Talk:Palestine (region)

"Gaza's population is expected to increase to 2.1 million people in 2020" outadedness

It's 2024, we need to change the tense of that statement and/or verify whether or not the prediction came true. Polishedrelish (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been done, but a comment about the current conflict's mass casualties could also be useful in establishing context of Gaza's population

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-says-gaza-death-toll-still-over-35000-not-all-bodies-identified-2024-05-13/ autumn (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Main image

Is the current main image really the best option, as opposed to, say, a medieval map showing Palestine? For me it seems to overemphasize the 20th century mandatory Palestine delineation, while the green lines are frankly a little bit hard to understand. Also, this is specifically not an article about the occupied territories, so why are those also on the map? I suspect that for a lot of newcomers this makes it altogether more muddling and confusing than a more simple image might. I'm not convinced this means it performs as the lead image (as what one expects to see for this topic, as in other tertiary sources) particularly well. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to understand the green lines from the information given. Zero^talk 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Note also that File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg has colorblind accessibility issues. Wracking ^talk! 21:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding Sources

I do not have extended confirmed user status so I cannot edit the page, so if someone else can, that would be helpful. The introductory paragraph references Herodotos' The Histories. This is extremely important as there is a claim that has been repeated continuously that Palestine is a an invention of the Romans and did not exist in the ancient world, or variously that it has never existed. The reference is from Herotodos c 104, where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans, but only refers to Syrians and Phoenicians of Palestine:

"For it is plain to see that Colchians are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it to be p393 so, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macrones, say that they learnt it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do even as the Egyptians. But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learnt it from the other; for it is manifestly a very ancient custom. That the others learnt it from intercourse with Egypt I hold to be clearly proved by this — that Phoenicians who hold intercourse with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children."

The Greek is:

"Φαίνονται μὲν γὰρ ἐόντες οἱ Κόλχοι Αἰγύπτιοι, νόησας δὲ πρότερον αὐτὸς ἢ ἀκούσας ἄλλων λέγω. ὡς δέ μοι ἐν φροντίδι ἐγένετο, εἰρόμην ἀμφοτέρους, καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ Κόλχοι ἐμεμνέατο τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ἢ οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῶν Κόλχων· νομίζειν δ’ ἔφασαν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τῆς Σεσώστριος στρατιῆς εἶναι τοὺς Κόλχους. αὐτὸς δὲ εἴκασα τῇδε, καὶ ὅτι μελάγχροες εἰσὶ καὶ οὐλότριχες. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἐς οὐδὲν ἀνήκει· εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἕτεροι τοιοῦτοι· ἀλλὰ τοῖσιδε καὶ μᾶλλον, ὅτι μοῦνοι πάντων ἀνθρώπων Κόλχοι καὶ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Αἰθίοπες περιτάμνονται ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς τὰ αἰδοῖα. Φοίνικες δὲ καὶ Σύροι οἱ ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογέουσι παρ’ Αἰγυπτίων μεμαθηκέναι, Σύριοι δὲ οἱ περὶ Θερμώδοντα καὶ Παρθένιον ποταμὸν καὶ Μάκρωνες οἱ τούτοισι ἀστυγείτονες ἐόντες ἀπὸ Κόλχων φασὶ νεωστὶ μεμαθηκέναι. οὗτοι γὰρ εἰσὶ οἱ περιταμνόμενοι ἀνθρώπων μοῦνοι, καὶ οὗτοι Αἰγυπτίοισι φαίνονται ποιεῦντες κατὰ ταὐτά. αὐτῶν δὲ Αἰγυπτίων καὶ Αἰθιόπων οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν ὁκότεροι παρὰ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐξέμαθον· ἀρχαῖον γὰρ δή τι φαίνεται ἐόν. ὡς δὲ ἐπιμισγόμενοι Αἰγύπτῳ ἐξέμαθον, μέγα μοι καὶ τόδε τεκμήριον γίνεται· Φοινίκων ὁκόσοι τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἐπιμίσγονται, οὐκέτι Αἰγυπτίους μιμέονται κατὰ τὰ αἰδοῖα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων οὐ περιτάμνουσι τὰ αἰδοῖα."

Text is from Godley's translation of Herodotos, Loeb Library, 1st ed, ISBN 9781296575090

Historiaantiqua (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"where he makes no mention of Judeans or Samaritans" Not surprising. Either they were obscure in this era, or non-existent. Judea is a term coined much later. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The oldest inscription we have with the name of Jerusalem is only from the 1st c BCE. Gmirkin (2019) in "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" posits a terminus post quem for the Torah at 280 BCE; his evidence is convincing. Ronny Reich's excavations, together with those of Silberman and Finkelstein do not support an occupation consistent with a city on the site of Jerusalem before at the earliest late 700's, so 8th c BCE. The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c. Archaeology shows that at the time Nebuchadnezzar sacks Jerusalem in 586 BCE, it was the size of a small town - with no Temple of Solomon. There was only ever one and the same Temple.

A German excavation on Mt Gerizim in Nablus, the Samaritan temple, established it two centuries older than Jerusalem itself. The inscription of Yahweh at Kuntillet

Ajr- our oldest one - names him as Yahweh of Teman and Samaria, Teman being Yemen. He is therefore clearly the god of the Samaritans before he is the god of the Jews. In the ensuing years as the Judeans and the Samaritans fight, the Judeans would prevail, and in first century they convince Herod to annex Samaria into the Roman province of Judea. The irony here is that the Roman-allied Judeans were erasing the culture and history of the local Samaritans using the power of the Roman state. You can see Yaakov Ben Aaron, "The History and the Religion of the Samaritans," for more.

ud

That Judeans were seen as "Syrians" and "Phoenicians" in many contexts of the ancient world is clear to those of us who know this part of the world. And that what is frequently conflated as "the Kingdom of Israel" or "Northern Kingdom" - was never called by either name, and was always Kingdom of Samaria. The Samaritans are therefore simultaneously erased - by having their ancient identity conflated to give Israel a claim of antiquity, and not considered Israelites at the same time. There is even a story in the New testament of Jesus meeting a Samaritan woman who is surprised that he speaks to her "since Judeans have no dealings with the Samaritans." The racism is obvious - the Canaan woman is compared to a dog by the gentle Jesus meek and mild. One of the most convincing bits that Jesus was a real person is precisely this - a fictional character would probably not have racist slip-ups.

So, you're very correct. All of the claims of ancient Israel, are actually, about Samaria. Wikipedia is full of such conflations. The earliest mention of Israel - in the Amarna letters - look into it more - is actually a mention of the House of Omri, after whom Samaria is named - not Israel. The Bible itself calls the language as Canaan or Judean, never as Hebrew. And "paleo-Hebrew" is another made up idea - it's literally the Phoenician script. Historiaantiqua (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Biblical story has a grand city of David and the Kingdom of Israel in the 11th c." So what? The Biblical narratives are little more than fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That was my point. Historiaantiqua (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Philistines - Missing connections - Wiki

In reference to the below, there should be the mention, and link to the Philistines.

The first written records referring to Palestine emerged in the 12th-century BCE Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt, which used the term Peleset for a neighboring (neighbouring) people.

It is also clear from archaeology & DNA testing that the Philistine community was indeed European migrants.

It would be appropriate at the encyclopaedia to include a revision with Philistines after the people.

• Note: Unable to log in using public PC to sign. D.Cardo.

194.73.217.219 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this request, what is it you want to add and where, WP:EDITXY ? Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Palestine is a semi-presidential country

why does it say Palestine is a semi-presidential country. what does that mean? Gsgdd (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ups... its in State of Palestine -> Government and politics Gsgdd (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested Withdrawn

Palestine (region) → Land of Palestine – Since Palestine is also known as Land of Palestine - im proposing this change. Please see [[1]] Its official name may be Land of Palestine [[2]] Gsgdd (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose I have never heard of the term "Land of Palestine" in RS. Google search results linked prove that whenever the term "land of Palestine" was used, it was used as an adjective not as a common name. This is not analogous to the Land of Israel, as Israel refers to the prophet. While Palestine is simply the name of the region. Clearly, "Palestine" is the WP:common name. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

proposal withdrawn Gsgdd (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, not a common name. This proposal is a non-starter. Zero^talk 07:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Image

@Iskandar323: I think we need to find a better/more modern map; this one gives off mythical vibes to it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for a ye olde map, but perhaps there's a less mythical one somewhere. I don't think we want anything too modern either though. This is about historic Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The map added as lead image a couple of days ago is the worst possible type of map for this article, as it is a Biblical / imaginary map. See Cartography of Palestine for an explanation of the difference between those maps and the contemporary depictions that the cartography article focuses on.

The boundaries of the region of Palestine changed over time, and in all periods had undefined borders on the south and east. The cartography article shows this well. Mandate Palestine was the first version of Palestine with known and clearly delineated eastern and southern borders. The Mandate Palestine borderline is also what defines today’s Palestinians.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I see I kicked the hornet's nest. That's all well and good. I was always interested in a discussion. That's what the discussion above was for, but it received little response. The prior image was unclear, had a broken key, and was an obvious issue for the colour blind. That was three strikes. As for the image I replaced it with, I did think there might be a tad too much myth, though the history of Palestine surely reaches back into myth. I do not, by contrast, think that the should be undue emphasis on mandatory Palestine. That may define Palestinians, but it does not define historic Palestine. For much of its history, Palestine was taken to include northwestern Jordan, for instance. Mandatory Palestine is a mere 30-year snapshot out of thousands of years of history, and this is not the page on mandatory Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the prior image back in 2012. Then I built the Cartography of Palestine article in 2019-20. Agree it’s time for a fresh discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking me to Cartography of Palestine. The Jacob Ziegler map is gorgeous. I actually think something like this, slightly abstract, better reflects how the region of historic Palestine has been somewhat fluid in nature. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I am not a fan of the Ziegler map because, while a milestone in the cartographic history, it doesn’t depict a contemporary period – rather it is a mishmash of various older sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bachiene is also a rather joyous blend of German and Arabic, and also fairly accurate spatially. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also liking its co-location of names like Esdud and Azotus – it aggregates names across several eras. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

If we want the purest “classical” definition, the Ptolemy map is the place to go. It is also the only one with a boundary. It therefore bring huge educational value. The downside is that it is in Greek.

In terms of modern maps, Jacotin was the big milestone. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Bachiene's map is good without the folds, but personally I found the previous map in WP template to be better, namely because it is spatially accurate and serves an exclusively informational purpose in showing just the region; while I find historical maps also have a (distracting) artistic side to it and also gives off a Narnia vibe to the topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's more Tolkien than Narnia, although I think that's a little of a discredit to the map maker, who I'm sure was trying their best with the information available. Incidentally, one issue with the previous map that I didn't mention is that I believe it got the Syria Palaestina boundaries (or those of its successors), slightly wrong. It also ignored the Islamic, including Ottoman Palestine, period, which, while somewhat ill-defined, is obviously a notable period. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I also struggled to properly comprehend the old map. Also, no offense at all to the map maker, it is not about the map as much as it is about the map choice for a WP article, if you know what I mean. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Boundaries of the Roman province Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)

  Borders of Mandatory Palestine

  Borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) which are claimed by the State of Palestine as its borders

@Iskandar323: do you think your concerns with the svg map could be addressed with specific improvements? We could produce a list of proposed changes and then request help from the experts at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Potentially. But where are we getting the information from? The sourcing notes on the current image file only appear to yield sources for the mandate period onwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we start from scratch on the sourcing. Wikipedia editors' knowledge of this topic has increased very significantly since the map was first created in 2012. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Three questions come in mind and are all related to the pre-modern period since the Mandatory period and current borders will necessarily have to stay:

1) Were the three Palaestina Roman provinces ever considered one geographic territory; if not, is it possible for us to combine them and just simply say the three Roman provinces of.., instead of showing each?

2) Do we need an exact political boundary or can we use a geographic one similar to the ones used in Ottoman, or more preferably, older Greek maps, instead of the Roman provinces?

3) Were there any province in history that had the name Palestine in it over the past 2,000 years, other than Jund Filastin and the Roman provinces (the older the better)? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: historians have pieced together the classical provinces using the available fragments, without total clarity on the ever-changing borders - this is as true for Palestine as it is for all classical regions. For Palestine, we list the primary sources at Timeline of the name Palestine - some give reasonably clear boundaries, such as Herodotus, Pliny, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ptolemy, Pomponius Mela. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This map has a very unusual boundary for Syria Palaestina. It's rather curious. Not sure how credible. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the 1865 book that the map accompanies. See "XXVI. Phoenice, Coelesyria, Decapolis, Iudaea Herodiadarum tempore". It doesn't explain the borders shown, but it is clear throughout that it is building on earlier 19th century scholarship. Those works were chronologically listed by Edward Robinson in 1841, Titus Tobler in 1867 and Reinhold Röhricht in 1890 (see the intro to Travelogues of Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the carving out of Scythopolis is presumably based on something tangible – especially as it is consistent between the Roman Judaea (as a part of Decapolis) and Syria Palaestina (as a part of Arabia Petraea)-era maps. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Actually, maybe I overcomplicated this. Maybe there’s an abstract of a general Palestine region borders over the millennia in RS that we can use for the map? Or is it better to have something political and specific like a province? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've stated my problem with the svg map before. Namely, I don't think that the information provided is enough to decode the green lines. That is, one cannot unambiguously label the regions based on that description. For example, is "Syria Palestina" the part inside the solid green lines or the whole region enclosed by any type of green line? On the other hand, I don't think we should start with a biblical myth map that extends even further north than Beirut. Zero^talk 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss @Onceinawhile @Zero0000: This has somewhat stalled hasn't it? Anyone have any suggestions on how best to progress? Do we want just a better, possibly less biblical old map, or do we want something bespoke from the graphics people? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It has; I am more in favor of something with the WP template; but as we were discussing, the issue remains on the borders of Palestine prior to the British mandate; the older the reference the better. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I liked the previous map that Oncenawhile made in 2012 showing the approximate borders of the region from the 1st to the 11th century AD. Its main problem, besides the colors, was that it included Palaestina Salutaris whose territorial extension goes beyond what the map shows. By excluding Salutris from the map and changing the line colors, this map could be used alongside the map from the Ottoman period in the infobox. I don't think we should use a map from the period before Christ since Palestine as an administrative unit did not yet exist. Mawer10 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with this proposal. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Which map is being referred to here? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: This File:Historical boundaries of Palestine (plain).svg. Mawer10 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: @Mawer10: So basically the removal of the below green dashed line but not the above? I would be inclined to remove both green dashed lines, which would make Palaestina I and II a single unit, and make the map much easier to comprehend. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the big question is what exactly we are trying to speak to with the image. The region of Palestine is a classically broad concept. The modern state of Palestine boundaries are specially something that is not being spoken to here. The mandatory ones are well defined but relatively fleeting in the overall historical arc. The Roman ones bounce around a little but have the pedigree of age and relative longevity on the historical record. In the mix, we are missing the Palestine that the Greek historians such as Herodotus spoke to, as well as what conceptions of Palestine existed in the Islamic period. All of this complexity, and the risk of editorial over-selectively or omission, is one reason why it could be safer to stick with a sourced image. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The image should portray three things: modern Palestine (1967), historic Palestine (1948), and ancient Palestine (whatever period whose borders can be defined, the earlier the better).

As previously mentioned it seems that the only definable ancient Palestine is the Roman administrative provinces, in contrast to Herodotus' Palestine for example (unless the rough region is portrayed by some RS).

While I agree it is safer to stick with a sourced image, which we have not found so far, I think the proposal to omit Palaestina III is the lesser evil, and we can avoid it being misleading by specifying in the caption that the portrayed region are of Palaestina I and II, and does not include Palaestine III. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should it portray the post-1948 or post-1967 Palestinian territories? That isn't actually the subject here is it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to pre-1948 and post-1067. Because these are the two most prominent definitions of the Palestine region. Clearly, post-1967 is less relevant but wouldn't hurt to have it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to keep the line separating Palaestina I and Palaestina II on the map because they later became Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdunn respectively during Islamic rule until the 11th century. But for the sake of clarity of the map, I do not object to deleting the lines. An interesting fact is that the borders of Palestine proposed by the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement is almost identical to the borders of Roman Palestine, which shows its importance. Mawer10 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, never noticed; although 1916 curiously cut II by half and avoided east of the Jordan river. I am also fine with either option, but now I am much more comfortable supporting deleting the lines between I and II given this piece of information. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with this. On the question of the early sources that defined historical Palestine - much of it (everything I have found over the years) is quoted on Timeline of the name Palestine.

The earliest surviving map in existence is a 700-year-old copy of Ptolemy's map, and no maps or their copies have come down to us from any earlier authors. Before Ptolemy we are reliant on quotes from narrative works, none of which are detailed enough to construct a detailed picture of the borders. Ptolemy, therefore, holds primacy in this question. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Main problem with Ptolemy's map is that it is rough and does not show clearly defined borders, in contrast to the Roman provinces map. What are you suggesting? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Historic Palestine

Historic Palestine is an alt name for the collective history of pre-1948 Palestine in all is vicissitudes and variations that is obviously used for natural disambiguation purposes vis-a-vis the modern Palestinian state (as exemplified in this Britannica educational reference work). Is this then perhaps a better name than the current parenthetically disambiguated title? (Also bearing in mind that WP:NCDAB favours natural disambiguation.) Just throwing this out there informally at this point for input. Thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tricky, this and (historical) are a bit troublesome, I mean I get it, but use is likely to lead to argument imo, especially if the pre 48 part (and I guess back to Herodotus) is not spelled out. We have SoP, Mandate and Roman links, maybe should be an Ottoman and such as well? Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ottoman Palestine is a bit of a gap, but for sure on the to-do list. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

While indeed often used in RS, it is less used than the more common name of just "Palestine". Also, this name would become to be used as it is, i.e. changes will be made to all articles linking to this one from [Palestine (region)|Palestine] to [Historic Palestine], which would be redundant. But I understand the reasoning behind this proposed move, so maybe we can add Historic Palestine in the opening paragraph or other lede paragraphs instead? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already added it as an alt name. Perhaps that's enough for now. Not convinced on the merits of the move myself either. Might cause search trouble, and get confused with the history page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Old map

Please use a more recent map instead of one from 1750 The letter elemenopy (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for the article about the state rather than this article about the region. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

yea I am The letter elemenopee (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

spelling errors

Hi, I've noticed a few spelling errors in this article. I'm unable to correct them myself due to this page's protection policy so perhaps someone else can help with this:
Note ii: change "tern" to "term"
Note xx: change "Stale" to "State"
Note xx: remove the full stop/period before "and reserving the right to..."
Note xx: would the wording "and reserves the right to..." work better here?
Thanks everyone! Sw257 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)