, you were willing to accept "Palestine" as the title here if the title remained confined to "postal history" without including "postage stamps". This is part of why I suggested that we consider keeping the title as is and creating the spin-outs for postal issuing entities. I don't know how else we can get out of this impasse frankly, but I have to say that I find this obsession with deleting "Palestine" from the title here to be unwarranted. It's the most common term used in historical and philaetic literature for the region in question over the sum of its history. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I believe my user page and editing history show that, throughout my work in Wikipedia, I try to like (or not like) both Israel and Palestine, either as names, places, polities, whatever, without any partisanship whatsoever. (Perhaps you feel I favor Israel while many pro-Israel editors feel I favor Palestine. However, I am neutral vis a vis either.) I generally wouldn't mention your dislike of Israel, except here it's important to ask you not to make arguments based on what you don't like. Truth be told, most postal history (and stamps) occurs in the 20th century. So, again, what is your objection to "XXX of Israel and Palestine" or "XXX of Palestine and Israel"? Neither name would "delete" Palestine from the title, if you don't want that. HG | Talk 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again HG, focusing on your perception of my "dislike" for Israel is insulting and inappropriate here. I'm an Israeli citizen and whether I like or dislike Israel is my own business an has nothing to do with my arguments here.

The postal stamp issuing history of this region is not confined to Israel. As the article shows, Ottoman, French, British, Austrian and other authorities issued stamps for Palestine. (Arguable, so did Sargon II thousands of years ago as well). Only Israel has issued stamps for Israel, and there is an article dealing exclusively with Israel's postal history. So I don't see the need to include Israel in the title when it is only briefly covered here, and its stamp issuing history in this region amounts to 60 years out of thousands in this article. Tiamut^talk 11:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Well, I guess a point of agreement is that one's view of Israel should not influence the decision/argument over the appropriate title. Still, the concern of this subsection remains: various interim authorities, JNF, Israel. Since 'Palestine' is not a well-attested umbrella term for the postal services of key authorities that have functioned in the area and belong in the article, what would be the most appropriate title? Maybe we can leave this as an open question and thread for now. HG | Talk 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign POs and Ottoman period

I added a few details, mainly relying on the Steichele books. More details and citations from other sources needed.Bleddynefans (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking better all the time. HG | Talk 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added a table of Ottoman POs. Not complete, several wholes are yet to be filled, few more sources to be searched. But looks OK for a first version. Comments are welcome!Bleddynefans (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work! (And so interesting ... I'm going to try and track down where the old Ottoman post office was in Nazareth. If it's a compelling visual, I'll snap a picture of it for the article. Also, I'll see what other population information can be found for the places listed. Well done. Tiamut^talk 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Split the table in two to make a better disctinction between postal facilities proven to have operated and those in doubt; added a few refs and wikilinks.Bleddynefans (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kudos again on your fine work. Looks like the article is ready to spin out the Ottoman postal system as a separate and already quite long article. (I guess we missed the chance to give Bleddynefans a DYK, sorry.) Are folks comfortable with the name Ottoman postal system? Thanks. Be well, HG | Talk 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree.

• I don't see the need to spin-off Section 3 into a separate article(s) right now. From a stand-alone article I would expect more details as are in this section now.
• Sections 3.1 and 3.2 deal specifically with the situation in Palestine/The Holy Land.
• The name you suggest wouldn't be right IMHO: I'd suggest (if at all) sec3.1 may well be headed Ottoman Post in the Holy Land, but sec3.2 should be Foreign Posts in the Holy Land.Bleddynefans (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, good point Bleddynefans. Can't simply call it "Ottoman postal system" -- so I would agree with the title "Ottoman post in the Holy Land" though I think it'd be better to have: "Ottoman postal system in the Holy Land." (To my ears, 'post' sounds too informal here.) I'd recommend the spin-off due to the size of the material in 3.1. (The size strikes me as large enough, in both absolute and proportionate terms, for a spin-off.) Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 02:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption under stamp

Bleddynefans; you asked me to contribute on the discussion page instead of contributing to the article. Although I think my edit is quite clear; I'll give a clear explanation as asked.

[Your edit], is for the caption to say "Issued in 1927 during the British Mandate, depicting Rachel's Tomb. Palestine is shown in English, Arab, and Hebrew."

My edit, is for the caption to say "Rachel's Tomb on a 1927 British Mandate stamp, with Palestine and Hebrew acronym (א״י Aleph-Yud), for Eretz Yisrael."

Captions are intended to explain to the viewer what they are seeing. Now everyone can see that it says "Palestine" in English; and everyone would assume that it says "Palestine" in Arab and Hebrew; but a English speaking viewer wouldn't assume that it says "Eretz Yisroel" in Hebrew; therefore the caption needs to say what is being seen. Therefore does it make sense to remove what isn't obvious (Eretz Yisrael) and in its place, give only the obvious (Palestine)? It's fine to describe its wording of "Palestine"; but it is wrong to eliminate its wording of "Eretz Yisroel); censorship on what is seen on the stamp is POV. Itzse (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My considered opinion is this: in section 4.2 British Mandate Palestine (1920–1948 CE) there is an elaborate explanation with wquite a long quotation on this exact subject. The picture at the top of the article should be an invite, and not be overburdoned with stressing excessively such a minor detail. To me it looks like (taking also into account your persistance) that your edit substantively makes a political point about the Jewish claim on the Holy Land, which I think is inappropriate at this position in this philatelic article. The matter is taken up further down, where it belongs. Since you never made any edit there, you seem to be content how it's dealt with.

After further considering the matter I have decided to reverse the edit.Bleddynefans (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "considered" opinion is sorry to say, without consideration. Trying to assume good faith, I'll give it one more try. If your real problem with my edit is not to overburden the reader, then you would have eliminated the entire caption altogether; or just left the words "British Mandate stamp" which even that shouldn't be necessary, as this is the subject matter of this article. Telling the reader that the word "Palestine" is inscribed on the stamp wouldn't either be necessary as this is the English Wikipedia and intended for the English reader who can clearly see it with their own eyes.

Instead your edit elaborates on the obvious ("Palestine" is shown in English, Arab, and Hebrew.") And removes what is not so obvious, that the stamp is inscribed with the words "Eretz Yisroel" in Hebrew. I have no problem stressing the "Palestinian" character of the stamp; but I do have a problem with suppressing the Jewish aspect of the stamp.

I'm afraid that overburdening the reader is not your problem - "Eretz Yisroel" is. I consider your edit unacceptable and will take it for arbitration if necessary. Attempting to remove the Jewish aspect of the stamp is to me trying to make Wikipedia Judenrein.

To me this is no "minor detail". My purpose and "persistence" here on Wikipedia (among many other things) is to make sure that "unwanted detail" to one POV doesn't get labeled "minor detail" and willfully discarded. What is appropriate or in-appropriate is not for you or me to "decide"; information needs to be dispensed freely without bias, either yours or mine. Lastly, I haven’t made any edits here before as I haven't arrived here yet; not because I'm content with how it's dealt with. Every article, not just this, needs to be dealt with fairly and without bias, to conform to NPOV.

I am making the edit once again, this time combining both our edits; and you can enhance it if you wish. Please do not reverse it without a consensus for it or a ruling by arbitration.

My intentions are not to make a political point; my intentions (as can been seen by my edit history) are to see to it that all articles in Wikipedia are fair, neutral and conform to NPOV. Itzse (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To explain, since you are a very recent contributor on this page, and your only ever edits concern this minute detail: the original 1927 stamp was added by one of the contributors at an early stage of this article. It was never a good illustration, the stamp being cancelled but without an identifiable postmark; so I had planned to exchange this picture for a better one long ago, but didn't come round to do it until now. I have now changed the stamp-picture in queston with a superior illustration, a 1918 mint EEF stamp. Since you seem to take no obvious interest in philately (judging from your user-page), please feel free to ask what makes a good illustration of a stamp or of postal history material in philatelic articles.

Maybe you misunderstood one of my earlier points: I object to your caption not because of its contents, but where it is placed, especially as that matter is taken up further down (with an extensive quote!), where it belongs. Putting that minor point additionally into a picture-caption in that section can be debated. I don't think NPOV is an issue here at all.

Talking of NPOV: prompted by this wild allegation in your reply, "Attempting to remove the Jewish aspect of the stamp is to me trying to make Wikipedia Judenrein," and the real offence it caused to me being attacked in that way, I had a look at your user-page: I cannot escape that, despite your protestations, you seem to make essentially a political point with this edit. Among the hundred or so userboxes there's no mention of "philately", and the list of articles you contributed to deal pretty much all with Judaism of Zionism; nothing on stamps, postal history, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleddynefans (talk • contribs) 08:58, May 31, 2008)

Sorry for forgetting to sign the reply; thanks to Ww2censor for correcting my omission.Bleddynefans (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bleddynedans: Despite your protestations; POV is the only issue I see here; everything else is debatable and can be solved, but when POV gets in the way; "explanations" are meaningless as anything can be rationalized to ones liking.

My recentness to this article should not have any bearing on my edits, and you being a long timer here doesn’t give you the right to own this page. You happen to have no idea of my level of knowledge on this subject, so I'll let you in on a secret; that on a certain subject in this article; I'm one of the very few people on planet earth who has done research regarding it and plan to publish it one day. If you would read my user page again, you should see that "all" knowledge interests me, and surely this subject is no different. My user page is missing quite a few userboxes, some deliberately.

I have reviewed all your edits on Wikipedia and have found that you have a pro Palestinian bias. Lots of people are biased (some would say that everybody is biased) but it's not a problem as long as it doesn't get in the way. But now it has gotten in the way, and what you accuse me of, you are guilty of yourself.

You claim that you had planned a long time ago to replace this stamp; but your changing it now raises the suspicion that you weren’t comfortable with that stamp even with a non overburdening caption. You conveniently replaced it now; and with what do you replace it? with a stamp that is there already? Was this the stamp you planned to replace it with? Why isn't duplication on this stamp a problem to you?

Based on the timestamps; this is the picture I get: Your first reaction at 10:10 was to reverse my edit saying (in the edit summary) "undone, see discussion page, my explanation stands". In other words declaring that what I have to say doesn't count; only your opinion and original explanation stands. No explanation is given for the next three hours.

Seeing that you have no justification, and cannot reasonably explain your edit, you hit upon a new tactic, and at 13:07 changed the picture altogether and came up at 13:58 with some explanation for that. But a liar needs to have a good memory! (not saying that you are a liar), and after coming up with an explanation, you reminded yourself that overburdening the reader was your original explanation, and here you yourself have overburdened the reader; so you quickly changed the caption at 14:05 saying that "redacting caption, keeping it basic".

The stamp in question was there for a long time, and you didn't see it as a problem, or at least didn't voice any opposition; but the minute that the caption stated that the "Aleph Yud" stands for "Eretz Yisroel"; all of a sudden this stamp becomes a problem to you; you don't want to overburden the reader, you don't think this stamp should be there, etc. you think that I have a POV agenda, and you play the victim game as being offended.

I don't accuse people just like that. If you feel that I'm wrong; then show me where I'm wrong and I'll apologize. Simply shifting the POV accusation is not the way to go; besides it won't work. So what do you do? Instead of changing it back to the caption it had for a long time, which wasn't either too fair; you chose to remove "Eretz Yisroel" altogether from the caption. Seeing that you can't get away with it, you decided that this is the wrong stamp.

Thanks to the timestamps on your actions; it shows your edits as unfair. If I'm wrong then come clean and I'll apologize.

Again, my intentions are not to make a political point; my intentions (as can been seen by my edit history of 2500 edits) is to see to it that all articles in Wikipedia are fair, neutral and conform to NPOV; yours included. Itzse (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you do not read, or even you do not want to understand, what I wrote. You have your political view and you disregard everything that may not agree with that. That's your right, but don't expect others you swallow it just like that.

Again: The problem is the position, not the content. My explanations stand, read them again. You need to, it seems. Why don't you move that picture to where to matter is dealt with. That would be OK. No objections.

Your last reply centres on the minutiae of excatly in what second I did what. Basing an argument(?) on that seems rather pointless, as it proofs nothing on the substantive point. I chose when I edit the article, and I chose when I reply on the discussion page. I chose when to hit "show preview" and when to hit "save page". When it doesn't come out as planned, I chose to redact. Sometimes there's just no time doing everything at the same time. I do have a life outside Wikipedia, you know. (That's whay I edited earlier today, and write this reply now).

PS: removing that second sentence was because that caption had been prepared months ago and in light of the article's progression wouldn't fit anymore. I copied the caption from my files, and afterwards saw it needed shortening. That's the reason.Bleddynefans (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We note that Itzse has added userbox User:Scepia/philately on June 2, 2008. Just stating a fact. What can one learn from that? Bleddynefans (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One can learn from that; that after you asserted, that only you understand this subject and therefore you are entitled to own this page; and to support such a stand you point out, that Itzse doesn't have a user box suggesting knowledge of this subject; therefore I added this userbox to dispel such a notion. Initially when I went shopping for userboxes I didn’t see this userbox among many others; otherwise I would have added it then.

From your above statement it is clear that you have nothing to answer as expected; therefore there is no point arguing. I had intended to take this to arbitration, and had already prepared a case for it, and I still might do so in the future; not because I care to win; or because this is the most important article in WP; but because this issue is the most bothersome to me and the biggest flaw of WP; because without neutrality, WP becomes a heap of garbage intermixed with gems with only gemologists being able to discern the difference. But as a fellow editor who I respect, has suggested that I drop the issue, therefore I'll let you get away with it; because if nobody else cares, then why should I?

As you stated that you have no objection to place that stamp next to the discussion of it; therefore I'll do just that.

Your accusation of vandalism, says it all. After having taken the time (at your invitation) to discuss rather then edit; and have explained myself in minute detail (to your chagrin); this accusation besides being uncivil; suggests that your understanding of WP:Vandalism matches your understanding and adherence to WP:NPOV. Adios Itzse (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy (and culture) asks that this kind of Talk page be devoted to a discussion of how to edit the page. Without looking whatsoever at the merits, it's clear that both of you are discussing (among other things) matters of civility and user conduct. If you don't mind my asking, it really would be more appropriate for you both to continue discussion of user conduct matters elsewhere. You might start with trying a civil conversation on your user talk pages or, if that won't fly, start up something at WP:WQA. But please discontinue those aspects of the thread here. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Major page problems

While lots of great work has been done on this article, there are two major issues with the article.

• Firstly the naming issue has never been resolved for months. It is an article about both the stamps and postal history of Palestine, and the title needs to reflect its content. If we cannot agree on this here then I will bring it to an AfD.
• Secondly, a newer problem is that at 140 kb the article length is now so long that it is now has the claim to fame of being the 296th longest article on Wikipedia. Not a good situation at all. Long articles have readability issues, cause long load times for browsers and also for editing, as well as other technical problems, which are detailed at Wikipedia:Article size. The basic criteria is that any article over about 40kb will likely need division and articles over 60kb should probably be divided. How have we arrived here? Mostly this is due to the tables of post offices and rates. These could easily be spilt off into their own page, which would be mainly lists type pages. That would bring the article size down to about 56kb which, though long, is an acceptable length. While the tables are no doubt useful, they are adding so much code to the page, especially with all the inline citations. One verifiable reference per statement or fact is really all that is required. Bleddynefans, you are the person responsible for most of the increase in size, so would you consider splitting the tables into two separate pages; postal rates in one and post offices in the other?

The page name really needs to be fixed once and for all, either by consensus here or elsewhere, but I'll be happy to help achieve this page size reduction while still leaving a short summary on the main article. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I support renaming the article Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine. I think Postal history of Palestine came about because only for a short period covered here stamps with "Palestine" were issued.

I agree with your point on the size of the present article. But "splitting the tables into two separate pages; postal rates in one and post offices in the other" would be quite unsatisfactory because that would leave just lists without any background. Therefore I'd like to propose the creation of three spin-off articles, leaving short summaries here (qv. Israel and PNA sections):

• Section 3.1 could become Ottoman post in the Holy Land - 43kB with 133 refs
• Section 3.2 could become Foreign posts in the Holy Land - 10kB with 40 refs
• Section 4 could become Postage stamps and postal history of Mandate Palestine - 54kB with 233 refs

I'd be happy, provided we achieve a consensus, for you to make the necessary measures. I was about to add three {{Splitsection}} markers, but let's rather wait for more opinions.... Bleddynefans (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine is the best title.

I also agree with ww2censor (talk) that the tables of postal rates and post offices should be moved to separate sub-pages. That information is too arcane for a country survey article and breaks the flow. A brief overview or discussion of the rates and offices could be left here, with links to the separate pages, where a similar overview could precede the tables. I would leave in the extra citations; if someone is so specialized as to be interested in rate and individual post office details, he might appreciate the extra references.

I disagree with Bleddynefans' (talk) suggestion of splitting off three subsections of the article; I think that unnecessarily fragments a very comprehensive, well sourced and well written article, which seems to me to be beyond "Start" level. Ecphora (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I too disagree with splitting off 3 sections per Bleddynefans;. It would then not be comprehensive and it would be disjointed; it is really great now. Post Offices and rate tables will work well as lists, of course with a decent introduction paragraph and a small summary section in the main article giving the major points as well as the "main article" link. The list of post offices and rate tables per se do not enhance the overall article but bloats it beyond what is necessary or desirable which could be summarised in a paragraph or two for each. It would be a shame to lose the great work you have put into them, hence the idea of splitting them into their own list pages. Rating-wise this is certainly a C-class or even B-class article now but the naming issue must still be resolved. Anyone else want to give an opinion before we move forward. All in all a great job, thanks Bleddynefans, HG & Tiamut. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the 3 spinouts would be suitable for the article and consistent with WP style/guidelines. We'd use summary style, as with other spinouts now. In terms of title, I still think "PS&PH of the Holy Land" is better and nicely philatelic. It's better because several of the entities (e.g., Israel, interim entities) are not put in reliable sources under "Palestine" but are often put under Holy Land, per the analysis of reliable sources above. Thanks to you to, Ww2censor, for your thoughtfulness and work. HG | Talk 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

HG- To clarify, is it your view that the tables should be left in the article or that they (as well as the sections mentioned by Bleddynefans) also should be spun out? Ecphora (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. When I started the article, I envisioned it as a summary style historical overview of various postal authorities/systems (and stamps etc) for That Place. It was originally called "PH&PS of Israel and Palestine" (a title I still like). Anyway, Tiamut esp helped extend the historical range of the article, and we made some spinouts already, so I still think it would work best as an overview. Therefore, I believe the tables should be moved out of this article, certainly. Still, the tables seems like useful public knowledge, adequately sources, so I would recommend spinning them out. I happen to like the 3 spinouts proposed above, but I'd like to think I'm open-minded about other configurations. For instance, I'd be fine leaving in the foreign post offices (#2) as is. Also, Ww2censor's idea of summaries and list pages does make sense (if I grok it right) -- nevertheless, whichever way the tables are handled, I would still encourage us to spinout the Ottoman and Mandate (#1 and #3 proposed) now. Take care, HG | Talk 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think enough time has passed, with unfortunately little input. I will soon move this article to Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine. Ecphora (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was considering this should be done but did not get around to it. It may need a move request because the page name already exists as a redirect. ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the page should be moved to Postage stamps and postal history of Palestine. Tiamut^talk 10:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Section off tables

I started to reduce the page size by hiving off some sections into their own pages by starting with the mandate POs which is now at List of post offices in the British Mandate of Palestine. You may want to check that all appropriate source books have been added and possibly write a short section note on the main article page with some basic details. I will continue with some of these as time permits seeing as no one else did anything for a month.
Sectioned off Mandate postal rates to List of postal rates in the British Mandate of Palestine and the main article is now less than 100k but still need to be reduced for quicker loading but will still be longer than suggested size. ww2censor (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to preserve the editing history; by just copying sections to a new page all history was lost? Bleddynefans (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the edit history will only follow a page if there is a page move, not when just a section get's moved into a completely new page. However, the edit history is still here on this page's history. Perhaps you would like to make a note on the talk page about where the history is if you think it important. Personally I don't see that as important for the long term view of the new page, but thanks for all the hard work. ww2censor (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This isn't my forte, but I believe it's advisable to write-up (edit summary?) moves in such a way that the source of the moved text is readily traced. The summary does refer to the "main article" which may be clear enough, though may be better in future to put the article title in the summary. Anyway, it looks good! Thanks. HG | Talk 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea in future, though there is a back link in the "see also" sections. Cheers

Just wanted to check in and say that the article looks good and thanks y'all for creating and moving those lists HG | Talk 11:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)