Talk:Hebraization of Palestinian place names

The mavo dotan picture
We need sources for the caption in the picture.Its seems like WP:SYNTH --Shrike (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added a good source with a quote. Any additional pictures you can think of would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That;'s ok for the Afula reference, but not the text about Mevo Dotan - a new settlement was built on a hill that has an Arab name. There's no indication that the hill name was changed. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   15:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Nur Masalha book is a good source.It aren't published by respectable scholarly publisher and on such topic its better to be avoided --Shrike (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Try reading Nur Masalha and see if you cant tell if he qualifies as an expert in the field.  nableezy  - 16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * NM is top drawer source for this sort of thing, his "The Zionist Bible (Routledge) is another one.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Mevo Dotan is a good example, since naming a settlement is not the same as renaming a hill. Plenty of hills, wadis, etc were renamed so one of those would be a better example. In this case I have another concern: I don't believe Mevo Dotan is built on Jebel el Aqra. That is the next hill to the south and the hilltop which now has Mevo Dotan on the top is called Dharat Mughr el Jabri (ref: 1:20K maps from 1942 and 1954). Zerotalk 05:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Can you source that? By the way, the story of the "discovery" of Dothan (ancient city), for which Mevo Dotan is named, is an amusing read. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1:20K maps 16-20 for 1942 and 1954. Zerotalk 10:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with, both, Shrike and Zero, that the image is a little misleading, since, in the case of Mevo Dothan (literally meaning, "the Approach to Dothan"), it does not reflect the change of a place name, but rather a new town established on a hill, and which was built not far from the ruin Tel Dothan (so-called in Arabic, and which you can see in the top right-hand corner of the SWP map no. 11); "Dothan" itself being a name which has not changed in both languages. As for Afula, in map no. 8 from the Ottoman period and which, likewise, was produced by Conder & Kitchener, it lists the name of the Arab town "Afula", not as el-Fuleh (as stated by Nur Masalha), but rather as el-'Afûleh, meaning, the spelling is exactly as it is given today in both Hebrew and in Arabic. The town is shown in the top right-hand corner of the map, here. What Nur Masalha seemed to be referring to was an adjacent pool or marshland by the name of Birket el Fûleh. In any rate, her claims are clearly disputed by Conder & Kitchener who wrote of their findings before the rise of Zionism. Perhaps, a different image should be used if the intent is to show a change of old Arabic place names. The present image does not show it, or, at least, is disputed.Davidbena (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Name of article
I suggest to move it to Hebraization of Arabic place names as Palestinians Jews used a Hebrew names --Shrike (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the Arabic that has been changed - the Arabic is unchanged. It is the English versions, and the creation of Hebrew ones; many of the original names were not Arabic, but Aramaic or Greek in origin. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , No the names were in Arabic language and there were changed back to Hebrew .Probably we need RFC about it. --Shrike (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but before wasting everyone's time, please read the sources. I have made an effort to put a wide range of excellent sources in the bibliography. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I must support shrike, “Arabic” since it refers to the language, is more precise than “Palestine” additionally because “Palestine” refers to a unspecified land mass (Palestine the region, the river to the sea, or just west bank and Gaza). Zarcademan123456 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Benvenisti's Sacred Landscape gives various illustrations of the discussions amongst the committee. The one below (page 22) relates to the Greek-named city of Mampsis, in today's Hebraized-English Mamshit. It is now a UNESCO World Heritage site under the Hebraized name of Mamshit
 * Y. Ben Zvi: I suggest Cerubim. This term has two meanings: a kind of vegetable (cabbage) and angels (cherubim).
 * S. Yeivin: I propose restoring the historical name of Kurnub, Mampsis.
 * M. Avi Yona: Impossible to leave the name Mampsis because it's a foreign name [Byzantine-Greek, appearing on the map of Madaba and in the writings of the fathers of the Christian church].
 * B. Ts. Eshel: The present-day Kurnub is on a hill above the ruins of Mampsis. The name Mampsis can be used for the ruins, and for Kurnub a new Hebrew name should be found that is suitable for a place that is slated to become a population and transportation center.
 * A. Y. Brewer: I'm opposed to Cerubim and to Karnov. If we're not going to retain the Greek name Mampsis, it would be best to assign a new Hebrew name.
 * S. Yeivin: I suggest Karnov.
 * Y. Press: I suggest City of the Negev.
 * S. Yeivin: When people say City of the Negev they mean Beersheba.

Benvenisti then explains: "The discussion continued at the next meeting, and in the end the committee members decided to call the ruins of Mampsis (the remnants of a large Christian settlement containing the ruins of two churches) Mamshit. In the opinion of the committee, this was the original Hebrew name, which had been distorted by the Greeks. The place "slated to become a population and transportation center" did indeed become a town, and its name is Dimona."

This situation, and many like it, are within the scope of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what it has to do with Arabic/Palestinian name? --Shrike (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with Arabic. Mampsis was the name used in Mandatory Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , You anecdote doesn't prove anything most of the sources quite explicitly say it was from Arabic --Shrike (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Really it doesn't prove anything? You don't think it proves that some of the Hebraized names were not Arabic? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , We going according to sources benvesti for example in pg 12 writing quire clearly restoring hebrew names instead of the Arabic ones --Shrike (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've lost me. What is your point? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My point that we talk about restoring original Hebrew names instead of Arabic one and that how the sources treat it. --Shrike (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring the Greek, Latin and Aramaic ones? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although "restoring the original Hebrew name" is an apt description for many cases (apart from "original", which is just an assumption), it does not cover enough of the article. A new Hebrew name might be an old Hebrew name formerly used in that place, an old Hebrew name formerly used somewhere nearby or somewhere unknown, a modification of an Arabic name without any known Hebrew antecedent, or a Hebrew name freshly invented out of nothing. Zerotalk 02:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero, that's exactly how I would sum up the process, too. Fact. Nothing to do with politics and sympathies. Arminden (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Name in picture -mixup

 * Ok, so the Arab word el Afuleh means "ruptured".(Palmer, 1881, p. 142)
 * al-Fula/el Fule means "beans" (Palmer, 1881, p. 161), but that is present day Merhavia (kibbutz), not Afula, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I am not 100% certain there isn't more to it, given that the two towns were right night to each other, the Arabic names of the two were exactly the same except for one additional letter (ayn) and there is a pool on the opposite side of Afula called Birket el Fuleh p145. So it went from West to East: الفولة --> العفولة --> بركة الفولة
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is always more to it, but Huldra is correct about the match with modern locations. Zerotalk 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been looking into this one further. It is an interesting conundrum. The French in 1799, in Jacotin's map (helpfully cropped by Zero a decade ago), shows the eastern village as "Afouleh", crucially in Arabic it is strange combination of the names above: افلة. To the west of that they show "redoute de Fouleh". This is of course the other way around from today, where the castle is to the east of Afula.
 * They should have known the situation well, because they had a major battle there in 1799 (Battle of Mount Tabor (1799)).
 * Palmer seems to have copied Robinson 40 years before: appendix 200 (no translation) and appendix 210 ("a bean"), but Palmer added his own translation of el Afuleh.
 * The name for the castle (and the Battle of Al-Fule) used by the Crusaders was Castrum Fabe, where fabe is of course the same fava beans which Hannibal Lecter enjoyed with "a nice Chianti". Robinson iii p.177 ft.2 confirms this.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Kedar and Pringle (1985), La Fève: A Crusader Castle in the Jezreel Valley, Israel Exploration Journal, vol. 35, no. 2/3, pp. 164–179 has a detailed analysis, but doesn't explain why there are two villages with basically the same name. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There were definitely two villages in 1822: "Continuing over the plain in the same direction, we passed at one o'clock, under the village of Fooli, leaving it a little on our left. We observed here the fragment of a large building still remaining, whose wall seemed to be of Saracenic structure, and at the wells without the village we saw two pent-roofed covers of sarcophagi; one of which was ornamented with sculpture... On the west of this village, about a mile, is Affouli, built like this on a rising ground, and containing only a few dwellings." Onceinawhile (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

did you spot anything on this question while you were working on the Battle of Mount Tabor article? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

hi. Sorry, I didn't focus on that. I have no answer to the main question here, except for a general observation. It is annoying and leads to confusion, but maybe it's a case of a village moving around, or just its name. Very common. With time people might try to differentiate by small phonetical changes. The shift from sedentary to nomadic life was more common than Western scholars used to think in the past Both Beansvilles were almost deserted at times in the 19th c., which makes this proposal quite plausible. The Crusaders, coming from outside, might have "messed up" things additionally, by defining and naming their fiefdom, castle and subject villages as they pleased. Fave castle was built on the only hill around, maybe it developed a faubourg of the same name, a short distance away from an Arab "bean village". Probably impossible to prove. So, if you can prove the names were stable for a longer time, maybe you just leave it at that. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I'm more interested in practical aspects, like where did this or that event take place, which etching or daguerotype illustrates what and if it's realistic (eye-witness or following sketches and written reports) or just fantasy, biblically inspired or otherwise. The academic aspects may be intelectually thrilling, but right now of less relevance to me. Arminden (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Motivations
your sentence: "ignored the fact that the same scholars wrote under the duress of British occupation of Palestine and simply wished to gain independence and restore the country's ancient toponymy, based on the opinions of many historical geographers" needs some work: Onceinawhile (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "duress of British occupation" is simply nonsense given that the Zionists actively campaigned for British tutelage, it was a mandate not an occupation, and most of the Jewish population were recent immigrants so they can't have found it all that bad...
 * "simply wished to gain independence" this is offensively misrepresentative from the perspective of Palestinians
 * "simply wished to... restore the country's ancient toponymy" see the chart above - which period do you mean? The Canaanite toponymy? The New Kingdom Egyptian toponymy? Nope, you mean the toponymy from a very specific period...
 * "based on the opinions of many historical geographers" this is a misrepresentation; the names were chosen by the committees, often because they sounded similar to a name in the Bible, but with no evidence at all that these places were the same.
 * All the sources state that nationalism – the creation of an imagined community – was the prime motivator
 * I have deleted the word "duress," as it was purely unnecessary. In reply to these last two statements:
 * "simply wished to... restore the country's ancient toponymy" see the chart above - which period do you mean? The Canaanite toponymy? The New Kingdom Egyptian toponymy? Nope, you mean the toponymy from a very specific period...
 * "based on the opinions of many historical geographers" this is a misrepresentation; the names were chosen by the committees, often because they sounded similar to a name in the Bible, but with no evidence at all that these places were the same.
 * First, the Jewish National Council was comprised of historical geographers and archaeologists, namely, Benjamin Mazar and Samuel Klein, who, citing orientalists such as Edward Robinson among others, showed the names of toponymy that were prevalent in Palestine during the Roman and Mishnaic period. These were and are the names that are currently used when referencing Hebrew place names, unless where otherwise stated as being from the period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The criterion is based purely upon Jewish historical records when it comes to re-naming old sites, and, as noted, leaving for the most part the Arabic names intact.
 * As for "the names were chosen by the committees... because they sounded similar to a name, etc.", the names of those sitting upon the committee are Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Yeshayahu Press, Samuel Klein, Abraham Jacob Brawer, and others, who were well-familiar with the historical names of these places, and actually cite their usage elsewhere. In short, there is a sound basis for their claims, although, in rare cases, the name chosen may have only been a tentative identification. I think it was far from them to "make-up" fictitious names.Davidbena (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing: No one means to offend the Palestinian Arabs when restoring old Hebrew names, especially when in 99% of the cases involved, the old Arabic name is retained alongside the Hebrew name. As for the nice chart appended in this section, I think that we can all appreciate the fact that while Persians and Grecians and Romans once ruled this land, their languages are no longer used by the masses in Palestine / Israel, for which reason we do not find signs written in Greek or in Old Latin characters. Jerusalem was called Aelia Capitolina by Hadrian, which name never stuck with the indigenous populations.Davidbena (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. It is important to remember that:
 * (1) the Palestinian language is Palestinian Arabic, which you can think of as a merger between Aramaic and Classical Arabic (and Greek and Latin etc);
 * (2) the Hebrew names known to scholars primarily derive from Masoretic Text, dated between the 7th and 10th centuries CE.
 * So even for those few locations where the geographic place was highly likely to have been the same as the biblical place, scholars cannot possibly know whether the name preserved in Palestinian Arabic or the name preserved in the Masoretic text was closer to the "original" Canaanite orthography of the names.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , when it comes to the restoration of old place names, no one here (whether Arab or Jew) is trying to duplicate Old Canaanite names, whatever they may have been. As I recall, Jerusalem was called "Salem" by the Canaanites, but neither Jews, nor Arabs, assay to use its old appellation. Rather, the selected place names are simply those names preserved either in classical Hebrew literature (in the case of Hebrew names), or in the received tradition of place names preserved by the Arab population of Palestine. Both traditions are valid, in themselves, and the Arabic tradition is an invaluable source, even the cornerstone, in helping historical geographers understand what may have been the site's earlier Hebrew appellation. I see nothing wrong with preserving both traditions. BTW: I am progressing with the translation (from Hebrew into English) of that Introduction written by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, and will, perhaps this evening, post the first part (Part I) of this momentous work made by the Jewish National Council, and where they explain the context of this session in 1931, as well as explicitly discuss the Hebraization process of names up to their time.Davidbena (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Tilley, who was referring to the Jewish National Council who met in parley in late 1931, in Mandatory Palestine, to draft guidelines by which any future Jewish government would be compelled to follow when referencing place names transliterated from Arabic and Hebrew into English, or from Arabic into Hebrew, and from Hebrew into Arabic, overlooked the fact that the same scholars wrote during the British occupation of Palestine and which was an expression of their wish to gain independence and restore the country's ancient toponymy, based on the opinions of many historical geographers.

I have moved it here for further discussion - currently we have no sources which support the text as given. Perhaps it could be converted into an attributed statement describing what Mazar believed he was doing? If possible it would be helpful to add a direct Hebrew quote into the footnote. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do you say that there is no source which supports the text as given? I have cited the source and the page number. It is mostly in Hebrew, and if you'd like to see a full translation of the Hebrew text, I can make it for you. The entire document was compiled by several scholars, all of whom were on the Jewish National Council in Mandatory Palestine, and whose names are explicitly mentioned there. The importance of this addition is that it clarifies Tilley's remark and which, otherwise, would be left to a mere one-sided bias. I will add the Hebrew quote into the footnote. Even if what you said is true about "Hebrew names known to scholars being primarily derived from the Masoretic Text," this only refers to those names mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but we still find many names of towns and villages written in the writings of Josephus, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Midrash Rabba, the Jerusalem Talmud, and in other early rabbinic sources that were settled by Jews and later by Grecians and Syrians that are NOT mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. These comprise many of our toponymy used today. Some place names show a development in their pronunciation, at least as educed by historical geographers, such as Beth-Anath, and which archaeologist W. F. Albright thinks was Bi'ina, a place that is called Beth 'Anah in the Tosefta, but called in the Jerusalem Talmud by the name Biana, a name more closely related to its current pronunciation. The site, however, remains disputed. In all Hebrew designations of this town's name in Galilee, the Arabic name (transliterated into Hebrew) is strictly used. Beisân, the name given in the Palestinian Arab dialect for Beit She'an (Masoretic Text) happens to be closely related to the Hebrew-Aramaic usage of the city's name during the Talmudic period, i.e. Beishan. So names in Hebrew may reflect contemporary Arabic spellings of those place names, or else a restored biblical Hebrew spelling.-Davidbena (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks these are very interesting points. To your first question, since the source was written in 1932 it cannot possibly have commented on whether Tilley "overlooked" anything; we cannot write that unless we have a source commenting directly on Tilley. If you replace that with something like "members of the committee in 1931 said..." then it would be fine.
 * The examples you highlight on Beth-Anath and Beit She'an are very good discussion points for the article, if we can find scholars discussing them in this way. Don't forget that Josephus wrote in Greek (in AJ 13:280 he described Beisan as Scythopolis) and the Jerusalem Talmud was mostly written in Aramaic. I think we should add these kind of examples into the article; there are many in the sources to choose from which explicitly discuss the Hebraization process for individual place names. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll do that when I find the time. Yes, Josephus wrote to a Greek-speaking audience. He mentions the Greco-Roman names of places with which the Romans would have been familiar: Scythopolis for Beit She'an, Neapolis (now corrupted to Nablus) for Shechem, Azotus for Ashdod, Jamnia for Yavne, Philadelphia for Amman, and Ptolemais for Acco, among others. The only name among these which sticks with us today is Nablus, and, even so, it is a corruption of the Greco-Roman name.Davidbena (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing: Whether or not we agree with the identification of place names made by scholars and academics, archaeologists and historical geographers, who used the data available to them (such as distances between cities mentioned by Josephus, etc.), it does not take away from the fact that the Hebrew names now applied to these sites are still bona-fide names recognized by the majority of Israelis today. The fact that such a name has been applied to a site, whether rightly or wrongly, does not take away from its nomenclature. For example, you may not agree that the ruin Kh. Seilûn is the biblical Shiloh, but since the name Shiloh is now applied (in Hebrew) to that site, that becomes its new name. In fact, the Naming Committee in modern-day Israel permits the establishment of new settlements (that may be 1 or 2 kilometers away from the older Canaanite settlements), but to give to the newer settlement the very same name of the old! You see, new names do not always reflect the name of an old site, although its name might be similar to the name of the old site. A case in point is Kiryat Ye'arim, built near a site (Qaryat al-'Anab) thought by some scholars to be the biblical Kiriath Jearim, although clearly disputed by other historical geographers! Nevertheless, its modern-day designation or name sticks with it - whether it be the ancient Kiriath Jearim or not. But, of course, this has little to do with this article, as the old Arabic designations of these places are still used. In the case of the old Arabic designation for Qaryat al-'Anab, its name has now been changed by the Arabs to Abu Ghosh! You see, Jews are not the only ones changing old appellations for newer ones. What matters is that the modern name that is applied to a site becomes its recognized name. The modern Jewish town of Kfar Hananya is built not very far from the ruin of the old Kefar Hananiah (now the ruin Kafr 'Inan). The new name of the modern village does not distract from the fact that the old site is actually nearby! Davidbena (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi we still cannot write "Tilley may have been referring to..." as this would be wikipedia speculating and therefore WP:OR.
 * Separately, do you have any good sources which explain the context for this JNC session in 1931? It should be added into the main body of the article, between the JNF Naming Committee and the Negev Committee.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on an English translation of the Hebrew Preface, written by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, which is very informative as to the history of committees set-up by the British government to establish a form of transliteration of place names in Palestine - whether in English, Hebrew or Arabic, and the efforts of the Yishuv to influence the standard used. This is very tedious work and will require a few more days to complete. Meanwhile, I will be visiting the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem (God-willing), this coming Sunday, and will look at the book entitled, Government of Palestine: Transliteration from Arabic and Hebrew into English, from Arabic into Hebrew, and from Hebrew into Arabic, etc. Once I collect all this data, I will publish it here on this Talk-Page and we, together, along with others, can decide what is appropriate to write in this article. And, yes, we do not know for sure if Tilley referred specifically to the work of the Jewish National Council, although she may have. Perhaps we should ask someone if using a language that makes it only a possibility is considered WP:OR. The suggestion, anyway, is still tenable, and I don't think that it falls under the same category as Original Research. Anyway, I will improve the paragraph, without suggesting that Tilley "may have been referring, specifically, to their work."Davidbena (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation (Hebrew to English) of the Introduction to Proposals written by the Jewish National Council
, as I promised, I am submitting here (in a collapsible window) a translation of the Introduction written by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, member of the Jewish National Council, on 31 December 1931, and addressed to the Secretary General of the Mandatory Government of Palestine. The original document can be seen here, pp. 3–6. Most of the Introduction has been translated here below, with another page and a half (Part II) remaining (to be completed at a later time).

Place Names in Palestine
Hi, Onceinawhile. I have put together this short chart of important towns and cities in Palestine during the Greco-Roman period, just to show to you how these names differ from each other in pronunciation, depending on whether the person is of Hebrew ancestry, or of either Grecian, Roman, Syrian and Arab ancestry. The Latin spellings, for the most part, have been drawn from the Tabula Peutingeriana map, while the Greek spellings have been taken mainly from the Madaba Map, and, where these were lacking, the spellings were supplemented by other sources. As you can see, no one single language group is exactly like the other, although one may have borrowed elements from another group, or what are known as substrates. The Greco-Roman names often deviated the most from the early Hebrew traditions.


 * I have added a column for the Septuagint versions of these names. Palestinian Arabic is often closer to those names than to the others. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Virginia Tilley's complaints levelled against that one academic group (which she did not explicitly name) has the appearance of being a little bit disingenuous, as the same complaints could have easily been levelled against any one group who has ever lived in Palestine had they been put in-charge of fixing a standard form of transliteration for these places. It's a circular argument. At the end of the day, each group (whether Israeli or Palestinian Arab or an American tourist visiting the country) speaks his own language and refers to these places in his own native tongue, regardless of what sign posts might be used and read. Furthermore, the Arabic place names, themselves, have been chiefly used to help scholars determine what the site's earlier name may have been, such as the Arab village of Al-Eizariya, named for its most famous citizen, Lazarus, and who, according to Christian sources, lived in the village of Bethany (Aramaic בית היני / ביתייני). --Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Tilley doesn't belong to WP:LEAD at all we can have assessment section where she and others academic opinion could be put there --Shrike (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Shrike. Tilley's remarks belong more to the History section.Davidbena (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just reminding you to read Benvenisti's book, which shows that over 1,700 years 12,000 Arabic place names had attached themselves to every feature of the land, and were known to all Arabs in each region. A lot of people whose knowledge of Israel came from reading just one source, came and, as they possessed bit by bit, every area, they had to invent Hebraisms out of pure cloth, or make pseudo-links with some ill-defined biblical toponym. Arabic is extremely rich, and Hebrew was relatively poor, in Palestinian toponomics. So you can't muss and blur the fundamental distinction. Arabs didn't programmatically set about rewriting the landscape: they adapted in the main prior usage, Canaanite, Hebrew, pagan, or earlier Arabic (specifically Arab settlement in Palestine is well-attested from the 5-th centuries BCE) and as they dwelt and spoke about its intricate topography, developed myth-rich associations with every piece of gibber, cliff. wadi or hillock, So the modern Israeli substitutions are not based on anything other than an ideological desire to make everything look 'traditionally Jewish', and erase the prior place name, in contrast to say, Australia, where, in colonizing that continent, the British realized that its topography was minutely described by aborigines and therefore took over a large part of the indigenous naming. But of course, if you don't want to read Benvenisti, you can press on with the argument of equivalence, to erase the ideological thrust of toponymic conversions underway for the last century.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani. Yes, some Arabic place names have been erased altogether. Rehovot, 20 km. SE of Jaffa, was formerly called Khirbet Deirân! Who would ever know that today? Hopefully, we'll expand more on this aspect of Hebraization of names. Complete erasure of a name is different from saying that an Old Arabic appellation represents an older Hebrew form of the same name, which scholars concur is, indeed, often the case when reverting an Arabic name and restoring it to its Old Hebrew form. Again, not always is this the case, but often it is. The etymology and development of Arabic place names (in Palestine / Land of Israel / Canaan) is an interesting branch of science. Scholars have written much about this subject. Jože Krašovec wrote concerning Greek and Latin place names in Palestine (which is also true of the Arabic) that they reflect a "living, orthographic tradition which helped to maintain phonetic stability in spite of the difficulty of phonetically reading the Hebrew consonantal text at a time when Hebrew was no longer a spoken language." A.F. Rainey expounded this matter even further, writing that the history of a site may sometimes be learned from its Arabized names from the Roman-Byzantine period, and where "the Semitic speaking populace (i.e. Arabs, Syrians, and Jews) continued to use the Hebrew and Aramaic original. The latter comes back into popular use with the Arab conquest. The Arabic names Ludd, Beisân, and Ṣaffurieh, representing original Lōd, Bêt-šĕ’an and Ṣippôri, leave no hint concerning their imposing Greco-Roman names, viz., Diospolis, Scythopolis and Diocaesarea, respectively." Davidbena (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I admit to a prejudice that affects every historical topic I broach. I want to probe back beyong the official version that gained hegemonic status, and find out about the cultural traditions wiped out, absorbed or rewritten: as a boy the Etruscans and Carthaginians interested me more than Romans, as did the Trojans more than Greeks, the Aborigines rather than the colonial whites, and, in biblical context, all the populations reduced by the narrative of Davidic unification. Samaria, strictly speaking, for a millenium, was dominated by a semitic people who did not define themselves as Jews, and vice versa (and all of this is wiped out by the Judean scribal rewriting that papers over the rupture, and presents the whole territory as ‘Jewish’.) That’s why I’m interested in Palestinians: they’re a contemporary example of hegemonic erasure. But let's keep politics out of it (The above just clarifies why I view so much here differently). The general cast of articles in this area is to showcase the Biblical narrative, which has a preponderance of power in our collective imagination, but, for me, is a powerful set of stories, but not interesting historically. In history, most starting points are arbitrary and reflect the interests of those who write it. But history is far more complex that the surface story, as archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and textual analysis have revealed over the past century and a half.


 * Bêt-šĕ’an is of course not an originative  Hebrew toponym, (any more that Tsipori is since it is never mentioned in the Tanakh, but it is a late Talmudic gloss on a passage in the Book of Judges (1:30) referring to a qiṭrōn) but the transcription into Hebrew of a much older Canaanite place-name with beit indicates it was dedicated to some pagan god. In many such toponyms we ignore the earlier Egyptian toponomastics (in this case, that site was more or less, b-t-s-i-r.


 * Palestine appears somewhat like anomaly in regard to Middle Eastern toponyms, in that we know that, whereas the vast majority of toponyms in the broader region suggest a pre-Semitic source, those in Palestine generally look semitic, or are made to look semitic. My point is that the idea that the toponymy begins with Hebrew is flawed. Hebrew was a dialect of north-western Semitic, and itself continued Amorite/Canaanite etc., word values, as indeed we see in the egregious example of Jerusalem which, despite the best efforts to associate it etymologically with the root for peace, had a semitic name predating the rise of Hebrew by at least a thousand years, and refers in all likelihood to a god in a local pantheon.


 * Still I’m happy to see you throwing yourself into the rich resources of the Hebrew Library and doing some painful translating tasks to benefit this page. You might want to look at Yohanan Aharoni’s The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, Westminster John Knox Press 1979 ISBN 978-0-664-24266-4. He had a big influence on Rainey. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the book link. I'll check it out. As for the older Canaanite names of sites (where Tsipori was formerly called Qitron, or where Hebron was formerly called Kiryat Arba, or where Debir was formerly called Kiryat Sefer, etc.), the history is fascinating, which we know so very little about, besides perhaps also not falling within the scope of this article. Many of the Hebrew names now applied to villages and ruins in this country are, in fact, Old Canaanite names; for example those sites enumerated in Joshua 15:35, 44: Adullam, where the ruin Eid el-Mi'eh, or Eid al-Minya, was located; Keilah; Socho (Arabic: Khirbet Shuwekah), and Maresha, etc. All of these have Arabic names compatible with that of the Hebrew, or Canaanite. Of course, when speaking about the Hebraization of Arabic place names, we also include classical Hebrew names, such as those places where we find no other source except in classical rabbinic literature. BTW: Beit She'an is mentioned in and in .Davidbena (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation (Hebrew to English), continued
, Finally, I got around to finishing the translation of the letter written by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi to the Secretary General of the British colonial office in Palestine, on 31 December 1931. As you can see, the grievances put forward by him clearly show the discriminatory practices towards the use of the Hebrew language in directional signposts. Again, I am putting this in a collapsible window.

Virginia Tilley
, Hi. It seems that Virginia Tilley (with all her resentment) was referring specifically to the 1951 Government Names Committee [sic], as her words of 2005 nearly mirror those in an Abstract published in 1992, and which you can see in the following publication, and which I've copied and pasted here (with emphasis being mine). In fact, on the page that you cite with her remarks, she specifically mentions there "Israel's Government Naming Committee." The Abstract of 1992 reads as follows:
 * "Abstract –– On March 8th, 1951 Israel decided to establish a Government Names Committee in the Prime Minister's Office. Dr. Avraham Biran was appointed Chairman of the Committee. The new body included the Committee for Geographical Names set up by Ben Gurion on July 7th 1949 and the Committee for Settlement Names of the Jewish National Fund which was appointed by the JNF directorate in 1922. The decision of the Government of Israel was pulished in 'Reshumot', the official gazette of the Israel Government, No. 162, p. 959, on May 24th 1991. Prof. A. Biran has officiated as Chairman of the Committee since its establishment. This commitee is empowered by a government decision and is the only official body which is sovereign to give names on Israel's maps. Its resolutions are obligatory for all institutions in the country. The Government Names Committee is a scientific committee and its members are scholars from various disciplines — history, geography, archaeology, biblical studies and Hebrew language, as well as representatives of various ministries. The committee names new settlements, geographical natural elements like valleys, wells, hills, natural reserves etc. The committee also provides names for regional councils, geographical regions, road junctions and historical and archaeological sites. Its decisions are circulated to a great number of bodies in Israel. The new names are published and appear in the relevant literature, on official maps, documents and and on road signs. During the last seventy years of activity of its various subcommittees, about 7000 Hebrew names have been given, which are printed on the official maps. These include about 5000 names of geographical elements, more than 1000 names of settlements and several hundred names of historical and archaeological sites. The committee's work expresses the close relationship between the Jewish people and its homeland." END QUOTE. --Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

a paragraph I don't like
Despite Ben-Gurion's objection to retaining the older Arabic names of sites in the Negev and elsewhere, old maps produced by cartographers under the British Mandate and which show the old Arabic appellations of sites in Palestine are made available to the public at the National Library of Israel (Eran Laor Cartographic Collection, Jaffa: Survey of Palestine 1928 – 1947, "Palestine" (Pal 1157)) and there is no attempt made by the State of Israel to conceal these facts.[37] Each and every name is systematically transliterated from Arabic by using an official transliteration schema published in The Palestine Gazette, 2 October 1941.[38] Other maps produced during the Ottoman rule (Palestine Exploration Fund Map) are available on the Israel Antiquities Authority web-site, and which are chiefly studied by archaeologists and historical geographers when trying to determine what Arabic place names are representative of ancient Hebrew toponymy.
 * It sounds like the state of Israel is being so wonderful to reveal these secrets. But this is nonsense, since the place names were never secret and the maps are available in lot of places around the world. I know of multiple places to view the PEF maps that are not in Israel, and 1:50K and 1:100K maps of Palestine are all over the web. The official gazetteer of place names is on the web in exactly one place as far as I know: in Australia! The 1:20K map series is only on the web at NLI but at least two other libraries have them for viewing in person (one is the British Library). This is not to deny that NLI's map collection is first-rate, but I object to portraying it as Israel displaying its openness. I often find maps related to Zionist land purchase that are digitised but not available for viewing and I wonder why that is. Zerotalk 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are not being "wonderful to reveal these secrets," but rather the State of Israel attaches importance to historical truths, especially when these old maps made in Palestine have invaluable information and do, after all, preserve the Arabic place names before they were changed. In many cases this information is crucial, such as with regard to the ancient archaeological site known as Azekah and which only recently was called as such, when throughout the ages the site was known as Beit Zakariyya (Zechariah) which the maps show distinctly. This revelation is particularly of great importance to us today considering that the site's identification with the biblical Azekah has recently been called into question by Israeli archaeolgists Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the IAA, who dispute the old identification, and who allege that the ancient Beit Zakkariya site is, perhaps, the site known by that name in Josephus (Antiquities 12.9.4.), in the Book of I Maccabees (6:32), and in the Madaba Map, but that the ancient Azekah was perhaps Khirbet Qeiyafa. You see, according to them, there was never a good reason to change the name of Beit Zakariyya at all! These maps are purposely on display to the public for their interest in these old namesakes, as well as for researchers. What other countries do with these maps is irrelevant. The edit was made here to show that not all had been lost, as one would have easily thought had happened in Israel, by the previous edit.--Davidbena (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "the State of Israel attaches importance to historical truths"
 * Thanks David, that made my day! I'm giggling so much, it looks like a long sleepless night. Good jokes have that effect on me.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I may not know where the State of Israel is intentionallly deceiving others, but in this case, I mean, the Old Maps that are available here for all to see, there is no attempt to conceal information. I thank the cartographer(s) who made these maps!Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * David, your text is unacceptable as it stands. The claim "there is no attempt made by the State of Israel to conceal these facts" is misleading without the information that these facts are not under the control of the Israel. Israel is not able to conceal them whether it wants to or not. When it comes to facts that are under the control of Israel, say about the fate of Arab villages in 1948, Israel acts even against its own laws in suppressing them. And this process of concealment is getting dramatically worse in recent years. This story just from today shows the State Archive trying to solve the "problem" that historians often find material in non-state archives (such as kibbutz archives) that the State Archives would like to keep hidden. State archivist Lozowick wrote in 2017: "Israel does not deal with its archival material as befits a democratic state. The vast majority of archival material is closed and will never be opened. The minority that will be opened will have unreasonable restrictions. There is no public accountability or transparency in the release of records." Zerotalk 06:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but for me to fully understand you, you will need to provide me with a concrete example of where, as you say, concerning the fate of Arab villages in 1948, that "Israel acts even against its own laws in suppressing them," besides that one article. The National Library of Israel is controlled by the State of Israel. There is no censorship, and the maps there are not like concealing military secrets. You cannot extrapolate from an isolated incident involving Israel's State Archives and say that the problem is rampant all throughout the board. The article that you posted a link to simply states that Israel's State Archives are asking for all original documents held by other instututions. There is no plan to withhold this cartographic information from the public. The availability of these maps here, in Israel, proves otherwise. Here, in this article, we're explicitly concerned with geographical sites in the Land of Israel, also known as Palestine, and where the names of these sites have often changed throughout history, but where the maps of Palestine produced in the 19th and 20th centuries still show distinct ARABIC place names. These maps are preserved in instututions here in Israel, and which same institutions run under the auspices of the Israeli government (e.g. the Israel Antiquities Authority online SWP map, and the Eran Laor Cartographic Collection of the National Library of Israel). The government could have easily prevented their release to the public, but, as I said, there is no such censorship. The kind of archival information that is restricted may have to do with government protocols and decisions made regarding expedient war measures, etc. Davidbena (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The government could have easily prevented their release to the public". This is an utterly false statement, as I proved in my first posting to this section. Please read it again. I am going to delete the paragraph because it is terrible and you have failed to justify it. Zerotalk 23:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstood me. The government of Israel could have prevented its own citizens from viewing such maps if it really wanted to do so. In any case, we both agree that these maps are still available to the public, and there is nothing of these old geographical names that cannot be known by looking at these maps. My problem with leaving the edit as you have now made it (with the deletion of the last paragraph) is that it leaves room for others to think that all the former Arabic names have been totally lost, when, in fact, they have not been totally lost; only changed, with a record of their old names still on the old maps.Davidbena (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the Israeli government could not have prevented its own citizens from viewing the maps. The maps were made by the British and sold to the public, that's why they are widespread. Copies were made during WWII and distributed to all of the allied governments, which now have them in their libraries. Israeli citizens would just need to go here in Florida, here in California, here in Canada, here in Australia or many other places. I have no objection to old maps being mentioned, but I object strongly to the claim that the Israeli government deserves credit for the availability of the maps. Now that I have proved over and over that this is a false claim, you should stop making it. Zerotalk 02:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you have misunderstood my intentions. When I say the Israeli government could have prevented its citizens from accessing maps made by the British, I only mean those maps contained in Israeli government-run offices and institutions. They could have done that, indeed, if they wanted to do so. Remember that we're talking about a time before the invention of the Internet. And, no, I am not referring to circulated maps in private hands. I'm taking about Israeli government censorship, which was never applied to old maps showing Arabic place names and held in their repositories. Besides, what we're talking about here is only a hypothetical situation, and has no real bearing on reality. Anyway, just to prove my point: some highly sensitive military sites in Israel are not available for public viewing, whether in documentation or in photographs, but are still available through overseas satellite imagery. You see, Israel may still do one thing, but it may be, in effect, a futile attempt by other equations. Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you have reduced your argument to trivia, which just emphasises it doesn't belong in the article. Yes, the Israeli government could have acted illegally (as it is happy to do) or could have passed special legislation to try to suppress this public-domain information. But the attempt would have been futile and would have served only to draw ridicule. Zerotalk 08:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that what you are overlooking is the fact that the Israeli government, in the case of these maps, did not take that route, and made old geographical names public knowledge, that is, to those who took the effort to examine these maps. In fact, that was my initial point. I see nothing trivial about saying that. We can give the Israeli government more credit than what you are doing.Davidbena (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * David, will you please stop writing things that are false. The Israeli government did not "make old geographical names public knowledge". They were already public knowledge. Probably I won't reply to you again on this. Zerotalk 11:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's true. By "public knowledge" is meant it stayed that way, without any attempt to conceal that information in the public libraries. Anyway, I think that we both agree on the end result.Davidbena (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede paragraph
Nishidani, Shrike, Onceinawhile, El C, Headbomb, Arminden, Debresser, and to whom it might concern. What do you think about this suggested edit in the lede paragraph. See (C) farther below:
 * (B)"Hebraization (or Judaization) of Palestinian place names refers to the replacement of Arabic language place names with Hebrew language place names in Mandatory Palestine, part of which coming under Israeli control in 1948, and part of which (i.e. Palestinian territories) coming under Jordanian and Egyptian rule, prior to its being taken by Israel in 1967."

Can we all agree to this edit? This edit seems better to me since there is no dispute about Gaza that the enclave does not fall under Israeli laws and direct hegemony, which has been the case since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005, although it is still dependent upon Israel for its water and electricity supply, and while both sides are still militarily at odds with each other. Moreover, the tone that I am suggesting is more neutral and leaves no room for misinterpretation, as if the country known as Mandatory Palestine or Ottoman Palestine had been divided by borders (when it was not), or that the country was occupied by two separate peoples (when it was not). Rather, at that time, all those who lived in the country were called "Palestinians" - whether Jews or Arabs, and who shared the country alike. You see, the current edit (which speaks about what happened between 1948-1967) complicates and obscures this fact. Moreover, the current edit in the lede paragraph is also misleading in that, with respect to Gaza, there is a dispute whether or not the enclave is considered "occupied," as you can see by the different views in scholarly circles, the UN Human Rights International Organisation, on the one hand, saying that it is "occupied by Israel", while other groups in Israel disagreeing with that label. We can avoid this issue altogether by the suggested revision and which does not give a view on this issue one way or the other.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit thrusts political see-sawing potential in what was a straightforward set of phases for the phenomenon which is the topic of the article. We have (A) at the moment. Which is very simple.
 * "Hebraization (or Judaization) of Palestinian place names refers to the replacement of Arabic language place names with Hebrew language place names in Mandatory Palestine, then after 1948 in Israel and subsequently in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel after 1967."
 * Dragging all of these geographical and historical complexities is pointless, and makes for ugly prose. Secondly, your point re Gaza is unfocused. It had Israeli settlements for some decades, which imprinted Hebrew nomenclature on 40% of the Gaza Strip. Thirdly, this is about toponymic name changes, which is not the case with Jordan and Egypt, so their presence here is irrelevant. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , my problem is with the use of the word "occupied" in the lede paragraph, as it seems to be taking a legitimate geological issue and hijacking it for undisclosed political aims, a thing which is profoundly unacceptable to me. The subject of geographical names in a country like Israel/Palestine (whose written history goes back 3,500 years) should not be ensconced in cynicle "Jew vs. Arab," or "Israeli vs. Palestinian Arab" political nuances because of these wars. If that's the case, we can go ahead and talk about all the wars. Rather, the country should be mentioned as Palestine, with nothing more said about its history of war.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Occupied' is the neutral description, endorsed by international law, for the situation of those territories. It is pointless people feeling irritated about this fact. The IDF, the Israeli courts, all admit in their key judicial decisions and practices that this is the situation and editors should not be upset about that. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize that I wrote the text that says “...refers to the replacement of Arabic language place names in Palestine with Hebrew language place names...” but on further reflection I think it needs work. A lot of this is about the Hebraizing of the (often Greek-derived) English names, like Lydda -> Lod and Ascalon -> Ashkelon. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Onceinawhile. Work out a suggested re-draft of the lede paragraph. The first edit that you made was better than the current edit.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , How does this sound?
 * (C)"Hebraization (or Judaization) of Palestinian place names refers to the replacement of Arabic language geographical names in Palestine with Hebrew language derivatives, a practice primarily advanced in the 1920s and the 1950s, and which has been carried over to the present time, often at the ire and chagrin of its Arab citizens."


 * No that won't work either 'primarily advanced' is pure WP:OR. There's a massive amount of work on the process since 1967, under the occupation. The lead should be succinct, and not mention 'rage and ire' etc. Keep it simple, summarizing the institutional practices practiced in various geopolitical realities that the body of the article sets forth.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I tried made a bold edit removing all time qualifiers in order to solve the whole issue in a way that shouldn't offend anybody. I was reverted, but I still think this is the best solution. First of all because we don't really need those time qualifiers here, and secondly because it circumvents the whole issue. Just say what your are talking about, without adding all kinds of qualifiers. Especially since the articles are linked. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Debresser, that we do not need those time indicators, since "Hebraization" of names has happened all throughout Palestine's history. I agree also with Nishidani that we can find a better way of wording the text (without saying "primarily advanced," nor "ire and chagrin") so that the lede will better summarize the spirit of the article. Hopefully, we here can reach a consensus. If all else fails, we can submit a RfC for greater input.Davidbena (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are far more serious problems with the text than this. Concentrate on those.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, submit here a draft proposal (edit) that you think may be appropriate, taking into consideration the views of your fellow co-editors. If it's a good edit, I'll be the first to approve it.Davidbena (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It isnt only a time qualification, it is also a place and circumstance difference. In Israel or in territory Israel occupies is a distinction with a difference, and the sources treat the actions in the occupied territory as distinct in motivation and effect. So yes, those time and place ranges are necessary.  nableezy  - 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, can you cite sources showing how the renaming of old towns dating back to the Roman or Byzantine periods has changed, say, between 1920 and 1990?Davidbena (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Whole article is a mess

 * The second para in lead does not follow WP:LEDE, introducing trivia out of nowhere and highlighting it, instead of summarizing the content of the article.
 * "By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, 'that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country,' had no longer been realised.[11]"
 * First a primary source is used. Secondly Hadrian's name is ensconced in  introductory words about the Middle Ages, a thousand years later, it sounds weird.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Philostorgius, who talks about Hadrian and his intent, is not a primary source, but rather a secondary source.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding of ancient historical works is that used in scholarship. Philostorgius is a primary source used by classical scholars who sift and evaluate the reliability or not of what all ancient works about the past state. We should never cite a primary text unless through a modern academic work that has evaluated the reliability of what a writer like Philostorgius wrote down centuries after the event. Procopius says many things about Theodora, Justinian's wife, like having her pudenda sprinkled with barley so that geese might 'dine at the Y' to the delectation of theatre goers. If you read his salacious report, the Anecdota, you will see that numerous passages, like this, take 'outrageous' stories from earlier Roman writers and plaster her image with these refashioned stories. Procopius is a primary source: a secondary source is what modern scholars say about its reliability or probability as a true incident, once they have decoded all of the literary sources lying behind the original narrative. Josephus, whom I know you have read, is a primary source, and cannot be cited because he is known to massively exaggerate some matters, and therefore cannot be cited for facts, but only for his opinions, always contextualized in any one of the many commentaries on his texts established by modern scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Examples of primary sources are 1) the Hebrew Bible, 2) Josephus, etc., which give a first-hand account of events. Philostorgius was giving his take on events that happened long before him, which puts his work in the category of a secondary source. In the areas of history directly related to Philostorgius' time, that would be a primary source, such as the attack made by Gallus Caesar on the Jewish community of Sepphoris. Still, as for Wikipedia, primary sources are permitted to be used sparingly and with caution. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPRIMARY. In controversial matters, we are permitted to cite a source by quoting the author, and it will be understood as his own personal view and not necessarily binding upon others. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES.Davidbena (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For Chrissake. I have a busy life. Every ill-considered attempt to talk around an obvious problem is just wasting someone else's time. Try and understand what the issue is, don't talk around it before you have done so.
 * Philostorgius is a secondary source for the documents he drew on, since disappeared. He is a primary source, in so far as the epitome attributed to him, survives, for modern historians. Here he is recording a viewpoint about Hadrian's intention 300 years after H's death and acts, on what basis we do not know. Hadrian may have had several motives for his renaming (a) to glorify his clan (b) impress on Syro-Palestine the radical changes he wished to introduce in paganize a religio-nationalist hotspot (nothing's changed) (c) to generally remake an Oriental centre in the image of Rome - Aelia was built on part of the destroyed city (d) to symbolically write off its local diety, just as YHWH was used to write out Ba'al etc., and replacing it with Rome's own Juppiter and thereby (e) deny to that part of the population which was highly religious a base for their own religio-nationalistic aspirations (just as modern Israel, which here and in so many other things, closely follows Roman imperial precedent, insists that Arabs have no right to call Jerusalem Al-Quds, but should use either some imitative Hebrew-Arabic form like Urshalim, or use al Quds for the rubbish dump near Abu Dis). So
 * We’re having the usual absurd talk page discussion, absurd because, instead of understanding (a) the awkwardness of the prose (b) the errors in the text and (c) the tenability of the source(s) employed, some editors are arguing about one bit to defend the indefensible). The rule in serious composition is, fix the fucking errors, make the syntax coherent, and get the best available sources.
 * "By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, 'that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country,' had no longer been realised"
 * Aelius was not his name. His name was Publius Aelius Hadrianus, where the middle term is a nomen reflecting his gentilic clan origins . He did not therefore ‘apply his own name to the city’: he called it by his gentilic clan name Aelia Capitolina. Simple, bloody simple.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless, that is exactly what Philostorgius had in mind. Aelius was one of Hadrian's names, and he called Jerusalem "Aelia", which is a diminutive of his name. As I said, it makes very little difference if Philostorgius was Primary or Secondary. The fact is, by the Middle Ages, Jerusalem ceased to be called Aelia.---Davidbena (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Aelia' is not a diminutive of his name. Please reread what I wrote, you have not understood it. I happen to have been trained by classical historians, and what I wrote is as they work. What you wrote is slipshod wikiness. Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not argue semantics. What I meant was "diminutive-form of name," i.e. Aelia coming from Hadrian's nomen gentile, Aelius. See Aelia Capitolina.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1957 name list
I found this 1957 list of name changes. Has it been discussed here before? Zerotalk 10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great catch. I hope someone has the time to tabulate it, perhaps on a main article sister page.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, This list has been reproduced in other places. While this may be an exhaustive list (up to its date) showing the original Arab name for a site, followed by its more ancient or newly applied Hebrew name, it is still by no means an updated version. The lists were published under the "State of Israel Records", Collection of Publications in 1957, but are not up-to-date. For example, the list suggests calling Kh. al Beida (p. 867) by the Hebrew name of Tzoḥar, which has since been rejected for "Lavnin." It also suggests calling "Kh. Natif" (p. 859) by the Hebrew name Ḥorvat Beit Neṭofa, following the misguided view of Victor Guérin, and which too has since been rejected for Bayt Nattif, which was the Roman Bethletephon mentioned in the writings of Josephus. Azekah for Kh. Tal Zakariya (p. 864) is a disputed identification, as we have noted earlier. Kh. Tantura (p. 864) is now thought by Israeli historical geographers to be the Tur Shimon mentioned in rabbinic literature. It was suggested that the Hebrew name Tel Nasha be given to the site Tall al Manshiya (p. 862), but as history would have it, most Israeli historical geographers say that this site is none other but the Kefar Shihlayim of rabbinic literature, based on the site's old Arabic name, Menshiyet es-Saḥalin. Most identifications, however, are spot-on.Davidbena (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR
I mentioned on the talk page that this struck me on my only reading of it a while back as a mess. "(a)The Hebraization of names effectually began, according to Schürer, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods, where historians note that 'even after their alteration, Jews retained the old name of Beth-Ramatha over the newer name Julias, as well as the old name Paneas over Cesarea Philippi. The names Lod, Beisan, and Sepphoris were preferred by Semitic groups over their Greco-Roman names, viz., Diospolis, Scythopolis and Diocæsarea, respectively."

"(b)By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, 'that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country,' had no longer been realised."

Now that this is weird was obvious from a first reading, and (b) was discussed on the talk page: there is no point in that source being here, and the text has to be reformulated along the lines. both during the the periods of Greek, Roman and Byzantine hegemony/rule, place names in the new languages now and then replaced a few of the traditional toponyms in Hebrew/Aramaic etc.

As to (a). The page link to Schurer p.142 doesn't use the phrasing attributed to him. pp.141f discusses the OT place name beth-haram which was later called bethramph(th)a, and then Livias, and, after Augustus's death, Julias. Thereupon he writes:'this new official appellation was, as in the case of Caesarea Philippi and Neronias, unable to banish the older and already nationalized name.'

But the whole passage is weird because the section starts with the Israelitic acceptance of preexisting Canaanite place names (i.e. no naming). Of course, then the scriptures conserve numerous place names (not, stricto senso, a 'hebraization'). There were name-changes under foreign rulers, but most of the traditional names remained. To say that, despite Roman decrees in several cases, there arose in reaction a programme of rehebraisation, is nonsense. Conquerors come and go, and the earlier names persisted, despite the renaming of passing powers.

Worse still, there is a tacit premise in the text that Palestinian placenames conserve the Hebrew names. Yes and no. In Byzantine times, before the Arabic conquest, the major language of that area was Aramaic, and indeed the Palestinian dialect has precisely an Aramaic substrate that was then Arabized. This affected toponyms. As in other cases of language shift, the supplanting language (Arabic= was not left untouched by the supplanted language (Aramaic) and the existence of an Aramaic substrate in Syro-Palestinian colloquial Arabic has been widely accepted. The influence of the Aramaic substrate is especially evidence in many Palestinian place names, and in the vocabularies of traditional life and industrials: agriculture, flora, fauna, food, tools, utensils etc.'(Mila Neishtadt 'The Lexical Substrate of Aramaic in Palestinian Arabic,' in Aaron Butts (ed.) Semitic Languages in Contact, Brill 2015 pp.281-282

As is usual throughout these articles, language usage is loose and ideologically-infused. Aramaic had taken over from Biblical Hebrew, the latter of which was no longer, if at all, spoken by Christian times. The 'Hebrew' we refer to is rather a kind of Lashon Hakodesh, in the sense that can encompass Aramaic usage. But of course, to say that the pre-Arabized population, Jewish, Christian, pagan or whoever, spoke Aramaic, and used Aramaic names for Palestine's traditional names, upsets the standard narrative: 'First there were Hebrews,- this was the primal reality - and then furriners started messing with them, and then they came back after millennia to restore their rights and language'. Simplistic to the point of being quintessentially puerile, or is it jejune?Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, I would think, most editors will disagree with you, Nishidani. The above edit does not fall under the category of Original Research, but is rather a summarization of the history of naming conventions as applied to historic sites in Palestine. Anyone looking at the sources can see that that is, indeed, the case, even without the word "Hebraization" being used here. But in a larger sense, the word "Hebraization" is defined as "making Hebrew in form or character," and which still applies to the entries which you deleted.Davidbena (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't speak for other editors. You disagree that the above is WP:OR. I suggest you ask someone to explain to you what that policy unambiguously states. The text I deleted had a quotation from Schurer p.142. That quotation does not exist on that page, or elsewhere as far as I checked. So it was made up. And indeed, the surrounding text is invented. You need a source that speaks of Hebraicization in that period, else, there is no support for the assertions there. Even summarizations must be sourced, they cannot be, as here, inferred (mysteriously) from primary texts.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the text and source were not made-up, but they are there for all to see. When Schürer speaks about preserving the old names of Livias and Caesarea Philippi (see text here), rather than these newer appellations, it is clear what he means, based on the old Hebrew names for these sites, which happen to be Beth-Ramatha and Paneas. It's like saying no one uses the Greco Roman name for Sepphoris, which merely means Diocaesaraea.Davidbena (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the removed text states that Hebrew names were not replaced by Roman names. That is not hebraization, that is resisting de-hebraization. In this sense I agree with Nishidani. He lost me regarding the existence of a "tacit premise".
 * Bottom line, I think it makes sense to keep this, because I think that hebraization and resisting de-hebraization are closely related or even basically the same, but probably best to have it in a separate (sub-)paragraph. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Top line, read above. You cannot retain removed text when the text was removed because it failed verification. It's simple. See the earlier page, click on Schurer p.142 and see if that page is summarized in the text citing it for support. It is not summarized, but distorted, with considerable illiteracy. There is no mention of 'hebraicization' which does not mean that the common Aramaic or Hebrew term most people in Palestine used, kept being used despite the Roman preference for a different official name, as you concede. No editor is allowed to invent stuff in 'summaries' of books not read, or if read, totally misconstrued. Unless that text can be verified, restoring it will border on a sanctionable offence.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have shown by the reply above, there is no failed verification. Perhaps you simply overlooked its verification. When Schürer speaks about preserving the old names of Livias and Caesarea Philippi (see text here), rather than these newer appellations, the Jews maintained their older appellations. It is clear what he means, based on the old Hebrew names for these sites, which happen to be Beth-Ramatha and Paneas. It's like saying no one uses the Greco Roman name for Sepphoris, which merely means Diocaesaraea.Davidbena (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Words to self. 'Make the sign of the cross, Nish, pagan to the bootstraps though you be, and, taking a deep breath, presume what you are obliged to write will be understood. Wikipedia forces you to be what your reputation now wears, a ‘windbag’. You’d be blunt to the point of laconic dismissal, were you allowed your proper off-line voice, but we are pressed with the urgency of assuming good faith, not hurting editors’ sensitivities, which means that, as, every other day, one finds stalling, failure to grasp policy, failure to read the sources quoted, and mere contrarian attribution per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. So you must brandish a plethora of words,words, words and reasoned logical argumentation, assuming good faith and an average intelligence out there, to try to make editors see what even blind Freedy and his pup should perceive in an instant.' Here we go again.

(1) You don’t seem to have understood that editors have exercised patience and extreme tolerance with your editing here, which violates your Arbcom ban. You were doing some good work, and one closed an eye,- refrained from putting up the required ARBPIA banner, but now the old vices are resurgent, I’ll have to remind you that, glaringly, this page deals with the Arab-Israeli conflict ‘broadly construed’ and you shouldn’t be on the page.

(2) Let me take the scalpel to the severe flaws in your understanding of the nerves,thews and sinews of wiki policy, illustrating the point with just one example

(3)On the 27 May you made this edit, in which you attribute to Schürer the idea that hebraisation of place names effectively began during Roman rule with a quotation_

"'Even after their alteration, Jews retained the old name of Beth-Ramatha"

But what Schürer wrote has nothing to do with this invented content, i.e".we must conclude that Livias was the older name of the town, and that this was after the death of Augustus altered into that of Julias; but that this new official appellation  was, as in the case nof Caesarea Philippi and Neronias, unable to banish the older and already nationalized name.  Only Josephus uses the official designation Julias. He still mentions the town by this name at the time of the Jewish war,’"

Perhaps aware of the fabrication issue, you then modified this WP:OR "diff The Hebraization of names effectually began, according to Schürer, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods, where historians note that 'even after their alteration, Jews retained the old name of Beth-Ramatha"

This falls under what I noted on the talk page to be a thorough messing up of a wiki page. First you attriubute to Schürer a statement he never made. Then you tweak the false attribution to a generic ‘historians note’ (present tense) without indicating which plurality of historians, the same quotation, which you earlier claimed Schurer had made.

Then you covered the last step of your two track falsification of sources by finally 'clarifying' that the ‘historians’ here are not modern historians (despite the use of the present tense) but Josephus and the anonymous compilers (not historians) of the Bavli and the Jerusalem Talmud. Ah, Josephus! Before your ban I repeatedly told you not to use primary sources like Josephus without adding the information through a secondary commentary of which several exist. The appeal fell on deaf ears and you were banned from the area. You have repeated it all over this page.

Short version: You are saying that on p.142 that phrasing exists. It doesn’t. It is also sleight of hand. Because the judgment that this process ‘effectively began’ is palmed off to Schürer whereas Schurer makes no such comment. You are using his name to put over the idea that this scholar dealt with hebraicization of names, and identified the earliest period in which this modern phenomenon occurred. He did not.

No mention of ‘the Jews’ (the population there was Jewish, pagan, Samaritan, Arab and any other number of ethnicities, and all would have preferred to hew to the standard colloquial names of places rather than, if they read Roman official decrees, adopt some bureaucratic neologisms). To the contrary, the Jewish historian, Josephus, in the source persists in using the official Roman name rather than the older Aramaic name!! I.e. he does exactly the opposite of what you say Jews did.

The process is not therefore indicative of ‘Hebraicisation’ but of the general population’s retention  of traditional place names. As Debresser admitted on the talk page, this pastiche does not document ‘hebraicization’ but an (unspecified) local retention  of older names, one that in any case was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Jesus, a Jewish contemporary, did not speak Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic. Many linguists argue that Hebrew was no longer spoken in that period.

My revert was obligatory. You indulged in a gross WP:OR violation and, more seriously, fabricated a text that has no support.I lay out in detail the issue on the talk page, and was answered by a summary revert denying the evidence, and justifying it as a consensus, with, indeed a warning on my own page, not to revert you and to use the talk page, which I had done at, suffering arseholes, great length. Restoring my revert is obligatory. The text is a fabrication which cannot be allowed to stay. Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And, uh, remembering the endless opportunism of people out to report me, the widespread ignorance of the niceties of English usage, and the fact that I was banned once because an admin failed to understand the function of exclamatives, which are self-reflexive, not attacks on others, I should clarify that my spontaneous 'suffering arseholes' is an exclamative of exasperation, as it is technically known to be, one I heard from my father, and not other-directed.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, you are requested, and expected, per WP:CIVIL, to refrain from invoking deities to show your exasperation regarding other editors, since that is and remains a personal insult to that editor.
 * As to the case itself, please notice that I agree with one thing you said, but reached the conclusion that the text should stay, so please don't mention my words as though they support your removal. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CIVIL before citing it. The relevant section states:
 * "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."
 * David has not 'worked within the scope of policies', violating one core principle. He invented a statement, falsifying the source utilized, to draw his own conclusion (WP:OR violation). When given evidence of this, he just said he disagreed, and reverted. Being civil, contextually, means being 'responsive to good faith edits'. Neither of you were.
 * And don't misconstrue what I said of your remarks here: you stated:
 * "That is not hebraization, that is resisting de-hebraization. In this sense I agree with Nishidani."
 * I referred to this in the following terms:
 * "The process is not therefore indicative of ‘Hebraicisation’ but of the general population’s retention of traditional place names. As Debresser admitted on the talk page,"
 * You then 'drew conclusions' for retention. No indication is given as what logical and textual criteria governed the conclusion you drew. I.e. I gave a textual analysis showing falsification of source, and you said part of my argument was right, but in your opinion, the text can stay. That is not a logical civil response. It is just throwing in a vote.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Nishidani, but as far as I can see, the edit which you removed against the consensus has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OR, but is a statement based on factual evidence, with reliable sources and the summarization of the same. The proper procedure, in case of doubt, is to appeal through the WP:NORN. Let our fellow, non-involved co-editors there decide and who are perhaps more fit than either you or I to render a judgment in this case, since they are not directly involved, nor have preconceived notions.Davidbena (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CONSENSUS,
 * "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * which does not endorse a numbers game (one against two in a day). To the contrary, it privileges evidence and the quality of argument over opinions. You have yet to respond to the evidence I gave, and Debresser said he drew a conclusion, but has yet to indicate, as he is obliged to do, on request, the actual logical basis of that conclusion, drawn from analyzing the evidence I provided. You put a remark in inverted commas, which means it came from the source indicated'. So, you have to show editors where in the source given that quotation occurs. If you cannot do this, you falsified the source, or made the quote up. So go ahead. I quoted the relevant passages, and you are obliged to show that this is not the case.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I don't have any 'preconceived notions' in matters of scholarship. To have them is to declare you are not interested in scholarship. One goes where the evidence points, and to hell with the consequences to any 'preconceived notions'.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See here. I never 'voted' against you in the various arbcom sanction proposals. All recognized that you had difficulties understand policy, and that difficulty persists. I made a point in 2018 that you had problems, now repeated above, and asked for leniency.
 * Just now you wanted to add that Jews in Palestine in late Byzantine times also spoke a variety of Aramaic. Fine. But you just cited a glottolog entry with no data, and that was a technical error, because what is required is a source not stating that Jews spoke Palestinian Aramaic, but that their variety of Aramaic affected toponymic usage (a criteria my additions always include).
 * Why on earth did you run for a quick google fix, without thinking what was required, and finding instead a WP:OR pseudo-solution?
 * The obvious strategy would be to consult a text like Michael Sokoloff’s definitive A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, Bar Ilan University Press, 2002 ISBN 978-0-801-87234-1 and find where, in it, there is a reference to Jewish Aramaic toponymic usage, and if found, supply the pages and the data.
 * You can't edit this now and I allowed you ten hours to make a challenge before putting up that mandatory tag, but that doesn't mean, I hope, that if you do have cogent information apropos, you can't make a suggestion somewhere and alert editors. (I'm not good on that kind of policy consequence of your ban). Look, this is not a clannish desire to diminish the Jewish history of Palestine. It is a matter of perspective, of getting a picture of the diversity of that historical reality, and not tirelessly harping away at the 'only-we- matter-in-this-territory' approach so sadly present in too many articles. There is a massive understating of the Christian realities of historic Israel/Palestine for example. I note the lacunae, but don't let it worry me.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am afraid your Wall of text has not changed my opinion. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It almost never does. So far we are sure of only one thing. The basis of the judgement I made is set forth with evidence and logic. The great unknown, is why you, Debresser, drew a different conclusion. You say you arrived at one, and I requested you explain the steps which led you to disagree. You replied, here, by simply stating that your opinion hasn't changed. So, in wiki terms, your opinion is not a judgment which requires rules logically applied to evidence, but a personal viewpoint whose reasons are, if they exist, undisclosed, and therefore not negotiable. In rhetorical terms it is an off-the-cuff obiter dictum which the literate mind would associate with the noted words of Sir Oracle, or perhaps, to adopt a nobler image, with the monicker applied to Heraclitus, ὁ Σκοτεινός. Unfortunately what counts in editing is not a papal sense of infallibility, but reasoned judgment whose grounds are set forth before one's peers. If you want to deign to use a logical wiki-compliant method, rather than register a vote, I'm all ears.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try it again with something shorter. If you have a point, then it should be possible to make that point in a few short and clear lines. And please, I have provided an explanation, not just a vote. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel obliged to explain yourself. As shown, the dehebraicization and hebraicisation equation ergo okay (your 'conclusion') ignores everything documented here on David's free composition and use of Schuerer. See Zero below if you don't grasp my explanation.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to keep this, because hebraization and resisting de-hebraization are closely related and motivated by the same motives. I'd recommend to have it in a separate (sub-)paragraph. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop repeating a 'conclusion' whose logic is hidden, for youwon't say how you came to it. Read for once WP:OR. You are asking for the retention of a piece of editorial deduction, from a source that nowhere speaks of de- or re-hebraicisation, let alone de-aramaicisation, let alone descants on the 'beginning' of this putative process.Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop stonewalling. If you don't want to discuss, simply don't post. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha! The decision is not to include. Punto.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(Somewhat reluctantly...) "The Hebraization of names effectually began, according to Schürer, in the late Roman and Byzantine periods, where historians note that even after their alteration, Jews retained the old name of Beth-Ramatha over the newer name Julias (Livias), as well as the old name Paneas over Cesarea Philippi." (1) Schürer actually says Beth-haram was the old name and Beth-ramatha was a new name. (2) Paneas isn't Hebrew, it is Greek (how is preferring Greek over Latin related to Hebraization?). Anyway, what happened is stated by your source Rainey: "In the majority of cases, a Greek or Latin name assigned by Hellenistic or Roman authorities enjoyed an existence only in official and literary circles while the Semitic­ speaking populace continued to use the Hebrew or Aramaic original. The latter comes back into public use with the Arab conquest." Finally, "Philostorgius" is absolutely, 100%, ineligible to be used as a direct source; this is the sort of thing that the NOR rule is designed to prevent. Zerotalk 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Liora Bigon, Amer Dahamshe,An Anatomy of Symbolic Power: Israeli Road-Sign Policy and the Palestinian Minority Environment and Planning Environment and Planning D: Society and Space January 2014 vol. 32, issu8e 4 pp.606-621  Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Texts
Liora Bigon, Amer Dahamshe,An Anatomy of Symbolic Power: Israeli Road-Sign Policy and the Palestinian Minority Environment and Planning Environment and Planning D: Society and Space January 2014 vol. 32, issu8e 4 pp.606-621  Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

First header
it doesn’t work the way you left it, because we need to make clear that this section is about the early history of the names themselves, not the early history of the Hebraization of the these names. Could you propose a better title that you are happy with? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the point you are making, but I think that the header "Early history" also somewhat implies this distinction, and for me this was clear. Especially when this header is seen together with and in contrast with the second header, which specifically includes the words "Hebraization efforts". Debresser (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, how about just “Early names”? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is about the "Early history" of Hebraization, so I think "Early history" is better than "Early names". Debresser (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I have gone with "Background" instead, we seem to disagree re the section being about the "Early history" of Hebraization (I do not think it is). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had thought of background too, but had decided against it, since that is not really appropriate either, as it implies that the section is about the background of Hebraization, which is actually not what that section is about.
 * Also, don't you think it is rather insolent to make a change to the header that wasn't even discussed while there is an active discussion going on? Please do not repeat that disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had figured this was an obvious solution, which would be entirely fine with you. Please accept it in good faith.
 * I have made two reasonable suggestions for a title, you have said no twice. I have said no only once. So please could you make a suggestion now.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. What about "Early history"? The hint being, that I actually see nothing wrong with that name, nor has any editor pointed out what could possibly be wrong with it. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why so rude? This is an issue of negligible importance, surely you could try to be constructive, to respect the fact that there is an opposing view? I am 100% certain that we could find a form of words which we are both happy with. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no intention to be rude. I respect your point of view and this conversation. I apologize if you received any other impression from my words. I have, however, not seen anybody argue against the present header "Early history", and frankly speaking think that that header is actually close to being an ideal fit. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Synth
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. 

...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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Having a historic overview preceding the subject per se is absolutely standard and good writing. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Their land"
the language in your edits and 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)


 * Agree, obvious POV editing, reverted.Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

"Hebraization of Palestinian place names"
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)
 * 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)

Act of erasure
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)