Talk:Palestine

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

.

Untitled[edit]

I don't really see the point of the changes; the current article Palestine is indeed about the geography and history of the region, which is a sensible decision. The political entity State of Palestine, an alternative meaning of "Palestine", is disambiguated below. Recognition or political views don't seem to me to have much to do with useful disambiguation. So I reverted.John Z (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

principal meanings section[edit]

Currently there are 5 meanings of Palestine listed as "principal" (ordered as they were on 1.1.2011 - I don't know who and why ordered them so; UN designation added later and last by me):

  1. State of Palestine
  2. Palestine (region)
  3. Palestinian territories - Occupied Palestinian Territory - Palestinian National Authority
  4. Proposals for a Palestinian state
  5. "Palestine" - Palestine Liberation Organization

There are two changes that I reverted:

  • listing "proposals for ..." and PLO-UN-designation as sub-units under SoP. I reverted that, because not all proposals for final settlement are related to SoP and because the SoP has no relation to the UN-designation - besides the common "source" of both - the PLO
  • changing PLO designation from "Palestine" to "Palestine (United Nations)". I reverted that because the designation of the PLO at the UN is "Palestine" and not "Palestine (United Nations)" - see UNGA resolution here

The reason for the UN change given was "On the UN thing, we can't have it as a single word Palestine - too confusing." - that's why I added "brackets" and also it links directly to a sub-section describing the situation in detail.

I think we should order these according to the usage they get, but that would put SoP at the bottom and it seems that many editors feel offended by such arrangement - also it's hard to tell exactly how wide usage each term gets so any such discussion seems moot.

Anyway, if we are going to re-arrange these we need to have a reason/explanation. I think that 'Palestinian territories - Occupied Palestinian Territory - Palestinian National Authority' is the most utilized in practice (after all PNA makes real actions on the ground in the Palestinian territories and with the people living there) and listing it at the last place doesn't see right. Alinor (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alinor, agree let's agree via discussion. My views below:
  • People searching for the word Palestine are not primarily searching for Proposals for a Palestinian state - this is an article about politics not about a place or state. However, as a compromise, we could leave it in but have it as a sub-bullet (as per my last version).
  • People searching for the word Palestine are not primarily searching for a discussion of Palestine's position or name in the United Nations. Again, as a compromise, we could have it as a sub-bullet. But the blue-linked name should not confuse - I take your point that the name used is not "Palestine (United Nations)", but "Palestine (United Nations)" is certainly exactly what the link represents.
  • The three WP:PRIMARYTOPICs (the state, the territories and the historical region) must be bolded, and are the only ones which should be bolded, as common sense (and traffic stats) says that the vast vast majority of searchers are looking for either one of these three articles.
  • In terms of the ordering of the three PRIMARYTOPICS, I do not feel strongly - just that the page should be neutral between the three and should not inadvertently direct to any specific one.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, there is one other suggestion I would like to make - searchers may well be looking for the West Bank / Gaza Strip, so how about the following:
  • The West Bank, the eastern part of the Palestinian territories located on the west bank of the Jordan River
  • The Gaza Strip, the western part of the Palestinian territories located on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
I think that we are on the border (if not already crossed) of the policy/rules for disambiguation pages - we are stretching the definition (because the case is exceptional) with things such as "proposals" and "territories" (only SoP, "region" and "UN observer" use the word "Palestine") - but listing links to parts of one of the terms (Palestinian territories - West Bank / Gaza Strip) seems too much IMHO. Alinor (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think that most of the people searching the word Palestine are searching it in connection with some actual things that happen there or in connection with the most active of the political entities - thus they need to reach option3 (PNA / "Palestinian territories" / "Occupied Palestinian Territories" - the UN and many other organizations use these "territories" terms to refer to the area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip).
Another groups of people search the word either in connection with the general idea of Palestinian state (they need to reach option4) or in connection with "Palestine" the UN observer entity - because the PLO membership and participation in many international organizations is under this name (these need to reach option5).
Another group searches the word in connection with the whole region of the former British mandate - these need to reach option2.
The smallest group of people search in connection with the 1988 declared State of Palestine - because this entity conducts almost no actions (appoints/receives ambassadors and recognitions - trough the PLO as its government-in-exile - and does nothing more, because it doesn't control any territory currently - in contrast to the PNA that engages in trade, taxes, etc. and many other state-like functions). Even if somebody writes "Palestine (state)" there is a big possibility that he really wants to reach the PNA/proposals/PLO/etc. pages (e.g. by "want to reach ..." I mean "searches for content present in ...") and not SoP itself.
We should take into account what content each of these articles contains. After all a disambiguation page is not a tool for ranking the importance of the different terms, but a tool that should make it easier for readers to reach the content they search for.
Now, about the bullets:
bullet1. The State of Palestine is a specific entity - the state in exile declared by the PLO in 1988 and described in its Declaration of Independence. This is not a general article about Palestinian state - Proposals for a Palestinian state is more like that. But the 'Proposals for ...' are not "subordinated" to SoP - on the contrary - SoP is one of the possible outcomes (and most probable anyway). I agree that 'in the end' SoP will be more important than 'Historical Proposals for ...', but currently they describe different things - a specific state (albeit in exile) and the general idea of Palestinian state.
bullet2. I can't agree - because "Palestine" is used in the UN as reference to one of its observer entities and it participates with this name in many other organizations this word appears in many official documents, reports, resolutions, announcements, etc. - anybody looking for further information on some of the activities of these organizations or of the PLO may search for it.
bullet3. I think that the content most searched would be placed at "Palestinian territories - PNA" and "PLO" (these two are were the action happens) and "Proposals for ..." (people wanting to know what happens with the general progress toward a Palestinian state - negotiations process, etc.). Another group will be the people that need information about the whole Palestine region and not in any of the other more specific topics. A group of more informed readers would search for the 1988 SoP and its very limited set of activities (e.g. international recognition) - but these are more focused readers, they already kind-of know what where they want to go.
Of course my assumptions above may be proven wrong (e.g. more people searching for the content of Palestine (region) than Palestinian territories). The problem is that we should aim to make it easier for the reader to find the content he searches for - not the article that has the name misleads that it has this content, but actually it doesn't have it. I think that this is best achieved by having a good description after the link - so that it's clear what the article contains.
You say that the 3 most important topics are SoP, territories, region - so why not put these three on top/first - and afterwards the other two? It seems that the editors that made the page already share your logic because these 3 are already on top (albeit they ordered them differently: SoP, region, territories). If you think that it's needed we can add a break/bold/something such as:

If bolding individual links in a disambiguation page doesn't break some policy/rule we can additionally bold the first three. See below (also added bigger break)


It seems odd to me if we move "Palestine" the UN observer entity to this not-so-important position, but OK. Alinor (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Alinor, thanks for your very detailed explanation.

In terms of the overall question, I have revised my views in light of your points. I think searchers for Palestine are either looking for:

However, there are two main areas where we still disagree: (1) State of Palestine vs Proposals for a Palestinian state. I believe that these articles are hugely overlapping as a result of 2007 deletion and 2009 reinstatement of the article State of Palestine, but that the proposals article is primarily historical in content (2) The UN observer status. The points you make are important, but they are also made clearly in paragraph three of the lead in State of Palestine (since both are PLO related and the UN status is effectively providing recognition of the State of Palestine).

You are right about the style (see MOS:DAB) - no bolding of links allowed. In terms of whether we link the WB and GS, personally I think it is appropriate since they are geographically distinct and currently have two separate governments, but if you feel strongly let's leave within the sentence.

My revised suggestion is below:

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bullets in your comment:
  • first two are OK.
  • Notion that Palestine (region) is mostly historical issue - while I agree that the content of this article currently is History-leaned (and this is understandable - "Palestine (region)" is mostly another way of saying "territory/region of the former British mandate of Palestine") - people will object that this is a contemporary name covering both Israel and the Palestinian territories.
  • UN is not recognizing SoP. Subsequent explanation that PLO UN status (or designation?) 'is effectively providing UN recognition of SoP' is debatable and many people will find it as dubious. PLO has established two entities - SoP and PNA. UN deals with PNA, but not with SoP. Let's leave such dubious issue for the PLO and SoP articles and not bring it here.
I agree that Proposals for a Palestinian state is history-loaded, but it also discusses 2010 talks, etc. This article deals with the general overview of the problem and it can't be sub-unit of SoP. Actually the opposite is more appropriate as SoP is one of the possible outcomes/final results. And so, also as explained above, I don't think that we should invent a new term such as 'Palestine (state)' - especially since it needs a disambiguation on its own (e.g. if we are to make such article it should redirect to Palestine (disambiguation)).
I don't think that Fatah-Hamas conflict and the resulting split into separate governments of WB and Gaza have place here. This is just a disambiguation page. But, OK, I don't object wikilinking WB/Gaza.
In your proposal there is no place for 'Palestine, the UN observer'/PLO (and participant in many international organizations) - and I think that this is one of the more often used meanings of the word. We can't just link this to SoP as explained above - "effective acknowledgement" is very different from "de jure official recognition".
Also, I suggest that we stick more closely to the current descriptions and don't make too many changes (middle east/mediterranean, judea and samaria).
Here is my proposal:

Some re-ordering may be fine, but I don't think we should do deleting/merging/sub-ordinating of those. Alinor (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Alinor, whilst we are still apart on the two key debates, I think we are close enough so I have added your proposal in and made a few additional tweaks - hope that's ok. On the two outstanding points:

  • UN - we have reached a point of disagreement regarding our interpretations of the importance of this, think nothing more we can do
  • Proposals - I actually feel quite strongly on this. While I agree with a number of the points you make, I think it should be considered whether the two relevant articles (State of and Proposals for) are merged (albeit we'll need to wait for the current debate to finish first). The current situation is just way too confusing for an average reader (and editor), as the two articles overlap way too much. If we keep both, the content should be moved around so that one article becomes subordinated to the other. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the implementation you have removed the wikilinks to Oslo Accords, Israel, Palestinian territories, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, UNGA, UN System. Do you object having these links?
The last line (UN "Palestine") - currently it looks like the PLO is observer in both the UN System and UNGA - but it isn't. It's observer at the UNGA and at some of the UN System organizations (but not all). What about this version: "Palestine" - officially used reference to the UN General Assembly observer entity Palestine Liberation Organization in the UN and UN System? (or "... PLO in the UN System")
Proposals/State articles. I would comment on the articles topics (not taking in account whether content should be shuffled around) - the two articles are different. SoP is a specific entity/state (per the 1988 declaration). 'Proposals for Palestinian state' is general overview of the idea. So, 'Proposals for' includes 1988-SoP, but we can't merge the two because this will deprive SoP of an article (even Principality of Sealand has an article and I find SoP more notable...). The opposite merge - If content in the 'Proposals for' is not big it can be merged in History of Palestine (or History of the State of Palestine - if someone argues about region vs. state) - when/if SoP gains control over its territory (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ends), etc. But currently neither "ifs" are true - SoP is still in exile (e.g. the process of "proposing" solutions is still not finished - there are Israeli-Palestinian talks - or intentions to negotiate, etc.), 'Proposals for' content is too big and it would be split of 'History of Palestine' anyway (if you think it includes content duplicated elsewhere - and there is consensus to remove this content - so that 'Proposals for' becomes small enough to fit inside 'History of Palestine' - then it can be merged). The third merge option is for 'Proposals for' to go as historical section in the 'State of Palestine' - but again, this can happen only after SoP gains control of its territory - because currently we can't know for sure that 1988-SoP will be the result of the 'Proposals for' processes. Alinor (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the guidelines with this. There should only ever be one blue link per line. Entries should be ordered alphabetically for ease of search. Also, the primary topic does not need to be included with the other links. It should be kept separate at the top of the article, as readers are not likely to be looking for that when coming here. Nightw 11:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert explanation[edit]

@Rob984:, please can you explain this revert in detail? On WP:MOSDAB, that is a guideline that will have "occasional exceptions". This topic is a complex case which causes a lot of confusion, and therefore deserves careful consideration. I think we should be following the Macedonia dab precedent. The region and the state are unquestionably the two primary meanings, and should be highlighted above all else. The rest should be clarifications. And the river to the sea added here should be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the State of Palestine is a primary meaning, on par with the region. Per WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the way to show this would be to move the region to a unambiguous title (such as Palestine (region)), and rename this page "Palestine". Then the two primary topics could be shown (in line with MOS) at the top, like Macedonia and Britain. As long as Palestine directs to the region, that is, according to WP:DISAMBIGUATION, "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". Rob984 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. On a separate but related point, are you opposed to having a map to show the definitions clearly against each other, as per Macedonia? I think it is very helpful to readers. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's one on Ireland (disambiguation) too. I don't think they're really necessary, but I don't object. Rob984 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile, regarding to your map: pls check the "Israel?" topic here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+ copy from there:

I mean to the following your interpretation of the map (not checking other articles yet). So I'd offered to change the map's description in a way that would exclude such not-NPOV interpretation. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Igorp lj, there is no POV here. The purpose of this page is simply to explain the difference between different meanings of the word Palestine, so that readers know where to go to read in detail. There is no other purpose. So this deletion is unhelpful, as readers will benefit from understanding with of these definitions is the eponym of Palestinians.
If you disagree, please could you explain your concerns in detail? Specifically, what POV you see and what you think the purpose of this page is?
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Oncenawhile. To remind: this deletion came after this your revert:
My point is very simple: Palestine is a geographical (I'd add 'and history' as well) region in the Middle East what doesn't belong to Palestinians (Palestinian Arabs) only. There are a lot of RS describing the same region even as a part of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).
So my "for the Palestinian people and Homeland for the Jewish people" variant was just an attempt to balance the current one-sided version. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Igorp lj, your facts are correct and undisputed. The reason I reverted is that the confusion around the term Palestine does not relate to the Homeland for the Jewish people definition of the British Mandate, but as to what is Palestine / what are Palestinians. Your point is right, but is superfluous to this page, unless you feel strongly that without that clarification people would otherwise get mixed up. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and - yes, this is my feeling. If I understand well and we've agreed on current short one, what about my "I'd add 'and history' as well" above? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it should say "and historical". Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestine"[edit]

The usage and topic of "Palestine", "State of Palestine", "Palestine (region)" is up for discussion, see two conflicting move requests at Talk:State of Palestine and Talk:Palestine -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that there isn't a primary topic for the term "Palestine". Arguments in support of the move were strong that the state meets primary topic's usage criterion. The valid opposition basically centred around the region being of more long-term significance. There were a few attempts to counter this, but even if we take it as true the fact that one criterion points to one article being the primary topic and the other criterion points to a different articles only reinforces the argument that there is no particular primary topic for this term. There was also some discussion about the preferred dab for the region if it was to be moved, but there seemed to be a rough consensus in favour of using the proposed "Palestine (region)" – certainly there wasn't enough to hold up this decision. However, there should be no prejudice against a future discussion at Talk:Palestine (region) to see if it can be improved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Both the region and the state have used the name "Palestine". Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"
–WP:PRECISE
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
–WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
I don't think the title used for the region—"Palestine"—meets either of those criteria. Common usage of the term "Palestine" predominantly refers to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Therefore "Palestine" does not "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", and is not "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined".
Rob984 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rob, the region, the state, the territories, the ethnic homeland, all vying for primacy -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CONCEPTDAB page at Palestine Historically, for thousands of years, the region was definitely the PrimaryTopic. Historical reliable sources use it so. However, in recent decades, and increasingly so since the 1988 declaration, Palestine has come to refer to the political entity. All uses are highly related. I think Palestine should host a WP:CONCEPTDAB page, started by splitting the top off this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support since "Palestine" is ambiguous, it can refer to the modern country or the ancient region, both known by the same name. Therefore "Palestine" must be a disambiguation page as per other examples like Macedonia. Khestwol (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rob's rationale about there being no clear primary topic and Khestwol's point about Macedonia, which is a highly similar situation. Elspamo4 (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to have an article on the region, it ought to be primary. Since all other uses are derivative, the region article functions as a DAB page. So oppose. Srnec (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think the Macedonia analogy is not completely valid, Macedonia as a broad geographical region is probably the least established usage, (Ancient kingdom/region, FY republic, and region of Greece, all being more established). In the case of 'Palestine', the use as a broad region remains fairly consistent since ancient times. Therefore I am tending towards Oppose for reasons given by Srnec. However, if a change is decided, a better solution than Palestine (region) would be 'Palestine (geographical descriptor/geographical synonym)', (Levant region/southern Levant … ???????), since region is always ambiguous as region of a country or broad geographical region. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the region may, to some extent, have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term", which is why I don't think the State of Palestine is the primary topic, despite being undoubtedly the primary topic with respect to usage. Both yourself and Srnec seem to ignore usage. Usage is probably the most significant factor since it determines what is "to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". A disambiguation page is far better at directing readers to the article they are looking for than a broad-concept article. Rob984 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring usage, I just think usage is not 'hits' when the comparison is 'chalk and cheese'. Any event in the modern state, will automatically generate 100s of news (and some journal/book) articles, whereas the region (by name) is now not generating news. Btw the use of the term unqualified in some way, for the state is still rare in the UK (maybe for historical reasons, to distinguish from the mandate/historical region). The quote you give (enduring notability and educational value), is precisely the one I would have chosen to argue for 'primary'. As Srnec says 'all other uses are derivative'. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The region is still mentioned in media and usually referred to as "historic Palestine" or "land of Palestine".
The aim is to direct readers to the article they are looking for. Whether a use is "derivative" is irrelevant. Both topics have "enduring notability and educational value" to some extent. And both factors—usage and enduring notability—should be considered for both topics.
"the use of the term unqualified in some way, for the state is still rare in the UK", as is it for the region. I'm not arguing the state is primary however.
It is also important to note that the current title for the region is definitely not precise, so even if it were the primary topic, it should not be the title per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
Also the BBC does on occasion use the term unqualified to refer to the state, for example: ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has previously said the upgrade means Palestine now qualifies to join the Rome Statute, Israel freezes Palestine tax funds over ICC bid
Rob984 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In context, the BBC example IS qualified, in the same way that 'Macedonia to join the EU' would be. I'm not arguing against a more exact geographical term for the region, in fact I would welcome one, but 'region' isn't exact. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is also rare to see the term used to refer to the region "unqualified in some way" in the UK. I think being qualified and in context are not exactly the same, but anyway. The main proposal is to disambiguate "Palestine". I would prefer some form of natural disambiguation for the region, such as "Land of Palestine". Rob984 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some 'natural disambiguation for the region' would be ideal and preferable to '(region)'. I am reluctant to suggest given sensibilities. "Land of Palestine" sounds very biblical to my ears, but at the same time, 'Land' is similar to 'State'. Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there is no primary topic. This is basically the same as the Macedonia situation. ONR (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There most certainly is a primary topic (the region), because it's what all the other things named Palestine are involved with or in or named after.--Froglich (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a use is derivative or not is irrelevant. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rob984 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. Discussion ongoing, also a fairly controversial topic so more time never hurts. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Palestine's main meaning remains not only as some (region), but as multi-faceted concept: geographical, historical, cultural, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to a number of 'hits' (my reply from prev. such topic: "does not apply to you personally!)
Maybe it will flatter to someone from editors or corresponds to his desire, but we have to consider that such renamings are in fact a contribution of Wikipedia in promotion of ..." a some nowadays idea/s. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Palestinian Territories have existed for a long time, and quite possibly may continue to exist for a long time. I don't think the region has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Rob984 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Palestine (disambiguation) → Palestine Its a navigation page and not, in itself, a single topic per WP:PRECISE. I have no objection to a redirect being used. GregKaye 02:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • GregKaye do you mean a redirect from "Palestine" to "Palestine (disambiguation)"? But in that case where do you suggest should the ancient region article now located at Palestine be moved to, so that the base name "Palestine" become available for a more appropriate use? Khestwol (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khestwol Thanks, I don't have any strong view in regard to specifics, just that this is an important topic and needs to be handled with care. I also found your description of "the ancient region article" to be really helpful. My first thought was that, the ancient context is of value and that relevant hatnotes are useful. Next I thought of using Palestine as a concept dab ... but, while writing, it also occured that maybe it would be better to use Palestine as a redirect to State of Palestine. If there was a page State of Israel then Israel would act as a redirect to it.
On the same basis as most people searching for ancient or biblical Israel would use those terms for searching I think to, some extent the same will apply with Palestine.
In line with what you say what do you think on the current "Palastine" article going into Category:Ancient_Levant and similar?
I would personally have a preference for a move of Palestine → Ancient Palestine not just for reasons of WP:NATURAL but mainly as areas such as the so called and greatly limited "Palestinian T/territories" are also regions. What do you think? GregKaye 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ancient Palestine" does not seem such a good alternative I think considering that the article also covers the modern era and the medieval era. It would be suitable to call it "Ancient Palestine" only if its content would stop before reaching the ~7th century CE (compare Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which only deals with the ancient times, not medieval or modern). So I still think "Palestine (region)" is the best available title as this article is about the general region of Palestine no matter the specific era in time and the clarity that the addition of " (region)" gives is good enough. We are also using Macedonia (region) for the article about the general region of Macedonia, even though the modern Greek region Macedonia, the ancient kingdom Macedonia, and the modern South Slavic state Macedonia are also all "regions". At "Palestine" I still think we should have a full list of all articles that a user may mean by "Palestine" just as we have a similar list at Macedonia for what a user may mean when they search for "Macedonia". Khestwol (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "historical Palestine" and "land of Palestine" are often used to refer to the region. Rob984 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'historical Palestine' or 'Palestine (historical region)' seem clear, "land of Palestine" is both biblical and confusing with 'state of'. 'Ancient', is I think absurd, it was the ordinary term for the whole region until modern states came into being ie circa 1950. Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per the principle of least astonishment. In practice, the disambig page is likely to be much more in line with what most readers are expecting to find when they type in "Palestine", and much more helpful. --Ashenai (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with what Rob984, Ashenai and others have written. Nowadays, "Palestine" mostly refers to the West Bank and Gaza. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirects[edit]

Following on from the page move, we have some left over redirects that should either point to the dab page here (Palestine) or the renamed region article (Palestine (region)). I've done the obvious ones but for the remainder I think it will require people with more knowledge of the topic area. Here's the list:

Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Palestine should go to Palestine (region)#Etymology.
These:
Either Palestine (region)#Boundaries or here.
Western Palestine should go to Palestine (region) (I believe it's a historical term referring to Palestine west of the Jordan River, now the conventional definition of the whole region).
I think these are spelling mistakes:
So redirect here.
Direct translations of "Palestine" should really be deleted, but probably fine to just redirect here.
Rob984 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Palæstina" is Danish, "Filistin" is Turkish, and "Filasṭīn" and "فلسطين" are Arabic, all meaning "Palestine". I think "Falasteen" and "Felesteen" are just alternative Arabic form. Rob984 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on splitting article into Palestine and Palestine (disambiguation)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine. The majority site that thats the way disambiguation pages work. As a side note, this is one of the most unclear RFC's I have seen, which seems to have consensus also. :) AlbinoFerret 00:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Palestine and other places, people, political groups, and animals with similar names be disambiguated? -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are asking specifically regarding this page, whether it should include everything that could reasonably be called Palestine. Is there any reason not to do so ? Of course the most relevant articles such as Palestine (region), Mandatory Palestine, Palestinian Territories, Palestinian National Authority etc. should appear first.
I don't understand - this is already a disambiguation page. What's lacking? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Kendrick7 wants to remove other locations with similar names, political organizations, media uses of the name and especially Palestine (horse). “WarKosign” 09:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK. I wouldn't support that. A disambig page is for the whole kitchen sink. Throw 'em all in. Let the pieces fall where they will. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another country on earth, other than Georgia which has a very particular circumstance in the English speaking world, where the Wikipedia page wasn't a link to the main page for that country? -- Kendrick7talk 01:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC unclear -- this is an RfC that asks for outside opinions, yet i find this RfC to be very unclear. I came here summoned by a bot. I think i might understand the question but it should be much more clear. If i understand it correctly, the question is, "What should happen when someone comes to Wikipedia and searches for "Palestine"? Should they come to a disambiguation page, or to a specific page?" My personal preference would be for them to come to a specific page, and that page should be chosen mainly by people who are from Palestine, as it is most customary and correct to enable people who live in a place or are from a place to define themselves as they wish. This page should have a line under the title that links to a disambiguation page that provides other links for the term. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: Here's a nice bit of circular logic: your "people who are from Palestine" could mean Palestine (region), which is the area of modern Israel and Palestinian Territories, or it could be could just Palestinian Territories, or any of the other meanings of "Palestine". Original Philistines would probably have an opinion too, if they were still around. “WarKosign” 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then i'll get personal. I live in the U.S. and not much involved personally with the issues in the region between Israel and Palestine, and i am neither Jewish nor Muslim nor do i have any family in the area, and consider myself to be fair and neutral on most issues. I am news saavy and know something of what is going on, and when i hear "Palestine" i personally think it refers to the Palestinian territories such as Gaza and the West Bank, and i know that there is a Palestinian state or proto-state or nascent state that is partially recognized by the rest of the world as such, and i would want some sort of consensus among residents of these areas to decide what "Palestine" would resolve to in Wikipedia, personally. How's that? I understand in principle what you're calling "circular logic" because you're saying "How do you choose which people are considered 'of Palestine' in order to be the ones who choose what 'Palestine' resolves to?" is that right? Isn't this the very nature of the dispute, in a microcosm? SageRad (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: An RfC already determined that this page should serve as a disambiguation for the name "Palestine". The question in this RfC (as I understand it) is whether unlikely uses, such as places, organizations, animals etc. unrelated to Palestine (region) should be disambiguated here.
Oh, is that what the RfC is for? As i stated, i find it unclear and i was working from an assumption that i stated. Can someone please reword the RfC so it's clear? Otherwise, it's useless. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: you are asserting that you have no reason to have a bias. I have no reason to doubt it, but this still does not preclude the possibility that you're somewhat biased and are unaware of it. There is simply no way to prove a negative. Here is a research that deals with different forms of implicit bias. “WarKosign” 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, i realize that. Everyone has a perspective. That can be a bias. I know i have a perspective, and it's got many details and dimensions. I mean that i personally have no very strong connection to the conflict in the Middle East, though i do live in the world and it's unavoidable to have 1,000 connections of some kind to everything, and 1,000 kinds of flavorings of my perception of everything, much of which i do not even realize. So we do the best we can and try to be as honest and self-aware as possible, and get a sampling of what a lot of people think, and then find some working solution. So, i understand what you're talking about. I think the answer comes out through careful dialogue with integrity. Unless you personally know me well, which probably won't happen, you won't really know where i'm coming from. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. This is already a disambiguation page, right? So, the lead can explain the two primary meanings, and the rest of the page can describe secondary meanings. Epic Genius (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC Unclear and Oppose split - I would propose WP:MOVEREQ or WP:REDIRECT of the current page to Palestine (disambiguation) since "Palestine" refers to a lot of things from the sounds of things. Sorry for all the bold, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary meanings[edit]

The RfC here was very clear - there are two primary meanings, region or state.

To make this page consistent with that, the intro should discuss only these two.

We can then have two new sections in the main body, grouping together (1) other meanings relating to the state (PNA, PT, PLO) and (2) other meanings relating to the region (mandate, other historical meanings).

Any other thoughts on this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an (unclearly worded) RfC apparently on this exact question in the section right above this one. It's better not to split the discussions. “WarKosign” 11:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is different. The above is about what should be in the page and what shouldn't. My question is about how this should be divided between the lead vs. the lists in the body of the page. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however leaving Palestinian territories. The others are all "historical meanings". Maybe instead however, we could reverse the chronological ordering of the "Other historical meanings" section so more recent (and thus more relevant) uses appear at the top? Rob984 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have done this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WarKosign:, your combined "other uses" section is now a nonsense - it makes no logical sense.

It also makes no logical sense to suggest that the PT is not related to the SoP. The SoP claims the PT - it can hardly be any more related. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PT are related to SoP. PT are also related to Palestine (Region) by being a part of the region. It makes no sense to put it under "things related to SoP" and not under "things related to the region". Since the two categories overlap it's simpler just to unify them. “WarKosign” 07:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is this: All the other links under "region" relate to the whole region. The SoP and the PT relate to only part (and the same part) of the region.
It really doesn't work as you have put it - there is not logical order at all
Maybe if we try two different titles which could work better: "Historical entities of the wider region" and "Concepts related to the State of Palestine". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that SoP also relates to the wider region. Jordan has laregely Palestinian poplation, and one of SoP's demands is right of return to territory that is currently in Israel.
It is probably possible to find some division that would work, but what's the point ? There are some 10 entries, I think it would be most helpful for a reader to order them by likelihood of being what a reader meant by "Palestine", this is what I attempted.“WarKosign” 20:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Your statement "One could argue that SoP also relates to the wider region" is wrong - i suggest you read about the "Historic Compromise" of 1988, made in parallel with the declaration of the State. It is explained here
The SoP relates specifically and exactly to the PT. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Hamas, part of SoP current government "will not recognize the Zionist entity" and will not stop "resistance" until "complete liberation of Palestine". Palestinians declared a "State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem", without specifying the exact extend of "their" territory. How can you say that SoP relates specifically to PT ? “WarKosign” 06:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Yisrael Beiteinu want to transfer out the Israeli Arab population, yet Israel is apparently a democracy? Please let's be sensible here - a government does not define a country unless it actually changes its constitution.
To your question, please read the document I linked to. It says:
"The Declaration contains an overt acceptance that “the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, of 1947, which partitioned Palestine into two states [...] provides the legal basis for the right of the Palestinian Arab people to national sovereignty and independence.” Our recognition of the authority of Resolution 181, combined with our acknowledgment (in the same session of the PNC) of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as the basis for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, signaled our formal acceptance of the two-state solution."
Anyway, this is all covered in the State of Palestine article. If you don't agree, you should discuss it at Talk:State of Palestine, not here at the disambiguation page. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try explaining it once again, since you don't seem to understand my point. "Historic Compromise" is an interpretation of the declaration from 1988 that connects SoP specifically with PT, while other interpretations exists that do not limit the scope of the declaration to these territories. Deciding which interpretation is correct would be OR, so we shouldn't do it. When SoP has defined borders these different interpretations would be of only historical interest, same as it's only slightly interesting whether "in Eretz-Israel" of Israel's declaration of independence refers to 1947 partition plan, the whole mandatory Palestine or something else; what matters now is the 1949 armistice lines. “WarKosign” 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my opinion fro RfC: all the following Palestine (region): (time direction may be up or down ) ..., Mandatory Palestine, Palestinian Territories, Palestinian National Authority, State of Palestine, etc. should be retained as primary concepts for corresponding historical period. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree. This should be a jumping off point for the various common uses of the the term per WP:COMMONNAME, not relegated to being a disambig for every town or horse or person that has been named after Palestine throughout history. -- Kendrick7talk 06:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to recognize an actionable change being proposed here. Everything seems in order already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unclear.GreyShark (dibra) 14:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear what is being asked. -Darouet (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change of RfC section[edit]

Changed the title to actually reflect what the RfC is seemingly asking, though it is confusingly worded and should be clarified explicitly by Kendrick7 underneath the original statement/question. Not sure where to put this, so I've put it in it's own section

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map[edit]

@Bgwhite:, the need for the map has been discussed previously. It is in line with Macedonia. If you want to remove, please get consensus.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates, "Including images and transcluding templates are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question. Examples of this are the images at Congo (disambiguation) and Mississippi Delta (disambiguation)."
Palestine map is showing different spots in time. The map is not needed for this as a person isn't going to choose which time period based on the map. This is a disambiguation page, not an article. Macedonia, Congo and Mississippi Delta all show differing locations that are current. There are currently two different countries with the name Congo. There are differing regions and countries with the name Macedonia.
I don't need consensus, because this is MOS. You added the map. You need consensus to break MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is absurd. The map had consensus precisely because it "aid[s] in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question", following MOS to the letter.
If you want to change consensus, please set out your case.
Note that you are incorrect to suggest this map shows different points in time. The region of Palestine remains a current concept in geography and archaeology, among other disciplines. The SoP is also a current concept. As is the concept of the Palestinians, a current and well known ethnic group whose identity relates to Mandatory Palestine, the third concept shown in the map.
"Not needed" is a subjective judgement - it may not be needed by you, but there are many readers out there who will find it useful. We should not obfuscate this topic when we have a perfectly good tool to make things easily and quickly understandable.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Macedonia (which is exactly analogous) and Congo are both "top-level" disambiguation pages, i.e. they do not have the word disambiguation in the title and therefore get a large number of views. In such cases there is an even stronger rationale to help our readers with a map. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bgwhite:, do you still feel strongly here? I would like to add the map back in. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the map back. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile Nice to see you adding the map without pinging me. I gave you the MOS page, you didn't say why you should go against MOS. Disamgibuation pages do not need the word in the title. Show how the map of Palestine in differing ages helps a person choose what link to click. Bgwhite (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncenawhile: there wasn't consensus for this var. See
in Talk:Palestine#Revert explanation above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The map is ok and necessary. Although the map technically show the Green Line in the modern border with Syria as the border of Mandatory Palestine, it's a reletevly small thing that is unnoticed. The map shows all the important things that are regarded as "Palestine": Syria-Palaestina with all of it's variants, Jund Filastin, Mandatory Palestine and the borders claimed by the State of Palestine. Some work can also add the Palestinian Authority, All-Palestine Government, Mutassarifate of Jerusalem (Which was regarded as Palestine by Europeans) and even the extent of the Philistines. --Bolter21 13:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People need all the help they can get in understanding Palestine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal of the map, but I would like to consider replacing it with a better one. Of the 3 primary meanings only 2 have geographical borders. Most of the "may also refer to" meanings are not represented in the current map. If they were all overlapped on the same map I think it would be completely unintelligible, so maybe it's not the correct solution either. “WarKosign” 21:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support THIS IS A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE AND NOT AN ARTICLE. The map is not necessary. Map is important on an article about Palestine. Not one person has said why a map of different territories in time is necessary to choose what page to click. MOS clear states no maps unless it is necessary to choose what link to click. Bgwhite (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this is a disambiguation page is exactly why there should be a map like this. --Bolter21 21:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: A map of different territories in time is necessary to assist people in choosing which of the listed pages in the disambig to click. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for the map - this is a disambig page, not a geo-article.GreyShark (dibra) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relevant to this topic[edit]

It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 14:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

drop word "Levant"[edit]

I don't have any political stake; I am simply doing disambiguation as part of wp:DPL.
The "State of Palestine" is currently described on this disambiguation page as:

I propose that "Levant" be changed to simply "Palestine (region)", i.e. change to:

Reasons:

  • The word "Levant" is obscure, and it is unnecessary and unhelpful to introduce the term. Apparently, per the Levant article, it is a vast area that includes Greece, Turkey, Egypt, half of Libya, and Iraq, which I did not know. Most disambiguation page users will not understand it. Note that Levant includes area that is not even part of the Middle East (e.g. Greece), and the Middle East includes area not part of Levant (e.g. Yemen). And since this is a disambiguation page and the term is not to be wikilinked, the user cannot even click on Levant to look up what it means. Note the term Middle East is used in the description of Palestine (region), just before. It seems unhelpful to bring up a term for an overlapping, comparable but different big area. I surmise that the word "Levant" was added here by a learned person to provide variety, as if the goal of writing on this page is to provide interesting and thought-provoking material. A disambiguation page should be boring and simple and clear, instead.
  • A much better alternative is available: "Palestine (region)", which users of the page see used just before. It is a true fact that State of Palestine is within Palestine (region). I believe that no one claims that State of Palestine goes beyond the region (knock on wood). This usage of the just-defined term helps the reader understand the relationship between the two (one is inside the other) instead of introducing new questions.
  • Plan B: If someone does claim that State of Palestine goes beyond Palestine (region), or if there is other objection to Palestine (region) then another alternative is better than Levant. Namely "Middle East" should be used instead, repeating its usage on the page.
  • Something further to avoid: "Southern Levant". I tried changing the article to avoid "Levant" (and to make another change) but was instantly reverted by an edit that wanted to introduce "Southern Levant". That is even worse, so I reverted to the version before mine. Few know where the Levant is and virtually no one knows where the "Southern" part of it is. Did you know that Southern Levant in fact does not include the southernmost parts of Levant? (According to the maps given in the Wikipedia articles, the south of Libya and Egypt are the southernmost parts of Levant, but they are not included in Southern Levant.

Does this need to be an RFC, and does there need to be voting? --doncram 17:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to say that State of Palestine is located in Levant or Palestine (region) or anywhere else. The state does not have defined borders, it is not located anywhere. What the article should say is that the state claims territory in Palestine (region), namely the Palestinian Territories. “WarKosign” 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can this discussion section be about "Levant" vs. "Palestine (area)"? About wording for State of Palestine's existence and/or claims, I also propose a wording change: please see next section. --doncram 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor simply deleted the phrase "in the Levant", which is fine by me, thanks! It was in an edit that has survived for an hour or two, so hopefully that will stick. --doncram 01:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Mark this  Done[reply]

 Done

revise regarding "de jure" and State of Palestine[edit]

Most people don't know what "de jure" is, especially if "de facto" is not contrasted. See Sovereign state#De facto and de jure states. Also multiple articles like West Bank and Gaza Strip say that those areas are in State of Palestine, as if "State of Palestine" exists and is not merely an idea on paper. My goal is to clarify this page's descriptions for disambiguation purposes.

Propose changing from:

To new language (adapted from Sovereign state#De facto and de jure states):

  • State of Palestine, a modern de jure state in the Levant, asserted by some to be sovereign though the territory it claims is under de facto control of Israel. Its asserted area includes the Occupied Palestinian Territories

By this proposal I am trying to make the language boring and simple and clear, and to relate one description to another one on the page (oPt is included in State of Palestine). This is separate but would be affected by the proposal to change "Levant" to "Palestine (region)".

Does this need to be another RFC? Please vote? --doncram 18:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. “WarKosign” 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that is very relevant, that there is a can of worms. But for the purpose of clarifying what people mean when they say "State of Palestine", for disambiguation purposes, can you comment or vote on this proposed wording change? --doncram 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal is unacceptable because it's WP:OR. You can't apply a definition on one article to a term used on another one, you can only quote what reliable sources have to say. “WarKosign” 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for the wording to be accurate, but keep in mind that a disambiguation page's purpose is to help people find their way to what they mean, not to define anything. We can be more wishy-washy in wording here, in order to help readers: we can say "some people consider the State of Palestine to be X, while others consider it to be Y" without having to defend against "who" tagging and demands for footnotes. Note that sources and footnotes are not allowed on disambiguation pages. I don't see what is OR in the proposed wording, especially not relative to anything in the current disambiguation page wording (if you disagree with mine, you should disagree more with the current wording), but let me just try again.
  • The current wording is arguably wrong about only saying it is de jure, as i sensed and as discussed there: de jure means/implies paper-only. (It was messy there but the resolution was de jure stayed in but mention of sovereignty claims were added.)
  • Fact: It is something. As discussed there perhaps "proto-State" would be accurate but is not used in sources.
  • Fact: Its claimed area does include the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
  • Fact: It has partial control of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the flip side is that Israel has partial control. (Or do you want to say it claims to have partial control?)
The conclusion reached in that other discussion was the following wording (copied exactly from the State of Palestine article, but omitting references and delinking terms):

The State of Palestine, also known simply as Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East. Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile. The State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as the designated capital, with partial control of those areas assumed in 1994 as the Palestinian Authority. Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. The Palestinian Authority applied for United Nations (UN) membership in 2011 and in 2012 was granted a non-member observer state status.

One option, for disambiguation purposes, would be to use that whole paragraph. Unusually long for a disambiguation page, but so be it. In fact I am going to be bold and put that in now. If anyone disagrees with it, come up with a better wording for disambiguation purposes here, or get the State of Palestine article changed.
I am one of many disambiguators who have been applying personal judgment in revising ambiguous Palestine to point to something else, making guesses in hundreds of articles (about 3000 done, about 500 of the harder ones to go) based on the inadequate descriptions on this page. The full paragraph description is accepted by Wikipedia at the article, and it is better than what is there now, for purpose of helping disambiguators and other users for the time being.
Note, FOR DISAMBIGUATION PAGE PURPOSES, ongoing, the current wording is unacceptable as it does not mention association with the oTp. It really sounds like a completely theoretical idea, not anything that has enough substance to be recognized by 135(?) countries. We need to help readers looking for "whatever it is that sort of governs the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is generally in disagreement with Israel". Readers deserve to be given enough clue to get to the State of Palestine article, rather than blunder into the other choices.
FOR DISAMBIGUATION PAGE PURPOSES, ongoing, to help users looking it find their way to what is actually at the State of Palestine, do you have any suggestion? Can't the proposed wording work, perhaps with a tweak or two to avoid whatever it is you consider to be OR? --doncram 22:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with taking the first sentence of SoP and remove the redundant "also known simply as Palestine": "The State of Palestine, is a partially recognized de jure sovereign state in the Middle East". It is essentially what we have already. “WarKosign” 11:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, this isn't really the place for discussing details of descriptions. The descriptions here should be brief summaries of the article's lead paragraph. Since the descriptions here are primarily for disambiguation purposes, they will include less detail, but may differ partially to reduce ambiguity with other topics. Please read MOS:DAB, specifically MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily" and "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary". Rob984 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Wililink or not to Wikilink the statement of "de jure"?[edit]

  • I have recently added a Wikilink for the "de jure" statement to allow readers access to what the term means (something rather important for the disambig, IMO) as it is not common knowledge. I have since been twice reverted by the same editor who believes that the link is "irrelevant to disambig". Is it irrelevant or does it actually help further clarify an already confusing disambig page on a confusing term? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that de jure is not even correct in reference to SoPalestine (although that is a matter for that article's talk page) as well as that the de jure article offer ZERO insight with regards to the SoP, I remain absolutely opposed the link as completely extraneous to the purpose of the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"De jure" is being used to describe the SoP as only being a technically sovereign state, instead of being an actually, or "de facto", sovereign state. The link is not to clarify anything about the SoP article per se, but to clarify the summary about the SoP being used in the current disambig page. I am trying to help clarify the current revision for readers, which seems to be somewhat stable in wording at the moment. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article at de jure has no relevance whatsoever for a reader choosing which entry is desired. older ≠ wiser 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not designed to solve the Palestinian Question; it's function is to define "de jure", which it does perfectly adequately. I vote to link. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bkonrad, the message you are sending translates as "the statement of 'de jure' is not needed as it adds nothing to which article is being picked by the reader at the disambig page". Please consider what I am actually saying and which Laurel Lodged has perfectly summarised. A disambig summary adds nothing to the article, but is useful at clarifying which article is wanted and what I am trying to do via linking is to clarify the summary, not the article. Big and important distinction. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are navigational tools. If the description alone is not sufficient to help a reader distinguish between the entries, then no amount of extraneous links to definitions is going to help. If a reader has to click on de jure to understand whether or not SoP is the entry they want from the dab page, then the description is a failure. They then have to somehow navigate back to the dab page to complete their selection. Once again, there is absolutely no use for such a link on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept a compromise of replacing the line "de jure" with "technically" then? Requires no linking for understanding of an obscure term, and yet conveys the same message of "it's not really a sovereign state because it isn't actually sovereign except in the details". Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or pipe link technically Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcrazy102:, generally the language in the description corresponds with the lead sentence of the corresponding article. Sometimes paraphrasing is needed. So I don't have any strong opinion regarding the use of "de jure" versus "technically". My only objection is to the inclusion of links that are extraneous for the purpose of disambiguation. As such, @Laurel Lodged:, piping the links makes no difference in my opinion. The link is still irrelevant, or even a distraction, for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcrazy102 and Bkonrad: Current wording is far worse. What on earth is "Technical sovereign state" ? The term "de-jure" has a single well-defined meaning that fits the situation exactly and anyone who doesn't know it can look it up. "Technically" has several meanings most of which are completely irrelevant here. Pipelinking technically to de-jure is WP:EASTEREGG. “WarKosign” 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, WarKosign, would you prefer to link the "de jure" then? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcrazy102: I prefer not to wikilink, but don't feel too strongly about it. The important part on this page is disambiguation and understanding the term de-jure is not critical to understand that this disambiguation option is about the state. Anyone who doesn't know what de-jure means can first go to State of Palestine and then click on de-jure. Having the term wikilinked misleads the reader into thinking that it's one of the disambiguated options. “WarKosign” 06:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

correct description of Palestinian National Authority[edit]

The Palestine disambiguation page currently gives no clue as to who governs the occupied Palestine territory since 2013, which is unacceptable for disambiguation page users. Is this a minefield or what?

What on earth is wrong with changing from current:

to proposed:

  • Palestinian National Authority, or Palestine Authority, an interim self-government body established to govern parts of the Palestinian territories since 1994. It included the Gaza Strip until 2007. Since 2013 it has used the name State of Palestine.

An editor immediately reverted that change (along with other changes) with comment that there has been a unity government again, perhaps implying that the Palestine National Authority regained governance over the Gaza Strip (an implication not supported by the Palestinian National Authority article, AFAICT). It is a fact that the territories included the Gaza Strip until 2007, right? I don't know whether or not the territories it governs includes the Gaza Strip now, but the statement as written was correct, is it not? Is there anything factually wrong with the proposed? I feel the current version is unacceptable.

Rob984, would you please state an alternative that you feel is acceptable for this item? Others, comments would be welcome. Or how is this supposed to work? Meanwhile, the last 500 of 3,500 inbound links are being "corrected" by disambiguators, based on inadequate descriptions of these alternatives. --doncram 23:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) --doncram 23:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the existing wording. It only states "parts". There is no ambiguity. "Since 2013 it has used the name State of Palestine" is misleading. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, and is more than simply an authority controlling the Gaza Strip and areas A and B of the West Bank. I don't see any problem with the current wording but if you wish to amend it then please propose wording here before doing so. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

Shouldn't we add more names of regions overlaping "Palestine"?[edit]

Such as Southern Levant, Canaan, Land of Israel, Holy Land --Bolter21 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Also I'd like to consider merging some of them, there seems to be too many articles dedicated to the same concept. “WarKosign” 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a topic for another conversation. --Bolter21 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we should not. That is covered in detail in the relevant article Palestine (region). Disambiguation pages are not meant to list synonyms. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the See Also, not in the article it self.

Should articles about demographics and culture should be in the section?[edit]

I see no reason to put articles about culture and demographics in the disambig article, it was not done in any of the other disambig articles I checked, including most countries of the Middle East and Ireland. --Bolter21 21:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving old sections[edit]

Would anyone mind if I put in an Archivebot? I would set the "algo" to 30, and have "minthreadsleft" = 4 (avoids blank talk page), unless anyone feels strongly about more or less values. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"by international and internal organisations"[edit]

The page currently says: "Since 2013, the Palestinian National Authority is officially referred to as the State of Palestine by international and internal organisations"

It's very vague.

By which organizations? All organizations?

And why 2013? It was called "State of Palestine" by some organizations before 2013.

It's best to just remove this phrase, and to organize "State of Palestine", "Palestinian territories" and "Palestinian National Authority" in one place. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms[edit]

A question has arisen as to whether this page should include synonyms of the term Palestine.

@Kendrick7: wants to include reference to the Land of Israel and the Holy Land. As the Palestine (region) article explains, these are just two of many commonly used words with overlapping meanings such as Promised Land, Canaan, Southern Syria, and Southern Levant.

This clearly contravenes WP:DABNOT, for example:

  • WP:PTM: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context"
  • WP:DABRELATED: "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article"

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two primary meanings of "Palestine" is Palestine (region), which matches both:
  • WP:PTM because Palestine, Land of Israel and Holy Land are different names for roughly the same region, so it is very plausible to refer to it by any of the names
  • WP:DABRELATED because both articles mention Palestine in their leads as a synonym, so they do describe it.
I think it would be better to just merge these articles, but as long as they are separate these synonym should appear in this disambiguation. “WarKosign” 12:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the logic would suggest the opposite:
  • There is currently consensus to keep the seven region articles separate (the seven are: P, LoI, HL, PL, C, SS, SL).
  • This consensus is on the basis that the terms have different meanings and connotations.
  • Therefore for this DAB page to serve its purpose, it should disambiguate only to achieve that (per WP:D): "for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead"
  • Since there is currently no consensus that Palestine and Land of Israel are the same thing, then searching for "Palestine" cannot "be expected to lead" to Land of Israel and therefore should not be disambiguated there.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For decades if not centuries Palestine and Land of Israel were synonyms, see this for example - you can see "Land of Israel", "Palestine", "Holy Land" used interchangeably through the article. Here you can see that the name Israel was chosen for the modern state only days before its independence was declared, and Palestine was another option considered. “WarKosign” 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with WarKosign's last point, but he's wrong about this being even close to a matter of decades. Look at the Lotter map aside the entry for Holy Land from 1759 CE; the region has been "also known as" Palestine in the Western world for nearly a quarter millennium by proof of that document alone.
I can't, however, agree with the idea of just merging them all together; per WP:YESPOV and WP:NOTPAPER I believe it's perfectly fair of the project to give various points of view their own space to breathe. As long as anyone impartial who wants to delve can click around and find the complete picture, I say: no harm, no foul. -- Kendrick7talk 08:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7: why only add 2 of the 7 synonyms above? You are cherrypicking.
Seriously though, you are ignoring policy. As noted above WP:D refers to "...word or phrase might be expected to lead..." A reader searching for Palestine would obviously not expect it to lead to Land of Israel, in fact most readers would be shocked if it did.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Israel article itself points out that Palestine is another common name for the region and as such I fail to see why anyone would be shocked. As far as confusing and short-lived century old names like "Southern Levant" or "Eastern Syria" or what-have-you, these are simply not terms in popular usage in the English speaking world. I guess you could argue that Canaan is also another term for Palestine used in Churches across the English speaking world on any given Sunday (or I imagine, synagogues on any given Saturday), but it's hardly a name that gets tossed around the water-cooler. -- Kendrick7talk 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7:The term Land of Israel is not a geographical term for the region, but a term which was originally a fuzzy religious concept which became a highly politicized name used to imply ownership.
That aside, I have just re-read the LoI article. It is not about the land, but about the term / concept. I can't see how a logical reader could search for the world "Palestine" with the intent to learn about the religious and Zionist concept of Land of Israel.
If you disagree with this, can you help me understand how you see the logic from a reader's point of view?
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncenawhile:Did you skim past the lede of Land of Israel? To quote:
The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is one of several names for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine.
...
During the mandatory period (1920-1948) the term "Eretz Yisrael" or the "Land of Israel" was part of the official Hebrew name of Mandatory Palestine. Official Hebrew documents used the Hebrew transliteration of the word “Palestine” פלשתינה (Palestina) followed always by the two initial letters of "Eretz Yisrael", א״י Aleph-Yod.
If you think the LoI article has become too entangled in meaning with these related terms, you probably have a fine point. If that's the fault of Wikipedia, and not a side effect of something approaching "reality", then go fix it over there and come back once it sticks. But that article is not currently what you wish it to be, and nothing written on this dab page is going to change that. -- Kendrick7talk 00:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synonyms of what? Because this is a disambiguation page, it contains multiple unrelated meanings. For example: Palestine, Arkansas. Is Land of Israel or Holy Land a synonym of this Palestine? If not, then they should not be included on the page, because their inclusion implies that they are synonymous with any possible meaning of the term. If they are synonymous only with a few meanings, then they should be mentioned only on the actual articles for those meanings. bd2412 T 00:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, which is why I suggested a while back that the more obscure meanings should be split off to a real disambig page. But people always want things both ways. -- Kendrick7talk 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should think that most references to the Land of Israel in English refer to the northern of the two Biblical Jewish kingdoms (otherwise the Kingdom of Samaria), which is very different to what is meant by the Holy Land. Even combined, Samaria and Judea wouldn't have included areas such as the coastal plains which would be thought of as being part of the Holy Land.     ←   ZScarpia   14:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what was decided for similar cases. Can anyone think about another article subject that has several names (some of which are still in use) and also has several possible meanings requiring a disambiguation page? “WarKosign” 07:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no examples of this have been provided, I will remove these synonyms on the basis of BD2412's point above. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this discussion and at #Shouldn't we add more names of regions overlaping "Palestine"? above, it seems like the number of editors expressing opinions in either direction is roughly equal. All the editors who expressed an opinion are involved so neither you nor I can decide what the consensus is. It would be best to run an RfC. “WarKosign” 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly equal views either way means no consensus. Consensus is needed for inclusion. If you want to try to form consensus, you should start an RfC. But in the meantime, this cannot stay in without consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani, I note you added these back a couple of weeks ago with the edit comment "Holy Land is definitely used by Christians as coterminous. And LoI is in modern Hebrew usage thus". Whilst your comment is correct, it does not address the reason there appears to be lack of consensus above for the inclusion of these terms in this disambiguation page. Your comment correctly highlights a long term problem we have here with a number of articles which overlap to some extent in scope (or at least haven't been clearly differentiated).

The question we need to answer in order to justify inclusion in this disambiguation page is whether a reader who typed in the term Palestine is likely to be looking for those articles.

My view is that adding those two links in here is only making our problem of overlapping articles worse. I believe that 99%+ of readers coming to this page are either looking for Palestine (region), Palestinian territories or State of Palestine. Those that want to read about the terms LoI or HL will have searched directly for those. And for those who don't understand that there are synonyms here, that issue is clearly explained, twice, in the Palestine (region) article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, actually. The Land of Israel is an infra-Jewish term, politically loaded, and that article should be restricted simply to exploring its (as yet inadequately described) history of usage, and nothing else. That is so complex it leaves no room for any kind of imbrication over Palestine (region), neither does Holy Land. If you say 'Land of Israel' you mean that Palestine that interests Jews, or Zionist children, exclusive of its general history. If you say 'Holy Land' you say Palestine as it was inflected by Christian tradition, exclusive of its general history. These two are specific terms of religious valency, and are to be treated as such, not as conterminous with Palestine, the land, with its massively complex weave of numerous histories and traditions. The master article is Palestine (region), which should stand on its own, with infratextual nods to these minor terms of usage among specific religious constituencies.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem: "our problem of overlapping " isn't an issue here. This is a disambiguation page. -- Kendrick7talk 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Palestine" DAB including "Land of Israel" makes no sense, and is not disambiguation per se. If one wants to include it, one should convert this page into a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already quoted from the lede of Land of Israel once in this discussion,.[1] and a month later that lede remains essentially the same. Complaints that the term "Land of Israel" is being portrayed as synonymous with the term "Palestine" should be taken to Talk:Land of Israel. This is a disambiguation page. Edited to add: We had an RfC on this just six weeks ago, which was closed as: "There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine." -- Kendrick7talk 17:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7, I would like to discuss this further, but cannot do so while you continue to edit war your preferred inclusion into the article. You need to gain consensus for your proposed addition if it is to stay in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile, that is not how WP:D, not to mention WP:PRESERVE, works. We had an RfC about this a mere 7 weeks ago; I know because I filed it myself, if awkwardly, in favor of the WP:CONCEPTDAB solution Kingsindian just spoke of above. If you think consensus has somehow changed in the last ~50 days, I encourage you to file a new, perhaps more coherent, RfC. You otherwise have failed to make anything close to a coherent argument as to why these synonyms for Palestine don't belong on this disambiguation page. This DAB page is not a judgement on the whole of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Your edits here will not bring one dead child back to life, nor prevent the deaths of any more. Which is really, really sad when I stop to think about it.... -- Kendrick7talk 02:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7: The RfC you point to states nowhere that it is dealing with stuff like "Land of Israel" etc. It is a very unclear RfC, and nobody has any idea what it's about, but most people seem to think of it as referring to cases like Palestine (horse). The point is very simple: get consensus first for stuff like "Land of Israel" and "Holy Land" and include them if you like. The WP:ONUS for getting consensus lies on the person wishing to include content, not the person who wishes to remove content. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOONUS is also a thing. Again, this is all quite academic; y'all should stop being POV pushers trying to exclude encyclopedic content. It is unseemly, you should be ashamed, and we just had a RfC about it. -- Kendrick7talk 06:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what WP:NOONUS is - it redirects to WP:V. Nothing in WP:V contradicts WP:ONUS. From the page history of the redirect, I see that there is an essay User:Kendrick7/Evidence_of_burden, which is opposed to WP:ONUS. You may have your own viewpoint, but that is different from policy. I have already given my comment about the RfC and have nothing to add. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was concluded with "There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine", and it's not unreasonable to consider articles on synonyms of a term (that explicitly mention the term in their lead) uses of the term. It is as reasonable not to consider them uses. In the #Primary meanings section of the RfC there seems to be a consensus to be as inclusive as possible, but it is not reflected in the closing statement. “WarKosign” 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like a need a much more clearly worded RfC if we are to achieve a clear consensus for the specific additions that Kendrick7 is looking for. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I forgot that I lost that little war; WP:ONUS (formerly known as Wikipedia:Burden of evidence[2]) and WP:NOONUS were both just WP:Essays once upon a time. Still, KingsIndian, you are reaching here: WP:ONUS applies to articles and this is a disambiguation page, and per WP:DAB I'm simply "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." I'm standing with the conclusion of most recent RfC until further notice. If Oncenawhile wants to file a new RfC, I'm not standing in the way. -- Kendrick7talk 11:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS being on the editors supporting inclusion is one of the few rules we have round here to stop total chaos. Your interpretation of WP:DAB is just that, your interpretation, and it is in direct opposition to my own interpretation as I have explained above. I hope you will acknowledge that you have yet to achieve consensus for your interpretation. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine. The majority site [sic] that thats [sic] the way disambiguation pages work." That is the consensus of the RfC from October, per AlbinoFerret, which you can scroll up to and witness with your own eyes. -- Kendrick7talk 05:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Holy Land" is not a "use of the word Palestine". It is a "use of the words Holy Land". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone who read the RfC had any idea of what it was about, even the closer. Almost everyone who responded said the RfC was unclear. Again, the point is simple, if you wish to include stuff like the Holy Land and Land of Israel, make an RfC which asks people that. I hope there doesn't need to be an RfC of the meaning of the RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Oncenawhile has noted, the RfC is useless as a warrant for including ostensible synonyms for 'Palestine' since the summary of its conclusions is:'There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine.' Eretz Israel/Holy Land are not examples of the use of the word Palestine. As Donald Rumsfeld learnedly remarked in commenting on the nature of his own policies, 'shit happens'. Unlike the real world, we can, here, undo or review, errors, and, as others have noted, in this case, an unambiguous RfC is required to clarify the evident confusion caused by the earlier discussion's conclusion.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked on my talk page to clarify the close above. All I can address is what the RFC discussed. The RFC was on the many uses of the word 'Palestine' it did not cover Holy land, Land of Israel, ect. As such there is no consensus either way to add these terms or not and another discussion/RFC would be needed to find if consensus on these terms exists, as long as they follow what a disambiguation page is WP:DISAMBIG, unrelated things that just have the same name. I will not weigh in on the terms as I would rather stay uninvolved. AlbinoFerret 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7, just checking you have seen AlbinoFerret's comment above? He is explicit in explaining the RFC close that "As such there is no consensus either way to add these terms or not and another discussion/RFC would be needed to find if consensus on these terms exists". Can we please respect this, and stop edit warring. I am very happy to participate in further discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile Believe it or not, this wouldn't be the first time a WP:JANITOR ran away screaming from a WP:Common Sense close they made, despite that the case at hand is a bunch of WP:BICYCLESHED silliness. I encourage you to read WP:DISAMBIG with a clear, non-jaundiced eye. If you'll notice, Israel (disambiguation) links to all this without a matter of fuss. I'm not going to waste any more editors' time just because you don't like the color of the bicycle shed. -- Kendrick7talk 03:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way. I have provided my views on WP:DISAMBIG above - I genuinely do not believe a reader typing in the word "Palestine" is looking for the Land of Israel article. Any interest in that concept will be secondary to the Palestine-typing-reader, and it is clearly linked within the Palestine (region) article.
We can easily reach a point of catharsis by opening another WP:RFC.
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015[edit]

The article states: "Land of Israel, another common name for roughly the same region". The countries Palestine and Israel are not the same. Please correct. 89.99.149.60 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC) 89.99.149.60 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The Land of Israel and Palestine are indeed two common names for the same region, neither of them is the same as Israel. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we consider this request an indication that maybe the page can do a better job explaining the different meanings ? “WarKosign” 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very valid point. Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Land of Israel is basically Talmudic and religious, and now in modern Hebrew, which has adopted Likud usage, a euphemism for Israel and the Palestinian territories, and not excluding, in rightwing usage, the Golan and Jordan. 'Palestine' is the default term in historical usage, and the page shouldn't be worried over the difference, if only because (and one can't trust the dreadfully incomplete Land of Israel article) tpo elaborate and clarify would unnecessarily charge the article with a distinction that is not saliently pertinent to the history of Palestine, being sectarian, modern and political.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PNA renamed[edit]

@Pluto2012: You wrote that PNA is called State of Palestine by most international organization, do you have any source that supports it ? Note that recognition of SoP is not the same as accepting that PNA was renamed. “WarKosign” 17:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the lead at Israel[edit]

To stop the edit warring and find a solution, I've launched an RfC about "partially recognized state" here. Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do to stop the edit warring was not edit war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well right back at you. Both of us edited this article once, so no difference between us there. What is different is that I opened a discussion about it to find a solution, while you, as always, just commented on users instead of content. If you have anything of substance to add, you're welcome to take part in the RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between us is that I restored the longstanding version and asked for talk page discussion by those who want to change, per BRD. You just edit warred. Well, then went and made a POINTy edit on another page, and then opened a discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016[edit]

{{Claiming a state is a de-jure state, when in fact it is not recognized as such is factually incorrect, there is no Sovereign Palestine nation, there is a area that the Palestinian Authority are presently negotiating for statehood, but that does not constitute a de-jure state. There are no sources because no such nation has ever existed}}Tmbenton62 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tmbenton62 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, see the references on International recognition of the State of Palestine. If you are requesting a change, please back it up with reliable sources. — Andy W. (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is much more complicated then that. In fact there is a "State of Palestine", just it is not a state (yet).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine (2011 book)[edit]

"Palestine (2011 book), a 2011 compilation of the Ayatollah Khomenei's statements on Israel and Palestine" - Don't Ayatollah Khomenei, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.--Samral (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:State of Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome at a move discussion[edit]

Talk:State of Palestine#Requested move 23 October 2017“WarKosign” 06:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Larger map and caption text[edit]

I made the map larger (mostly to accommodate larger caption text). Using template small on caption text is ridiculous, no use having text if it is unreadable. User-duck (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2018[edit]

Since de jure is not a frequently used phrase, at least not for me, and I had to look it up, just link to its wiki page.

In the first section, change the 2nd bullet from 

   State of Palestine, a modern de jure sovereign state in the Middle East recognized by 136 UN members and with non-member observer state status in the United Nations

to 

   State of Palestine, a modern de jure sovereign state in the Middle East recognized by 136 UN members and with non-member observer state status in the United Nations Lbwilliams 06:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Done.“WarKosign” 07:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2020[edit]

2600:6C56:6908:2893:6D26:58A6:F819:6323 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem is not their capital,Fix that i got a 60 on a test because of you. Jerusalem is the one and only capital of the GREAT STATE OF ISRAEL

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Status of Jerusalem. Chxeese (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"sovereign state"[edit]

Why is Palestine called a "sovereign state" and Israel called a "country" when Israel is a settler colony in the *country* of Palestine? Researchersnotes (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to unpack that a bit, what edit are you suggesting exactly?Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the flag not on there , that is Necessary[edit]

Please allow the Palestinian flag to be on there 2601:5C8:4303:89C0:A9E3:D673:9A60:6DAD (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation article, see State of Palestine for the flag. Selfstudier (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022[edit]

Add an entry for the Palestinian National Authority. Now there is no link to the Palestinian National Authority on this disambiguation page. And the term 'Palestine' may refet to the Palestinian National Authority as well. Caenus (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)  DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:State of Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023[edit]

Please shorten the image caption. "Borders of the Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) which are claimed by the State of Palestine" is a little longer than needed; if you remove "which are", the phrase still makes sense. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Lemonaka‎ 12:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


White editors, just ask yourselves why searching, "Palestine," brings us to this Page rather than the page about the State of Palestine (which should be including before 1948, as the precursor was the British Mandate of Palestine - with excuses being that we're often also talking about the historical/geographical region), whereas searching, "Israel," immediately brings us to a Page that is clearly about the State of Israel, including before 1948 (where the precursor was the religious historical Israel that hadn't existed for over 2000 years). Hypocrisy at its finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.247.235 (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:State of Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine&oldid=1221428648"