Category talk:Land of Israel

Propose move to "Category:Biblical land of Israel"
I propose a name change for this category into Category:Biblical land of Israel. Could also be "Ancient land of Israel", or "Religious land of Israel". No confusion needed with current state of Israel. -DePiep (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. More neutral and less politically devisive. Also, the "Land of Israel" has no extra-biblical existance. Anything beyond the Bible is just pious imagingings and aspirational. It has no concrete reality and is incapable of being measured in any geo-political way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The contention that the concept has no extra-Biblical existence or requires defintion in a geopolitcal sense to justify its existence is erroneous. While its origin is biblical, the concept plays a role in Judaism as a political, legal, religious and mystical concept, and appears as a theme in Jewish literature and liturgy from ancient until modern times. And that’s not to mention the role it may play in Christianity. Adding a qualifier to the category excludes these aspects, or labels them imprecisely to the point of obfuscation.


 * For an idea of how wide this topic is and how far it ranges from the merely “Biblical” or Religious” see, for example, this wide compendium of authors and articles under | Land of Israel in Jewish Thought, which covers such topics as:


 * | The Land of Israel in Classical Jewish Thought including | Biblical and | Rabbinic


 * | The Land of Israel in Medieval Jewish Thought including | Judah Halevi c.1075-11410, | Rashi and | Maimonides;


 * its role in Jewish mysticism – | Kabbalah


 * and in | Modern Jewish Thought – including, but not limited to | Secular Zionism. -- Chefallen (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response I would not for a moment deny the importance of the concept of the Land of Israel in Jewish thought. The supports that you mention are quite true: Jewish thought, biblical, Maimonides, mysticism, Kabbalah, Zionism. However, isn't it interesting that all of these are philosophical, spiritual supports? In other words, they are not based in the domain of science, of which archeology and geography form the most pertinant parts in this discussion. To my mind then, your contribution, albeit unintentionally, tends to support the proposed change as opposed to retaining the status quo. For if the concept, in Jewish thought, owes more to its biblical origins for its driving force than to geo-political realities (either ancient or modern), then the title ought to reflect that allegience. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is nothing wrong with the phrase Land of Israel, and there's no reason for any confusion with the modern State of Israel. If people can distinguish between the geographic entity called Palestine and the State of Palestine, there's no reason why they can't properly navigate these categories. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a flaw in this logic. If Palestine = "geographic entity" and State of Palestine = "political entity", then Land of Israel = "geographic entity" and State of Israel = "political entity". However, this is a false equivalence. It's false because Land of Israel is not a "geographic entity", it's an aspirational or more accurately, a Biblical entity. Hence the need for the name change to make this reality clearer and prevent others falling into the same logical trap. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Land of Israel is a geographical entity, defined by the Bible, the Talmud and later Jewish legal commentators. While the definitions may be unclear or differ, the fact is that they exist, and are rightly the  subject of discussion in the article  about the Land of Israel. -- Chefallen (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response For the current name to remain, it must be demonstrated that it is not connected with spiritual or mystical matters but is instead rooted in solid, geo-political realities. The former cannot be demonstrated. While we can point to realities like the Kingdom of David or Judah or Israel or of later successor states, none overlaps with the Land of Israel. Absolute precision in geograpghy in not essential; the fringes of the Gobi desert for example are ill defined. Nevertheless, they have an underlying definable, quantifiable reality. By contrast, the LoI, which has its origns in religious thought, can never achieve even a rough precision on which a majority could agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. If we went by Lodged's criteria, untold numbers of concepts could be seen as mere conventions or imaginings. "Land of Israel" is a widely used term and not to be wished away by a name change.  The proposed change seems motivated by bias, with a hint of outright malice.  Hardly solid reasons for change.  Let's not "fix" something that is not broken. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment please name some of the untold numbers of concepts that could be seen as mere conventions or imaginings? It is not the job of wikipedia to decide if there ever was a LoI as described in the Bible.  That is a matter of history and archeology.  Changing the category merely correctly places this term where it belongs, as a biblical term.  There is no bias here at all, and certainly no malice.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that you shouldn't fix something unless it's broken. The reason that I support the motion is that it's clear that the current name is "broken". Why? Because it permits obfuscation. Because by relying on one definition (that has Biblical) origins, a net can then be cast over sound-alike entities that have their base in other origins (geographic, archaeological, political). The current name permits, indeed supports, this sleight-of-hand. That's why it's broke. That's why it needs to be fixed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Land of Israel is not is not simply a biblical term. While it may have originated in the Bible (as many concepts do) it is not confined to being a biblical concept alone. It has political, legal, religious, and literary usages that extend well beyond its original biblical origin, and from biblical times until the present (see above). Therefore, qualifying this term as “Biblical” (only) is incorrect. -- Chefallen (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response It is not true to say that the LoI "has ...legal" usages. It's only usages are spiritual, mystical, literary and biblical hence the motivation for the name change. If the LoI "legal" usages, please supply examples. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's no reason why the current, primarily geographic category would be confused with a different, political one. Furthermore, the term is used in reference to post-Biblical eras also - the Talmudic period, for example, and the proposed change would not address this. Chefallen (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How is the current category a geographic category? What geographic boundaries does it have precisely? In the Bible, several neblous boundaries are suggested. Which one do you favour for the setting of the geographic boundary? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact is that there are geographical boundaries, however they may be defined, and they are discussed in the article Land of israel. The term clearly applies or applied to somewhere in the physical world (and it later also developed non-geographical meaning). Be that as it may, the exact geographical boundaries are irrelevant to the definition of this category. -- Chefallen (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Response Narnia and Middle Earth also have defined geographical boundaries, however their titles quite properly clarify that they deal with entities that do not have a physical reality - Narnia (country). Is the LoI so very different? What geograpgher recognises the LoI? What scientific map delimits it? Is it a member of the United Nations? As a biblical promise, it is hugely important in world history, but lets not pretend that it has ever had an extra-biblical reality. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The use of land of Israel in the Talmud is a biblical use of the term. The term refers to a biblical concept, it has no meaning without that biblical background.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many terms and concepts have a biblical background but are not limited only to their biblical meaning. So again, it’s relevant to discuss this in the appropriate article(s), but using it to define the entire category, when many other aspects exist, is fallacious. -- Chefallen (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Hertz1888--Geewhiz (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I appreciate the argument put forth by DePiep (indeed, I've heard under-educated Israeli Jews erroneously use "Land of Israel" and "State of Israel" interchangeably), it is not confusing to anyone willing to dig even one millimeter deeper into the subject.  --GHcool (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: No confusion? At this moment, the category has the subcategory Category:Israel. That is incorrect, and shows my point. -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that GHcool's contribution starts off being in favour of the proposal on the grounds that it is incorrect to assume that "Land of Israel" and "State of Israel" are interchangeable. The proposal as it stands would make this error on the part of Jews (or gentiles), under-educated or just adequately educated, less likely. However, GHcool ends up by opposing the motion, in defiance of his own logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * strongly support I have seen confusion as to the meaning of land of israel. It is a biblical term, and should be described as such.  Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—See examples Zionism and Israel which are in this category and are not Biblical or religious. Therefore the implied assumption in the nomination is incorrect. The other argument that some people confuse Land of Israel and State of Israel is not a valid argument for renaming. Some people confuse many things, and we have hatnotes and other means to help avoid such confusion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reason that Zionism and Israel are in this category is because of the Biblical connection. The proposed name change would not be an impediment to their continued presence in the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OpposeNo need to fix something that isn't broken. The 'Land of Israel' is a term that is still relevant today and not only in the bible. --Shuki (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See above for comment on "if it ain't broke...." Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shuki (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would it be listed in a forum for deletion when the proposal is only for re-naming? Strange, almost paranid behaviour. So in the interests of Balance, Palestine should also be alerted.... Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)