Jump to content

Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

List of errors in this article

Infobox

  1. The infobox includes data about the Palestinian National Authority and about the Palestinian territories. The PNA was never recognized, nor claimed to be, the State of Palestine, and there is no source to suggest that. Saying that the PNA is the State of Palestine is not like saying that the Queen of Australia is also the Queen of Canada. It is more like saying that Canada and Australia are the same country because they have the same Queen.
  2. The official and most used currency in the Palestinian territories is the Israeli new sheqel (that's its official name). This is explicitly said in the Paris protocol, which is part of the Oslo Accords. This protocol allows for the adoption of additional currencies, and indeed there is a Palestinian-Jordanian agreement about using the Jordanian dinar in the areas controlled by the PNA. Since most financial transaction are made with Israelis, the new sheqel is much more widespread. The Egyptian gneh (pound) is never used in the West Bank, and its use in the Gaza Strip is quite limited.
  3. The time zone in the Palestinian territories is UTC +2 in winter and UTC +3 in summer. The PNA has its own dates of transition between summer and regular time, but many Palestinians follow the Israeli rules for practical reasons.
  4. Dialing code - the Palestinians use the Israeli telecommunication infrastructure. There are ranges of numbers reserved for the Palestinian telecommunication companies by the Israeli Ministry of Communication. All phone numbers in the Palestinian territories are accessible through the +972 prefix. I am not sure the +970 prefix works, although it is reserved for future Palestinian state/autonomy. I heard that Arab countries that block the +972 prefix allow access to numbers in the Palestinian territories by using +970 instead. If it's true, it is like allowing entrance through the back door rather than the front door, but it's the same house.

Lead

  1. It says that the State of Palestine is a state with limited recognition, but this is not true. Had it been true, Palestine would have been equivalent to Kosovo, or maybe the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In fact there is a huge difference. These two countries have territory, government and list of citizens, but they are not recognized by all other states. Palestine enjoys some recognition without having territory, effective government or defined population. It is all explained very eloquently here, in Prof. James Crawford's article [1]. Prof. Crawford also mentions other opinions, like Boyle's and explain why they are wrong. One thing is for sure - there is no consensus about the status of the State of Palestine as a state, hence you cannot write anything so decisive in the lead.
  2. At the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, neither Palestine nor Transjordan were states. Crawford refers to this issue as well and explains why British Mandate Palestine is not a predecessor of a Palestinian state despite the identical names (which, by the way, neither Arabs nor Jews liked at the time of the Mandate. Jews preferred the name "erets yisra'el" and Arabs preferred the name "Sorya-al-Janubiya" according to British official records). There is no reliable source to this concept of statehood, and in any case, this concept is far from consensus. If I may cite Prof. Crawford "It should be stressed that we are not dealing with the situation of the extinction of states which were once, incontestably, established as such. The situation here involves the establishment of a new state on territory over which other states have claims of one kind or another" ([2] p. 310, 2nd paragraph).

The body of the article

I won't go over all the inaccuracies here (I have limited time).

  1. I fail to see the relevance of the British passports granted to British Mandate subjects. Again, that's like saying that the French passports carried by citizens of French Guyana are the same as those held by the citizens of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, simply because these two geopolitical entities use the same name. I think it is also clear that British Columbia is not actually British and has nothing to do with the Republic of Colombia or the US District of Columbia despite the use of the same name.
  2. It is said that the State of Palestine enjoys recognition by more than 100 states. This is not what the Palestinian leaders say. Look here, at this conversation between the Israeli journalist Uri Avneri and the PNA premier Salam Fayyad: "THIRD QUESTION: What will happen if the Palestinians declare their state at the end of 2011? − Many Palestinians are sceptical. After all, the Palestinian National Council already declared an independent Palestinian state in 1988. On that festive occasion, the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, written by the poet Mahmoud Darwish, was read out. It had an uncanny resemblance to the Israeli Declaration of ndependence. Dozens of countries recognized this state, and the PLO representatives here enjoy the official status of ambassadors. But did this improve the situation of the Palestinians?" [3] It is not very clear whether these are the words of Avneri or Fayyad. If it's Avneri speaking here, Fayyad does not correct him. Of course 9 dozens makes a bit more than 100, but when people say "tens" or "dozens" they usually mean "up to 100". In this source [4] the PNA Foreign Minister talk about evidence of recognition by 67 states. This is way below 100. Crawford note in one of his articles about Palestinian state that the recognitions following the 1988 declaration were many but quite equivocal, so it is hard to trust their validity (except in certain cases like certain Arab or Muslim countries).

I can correct the errors myself if you lift the restrictions over this article. If not, please correct them. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.5.74 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Bovis, Wolffe, Kamrava cites

Bovis does not say the Jewish leadership accepted the UN partition plan on page 40 of his book and neither Wolffe nor Kamrava say that only a Jewish state emerged. These were discussed previously as examples of WP:Synth claims that were made in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. harlan (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not acting in good faith. I've explained that the following pages of Bovis complete the discussion of the plan, yet you don't even bother reading ahead. I even changed the cited pages from p.40, to 37-47, just so people like you, being too lazy to read ahead, wouldn't get too confused. I've reverting your changes, which are, frankly, POV BS. It is a well known fact that the Arabs rejected the plan, and the Jews accepted it, and no amount of your revisionism can change those facts. Say what you will about how fair or unfair the plan is, that's what happened. okedem (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added more sources, just because it's so easy. I'm gonna stop now, or the text is going to become unreadable, with all those little numbers there. okedem (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've forgotten your special brand of denialism and revisionism, trying to claim an Arab state was created, when it is absolutely rudimentary common knowledge that no such thing happened. To humor you, see, for instance, Bovis, p. 89; Soetendorp (The dynamics of Israeli-Palestinian relations: theory, history and cases) p. 138; Khalidi's "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood" p. XVII. Basically, any history book with sufficient detail. okedem (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest you concentrate on content and stop making personal remarks. You are using the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to endorse your positions. I did not remove the viewpoint that the Jewish leadership accepted partition and that the Arabs reject it, I attributed it to an author who holds that opinion, Avi Plascov. I added an opposing viewpoint from Simha Flapan that you've removed without explanation. All significant points of view are supposed to be represented in this article, and they need to be attributed to their authors. You removed several citations that hold opposing points of view about the acceptance of the partition plan and the notion that only a Jewish state emerged. harlan (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry harlan. Ignoring your distortion of reality has become impossible.
It's not "just" Plascov's viewpoint, or Bovis's, or any of the other sources'; it's the absolute majority viewpoint, found in a great multitude of history books and various other sources, contemporary and otherwise. It is so well known and obvious that people like Flapan, wanting to sound all important, make a big deal about calling it a "myth", but failing miserably to support this rhetoric with facts (his claim was that although the Jewish leaders accepted the plan - there's no argument about this - their actions thereafter were against it; sadly, he ignored the fact that partition was DOA, following immediate Arab rejection, meaning the Jews' actions were taken knowing there could be no partition, and had to act accordingly). The "no it wasn't" viewpoint is absolute fringe, rejected by all mainstream historians. It can be mentioned in the article about these people (Flapan etc.), and maybe in the one about the partition plan, but has no place in other articles. okedem (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, I am not removing your claims, simply attributing them as the views held by the authors cited in the text. You are placing references to Wolffe and Kamrava after a statement that cannot be found in either of those sources and you are removing opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia policy says that articles should describe all significant views in accordance with their prominence, and fairly weight the authority accorded each view in the relevant scholarly community with the aim of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties.
You apparently want to cite the fact that Bovis said the Arab leaders rejected a partition plan, but not the fact that in the same passage (on page 40) he said the Jewish leadership rejected that same plan. You also fail to mention that on page 26, Bovis claimed that the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan accepted a partition proposal.
Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Wahlid Kahlidi, and Shlomo Ben Ami say that Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, Yigal Allon, & etc. had started planning for the conquest of the whole country in 1937 and used partition proposals as a tactical stepping stone. If you wish to claim that Flapan, et al represent a fringe theory, then Wikipedia policy requires that you document that with reliable sources which report on the level of acceptance within the relevant academic community. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Reporting on the levels of acceptance. Flapan, Morris, Shlaim, and a host of others say that the Emir Abdullah and the Jewish Agency had an agreement to partition the country between themselves and that they confided that fact to officials in the US and UK.
When Simha Flapan was writing his book, he was lecturing at Harvard. The research for his book was sponsored by grants from the Ford Foundation and the American Middle East Peace Research Institute. He acknowledged the contributions of a list of research assistants from Harvard's Center for International Affairs (CFIA) and its Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES). That list included historians and political scientists who went-on to serve as Governing Faculty of the Oxford University post-graduate schools (Eugene Rogan), and members of the Board of Governors of the Middle East Forum (Joshua Landes). His book contained hundreds of citations to official US and Israeli archival documents that had just been been declassified. These days, the contents of many of those documents can be verified in the online collections of the US State Department Foreign Relations of the United States series. Flapan's book is considered essential reading. It has been cited in textbooks and favorably reviewed in Foreign Affairs Magazine, the Journal of Contemporary History, Alpayim, History and Memory, Publishers Weekly, and the Library Journal to name just a few. harlan (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Harlan, if you're not gonna bother reading the sources, or what I write, why do you insist on posting more comments?
  1. As I have clearly shown, beyond any doubt, the point about Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection can be found in a great multitude of sources. Basically any history book. I'm not going to bother citing more and more people repeating the same point; you're free to go to Google books and search for it yourself.
  2. We're discussing the 1947 UN partition plan. In p.40 Bovis discusses the Morrison-Grady plan, rejected by both sides. There he mentions that the Arabs rejected partition on principle.
  3. Again, diversionary tactics from you - "Emir Abdullah of Transjordan accepted a partition proposal." - yes, "a" partition plan (reportedly accepted, but didn't say so publicly) . The 1937 Peel plan, not the 1947 UN plan we're discussing.
  4. The people you're citing are the "new historians", notable for saying the opposite of mainstream historians. Even your claim here isn't that the Jews didn't accept, but that they, perhaps, also had other plans. Shlaim is a good example of how to misquote or quote out of context, by the way. Flappan wasn't a nobody, but his claims weren't really accepted.
That's quite enough. I'm not going to argue with you when you don't read the sources, don't understand them, or intentionally misrepresent them. okedem (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No it is not "quite enough". It falls way short of complying with the relevant sanctions. You came to this article making WP:Battle-style comments about "making Jews look bad". Then you started making edits that are intended to make it appear that Wikipedia endorses one particular viewpoint. You removed sourced content that represents a significant body of opposing viewpoints, and now you are attempting to carry-on a filibuster rather than simply comply with the relevant ARBCOM sanctions that have been brought to your attention.

The "New Historians" cite documentary evidence about the 1947 Jewish Agency modis vivendi agreement with Abdullah. Much of that material is found in the Foreign Relations of the United States and it is third-party verifiable. You can't delete Simha Flapan's views by simply making the disputed assertion that he and other leading historians represent a fringe viewpoint, or that their views aren't accepted. Notwithstanding the fact that Flapan has been dead for thirty years, Google Scholar indicates that he is still cited in more academic sources than some of the works you are using in this article. The "New Historians" and "Critical Sociologists" are definitely mainstream scholars. Their views are reflected in most standard Middle East Studies textbooks. harlan (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course, again, you fail to acknowledges your very false claims above, regarding Bovis, etc.
And seriously, if anyone here is filibustering, it's certainly not me. Have you looked at the length of your comments lately? Do you realize how many irrelevant sources you cite? (Obviously not). The "Jews accepted, Arabs rejected" is the mainstream view, as I have shown. The very fact that the people who (partly) disagree are known as one group ("new historians") seems to indicate their out-of-mainstream position. About Abdallah etc, you might do well to read Karsh's paper on the topic, explaining the weakness (and downright non-existence) of evidence of this claim. okedem (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As I have said before, there is no need for a lengthy discussion of this issue in this article, but if Okedem insists on placing the "Jews accepted, Arabs rejected" narrative here as an uncontested POV, we are obliged to present the other POV. The New Historians are not putting forward an "out-of-mainstream position". Their scholarship is based on recently declassified documents that were unavailable to earlier historians and represent a significant POV with an ever growing number of adherents. Per NPOV, we are obliged to represent all significant viewpoints on a given issue. Though I'd prefer in this case that we avoid this subject altogether in this article and leave extended discussions to other articles such as the partition plan article itself. Tiamuttalk 08:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've explained before, if you mention the partition plan, you have to mention the reactions to it; to just mention it, and then say "only the Jewish state materialized" clearly implies to the reader that it was because of the Jews, whereas the reality is vastly different.
The New Historians are not, despite popular claims, basing their work on anything new, nor do they have any meaningfully new interpretations. Their work mostly involves taking quotes out of context (e.g. Shlaim) to "prove" provocative claims.
We need to mention all significant viewpoint on a subject in the article about the subject, not in every article where is it mentioned. In those, we need only mention the prevailing point of view. In this matter, the contested point is actually only a small part of the issue - basically no one contests the fact that the Arabs overwhelmingly rejected the plan, from the Arab Higher Committee in Palestine, to the Arab League; naturally, one might find individual Arabs who agreed to partition in principle, or even to the 1947 plan, but those were a very small minority. Now, no one contests the fact that the Jewish leadership's response to the plan was a strong 'yes'. The new historians claim the Jews publicly accepted, but privately had other plans. Their main thesis is that even had the Arabs accepted the plan, the Jews wouldn't have let it come to fruition. However, that is basically crystal-balling; no one knows for sure what would have happened had the Arabs accepted the plan, and all of the Jews' actions after the plan's acceptance in the UN were taken in light of Arab rejection, and so are irrelevant to the discussion. okedem (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem Flapan said it was a myth that Jewish leaders accepted the plan and a myth that Arabs rejected the plan and prepared for war. That is the statement that you deleted. Jordan was an Arab state and Abdullah was an Arab Leader with plenty of Palestinian citizens. The notion that no Arab state emerged is a POV not shared by President Truman. He viewed Israel and Jordan as twin emergent states and sided with Abdullah on the need for Israel to offer territorial concessions during the Lausanne conference. The US did not oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state, just the establishment of a Mufti-led regime.
Tiamat is correct, but the answer is to link to the subsection of the main article partition plan, where the material on various reactions to the partition plan is located, and briefly summarize that material here in this article. In any case Wikipedia describes positions, but it does not endorse them.
  • If Daniel Pipes and Efraim Karsh are publishing articles that are critical of the New Historians, then they obviously believe that their works are notable. Mainstream historians, like L. Carl Brown, criticized Karsh and others who claimed that the new historians' "point of departure was political and moralistic rather than academic." According to Brown, "One would have thought that orthodoxy and heterodoxy share politicizing and moralizing about equally." See State of Grace? Rethinking Israel's Founding Myths in Foreign Affairs [5]
  • The fact is that the textbook divisions of Routledge, Cambridge University, and MacMillan-Palgrave offer a number of products by Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, Benny Morris, and etc. (which cite Simha Flapan's "Myths and Realities"). That is a clear indication of the acceptance of their views by mainstream groups and academics outside Israel that are independent of their theories.
  • Elie Podeh has written articles that appeared in the Journal History and Memory, and a book length treatment of "The Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli history textbooks, 1948-2000" [6] which illustrated that views of the New Historians and Critical Sociologists had been incorporated in Israeli textbooks.
  • Ethan Bonner has worked as the Jerusalem corespondent for the Boston Globe, Reuters, and the New York Times. He also served as the Education Editor for the New York Times. He wrote about the adoption of textbooks containing the views of the New Historians and said that Israel's State archives contain clear evidence of double deals, schemes to transfer Arabs out of the country and rebuffed gestures of peace by the Arab states. Bonner said Morris book was a first-class work of history, bringing together the latest scholarship and that there is no question that Shlaim presented compelling evidence for a revaluation of traditional Israeli history. See Israel: The Revised Edition [7] harlan (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The official historians at the State Department have published collections of declassified files which include memos from Secretary George Marshall and Undersecretaries Rusk, and Lovett regarding their conversations with Shertok, Epstein, and Rabbi Weiss prior to the termination of the Mandate. Those conversations outlined a modus vivendi agreement with Abdullah and the contacts that had occurred between the Haganah and British-led Arab Legion officials to partition Palestine between them. There are also cables from Transjordan and Saudi Arabia, prior to Dier Yassin, which said they told the other members of the Arab League they considered partition to be an internal civil matter, and that the League should avoid taking any action the Security Council might consider aggression. Those cables and memos are cited and analyzed by Flapan, Rogan, Morris, Uri Bar-Joseph, & etc. but Karsh does not mention or explain them. harlan (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to discuss anything with you, when you make clearly false claims, and then refuse to acknowledge them. It's okay to make a mistake, to misinterpret something, but when it's shown that you're wrong, you do need to accept that.
I never said the new historians aren't notable. Sure they are; that's why we have articles about them. Some of their claims (mostly rehashed from what "old" historians said - they actually bring very little new to the table, claiming to shatter myths, but just repeating well known things) are quite accepted. However, the claims regarding partition are not mainstream by a long shot, and, as I said, are irrelevant to our point. Perhaps the Jews planned to take over the entire land, but we'll never know what would have happened, because the Arabs rejected the idea of partition in general, and the 1947 plan in particular. The question isn't what they thought amongst themselves, but what they declared, and what they did. Abdallah may have supported partition at some time, but he came out against the 1947 plan, along with all other Arab leaders. I don't care what he felt deep down, but what he actually said - "NO". Like everyone else, he rejected it. So the Palestinians can try to console themselves for their colossal mistake but telling themselves that even had they accepted it wouldn't have helped, but this is what we call "unknowable", and is wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
And I say again - Shlaim basically quotes things out of context, to ascribe the wrong meaning to them, sometimes one entirely opposite to the actual meaning.
I have shown a very large variety of sources, using the simple and factual "Jews accepted, Arabs rejected" description of events. This is purely factual - a plan passed in the UN, the Jews said "Yes", the Arabs said "No". That's "accepted", and "rejected".
Oh, and I find it highly amusing that you basically adopt the view of the Israeli far-right - "There's no need for a Palestinian state - Jordan is the Palestinian state"... okedem (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you'd stop deleting sourced material, and then spouting off your unpublished views as the sole justification, you would not have to discuss anything with me.

I don't adopt the views of the Israeli far right. The partition plan was developed when the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods system, and the General Agreements on Trade and Tariffs were still being implemented. The UNSCOP majority report included a plan for economic union and revenue redistribution because the partition plan gave most of the revenue producing land to the Jewish State. UNSCOP said the proposed Arab State would not be economically viable unless the Jewish State returned a portion of the revenues from its Arab-owned lands. There was no back-up plan in place when the Economic Union and Economic Commission failed to materialize. That is why the US and the UN Mediator recommended a union which included all of the Arab portions of the former mandate, including Transjordan.

The article explains that some of the leaders of Central Palestine declared Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine, and that they subsequently formed a joint Kingdom and union with Transjordan. That union was legally recognized by other states. In 1988 the parties concerned chose to dissolve the union and planned for possible confederation. Palestine is a party to several free trade agreements, and globalization has rendered political union with other states unnecessary. harlan (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the evasion tactics. Every time one of your false claims is called out, you jump to another topic, never acknowledging error, never conceding a point, always throwing more and more irrelevant points. The interpretation that an Arab state was created is your interpretation, and is OR. The rest of the world is aware of the fact that the partition plan called for an independent Arab state in Cisjordan, separate from Transjordan, and no such thing was ever created. This point is extremely trivial and well known. What you're trying to do is advance your personal fringe interpretation of events, making a mockery of Wikipedia, and destroying whatever little credibility we have left. As everyone acknowledges, no Palestinian State exists, and none has ever existed (see, for example, Fayyad's plans to establish a state in two years). Again I'm not going to bother citing the great multitude of sources for this; you can go to google books and search for yourself (just a few: "Israel and Palestine: Peace Plans and Proposals from Oslo to Disengagement" by Galia Golan; "Jews and Muslims in the Arab world: haunted by pasts real and imagined" by Jacob Lassner, Selwyn Ilan Troen; "The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1989" by Anis F. Kassim). Whatever legal arrangement existed in the West Bank after 1948-9, it's painfully clear it was not a state. The most "state-like" entity was the All-Palestine Government, which, at most, had limited jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip alone. okedem (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Harlan's historical revisionism (with respect to the basic fact that the Arabs rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, while the Jews accepted it) has already generated hundreds of thousands of bytes of tiresome tedious discussions on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I had no doubt I wasn't the only one enjoying these trips into the parallel universe. okedem (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
We could fill a stadium. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys when you get tired of assuming bad faith, and making personal attacks here and elsewhere, I hope you can find time to discuss the evidence which establishes your contentions that the sources I'm citing are actually out-of-the-mainstream and fringe theories. I'm not trying to fill a stadium, I'm trying to add these viewpoints to those that are in the section about the partition plan:
  • "Simha Flapan said it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13-54, Myth Two pages 55-80.
  • James Crawford said Israel was created by the use of force, without the consent of any previous sovereign and without complying with the partition plan. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) 108
  • According to Clea Bunch, President Truman viewed Israel and Jordan as twin emergent states. Clea Lutz Bunch, "Balancing Acts: Jordan and the United States during the Johnson Administration," Canadian Journal of History 41.3 (2006)
Wikipedia:ARBPIA actually says that editors are not supposed to engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. harlan (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Simha Flapan said. Good for him. Unfortunately, we're not discussing the Jews' plans, but their actual response - 'Yes' or 'No'. They said 'Yes'. The Arabs, despite whatever claims you make, said 'No', both to partition in general, and to the 1947 plan.
Crawford - inane. Obviously it wasn't in full agreement with the plan (e.g. the different borders), but the plan became defunct when the Arabs rejected it, and launched a war (with the secretary of the Arab League saying their invading armies will commit a massacre like those of Genghis Khan). The Jews had to act accordingly to get a state; they clearly couldn't still go with a plan that called for two choke-points in their country, with an "economic union" with people who state their desire to slaughter them.
Truman - okay, so he saw it that way. And? How is that relevant to anything? Of course both Israel and Jordan emerged. But the Arab state, the independent Arab state in Palestine, outlined in the partition plan, was never created. okedem (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with okedem. With all due respect to Flapan's interpretation of the parties' motives (which I have may doubts are in the "mainstream"), their actual responses are a matter of public record. I'm pretty sure you're aware of this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
NMMNG and Okedem, you two are engaging in obvious WP:Battle tactics across a number of articles in order to prevent the inclusion of published views that you oppose. You came here and started removing well-sourced material concerning the Rusk memo. That historical document actually is a "matter of public record" in the United States. It has been cited and quoted in a variety of published sources, including the US State Department's FRUS and books authored by Flapan, Neff, Louis, & et al. You have added content about another state, Israel, which makes a disputed claim that only a Jewish state emerged, [8] and removed pertinent published material representing the opposing viewpoints.
President Truman and other government officials are the only sources cited in this article who had the actual legal or constitutional authority to recognize the new States that emerged in the territory of Palestine. The UK Hansard and FRUS contain numerous entries which say that Great Britain, Truman, and the US State Department viewed the union between the former Arab portions of the Palestine Mandate as being compatible with the UN partition resolution. For example, Simha Flapan's Birth of Israel, page 177 cites a memo written on 4 May 1948 during the Second Emergency Session of the General Assembly on the Question of Palestine by John E. Hor­ner, adviser to the US delegation at the UN. It supported Abdallah's annex­ation of the Arab part of Palestine and saw it as "compatible with the UN resolution." The article explains that the US recognized Jordan itself as a union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan that resulted from the exercise of the free will of the two peoples.
There are also a number of sources which say that the Jewish leadership did not "accept" the partition plan. NPOV requires that those views be represented too, if you insist on placing material about that topic in this article. harlan (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article includes numerous inaccuracies, and I supplied sources for my correction. Deleting them is not in line with Wikipedia's policy. Furthermore, the infobox brings data about the Palestinian Authority, not about the State of Palestine, so it should be presented as such. 109.64.46.100 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

JP article

Interesting article that mentions this page.[9]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Background Section

The main article templates were removed and the Background section was expanded with long unreferenced editorial narratives on those articles. The material in those sections was {{sync}} tagged because it is contradicted by well sourced material contained in the main articles.

The {{sync}} tags were removed without correcting the problem. There is no requirement to retain long out-of-sync subsections here on those topics, i.e. The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, Sykes–Picot Agreement and spheres of influence, League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and etc. harlan (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

I'm not clear on what this means: "The State of Palestine is the objective of the Palestinian people"... Is it an objective of all the Palestinian people? Is it the ONLY objective? Surely the establishment of a state is a very specific kind of objective.

I'm loathe to change this opening sentence as I imagine it's the result of a large amount of debate and argument. I agree that to say the declared State of Palestine differs from a universally recognised sovereign state; however, to frame it as the universal objective of Palestinians is also inaccurate.

Could the article not just open with "The State of Palestine was declared by the PLO on 15th November 1988... etc...", before explaining the nature of the polity and its level of international recognition, and the significance of the declaration to the innauguration and ongoing objectives of the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process'? - Ark0queen (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No that is not the result of any discussion. Feel free to add relevant and properly sourced material, and to remove any unsourced editorials. harlan (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It is the result of this edit which for some reason I did not notice at the time. I have now and restored the original wording. "Objective of the Palestinian people" is vague and OR as the sources dont say that. nableezy - 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ewawer has removed a lot of sourced information from this and other articles and replaced it with unsourced editorials. The large sections of the article that he created on McMahon-Hussein, Sykes-Picot, & etc don't belong here, have no citations, and are not sync'd with the main articles. We had see also and main templates that linked to those topics. harlan (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IP edit.

[10] Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Palestine, this is sourced. The "At the time of the 1988 declaration, and currently, the PLO did not and does not exercise control over any territory," was added without source, and its bad grammar. The original sentence speaks about 1988, while I recall reading about several villages under Palestinian control today. Also there is nothing "illegal" about designating Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. "it's establishment as the capital of Israel in 1948." is not neutral, its a proclaimed capital not recognized by the international community, "control" is more neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map is too zoomed out? Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Few corrections to the passport section

I did not mean to get so deep into editing articles on WP, but seeing inaccuracies in articles about subject I have some knowledge about is indeed frustrating and motivates to take action.

  1. The passport section made the impression as if there is a connecting line between the British Mandate passports and the PNA passports. This is a false impression. The two entities may share a name, and some geographical territory, but they are totally separated both in time and major characteristics.
  2. It is important to explain that the passports are issued as part of the Oslo Accord, as the passports say so themselves in an inscription they include. 79.181.9.231 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the majority of modern legal scholars, the subject of "limited recognition" is an an oxymoron or unintended consequence of the constitutive theory. Unless you are including it in an article about the great debate regarding the constitutive vs. declarative theories of statehood, it would have to be considered "an article whose subject is a POV" and linked to an article that presents the opposing majority POV.
The late Ian Brownlie explained that the two competing theories of statehood had obscured the actual facts and that neither could adequately explain the legal principles underlying statehood in actual international practice. Thomas Grant and other scholars credit Ti-chiang Chen ("The international law of recognition", Stevens, 1951, page 40) with debunking the constitutive doctrine and the concept of "limited recognition". [11] Crawford simply says that the constitutive theory effectively destroys that which it seeks to describe (Creation of States, pg 435). harlan (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

International Recognition

I reverted this edit [12] because reliable published sources cited in the article say that over one hundred states had already recognized the State of Palestine before 1993.

92 of those states are listed in the well-known 1989 application for membership in UNESCO. That recognition predated the Oslo Accord and the existence of the "Palestinian National Authority". Professor James R. Crawford wrote an essay in 1998 that was reprinted as a chapter in the latest editions of "The Creation of States in International law". Crawford said that the independence of Palestine was recognized by "the numerical majority of United Nations Members." and that the 1988 Declaration was "quite widely recognized although often in equivocal terms." (see page 435) He also said "Before 1993, Palestine was recognized as a state by over a hundred states" (page 436). All of those statements are supported by other publications authored by John Dugard, Francis Boyle, and a host of others that are cited in the article.

Crawford and the other sources cited do not say that the number of states that have recognized Palestine is unknown or disputed. That appears to be an unsourced editorial narrative introduced by user Breein1007. [13] [14] [15] harlan (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, please take a look at the article itself - as edited, not on the 'differences'. All this information is included, along with the sources, etc. - it is done by Template:Palestine foreign relations - in order to synchronize this article and Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority.
A side note - I agree with you that "number unknown" statement is not supported by the sources, but is most probably Wikipedia users addition (and you gave edit-histories to show that). Alinor (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll look over the template. Why not use that terminology here? My main objection is to the introduction of a subsection (here) titled "Palestinian National Authority" instead of one describing the "International Recognition" of Palestine. A number of the countries which have recognized the State of Palestine have standing policies against publicly recognizing any other government. Although, there certainly are a few states that have done both, e.g. Costa Rica signed an agreement with the Palestinian National Authority recognizing the State of Palestine.[16]
Entire volumes have been devoted to the legal doctrines or national practices which differentiate between recognition of statehood and recognition of the governments of states. See for example:
  • "The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States", American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380, Volume 1, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States; §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments; and §204 Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States.
  • "Recognition of governments in international law: with particular reference to governments in exile", Stefan Talmon, Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0199248397;
  • "The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution, Thomas D. Grant, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 0275963500;
  • Recognition of states approach or Estrada Doctrine harlan (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The "recognition of the State of Palestine" IS used - all over the template text, sections, etc.
I think you refer to two paragraphs of the current "International Recognition" section - that are outside of the template - and that I put in a new "Palestinian National Authority" subsection in the "Legal status" section. These two paragraphs are about the: "... a number of agreements have been signed since 1993 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and that those agreements required Israel to transfer to Palestinian authorities certain powers and responsibilities ..." (e.g. the Oslo Accords of 1993 envisioning the establishment of the PNA and the transfer of certain powers from Israel to the PNA).
Those issues are separate from 'recognition' per se, and they are not directly related with the foreign relations (neither bilateral nor with international organizations) - that's why they are outside of the template. They are still notable though, so I didn't delete them. In any case the establishment of the PNA is a big historical event, even if not directly related to the State of Palestine, and this PNA establishment has legal consequences for the territorial administration, laws applicable, etc. - so I think "Legal status" section is a good place to put these two paragraphs. Of course they could be moved elsewhere if you have a better idea. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The Oslo Accords officially lapsed in 2000. The continuing legal effects have been called into doubt by both sides and by third-parties. I don't mind putting the info in the Legal status subsection with an explanation that (a) in a few instances recognition of the State of Palestine was formally acknowledged through agreements with the PNA; and (b) many states that have diplomatic relations with the PNA do not yet recognize the State of Palestine. harlan (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the "lapsed in 2000". They envisioned that negotiations will finish in 2000, but nobody of the signatories (Israel, PLO, US, Russia) has denounced the Oslo Accords. What is the basis of the PNA itself, Israel-PNA and Israel-PLO relations currently if not the Oslo Accords?
(a) SoP recognition may be mentioned in a statement also mentioning the PNA (or at meeting with PNA officials), but the PNA is not related to SoP and can't sign agreements in the name of SoP. This issue is mixed up, because PLO signs agreements in the names of both SoP and PNA - and also because the PLO chairman is also PNA president.
(b) Yes, there are states having relations with PNA that don't recognise SoP - if that's not clear from the current article I don't object that such explanation is added. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The government of Israel has publicly declared the interim Oslo Accords are null and void on many occasions. The PNA and amicus briefs filed with the ICC said that Palestine accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC as of 2002, and that the provisions of the Oslo Accords that gave Israel criminal jurisdiction over Israelis in the occupied territories in accordance with international law lapsed in 2000. harlan (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

International recognition of Palestine is illegal under the San Remo Treaty and the British Mandate. The UN is in breach of its charter, article 80 for allowing such recognition and not admonishing the countries for their perverse behavior. This entire entry should be re-considered. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.43 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

President disputed between Mohmoud Abbass and Ahmad Aziz

Mohmoud Abbass period finished in 2009 ,and by PA law speaker of Parliment is the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.30.163 (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested rename (move) to Palestine

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for the move (probably requires a meta discussion). --rgpk (comment) 22:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

State of Palestine → Palestine — Common meaning. Int21h (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The current Palestine article is about the geography and history of Palestine. That article's title should reflect as much, and this article should be renamed "Palestine". The common meaning of Palestine refers to the present Palestine, ie. this article. Or even Palestinian National Authority, or the Palestinian territories. But not ancient and historical Palestine, which is what the current "Palestine" article is. Int21h (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The primary and common meaning is the region roughly corresponding to the British mandate, which includes Israel. "Palestine" is the homeland of the Palestinians. The "State of Palestine" hasn't even been defined yet. What territory it incorporates isn't established, but "Palestine" refers to a lot more than whatever the State will ever be able to encompass. Nightw 07:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That both these articles have non-completely defined borders is not an arguement against the Palestine(state) article, or its importance.
Yes, well most words have many meanings, thats why there are disambiguation pages. I do not see how what you are saying is related to the question of whether Palestine (state) or Palestine (region) is the more notable of the two and which one should have the higher title of simply Palestine. Passionless (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As if Greenland is any kind of comparison. The territory and the state are both the same, so there's no need for separate articles. A better analogy would be China. Nightw 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
China works about as well as korea, not at all, because in these cases there are two states which share a common name, in our case its a state vs a geographical region. A very similar case would be South Africa vs Southern Africa, where South Africa the state is the higher ranked search. Passionless (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article clearly discusses the West Bank and Gaza, which is the most common geographical definition for the State of Palestine. And, the UN and other organisations have consistently defined the State of Palestine (declared in 1988) as composing of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Leave the title as it is, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.124.39 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is much more to a state than its geography, the article on Australia (continent) may have lots of information important to Australia the nation, but the nation does have priority. We are wanting the state of Palestine to also have priority over it's respected region, the question is which should have priority, the state or the geographic region? Passionless (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Move The US, Spain, Italy, and many other countries legally recognized the Palestine Mandate as a foreign state, not a geographical region. See the sources cited in the lede of the Palestine article; the ruling of the D.C. District Court in Kletter v Dulles; and John Quigley, The Statehood of Palestine, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521768115 The PCIJ and ICJ have ruled that there is no rule of international law that requires the frontiers of a state to be fully defined and delimited; and that in many cases and many places they have not been for extended periods of time. See para 46 of the North Sea Continental Shelf case.[17] 99% of the material in the History of Palestine subsection of the Palestine article consists of anachronisms, i.e. the region was not known as Palestine during those periods. In any event, the majority of the information presented is duplicated in the History of the Southern Levant. harlan (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I see it as insulting to the state of Palestine that a region which they share a name with is placed higher than they are. I think State of Palestine should simply be Palestine, and Palestine should become Palestine (Region), with Palestine the state being the first find when one searches for Palestine. I wonder if there are any reasonable reasons why the geographical term Palestine should not have (region) after it. Passionless (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Also important is that the state of Palestine has already been classified as a vital article as seen here and wikipedia does say that even if the state of Palestine is not the most sought after it can still be the primary topic regardless.
And another similar case to this one is Australia vs Australia (continent), where the state won as primary topic. Passionless (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the precedents you've provided are have any controversy behind them. The term "Palestine" does. We have WP:NPOV to consider. Nightw 13:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see how there is any controversy over the NAME of the state of Palestine, all the controversy is on their conflict with Israel, and when you speak of NPOV, I see making Palestine(region) the priority topic to be wikipedia delegitimizing the state of Palestine, and I'm not sure who would claim the proposed movement to be in conflict with NPOV, other than than who oppose Palestine's existantce and wish to 'attack' it through wikipedia. Passionless (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is controversy over the name! The region of Palestine covers much more than whatever the State is proposed to encompass (which isn't even defined yet). When I speak of NPOV, I see the fact that the citizens of Qalansawe and Tayibe refer to their land as "Palestine", but would be wholly excluded from the article you propose to be named Palestine. Many governments only recognise the sovereignty of Palestine in the Holy Land. So it's in dispute. It's also a common name for the Holy Land, so until that trend passes, I strongly object to any other title for it. Nightw 11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh, one, size does not matter, two, the Palestine(region) article would still exist after the rename, the citizens you speak of would still refer to their land as Palestine, just like Georgians still refer to their land as Georgia even after Georgia the US state came in to existance. Third, yes, I do know many nations only recognise the sovereignty of Palestine in places where Palestine does claim sovereignty. Fourth, the holy land article's title is the holy land because it is more commonly used to describe the articles subject than Palestine does so there is 0 arguement there. Passionless (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The State of Palestine is NOT a government in exile. Both the PNA and PLO have headquarters in Ramallah, and the Hamas faction of the PNA is the de facto government of Gaza. The Council of the League of Nations decided in 1932 that "the ability to stand alone" does not include a requirement for a state to defend itself against external aggression or military occupation, since that was beyond the capabilities of many small member states of the League. Mutual defense was the purpose of Article 10 of the Covenant and the prohibition against the threat or use of force in the UN Charter. When defining aggression for the purposes of international law, the General Assembly declared that “the term ‘State’ . . . [i]s used without prejudice to questions of recognition.”(see United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974) According to the General Assembly, an entity may be termed a state-and thus benefit from the protections against aggression accorded by UN Charter Article 2(4)-whether or not it is recognized. See Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 0275963500, page 21.

[18] The 2010 ICC Review Conference defined the crime of aggression in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3314, e.g. [19] harlan (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you give doesn't support your claim. For a wide debate on the issue you can look here. To summarize - PNA is established by the PLO following agreement with Israel (Oslo Accords). Israel is the occupying power of both West Bank and Gaza Strip - Israel holds the 'ultimate' control there - that's why the UN calls these "Occupied Palestinian Territories". - PNA does not fully control any of the territories where it operates - it is just allowed by Israel to exercise some functions there according to special area classification. Hamas neither - Israel just decides not to intervene in Hamas-Fatah conflict, but continues to hold control of Gaza Strip (Israel decided to limit its interference to the borders, territorial waters and airspace). Presence of PLO offices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories does not mean that PLO controls these territories.
The source you give speaks about recognition and other issues unrelated to the question if SoP is in exile or controls the territory it claims. The date when SoP gains control over these territories is the day when the Israeli-Arab conflict will end, isn't it? Do you claim (and have sources) that Israel doesn't control these territories, that they are not occupied? Recently Palestinian leadership made a statement such as "We don't need another declaration of independence, we had this more than 20 years ago already. Today, we need real independence." - and they said it because they are not independent/they are under occupation. UN, PLO, PNA and even Israel agree with this (Israel wants to be distanced from Gaza, but still interferes in borders/territorial waters/airspace) - that's why the term used is "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Alinor (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the back of my head, in case I failed in this discussion, I would have demanded Palestine to link to the disambiguation page...its fine how it is with its Principal meanings section, but I'm not losing this kinda stale arguement yet. Passionless (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I support a major merge of content but not necessarily the complete article. This could be standalone article but it should not be repetition. The title might need to be adjusted to "Legal matter regarding a creation of a Palestinian state" or something. Right now I assume it is confusing to the reader in a search and the scope is a little wonky. Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What articles do you suggest to be merged? Also, State of Palestine itself is an entity already declared more than 20 years ago. The "Legal matter regarding a creation of a Palestinian state" is a separate issue (albeit related) - but we should have an article about the SoP-as-declared-in-1988 itself. Alinor (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Merge? What? All the Palestine related articles are stand alone articles, there is no need for a merge. Passionless (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The comment below summarizes my reasoning perfectly: "two very separate and very notable ideas". So yes, merge some content (I was clear enough or did you misread?) but unfortunately I do agree with reducing this article. The scope needs to be limited to the "idea" or "partial founding but questionable recognition depending on what decade it was" of a state. I also see too much ambiguity. If this article reads like it is a coatrack of information that did not make it into the other article or if it reads like a propaganda piece by cherry picking certain aspects while ignoring others then there is an issue. To make it even worse, it needs to be clear that this is not the primary topic (in my opinion) since people living in Palestine, the history of Palestine, and probably a few others are parent articles to this.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I placed notices of this discussion on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. -- Avi (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The case of Ireland is extremely different in that giving Ireland to one state or the other would of course be very bias towards one and against another, here we only have one state vs one region. Ireland is just like Korea or China, where two states with the same name have come from one history and both claim to be the legitamite successor to the nation, but it's not for wikipedia to choose which is why Ireland/China/Korea led to region articles. Passionless (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh is that why? What about Micronesia, or Central Africa? Nightw 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well in the case of the Central African Republic, simply central africa is not a common name of the country, if someone told me they were going to central africa my reply would be to ask which nation specifically? Than again, the central africa page looks like an unofficial disambiguation page-it doesn't go into detail on the area at all, just lists the nations in the area or used to have a name like central africa.
I guess your talking about the Federated States of Micronesia vs Micronesia, this I do not really know about the common title (what locals/the news call it in daily talk), but if it is anything like the United States of America vs America, anyone talking a second to think should realize why america does not lead to the U.S.A. page. Passionless (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
See WP:TITLE, it says that article names are their common names, not official names, so because the nation's common names are different than their respective areas which you are arguing has priority on wikipedia, is not true. Neither has priority because in both cases there is NO conflict between them. Passionless (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
To the three that oppose for the reason 'the articles are different' just above this: The question is not whether to merge or not, it is which article Palestine(state) or Palestine(region) is the priority topic and therefore will have the name Palestine with no disambiguation in brackets following the name. Please respond with a legitamit reason for your opinion on the matter. Passionless (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And why not just redirect Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation) that is already linking to these - and rename/move the current Palestine article to Palestine (region)? Alinor (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that would be a compromise in which although Palestine(region) loses priority, it still leaves Palestine(state) without priority which I think as a polity and being listed as a possible vital article it deserves to have priority. Plus it means I would still have to do extra work each time I wikilink the word Palestine :p. Passionless (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Some web definitions for everyone to look at.
  • 1) Also called Holy Land. Biblical name, Canaan. an ancient country in SW Asia, on the E coast of the Mediterranean; 2) a former British mandate (1923–48) comprising part of this country, divided between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt in 1948 (Dictionary.com) — no entry for the State
  • 1) ancient region SW Asia bordering on E coast of the Mediterranean & extending E of Jordan River; 2) region bordering on the Mediterranean on W & Dead Sea on E; a part of the Ottoman Empire 1516–1917, a British mandate 1923–48; now approx. coextensive with Israel and the West Bank (Merriam Webster) — no entry for the State
  • A historical region of southwest Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea and roughly coextensive with modern Israel and the West Bank; 1) Also called the Holy Land Canaan the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea in which most of the biblical narrative is located; 2) the province of the Roman Empire in this region; 3) the former British mandatory territory created by the League of Nations in 1922 (The Free Dictionary) — no entry for the State
Editors can also take a look at more definitions from Google. The idea that the primary use of the word is to refer to the State is utter bollocks. Nightw 10:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You do realize your last link is a link to wikipedian definition of Palestine right, circular logic?
Also, if you take a look here you will find that the nations from which your sources come from do not recognize the existance of the state of Palestine for political reasons. Thess states do recognize both the PLO and PNA which may be why all your sources do define the PLO, and 2/3 define the PNA. It would be like sourcing an Iranian dictionary for Israel-not in there, therefore it has no priority....Passionless (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is? The Google link? That list multiple publishers; I'm afraid I can't be held accountable for what Google chooses to display. Other definitions from Encarta, Longman Dictionary Online, eLook, Dictionary.net, Webster's Online all refer strictly to the region; no mention of the state. Nightw 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Be honest, you didn't actually read what I wrote in response, cause I'm sure I fully explain already why your argument is highly flawed :) Passionless (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
These are not government sources and there is no evidence to suggest that they are partisan or inherently biased. Take your baseless accusations and assumptions somewhere else, unless you have some hard evidence. These are sources on the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia, so until a change in useage is demonstrated by reliable sources, the primary topic remains the country. Nightw 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: These are two separate, and only loosely-related entities. Palestine is a geographic term used for millennia to refer to the land, whereas the SoP is a political entity created in the late 20th century, with aspirations to rule parts, or all, of the aforementioned land. -- uriber (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh, used for millennia?? what about when it was know by either of these terms: Levant, Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, and the Holy Land. India would be an example of where a new political entity has priority over a geograpic term used for millennia. It's not about historical importance, its about which is more important today, Palestine(state) or Palestine(region). Passionless (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Today Palestine (region) is "more important" than State of Palestine, because SoP doesn't control any territory (unlike Republic of India) - but I really think that redirecting Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation) and moving current Palestine content to Palestine (region) will solve any possible problems with article navigation, etc. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You mean SoP doesn't fully control its territory, it has limited power as discussed above.
On a kinda side note...doesn't this whole discussion, plus the huge amount of edit wars (which even the media reports on), the WP:1RR in effect, that this article is quite important in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is reported on everyday in mass media, kinda show the SoP's importance.
Actually I think I will just give up and accept the disambiguation...neither side could win it through argument and there are not enough intelligent people on either side to win by sheer numbers. Though do know that if some major western nations do recognize the SoP, or when the vital article list is finalized with SoP on it, or in the slim chance of peace in the middle east, I will be back again. Passionless (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No. SoP has NO control over ANY territory. No "limited power", no "control - not full, but some". PNA has limited power. PNA was established by and is ultimately responsible to PLO. PLO itself is the UN observer entity referred to as "Palestine". Just like the PNA, SoP was also established by the PLO. But there is no link between SoP and PNA - besides their common "source", the PLO.
SoP importance. SoP is already recognized by the majority of the world (108 recognitions or more; >52% of 206) and according to some sources even by slightly more than 2/3 of UN members (130 recognitions; 67% of 192) - see here. This doesn't change the fact that SoP is not member of the UN or another organization of the Vienna list. I don't see how recognition by some "major western nation" will be more relevant. Membership in UN/another Vienna would be relevant - and it will be interesting if such will be achieved by SoP before gaining actual control over its territory. Anyway, all this only theoretical currently.
Until SoP doesn't gain control over its territory it shouldn't be moved to Palestine. For the current moment I think that we should either keep the current arrangement or use Palestine (disambiguation) and Palestine (region) as proposed above. Alinor (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well you'll have to submit a separate move request, unless editors here agree that disambiguation is the way to go. And I would be opposed to that, seeing as common usage is clearly demonstrated by reliable sources. Nightw 12:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you were not lying when you said "common usage is clearly demonstrated by reliable sources" than we would never have had this entire discussion, and the guy below this would not have said what he just did. Sounds like you just don't want any movement forward even after I shot down each and everyone of your 'arguments' and all those others who opposed with irrelavant points. Passionless (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have not lied. Please refrain from personal attacks, and remember that your opinion ≠ truth unless you have something to back it up with. You've yet to disprove my sources. Nightw 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You didn't have shot down the argument "SoP doesn't have any control over any territory". Palestine can be either a Palestine (region) or redirect to Palestine (disambiguation) - unless the State of Palestine gains control over the homonymous region (even then some will disagree because of Israel).
Currently the usage of "Palestine" is mostly for the Palestinian territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip); Palestine (region) (all of former British mandate - Israel + Palestinian territories); Palestine the UN observer entity (reference to PLO); Palestinian National Authority inside the Palestinian territories; the general idea of independent Palestinian state. In contrast the State of Palestine is just a declared state without control over any territory and its only operations are foreign relations conducted by the PLO as its government-in-exile. Yes, SoP is a notable entity (thus it has an article dedicated to it) - and it gets mentioned here or there (mostly related to recognitions by new states, appointments of ambassadors, establishment of embassies, etc. foreign relations) - but it is not at the stage to be the predominant usage for the term "Palestine". It seems that the proposal to move SoP arises from the mixup of SoP with the other uses of "Palestine" I listed in this comment. Alinor (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I meant I shot down all of NightW's arguments, and those irrelevant ones dropped in by people who never returned, I worded it the way I did to exclude your arguments Alinor. Passionless (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Both comments had the same indent, that's why I answered. Alinor (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support
When people type in 'Palestine', they are most likely to be looking for the CURRENT proclaimed country. I support the move. - ziansh | talk 12:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The prerequisite for this is for “most people” to be aware such a country is currently being proclaimed, and as such is dubious. ―cobaltcigs 11:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose
Palestine refers specifically to the region within the Levant, and not the actual political entity. Therefore, I believe that for clarity, the two articles should be kept distinct, at least until the State of Palestine becomes a proper nation-state. At this time, since the formal nation-state does not exist (it is a polity, as mentioned in the article), State of Palestine refers to this ideal. Arielkoiman (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
QQ, 1) there is no doubt the term Palestine DOES refer to a political entity. 2) no one is asking for a merge of the articles. This discussion is only based on which article Palestine(state) or Palestine(region) is more important and deserves to have the simple title of Palestine, or if they are tied in importance, neither gets priority and it links to a disambiguation page. Passionless (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Who says that when the State of Palestine comes to exist, it will be called Palestine? After all, the other Palestinian nation-state was called Jordan. State of Palestine is a fitting interim name for this political entity. I am aware that this is not a debate over merging. Arielkoiman (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - State of Palestine is more commonly searched for so should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  • Israel is also technically the State of Israel, but we rightly direct searches for Israel direct to State of Israel. That is not because we have ever proven through debate that the word Israel more often refers to the State of Israel vs the Land of Israel, or that State of Israel is the "primary" meaning - it's just (rightly) the standard for all countries where another country with a similar name doesn't exist.
  • Opposing editors above who have provided arguments to support their position have simply debated about whether the SoP is a credible entity - but that debate is not relevant, and no explanation has been attempted as to why we should consider it as such.
On the contrary, I have not contested the legitimacy of the nation-state, only its actual existence. It does not exist as a formal state, and such an assertion is based on facts rather than opinion. My point is that the State of Palestine refers to this so-far unachieved nation-state, and it would be incongruous to use the same style given to the nation-state articles. Opposition to this move should not be construed as an anti-Palestinian viewpoint, but one of formality and style as I have described. Arielkoiman (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • IMHO Ziansh has got it spot on - the question to decide the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC must be what topic are readers more likely to be searching for.
  • In terms of how to measure it, inter-wiki measurements such as traffic stats and article links cannot be meaningful as a pre-existing one-word-title article is always going to win. So we have to rely on an external measure like ghits - it's a close call (hence reflecting the tight nature of this debate), but we get 1.9m hits for "state of palestine"[20] vs 1.3m[21] for "land of palestine" Oncenawhile (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Reviewing the above debate, the Support/Move (6 editors) currently have it over the Oppose (3 editors and 2IPs) once you remove all the neutral comments and/or those that seem to be opposing a merger of the articles (which is not being suggested). Apologies if i have interpreted any editors' views incorrectly - it would be great if those editors who have not specifically addressed the core debate of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could clarify their positions. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an RfA, IPs are not disenfranchised unless they are engaging in sockpuppetry and and 6 to 5 is certainly not a consensus. Anyway, I'm seeing 11 opposing the move and only 6 supporting. Can you clarify how you counted? -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also see 11 opposes, though I see only three of them that are backed up with a relevant point-those three being NightW, Alinor, and 65.94.45.209's comments. Those who opposed with comments such as "Oppose They strike me as two very separate and very notable ideas. NickCT (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)" (No offense intended NickCT), are obviously confused as to what this discussion is all about. Those who you are counting as your 11 oppose are split between 3 opposing the renaming/move with most of the rest opposing a non existant merging. Passionless (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I just came across this: WP:BLUDGEON for the first time, I hope you guys don't see me as being too overbearing...it's my first real discussion... Passionless (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to remind that this isn't a vote - we are checking for consensus. Also, I see that in the counts above the "oppose" responses are interpreted - some as worthy/with arguments - some as "confused". But the same is true for some of the "support" responses.
Anyway, IMHO there is no consensus for such move - and I would ask you all to state your opinion on redirecting Palestine to Palestine (disambiguation) and moving its current content to Palestine (region) - as already proposed above (for example 15:21, 6 January 2011 comment). Alinor (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on Alinor's Proposal

  • Suggestion
I would advocate for a disambiguation page for Palestine, as this would address the concerns regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and would adhere to form and style. That said, while Palestine should link to said disambiguation page, State of Palestine should be left as is (hence I remain opposed to the move). Perhaps Palestine (region) would be a suitable title for what is now at Palestine. Arielkoiman (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support disambiguation-as a compromise. Passionless (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree I also agree with the Alinor / Arielkoiman proposal. In a few months time we can look at the article traffic and have a fair inter-wiki comparison to see if there is a stand-out primary topic or not. However, in order for the comparison to be truly fair the title of this page will need to be Palestine (State) - everyone ok with that? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that we should change the name to Palestine (state) - first, as discussed below - names different than State of Palestine are with unclear origin and status; second - why do you think that the statistics will be skewed if we keep the current article name? On the contrary - I think that Palestine (state) may be accidentally opened by users searching for the Proposals for a Palestinian state. State of Palestine is more specific and explicit. Alinor (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Because as per the only measure we have (ghits, above), more searchers are looking for the State than the Region. The compromise position must be to have them both labelled equally simply as Palestine, with an equivalent bracketed explanation. "State of" confuses the issue, for exactly the reason that the title of the Israel article is not "State of Israel". And the irony of this discussion is that "State of Israel" is the official name, whereas "State of Palestine" is not - the official name is simply "Palestine", so the fact that we even consider "State of Palestine" seems bizarre to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem - the official name is "State of Palestine" - as you can see below the claim that there is another official name is dubious. The Declaration of Independence uses SoP and we don't have any official document using another name. Alinor (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read the discussion below and other official sources such as [22] and this[23], which to my mind prove that there is not yet a consistently used official name in English. But this discussion is not relevant to the above discussion (although I agree consensus should be reached re the below discussion). What matters to the debate above is what is the WP:COMMONNAME. The title should be "Palestine (State)" and the first line can clarify the official name debate below as you see fit.Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The first link that you gave points to PNA basic law - this is not SoP basic law and is not related to any state, but only includes notions about some 'future' state (and 1988 SoP is older than the 1994 PNA). The UNESCO link starts with "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine" and uses SoP pretty consistently when referring to the state (just "Palestine" is used for the region, territory, mandate, etc.) - in fact it's mainly Israel in his objection note that doesn't use "State of" (obviously because Israel doesn't recognize it as state and thus doesn't use the full name) - I don't think we should use this POV here. I don't see any inconsistency or debate - only "State of Palestine" is used and of course this is shortened to just "Palestine" in many cases for practical purposes, but I don't see an official document stating that "Palestine" is the full name. Even if we have such showing that the 1988-declared SoP uses the short form - then Palestine (state) should be itself a disambiguation page with two links: Proposals for a Palestinian state and State of Palestine... Alinor (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Titles are always the common name, so why does what the official name even matter in the renaming? I'm leaning towards Palestine (state) for the title, as simply Palestine is what I use when I mean Palestine(state). Passionless (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And by "Palestine (state)" do you mean the 1988 SoP or the general idea of Palestine state? 1988 SoP is a very specific entity not just a "state for Palestinians". 1988 SoP is an entity that seeks to establish such state (or rather it's a step in the process of establishing such a state) and its only actions currently are seeking international recognition and conducting diplomatic relations. It's not connected with the PNA that administers the Palestinian territories, etc. I doubt that the common usage is referring to 1988 SoP - the common usage of "Palestine (state)" is more probably referring to the right of such state to exist, etc. (or wrongly taking PNA or its institutions for a state) - not so many people are aware of the legal aspects of 1988 declaration, 1988 SoP existence, its recognition or lack of such, etc. Even if you are one of the minority that distinguish properly between all the different "Palestine" meanings, entities, etc. - I doubt that this is the "common case". Alinor (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, in fact there is no common usage of "Palestine (state)" - nobody uses wikipedia article naming conventions in common usage/thinking. There can be a common usage of "Palestine" (but then we go to all 5 of the Palestine (disambiguation) options) - but when it comes to the combined usage of Palestine and state it depends on the exact formulation. If it is "State of Palestine as declared in 1988" we go to State of Palestine. If it is some wrongly referencing to PNA, Palestine at the UN/another international organization, etc. (e.g. as in "this and that was done by Palestine, the state" where actually it is done by PNA/PLO/Palestine, the UN observer/etc.) - then we go to the respective article. If it is the general notion/idea about Palestine state - then we go to Proposals for a Palestinian state. Alinor (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we need an in-depth article on the difference between all the articles with Palestine in their name. Actually half-serious. Passionless (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
We have one (Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian) - it just doesn't cover the subtleties that Alinor has set out above. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow. How many articles do we need discussing the same thing. A whole bunch of coatracks and soapboxes.Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that I mentioned the Passionless half-serious proposal below. Alinor (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
And here is another similar overview article - Outline of the Palestinian territories. Alinor (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Difference being there are two Irish and Chinese nations. There is only one Palestinian nation ATM. Int21h (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is much dispute-but leaving it how it is is clearly in the favour of one over the other, it would be better for now to make it equal for now. Passionless (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An article which is related to thousands of years of history-and thus all those pages would no doubt have many links to it, at least more than a polity that is only 22 years old and unrecognized by the states in which a majority of wikipedia editors reside. Passionless (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly the two "oppose" above are opposing the SoP move and not the proposal for disambiguation/region redirect&move. Should we move these two to the above sub-section so that this is clear? Alinor (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I oppose the proposal for disambiguation/region redirect & move. -- uriber (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think this is the wrong place to discuss this proposal - the discussion should be held at Talk:Palestine to avoid such misunderstandings. -- uriber (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi uriber, I defer to any admins to comment, but as I read WP:MULTI, Int21h correctly advertised this discussion on the Palestine talk page here[24] on new year's eve Oncenawhile (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, further to my agree above, I have spent more time thinking about this and noted that two-thirds of the existing Palestine article is its history section (c.100k out of 146.5k), which is surely overweight (if readers wanted history, surely they would search for History of Palestine). Looking at the inadequacies of the overall scope of content in the existing Palestine article, it is clear that not only is direct disambiguation unequivocally required as an interim step (as i have said above), but that we need a separate discussion to consider exactly what information searchers for "Palestine" should be directed to. The current situation is simply absurd. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not overweight at all, given that Palestine is a historic region, and that the current geography, demographics, and politics of the region are well-covered by articles referring to the modern territories comprising the historic region, namely Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip (also collectively known as the Palestinian territories), and Jordan. -- uriber (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So your conclusion to oppose above is based on the undisputable fact that "Palestine is a historic region" - that sounds like circular reasoning. I respectfully encourage you to put the word Palestine in to google before continuing this debate - the majority of articles are about today. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palestine is a historic term for a Roman, Byzantian and British provinces in various periods, with geographic meaning for European mainstream historians in 19-20th century. It has loose connection to Arab and predominantly Muslim State of Palestine declaired in 1988, except preserving the name of the territory. Therefore i vote to keep Palestine referring to historic provinces - Roman (Syria-Palaestina), Byzantian (Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda) and British (British Manadate for Palestine), while the State of Palestine is a disputed political definition, which can't even be applied as Gaza and West Bank are ruled by 2 rivaling governments.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Such a POV has no place in this encyclopedia - if you can't hold back, just don't contribute. "It has loose connection" (says who - Yisrael Beiteinu?) and "predominantly Muslim" (how can this possibly be relevant?). Can we please revert to trying to improve the encyclopaedia rather than playing ideology-driven WP:GAMEs. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to take you serious after the "loose connection" bit, so moving on it seems Uriber it still the only serious one opposed to the propoped move. Passionless (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Important: Whatever decision is made here will not be able to take effect until the discussion is moved to the relevant page. Nightw 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asking for since a note of this discussion is already in the talk page for palestine(region), but if there is something else you demand, why do you not do it yourself??? Passionless (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That's okay, I understand that you're new at this. The note was for the nominator anyway (that's the editor that initially proposed the move). Nightw 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Traffic stats (Dec 2010):
Nightw 06:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Haven't we gone over this, these numbers are biased and irrelevant, everytime I type in Palestine expecting the state I get the region for some reason and I know I'm not alone, plus the number of links to the region page outweighs the number to the state because of the huge number of page links from history pages. Priority topics aren't even chosen just by numbers but by importance. And I know its no argument, but I've never heard of this 'Holy Land' nation you speak of, but I surely do know of the current State of Palestine. Passionless (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Numbers can't harbour bias. The second article is linked to in the hatnote at the top of the first, so readers need only click on that link when they realise they've hit the wrong article. Even if you account for the maximum difference, (146 318 less 33 961), over 112 000 users are sticking with their initial hit. That's a 76% useage preference for the basic topic, as opposed to only 24% useage for the article on the state. So you now have traffic stats as well as lexicographic sources both pointing to a primary definition. Nightw 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Night w, I agree with Passionless that these numbers are skewed by the fact that one article resides at Palestine while others reside at longer/detailed names. As all include the most important bits of information present in the other articles - we can't be sure what the intentions of readers were when they opened Palestine (if it was a disambiguation page - then we can - because the users would have chosen based on the descriptions).
Anyway, the proposal for disambiguation was made as compromise with these editors who supported the initial proposal - so that Palestine redirects to a disambiguation page. I don't know what the primary topic is, but I don't see any harm in using disambiguation page in this case - since it seems that such discussions were made in the past and will be made in the future - I find disambiguation page as a useful NPOV way of arranging the articles.
I'm not against the current arrangement - I just think that more people will be happy with the disambiguation as compromise. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no such region 'Palestine', though there was an ancient territory of Palestina which is now Gaza. If 'State of Palestine' is kept, then articles for every state that was recognised by any single other state outside the UN procedural method ofr international recognition can be created, which will often create forking articles and a renewed edit warring on those articles. If left as such it negates the entire UN process of state recognition, although the UN was in breach of its own procedural process Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So you don't think Palestine(region) is actually a real thing, and that no states should have a page until everyone recognizes them? Hmmm, I guess you've never seen the Principality of Sealand page. Also, UN rules have no application on Wikipedia, they are seperate entites. I'm not sure how this relates to opposing changing Palestine-->Palestine(region) and Palestine linking to Palestine(disambiguation). Passionless (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no "UN procedural method of international recognition" - there is a UN method of admitting new member states. And as Passionless pointed above - there are already articles about many states that are not UN members.
Also, I don't quite get it - do you oppose to have a State of Palestine article? Or to have Palestine (region) article? Or both? The proposals here are about renaming/moving articles - not about merging/deleting - so regardless if consensus is for oppose or agree these articles will continue to exist (under one name or another). Alinor (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The name is derived from an ancient people named (at least in Hebrew) Plishtim, but the geographic territory which they occupied is poorly defined by available archaeological sources. Every geographic entity that existed since then which borrowed on their name has been an administrative one of this or that sovereignty located usually outside the immediate regional confines of the Jordan valley. In this sense the 'region' with a name Palestine had never existed as a geographically defined one. The administrative borders changed through history, as did their names, which didn't always incorporate the mention of Plishtim.
The UN method of admitting new member states, is a procedure that culminates in voting by the international membership of the organisation. Voting is a method used to determine this recognition. However, this is not important for the sake of what is taking place here.
I oppose the creation or existence of either articles, State of Palestine or Palestine (region). However, unlike you I will not make any predicitions on what articles will or will not exist in the future versions of Wikipedia.
States are legal entities in international law. As such, international law at this time does not recognise a state of Palestine. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So you oppose both pages, but by opposing the proposal you are showing that you prefer the region over the polity. The proposal only makes it so that neither one is above the other. Passionless (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can not prefer region because for a start there is no consensus if the term is discussed in its historical, or its geographic sense.
The historical application in this case has been one of an administrative division, and was therefore transitory over thousands of years, lacking identifiable physical domain.
The defining geographic regions is a modern methodology (see Geography), and is based on the geophysical, hydro-physical and micro-climate factors, in this case of the West Asian Mediterranean coastal region that also describes regional ecologies. None are related to the application of Palestine since these variable largely independent of local human habitation.
In English, historically, the region as described was known as the Orient until the end of the Crusades, and shortly later (15th cent.) was replaced by the French Levant stretching from southern Anatolia to Alexandria in Egypt. It continued to be so called until the end of the First World War, for example in FROM THE LEVANT, THE BLACK SEA, AND THE DANUBE., BY [Sir] E. ARTHUR ARNOLD, 1868, at which time the area was subdivided into the British and French Mandates.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
PS. UN 'rules', i.e. laws as they are applied to individual, corporate, international, intra-national, virtual, or other variously defined legal entities most certainly apply through the international judicial system, in this case to The Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia is not a legal entity, the Foundation is the legal entity behind Wikipedia, as The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization with offices in San Francisco, California, USA, and therefore within the jurisdiction of one of the UN member states.
The 'state' of Palestine lacks such membership at this time as you well know since it says so in the Wikipedia article "The Palestine Liberation Organization has enjoyed status as a non-member observer at the United Nations since 1974, and continues to represent "Palestine" there." The name Palestinian National Authority is self-applied, since there is only a legal entity recognised as the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (Article III, Paragraph 1., THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP, Washington, D.C. September 28, 1995) which also has has a judicial system pursuant to CHAPTER 3 - LEGAL AFFAIRS, ARTICLE XVII of the same document Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, so why are you in favour of the region over the state, I mean you hate them both right? Passionless (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyways? How openly dismissive of you.
I can not either favour or hate something that does not exist Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Koakhtzvigad, excuse me, but your comments seem out of touch.
UN doesn't do state recognitions - it does some things similar to that, but I see no point in discussing this here.
The UN actions and the content of Wikipedia are entirely unrelated - regardless of the location of Wikipedia legal entity, etc. If you think that some content of these articles here is breaking some US law - please say so. But from your comments I understand that "there shouldn't be Wikipedia articles about Palestine, because it isn't in the UN" and of course such statement is not true and Wikipedia rules/policies show the opposite.
State of Palestine may lack UN membership, but is recognized by many states, has membership in another international organizations (albeit only a few). Regardless of who considers it as legitimate and who doesn't (e.g. UN) - its "existence" (albeit in exile) is a fact - for example you can see many sources for its embassies around the world. SoP may never gain control of the territories it claims, SoP may be disbanded, SoP may be declared illegal or whatever - and all this will go into the Wikipedia article about it - I don't think there would be a consensus against its notability and about the deletion of the article.
The only relevant piece of your comments is your argument that "Palestinian National Authority" should be replaced with "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority". While at first glance this doesn't seem right (e.g. PNA is much more widely used, etc.) - you may raise this issue at Talk:Palestinian National Authority. I haven't checked the sources you gave, but if they show what you say - then at least "Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority" should be mentioned in the PNA page. Alinor (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - I think that Alinor's suggestion of a disambiguation page is a good one. Otherwise, I would like to state that the term Palestine is used to mean things that State of Palestine doesn't. The former has been used for centuries to refer to a vaguely defined region (see, for example, the 1848 book Early Travels in Palestine).     ←   ZScarpia   17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "former" is what the current Palestine article refers to. It also, importantly, describes the etymology and history of the name, and how it has come to mean various things. If one actually reads the article, you see that it is an incredibly fitting introduction for readers on any Palestinian topic. That's another reason why I remain opposed. Nightw 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If you really want Nightw, I'm sure we could put a little prose at the beginning of the disambiguation page, if you think that would make it even more clear all the different uses of the word Palestine. Passionless (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Still unfortunately leaves the issues of traffic stats pointing to reader preference and reliable sources pointing to a primary meaning. Nightw 03:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to close this debate

Does anyone know how we can close this debate? A lot of substantive comments have been made and feels IMHO like a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS has now been reached. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the debate should be ended, with a rough consensus against my proposal. I think Alinor's proposed plan needs to be re-submitted as a separate propsal, and thereby separate that discussion completely from this one, which I feel is related but significantly different so as to render most arguments moot. Not the best solution, granted, but given the low number of contributors I don't think it would be a problem to resubmit a proposal. Int21h (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - and perhaps it should be resubmitted on the Palestine talk page instead of here, as per NightW's suggestion. Alinor, will you do the honours? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I filed the proposal here. Alinor (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spain and the pais basco or basc country

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion — Nightw 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments

Imagine if the usa recognized offficially the pias basco or basc country?How would spain feel? many similarities between spain and israel and if spain decides to recognize the palestine as a legal state with rights to form an army to produce arms then imagine if the basc country could do the same.ETA is very much like the plo in using military tactics to get what it wants from spain.Before deciding anything one must look to see if this same rule were apllied to you would you like it.peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Imagine if the Basque people didn't speak Spanish, didn't pay Spanish taxes, didn't vote in Spanish elections, didn't serve in the Spanish military, wanted independence, were under Spanish military occupation as declared by the UN, were represented by the ETA at the UN, and well, weren't Spanish. Then it would be similar. Peace. Int21h (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6&oldid=1138133289"