Talk:Outline of the State of Palestine

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

requested move

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to

• This article is the "outline version" of
  Palestinian Territories and is supposed to deal with the geopolitical entity known as the "Palestinian Territories" or "West Bank and Gaza Strip" whose permanent status is yet to be decided. The article Palestine deals with a geographical region that encompasses several states/territories/parts of states, and its "outline article" has not been written yet. DrorK (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ambiguity :: "outline" can mean "summary", or "the shape of the edge of". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but having that little bit of ambiguity is a lot better than the cludgy titles "Hierarchical outline of Palestine" or "Hierarchical outline of the Palestinian Territories". The Transhumanist 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. However, you should change Territories to territories to match the
  Breein1007 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose "
  Occupied Palestinian Territories (which include the West Bank, Gaa Strip and East Jerusalem). It is a euphemism that is used to describe those areas under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. If you look at our article on Palestinian territories, you will notice that there is not a single source cited that actually defines the topic and our definition is an OR and incorrect one at that. As noted by the BBC, PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
  : "Strictly speaking, the phrase Palestinian Territories refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority. They are difficult to work out, because of the way the West Bank was divided into complex security zones under the Oslo Accords and because of changes on the ground since the outbreak of violence in September 2000. The phrase is not the most accurate shorthand for the Occupied Territories although President Bush referred to "Palestinian territories" in his 2005 State of the Union address."

I strongly object to renaming this article to a term that is not in widespread use, is not used by Palestinian themselves to refer to their country (as as such falls afoul of the principles laid out in our naming conventions), and is not synonymous with the subject under discussion in our current outline. This article survived an AfD proposal. People noted in that discussion that irregardless of whether or not the State of Palestine exists, it warrants having an outline. Just as do Abkhazia, Somaliland, and other states with limited reconigiton and control over their territories. We do not invent new names for places simply because we do not like or accept that they are called such by their inhabitants. Tiamut^talk 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction you referred to from the BBC website appears only on this site, and the BBC itself is not consistent about it. On this page, the BBC uses the term "Palestinian territories" for the WB&Gaza [7]. Although not strictly official, the United Nations Human Rights' website uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" to refer to the WB&GS [8] and so do other UN-affiliated organizations. ISO 3166-1 uses the name "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" for the territory governed by the Palestinian Authority [9] (in contradiction to the BBC explanation that you cited above). Reporters Sans Frontières use the term "Palestinian Territories" to refer to the WB&Gaza [10], the website of the US Department of State refers to the WB&Gaza as the "Palestinian Territories" [11], so does the Australian Government's website [12] and Thomson Reuters also adopts this terminology [13]. So first of all, the use of "Palestinian Territories" in reference to the WB&Gaza is not an OR. Secondly, There is no real distinction between "Palestinian Territory(ies)" and "Occupied Palestinian Territory(ies)". And finally, since both terms are used interchangeably, we should stick to "Palestinian Territories" as it is more neutral. DrorK (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrorK, I've already explained to you (at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory) that using primary sources to make OR conclusions isn't the way Wikipedia works. You need sources that explicitly define "Palestinian territories" and "Occupied Palestinian territories" to refute the BBC deifnition provided. Examining how the terms used and interpreting them as you wish is not a substitute.

The facts relevant to this discussion are the following:

1. Palestinians are represented at the United Nations under the name "Palestine" [14]
2. Palestine is the official name of the country [15] and, unsurprisingly, what Palestinians call it amongst themselves.
3. Over 110 states (a clear majority of the world's states) have recognized the State of Palestine and hold diplomatic relations with it.
4. Reliable sources indicate that Palestine is the most commonly used name for the area in question, far more common than the alternatives being proposed.
5. Per our
   WP:PLACE naming conventions, Palestine is therefore the obvious choice. Tiamut^talk 13:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]

The US, UK, German, Dutch and Australian governments use the term "Palestinian Territories" in reference to the WB&Gaza in their English language publications. You can see links to the sources either above or at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory (my recent response there). ISO uses the term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". UN-affiliated organizations usually use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" in reference to the WB&Gaza. Most worldwide NGOs use either OPT or PT in reference to the WB&Gaza (again the links are either here above or on the aforementioned talk page). I think there cannot be any doubt that "Palestinian Territories" is the most neutral term for the subject in question, and it definitely does not constitute and original research. DrorK (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And more than 110 other states use the word Palestine. The world is much larger than Europe and its allies. In any case, the discussion about OPT versus PT is a separate one relating to the proposed page merger there. Each of those terms has their own specific geographical and legal meaning. That doesn't change the fact that the official name of the country Palestinians call home is Palestine. And that's the name under which they are represented at the UN. Tiamut^talk 14:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The President of the United States uses Palestine and Palestinians to refer to the modern political entity. For example, here are some remarks from the Cairo University speech "That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest." and "At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." [16] harlan (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Outline is clearly about Palestine as defined by Tiamut above. --NSH001 (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - per arguments in the last discussion and below Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Highfields. Could you please outline more specficially which arguments you are basing your vote on? It would help me to understand what policy you are basing your decision on. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my view on the arguments given by myself and DrorK here and in the section above entitled Re-name/Re-write suggestion. The article currently seems to be an outline of the article entitled Palestinian territories. Either it needs, therefore, moving to a more appropriate name or rewriting.

However, looking closer at the article, I think a rewrite is more appropriate, taking into account my opening problems at the discussion I just mentioned.

Either would be satisfactory if done properly, but Outline of the Palestinian territories is a better name.

I've lost count of how many contradictions there appear to be in this edit, so I'll shut up

Highfields (talk, contribs) 16:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, most likely The article should be named after its corresponding article on Wikipedia. Is this an outline of articles on
  Talk:List of twin towns and sister cities in Palestine on the use of Palestine vs. Palestinian territories in titles, if you would like more information on my reasoning. -- tariqabjotu 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I appreciate the points you have raised tariqabotu. However, what you are overlooking is that certain sections of this article cannot exist if this article is renamed

Outline of the Palestinian territories. It is "Palestine" (as in the State of Palestine) that has international organization memberships as outlined in this section [17]

. The "Palestinian territories" is not the name of the representative of the Palestinian people at the United Nations (nor does it represent Palestinians anywhere in the world at all). That concept holds no international memberships. Indeed, its very definition is subject to dispute.

What is being proposed here is actually a deletion of

Outline of Palestine

(which already survived an AfD) and its replacement by a new article on a wholly different subject. So much of what is included currently in this outline could not be included there.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, there are serious problems with the way our articles on Palestine are currently structured, which are perhaps feeding the confusion surrounding the discussion of this issue. Indeed, our article on

Palestine (state) or Palestine (political entity)

). This is because the official name of this area before the international community is in fact simply "Palestine". That is the most common name, the name used at the UN for representatives of the Palestinian people, the name recognized by more than 110 states.

There are some editors who are unable or unwilling to acknowledge these facts and are therefore falling afoul of Wiki policies regarding naming conventions for

WP:PLACEs

. There are others who are unfamiliar with this subject are due to the confusion surrounding the definitions of Palestine are opting for "Palestinian territories" as though it is more clear a description. It is not. And its not the official name of anything, nor is it a common name.

While Palestinian editors would be ridiculed, and possibly even sanctioned, for suggesting that we change mentions of

Zionist entity (or that we avoid the use of Israel since its boundaries are undefined and it actually forms part of the region of Palestine), Israeli editors can freely run around Wikipedia openly advocating that we ignore naming conventions and call Palestine by anything but its real and official name. I find this double standard disheartening to say the least. When such suggestions are seriously entertained by editors that I respect, I find it doubly so. With respect, Tiamut^talk 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Tiamut, the term "Palestine" as used by the United Nation does not refer to any territory. The UN merely decided to change the name of the PLO observing delegation from "Palestine Liberation Organization" to "Palestine", no territory was mentioned. Would you like us to remove any reference to territory from this article? The article Palestine could have referred to a state, had such a state existed. On the one hand you want us to adopt the UN naming, on the other you want us to treat "Palestine" as a state, unlike the UN. It seems as if you chose to adopt or ignore a source arbitrarily. DrorK (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An additional remark about the borders of Israel - Israel has an mutually recognized international border with Egypt and with Jordan. The UN has determined the Lebanese-Israeli border and it is honored by the two countries despite the conflict between them. Israel unilaterally defined its border with the Gaza Strip and Syria, and effectively treat these lines as international borders. So, the Israeli territory is well-defined despite the unclear border with the WB and the dispute with Syria over the Golan Heights. DrorK (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drork, for most of its history, Palestine has lacked a precise territorial definition [18]. That has not however precluded people using the term, nor does it mean that it did not, or does not, exist. True, this ambiguity makes defining its territorial scope, both historically and in the present day, quite challenging. That does not mean we should avoid trying to do so. This outline does a not so bad job of covering some of the term's historical evolution. It could do better, and will, if people would just give other editors a chance to develop it more throughly. Tiamut^talk 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we are getting somewhere here. We now agree that "Palestine" does not refer to a contemporary state but to a geographical region. Geographical regions have indeed fuzzy borders. However, if this is an article about Palestine as a geographical region, then you have to remove the Palestinian flags and symbols from it. Palestine has a Jewish history (this is why the State of Israel is located there), not to mention its rich Christian-European related history. You have to be consistent here - if you want to describe the region called Palestine, then you cannot present it as an Arab territory, or incorporate political symbols in it. If you want to refer to the geopolitical entity, then the correct name is "Palestinian Territories". DrorK (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding me or reading very selectively. I have said a number of times that "Palestine" refers to both a geographical region and a state. This is not me making stuff up. This is what reliable sources have to say about the term. (e.g. Is Palestine a State? The geopolitical entity that represents Palestinian before international community at the United Nations is named "Palestine". Palestinians call their country "Palestine". I'm sorry that these facts don't suit you, but they are indeed facts. Ignoring them is no way to carry on a discussion. Tiamut^talk 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, I said that the title of the article should match the article's content. Whatever you do to accomplish that, be it changing the content or changing the title, is up to you; that's not deleting the article. But, it's incredibly clear at this point (with, for example,

Outline of Palestine. But that day has not yet come, so, as I said, you need to either fix the title or fix the content. -- tariqabjotu 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry tariqabjotu, but I'm not ignoring naming conventions "for nationalistic reasons". Every argument I have made has centered around our naming conventions. That these are not followed at other articles is not a reason to avoid following them here.

I find it extremely odd that while

WP:PLACE encourages us to use the official name for a place (in this case "Palestine" [19]) and/or the name used locally (in this case "Palestine", as, for eg., on the Ramallah municpality website) and/or the name used most commonly (in this case "Palestine"), when it comes to "Palestine" at Wikipedia, this policy (and others) are not abided by. Tiamut^talk 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. This article focuses primarily on the PNA, PLO, and other subjects related to what is today called the Palestinian Territories, Occupied Territories, or by a handful of other names. If the content focused on ancient Palestine, Palestine under the Ottomans, Palestine under the British, and the modern state of Israel, then "Palestine" alone, as a geographic term, would be alright. But, as the article does not focus on the geographical Palestine, but on the political entity known as Palestine, more properly and commonly known as the Occupied Territories, Palestinian Territories, or by a handful other names, one of those names should be used. When the day comes that the territories become a fully independent nation-state, we can start calling it "Palestine", but for now they are still part of Israel, still not independent, still Territories. LordAmeth (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian territories are not part of Israel. If you check the article talk page for the geographical region, you'll find that the objection has already been raised there that most of the content of that article is actually about the mandatory era state of Palestine, and its successors. The rest of the article anachronistically applies the term to earlier time periods. harlan (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Mandate of Palestine was not a state but rather a dependency governed from London. It had no successors per the UK Palestine Act 1948 and per the UK decision to hand over the public property to the UN on May 14, 1948 (the last day of the Mandate). The UN still owns the High Commissioner's offices in Jerusalem as a remnant of that decision. The PLO and the PA have nothing to do with the British Mandate, both of them were established many years after the Mandate ended. If you want to write and article "Outline of the British Mandate of Palestine" be my guest, but don't mislead people to think that "Palestine", "British Mandate of Palestine", "Palestinian territories" and "Palestine Liberation Organization" are the same thing. DrorK (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you might find interest in this book [20]. It refutes most (if not all) of your claims about the British Mandate and it is based upon the diary of the last secretary of the British Mandate administration, practically the person who dissolved the Mandate. The preface is available on the new for free [21]. DrorK (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Hersh Lauterpacht's International Law reports. They summarize all the PCIJ, British, and Palestine Mandate court cases which held that, under the terms of the Treaties of Versallies and Lausanne, Transjordan and Palestine were States. The Palestine and British Mandate articles already explain that. harlan (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your fondness of far-fetched juridic interpretations is noted. I offered you a source based on primary written testimony of a person who knew all about the British Mandate, legally and practically, from his very job as a high-rank official. You send me to read all kind of legal discussions and opinion. If you haven't noticed yet, this is WP, not a debating club of a law faculty. DrorK (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You seem to be suffering from some mental confusion. The Jewish Agency demanded that "state land" be set aside for Jewish settlement, and the Mandate adopted by the LoN did contain terms regarding conditions to facilitate Jewish settlement on "state" and waste lands.

The Zionist Legal Secretary and Attorney General of Palestine, Norman Bentwich, explained a series of court decisions which held that the Ottoman decrees that had transferred property and possessions to the Civil Lists for the benefit of the public were sovereign acts of State. That meant they were immune from legal challenges by the former Arab owners in the Courts of Palestine. He went on to say that those properties now belonged to the Government of Palestine because the natural interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne was "that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the Allied successor states." see Professor N. Bentwich, "State Succession and Act of State in the Palestine Courts", XXIII British Year Book Of International Law, 1946, pages 330-333 [22] harlan (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you are wasting our time. You make absurd claims and justify them by sources that do not contribute anything to our subject. "Palestine" is a polysemy. This name refers to various entities, we are discussing the following:

1. A geographical region stretching approximately between the
   Mediterranean and the western edge of the Syrian Desert. The first usage of the name "Palestine" in this meaning is attributed to Herodotus
   , 5th century BCE.
2. The name of a Mandate and territory as defined by the League of Nations in 24 July 1922. The [23] charter of this mandate said the following: "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (...) the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine" (Preamble); "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate." (Article 1); "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" (Article 2); "The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit" (Article 12) This source does not leave room to doubt, that the Mandate of Palestine was not an independent state. It was fully controlled by the UK. Furthermore, it was never meant to be an Arab entity (save Transjordan, which is specifically defined as a special territory in the Article 25 of the charter). The Mandate charter specifically relates the territory to the Jewish People. The Mandate was completely dissolved, legally and practically, at midnight (local time) of 15 May 1948. Neither the UK nor the UN designated a successor to the Mandate (see the "Palestine Act, 1948" of the UK parliament).
3. A name of a future-Arab state. Many countries, if not all, expressed a view that such state should come into being, and yet there is nothing that can be said to be a Palestinian Arab state at the moment.
4. A name of a special non-state observer mission to the UN since 1988, formerly known as the Palestine Liberation Organization mission.
5. A name sometimes used when referring to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, especially since the signing of the first Oslo Accord in 1993. The name "Palestinian territories" is much more descriptive and wide-spread.

Is there anything else that needs clarification? DrorK (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual you are wasting everyone's time trying to present your rationalizations and wikilawyering. I'm discussing material that is already in the British Mandate article and part of the Outline.[24] Independence is a non-sequitur. It was not included among the criteria for statehood in article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. The League of Nations included member states that were Crown Colonies or Dominions, like India that were not independent. The treaty of Lausanne was an enforceable international agreement which stipulated that the territories detached from Ottoman Turkey were newly created states, and they were subject to the customary laws of state succession. That fact was confirmed by the national and international courts of the day, and by the Courts of the State of Israel. Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne was cited in the recent PCA boundary arbitration between Eritrea/Yemen.[25], so it is still relevant to boundary settlements that are being made in North Africa and Asia today. harlan (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well? What is the status on this move? Consensus was already reached to move

Breein1007 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a separate discussion with a different set of considerations and participants. It is determined on its own merits, and not by what happened at another page. Given that there is more opposition to a move in this discussion, I suppose that the reason for the hold up is that there is no clear consensus in support of a move. Tiamut^talk 10:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really a question of consensus. The current naming of the article is misleading and several editors pointed to that. Misleading names and terms are not acceptable even if many editors like them for some reason. We are not here to enjoy our ability to phrase. We try to convey information. DrorK (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its your opinion that "Palestine" is misleading. Its my opinion that "Palestinian territories" is misleading. There is a difference of opinion on this issue, as exemplified in the comments by editors who have participated in this discussion. There is therefore no consensus for a move. Tiamut^talk 11:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias aside, you can seriously sit here and argue that "Palestine" is not misleading? I'd like to give you more credit than that.

Breein1007 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'e provided sources above that explain that "Palestine" is used in the UN to refer to the representaties of the Palestinian people and that Palestine is the official name of the country Palestinian call home. I'm not misleading anyone. You are however ignoring what reliable sources have to say. Tiamut^talk 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely avoiding the issue here. I'm not ignoring reliable sources. You on the other hand are ignoring the simple reality that the current wording is misleading to readers. Furthermore, nobody said that YOU are misleading anyone, so back off a bit.

Breein1007 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Rather than repeating my reasoning for the hundredth time, I will refer you to the discussion above. In short, this outline deals with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (AKA Palestinian territories), not the historical region known as "Palestine". "Outline of Palestine" is misleading and will confuse readers who may be looking for information about the historic region, instead of the modern territories. I would be willing to consider supporting a move to "Outline of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" if someone could convince me that it's more appropriate; however, at this point it is very clear that "Palestinian territories" is the most unambiguous and natural term for the outline.
  Breein1007 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment How was Ucucha's close inappropriate, Jrtayloriv? There are many Palestine-related subjects, and their Wikipedia article titles must be clear to distinguish among them; Palestine and Palestinian territories are examples. (To take it further afield, consider Georgia and Georgia (U.S. state).) Since this Outline doesn't correspond to the geographical article Palestine, it had to be renamed to better describe its contents. Ucucha correctly gauged that one side made a convincing argument that the Outline's title should match the main article's title. The other side made an argument that... what exactly? Unless you can explain what Ucucha did wrong, I recommend dropping this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The other side made an argument that... what exactly? -- The fact that you are having to ask this probably means that you should read the conversation, before forming an opinion of it. But I'll lay out a few of them for you, in brief:
  • The large majority of the nations of the world use the term "Palestine" not "Palestinian territories".
  • The majority of the reliable sources cited in this article use the term "Palestine" not "Palestinian territories".
  • Palestinians are represented as "Palestine" in the UN
  • WP:PLACE
    states that we should use the most commonly used name, which in this case is Palestine.
• How was Ucucha's close inappropriate, Jrtayloriv? ... Unless you can explain what Ucucha did wrong ... -- performing a controversial move when there was no consensus on it, which goes against the guidelines laid out in
  WP:RM

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my reasoned close of the requested move. Jrtayloriv, remember that consensus does not mean unanimity.
• Has anyone considered making separate outline articles for Palestine (the geographical-historical region) and the Palestinian territories (the political entity consisting of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), corresponding with their separate Wikipedia articles? Ucucha 01:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for the move. In that case, you should closed with "no consensus" or relisted the discussion. I find it very disappointing that you interpreted a 4 to 3 "vote" as "consensus". That's not the way Wikipedia works. Tiamut^talk 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I read the previous discussion, thank you. Perhaps one side thought it was a discussion about moving Palestinian territories to Palestine, but it wasn't. The Outline is a second-order article, and its name should follow the name of the first-order article. (To continue my example from above, Politics of Georgia (country) applies to the Republic of Georgia and Politics of Georgia (U.S. state) applies to the U.S. state of Georgia.)

A Wikipedia discussion isn't a vote, and the number of voices don't matter. What matters is the arguments, and in this case Ucucha properly applied Wikipedia naming principles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The naming principles are not properly applied at the parent articles. Reliable sources indicate that the official name for the area in question is Palestine. Instead of having an article on Palestine that discusses the country of the Palestinians, we have one on Palestine that only discusses it as region, while the one on the country of the Palestinians bears the misnomer State of Palestine. Palestinian territories is new euphemistic term for something else altogether. Tiamut^talk 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If

Palestine (country) or something similar (to disambiguate it from the geographic article Palestine); the appropriate forum for that discussion is Talk:State of Palestine. As I wrote, the name of the Outline should follow the name of the main article. If this Outline was intended to correspond to the State of Palestine, perhaps you should make a counter-proposal to rename it Outline of the State of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Earlier, I had used {{

WP:RM wasn't applicable here for whatever reason. Sorry if this broke something -- I have not dealt with the templates, etc. for controversial moves before. If on the other hand, he did it because he thinks it was inappropriate, then I support his decision. Again -- if I did something wrong by using {{db-move}}, sorry, and SchuminWeb didn't do anything wrong. If, on the other hand, SchuminWeb agreed to revert the move due to a clear lack of consensus, I support him for doing so. Either way, I don't think his behavior should be called "embarassing" or "disappointing". Anyhow, sorry about confusion, if I caused any. Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Whatever the case may be, I think admins should be on top of it and realize that they should check the discussion before making controversial moves.

Breein1007 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Jrtayloriv, {{

WP:CSD#G6). Since you were asking for an admin to undo the result of a contentious move discussion, {{db-move}} wasn't appropriate. To top things off, since your explanation indicated there was a dispute, SchuminWeb shouldn't have moved the page under G6. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I have now moved the page back, after SchuminWeb voiced no objection [26]. I have also move-protected the page, since I think the contention over this move request indicates it is inappropriate for a non-admin to move now. If any admin feels this is inappropriate, they should feel free to remove the protection. For now, we'd best let this RM run its course and come up with constructive solutions. Please avoid just rehashing the previous RM discussion, which was lengthy enough. Ucucha 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Palestinian territories" is the NPOV name. Separately, the
  WP:LEAD of this article needs rewriting once the page name is resolved. THF (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, see the previous naming/move discussion. DrorK (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think Ucucha explanation of the reasoning behind executing the move appears solid. I have to agree that the previous move discussion largely surrounded the Palestinian political entity, not the entire historical territory of Palestine. There may not have been a full consensus in the previous discussion I also believe a consensus to move existed. I am certainly not a fan of revisiting moves unless gross negligence was involved or consensus has changed, neither of which appears to be the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per previous discussion above Highfields (talk, contribs) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to vote because the move made Uchucha was inappropriate. She basically deleted the article on
  Outline of Palestine and replaced it with something else altogether. Despite the comments of many editors here, Palestinian territories is not a synonym for Palestine. As a major contributor to this article under its original name, I'm deeply disappointed with the change in the article's name and scope. I leave it to other editors to maintain this article from now on. I won't have any part of a farcially named non-entity. The name of the country of the Palestinians is Palestine. This is how they are represented at the UN. Even places like Somaliland and Taiwan whose sovereignty as states is contested have articles named the way their countrymen name them. The double standards at Wikipedia when it comes to Palestine are wholly disheartening and de-motivating. Tiamut^talk

Ucucha merely moved the article; other editors did the rest.

As I wrote above, if you think this outline should be Outline of the State of Palestine or Outline of Palestine (country), make a counter-proposal to rename it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, the fact that Palestine and Palestinian territories are not the same is exactly why this article was moved and why it should be rewritten. The previous version mixed up different meanings of the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian territories" in a way that confused readers and sometime misled them to interpret the information provided in an unintended way. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. There seems to be consensus for this move, with no outstanding opposes. Moving as proposed, since the "profile of..." version didn't receive any further backing. Note: the page is move protected, so I will list this at technical requests. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support any such move. Propose something along the lines of → Profile of the State of Palestine. The SoP is yet to negotiate borders and should not necessarily be be granted or be limited to any currently prevailing view. I think that in this case, "profile" would be less ambiguous. GregKaye 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I think. As far as I can tell the parent article for this topic is still Palestinian territories. Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my oppose but I'm not supporting either. This seems a bit of a mess to me. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The term Palestinian territories is obsolete and was replaced by the UN in 2013 as has already been mentioned to the State of Palestine. The article Jenks24 assumes to be the parent article explicitly states the name change in the very first paragraph further supporting the obsolete nature of the former name. Both terms are also found within the article being requested for move which also details within it what has already been mentioned of the superior recognition of the UN adopted name and makes it far more appropriate to be the proper parent article. 173.35.54.125 (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, you make a fair point. But I'm still concerned that it sits in Category:Palestinian territories and that the vast majority of articles seem to use a variation of "Palestinian territories" rather than "State of Palestine". The article itself also mentions and links to Palestinian territories a fair bit. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 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.