Jump to content

Talk:Hebraization of Palestinian place names

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Synth

[edit]

This sentence:

In the early biblical narrative of an Israelitic invasion of Canaan, the Israelites rarely imposed their names on the areas they are said to have taken possession of, accepting in most cases the pre-existing Canaanite toponymy.{{sfn|Layton|2018|p=5 n.18}}

...appears to be synth. Neither the sentence nor the source cited are talking about the subject of this article.

Also what does "imposed their names" actually mean? Which names? The source says: "In the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites generally accepted the old names inherited from their Canaanite predecessors. Instances of changing the former name are rare."

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having said which, the footnote is cross-referring to Rainey's 1978 article which we do use. Better to take this directly from Rainey. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove this? The sentence you removed is not SYNTH. It is a simple rephrase in a way that is more relevant to the subject of the article, but the statements are identical. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, see above. We should change the source to Rainey, and write in the context he uses. The context of the other work is unrelated, and the way it is worded makes no sense (“...their names”) Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rainey writes “...and have proved that the toponymic culture of the Hebrew Bible is a direct continuation of the Late Bronze Age (Simons 1937)”. That is about as close as I can see, which is strange because Layton references Rainey for his sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand you correctly that you mean to say that Layton is guilty of SYNTH? As opposed to the editor who wrote that sentence in the article, which is what I understood from your words previously?
No, the editor. Layton is covering a very different topic. He references this in a small footnote that I have quoted above, which references Rainey. Rainey’s article focused on the topic of this article, so we should use that instead. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's take a step back. The sentence "In the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites generally accepted the old names inherited from their Canaanite predecessors. Instances of changing the former name are rare.", which is sourced, is in content very close to the sentence "In the early biblical narrative of an Israelitic invasion of Canaan, the Israelites rarely imposed their names on the areas they are said to have taken possession of, accepting in most cases the pre-existing Canaanite toponymy", which is in the article. It is sourced, so what is the problem? That it is not clear how Layton derived it from Rainey's? Both are acceptable sources, so I don't see the problem. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can source the sentence "Red is a color of the rainbow". That doesn't mean I should put it in this article. I need to find a source which connects it to the topic of this article first. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is that sentence (in both its variations) not directly related to the subject of this article?
Onceinawhile, your issue eludes me completely here. Perhaps next time you discuss before you remove something? That is a suggestion. You don't remove sentences just because you perceive some unclear problem with them, that you can't explain to otherwise highly intelligent people. 14:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Debresser, the Israelites coming in and not changing any names is not "Hebraization of Palestinian place names", because all the sources that cover this topic are focused on the 20th century. If you can find me a source which connects the two, then great, but I don't believe there are any. To shoehorn in this topic without a connecting source is synth. Whether you like it or not. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact that there was hardly any Hebraization at a certain time not something that must be in this article about Hebraization? Hebraization, including in how far it was practiced at different times, is precisely the subject of this article. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We follow sources.
I am not saying that it shouldn't be in there, just that the nature of it's inclusion needs to follow the sources that relate to the topic of this article, which per the first sentence is "...the replacement of Arabic-language place names with Hebrew-language place names throughout different periods: under the British Mandatory Palestine regime; after the establishment of Israel following the 1948 Palestinian exodus and 1948 Arab–Israeli War; and subsequently in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967."
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having a historic overview preceding the subject per se is absolutely standard and good writing. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If you would like to progress this conversation, you'll need to read the sources which cover the topic of this article. I am sure we will then be able to find an appropriate form of words. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your highhanded and frankly not so serious remark is rejected. I have no problem closing this discussion at this moment. At such time as you can point out something wrong with the present term "Early history", I shall be happy to continue this conversation. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Their land"

[edit]

@Tom Bahar: the language in your edits[1] and [2] of "their land" is not appropriate. We should not be attributing the land to anyone, otherwise this page will become an argument. "...the land" is the neutral way. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, obvious POV editing, reverted.Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to follow the original source, which renders it "renewed interaction of Jews with their land", but I agree, let's go with the "...the land". Tom Bahar (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hebraization of Palestinian place names"

[edit]

This needs a note that Hebrew names are the indigenous names of these places. Arabic is a colonial language and the names were Arabized under Arabian empire, Hebraization is bringing back the original indigenous language of the land and place names. Please someone correct the article and at least try not to go with the historical revisionism. 88.193.134.254 (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Most of the new names were invented by a committee and only a small part of them corresponded to the an old name for the same place. Even when an old name was used, it was often applied to somewhere nearby rather than the actual site. Zerotalk 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Act of erasure

[edit]

I'm surprised to see no mention of the subject as an act of erasure, since this is a key feature and function. This language appears abundant in the literature. I'll try to establish references when I have time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

[edit]

@LivLovisa: per the ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES warning at the top of this page, you have just violated the restriction that "You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic".

Please self-revert.

Also, I suggest we move the discussion at my talk page into this thread, where it can be seen by other editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made one revert, not more than one. LivLovisa (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LivLovisa: no, you made two. See Wikipedia:Edit warring: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
Your first edit at 13:47 deleted text added by another editor.
Your second edit deleted the same text again. That is textbook 1RR violation.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, you can review the archives of WP:AE, where you will see frequent sanctions for this.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit was not a reversion but a normal change, unless I’m misunderstanding what counts as a reversion. LivLovisa (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LivLovisa: yes, you are misunderstanding. It was a partial revert of this edit. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for clarifying. I will revert my edit for now.
However, the objections I raised on your talk page still stands. I don’t see why that line should be there, and your only defense of this is a statement of opinion that it’s “embarrassing”. LivLovisa (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The key point of debate is that I believe that the "proved not to be a suitable candidate" in the sentence "The earlier enthusiasm for restoring biblical names to their ancient sites has cooled down somewhat, especially after Tell (ʿArâq) el-Menšîyeh, changed to Tel Gat, was proved not to be a suitable candidate for Gath of the Philistines." undoubtedly means that a mistake was made, but you disagree. To move the conversation forward, please explain what you think it does mean. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Israeli Life: Name Calling". Hadassah Magazine. 2005-02-22.
Committee members also guard against “total anarchy,” said eminent Tel Aviv University geographer Moshe Brawer. For example, in past years communities were named for the companies that put up the money to build them. If not for the committee’s intervention, said Brawer, whose father served on the committee before him, the Tel Aviv suburb of Holon would have become Israel’s Levittown and be known as “Agrobank.”
Sometimes even the experts can be wrong however. Example: the southern town of Kiryat Gat. A mistake was discovered years after the name was registered and placed on the official record. “They…thought that the biblical Tel Gat was in that region. It turned out that this wasn’t the case…but we couldn’t change the name,” Bitan said.
And sometimes the committee has to draw a line in the sand. A battle over the name of Kadesh Barnea, where the Israelites encamped twice on their way from Egypt to the land of Israel and where Miriam was buried, has been going on for years. The settlement was located at one site initially, then it had to move some 12 miles north after the peace agreement with Egypt, toward Nitzana.
“They wanted to keep the same name, but how could the committee agree to it?” asked Bitan. “We called them Nitzana…. We are all in favor of taking historical names, but they have to be right geographically.”…
Occasionally, however, there are different interpretations of biblical connections. Take Efrat, the well-established Gush Etzion community home to a large number of English-speaking residents.
“The committee didn’t want to give them the name Efrat, because it says in the Bible that Efrat is in Bethlehem—it says so,” argued the chagrined Bitan. “And we talked to them, and they said: ‘If we make it Efrata, will that be okay?’ We knew in the end that they would call it Efrat. They pulled one over on us.”
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hebraization_of_Palestinian_place_names&oldid=1273035068"