Talk:Palestine (region)

New map - comments please

On the right is my attempt to create a professional-looking map which is also informative to the reader regarding the complexities of defining the region of Palestine, to replace the map at the top of the page at the moment (per the discussion at Talk:Palestine/Archive_12#RfC from last year). It's not finished yet (I need to fix a couple of the red lines, as the top one needs to correctly encompass Upper Galilee and the middle one needs to be closer to Rafah and Beersheba), but I would appreciate comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to offer in reviewing your work, but thanks for the effort.

What I would note is that the map doesn't give any indication of where an historical eastern boundary might lie. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's missing some stuff, like the Crusader borders and the eastern boundary as noted by FormerIP. I'm also not sure why the WZO proposal is necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WZO proposal is non notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better to restrict it to actual boundaries rather than mere proposals. Zero^talk 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. If the WZO proposal really isn't noteworthy, then don't include it. But I seriously doubt that's the case. As long as it doesn't reach a stage where the map is too cluttered an complicated to read easily, the more information the better. Formerip (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There were at least 2 partition proposals which are probably more relevant than the WZO proposal.

I think we should probably stick as much as possible to well defined borders that were actually used to administer the area. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, comments heard. The benefit of the WZO proposal is that it represents the largest area claimed as Palestine, and was based on historical analysis by Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi (see their book written one year before the proposal ארץ-ישראל בעבר ובהווה). I thought it was helpful because "Palestine" is not just a historical "administrative area" but also a historical "cultural area" - as Timeline of the name Palestine shows, the area has been known as Palestine during many eras where there was technically no administrative area named as such. Anyway, seems noone likes it though so i will remove it and replace it with the boundaries of administrative areas known as Palestine - let me think about how to do it. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The largest area claimed as Palestine includes most of today's Jordan. You can see that in the original Mandate as well as books written in the late 19th century such as the PEF's Survey (which includes a book on "Eastern Palestine" which is on the eastern side of the Jordan river), maps, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The mandate never suggested that - see e.g. British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Background_and_negotiations - what you are referring to is the interpretation by the Revisionists which never had traction in negotiations. And the PEF's definition of Eastern Palestine did not go any further than the WZO definition above - the PEF uses the cultural definition / natural borders, which stops at the beginning of the Arabian Desert. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read that article. "After further discussions between Churchill and Abdullah in Jerusalem, it was mutually agreed that Transjordan was accepted into the mandatory area as an Arab province of Palestine with the proviso that it would be, initially for six months, under the nominal rule of the Emir Abdullah and that it would not form part of the Jewish national home to be established west of the River Jordan". It was part of the Mandate and any map showing what the term Palestine referred to historically should include this as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You seems to be missing the wider context of the article. See, for example these two quotes from the British:

• From immediately before the Cairo Conference (1921) at which the British proposal was formed: "The western boundary of the Turkish vilayet of Damascus before the war was the River Jordan. Palestine and Trans-Jordan do not, therefore, stand upon quite the same footing. At the same time, the two areas are economically interdependent, and their development must be considered as a single problem. Further, His Majesty's Government have been entrusted with the Mandate for "Palestine." If they wish to assert their claim to Trans-Jordan and to avoid raising with other Powers the legal status of that area, they can only do so by proceeding upon the assumption that Trans-Jordan forms part of the area covered by the Palestine Mandate."
• From 1927, during the early years of the mandate: "[Transjordan] is not part of Palestine but it is part of the area administered by the British Government under the authority of the Palestine Mandate."

This article is about the historical / cultural region of Palestine. No scholar has ever suggested that the Arabian desert is included in Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Borders - comments please

NMMNG has suggested that we "should probably stick as much as possible to well defined borders that were actually used to administer the area". I am ok with that proposal, which, subject to the above discussion, I take to mean we should define it as being the regions when the area was technically known as Palestine. Which to my mind leaves us with two broad time periods:

1) From the late Roman period to the Ottoman period: (from 135AD - 1516, excluding the Crusader period when it was administered as the Kingom of Jerusalem), when the region was administered in two/three sections. Although the first section was named Palestine throughout, the second and third sections had different names during some periods. Since they were all named Palestine under the Byzantines, I propose to use their definition. Bernard Lewis gives quite a good description of the administrative changes here:

• Palaestina Prima, previously part of Syria Palaestina, later broadly equivalent to Jund Filastin
• Palaestina Secunda, previously part of Syria Palaestina, later broadly equivalent to Jund al-Urdunn
• Palestina Salutaris, previously Arabia Petraea, later Palestina Tertia and broadly equivalent to the Arab provinces of Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar of northern Sinai (both subordinate to Jund Filastin)

2) The British Mandate period: As is already shown on the map

In other words, the map will look like it currently does above, but I will remove the dashed blue line (the 1919 WZO proposal which noone seems to like), and the dashed red lines will be replaced with the Prima / Secunda / Salutaris split.

Please could you let me have any comments on this proposal. If no objections, the one thing which would then be very helpful is if someone can find a cast iron source for exactly where the Byzantine borders were. I could use this map which is broadly consistent with Lewis and others, but I am not sure that it is 100% correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Transjordan needs to be in there. It was part of the Palestine Mandate. A large chunk of it is covered by the Byzantine provinces anyway. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No. As per the quote above, it may have been in the mandate but it was not part of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As per the quotes above, it was part of the Palestine Mandate. You might want to settle this issue before you put too much work into a map that might get rejected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source to back up that POV, let's assume it's settled. This is supposed to be a serious project.

Yes, the mandate boundary would be a suitable thing to include on the map, obviously. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Who should assume what is settled? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very difficult map to create if you want to have something that is accurate before the mandate period. Obviously boundaries of palestinian mandate should be on map and are not controversial. (Notwithstanding opinions above, although Transjordan may technically have been included in the Mandate, it was never in Mandate Palestine governed by the british. There's a decent discussion of this in the Transjordan article.) Just by way of example, British use of the term pre-mandate almost certainly did include transjordan. I'd have to go back to look at sources, but am pretty sure that Ottomon gaza was, more often than not, not in the same administrative division as Jerusalem or what is now northern israel. The best book on modern (post 1840) period is "The Boundaries of Modern Palestine, 1840-1947" by Gideon Biger.--Federalist51 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See attached link: Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, p683 - this map seems good quality for the purpose. p682 says this map is originally sourced from Michael Avi-Yonah - even better if someone has a copy of that map they could send. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

New Map

This map is profoundly wrong. The map removes 78% of Palestine. All of the present Kingdom of Jordan was an integral part of Palestine as determined by Balfour and the San Remo conference. TransJordans creation in 1922 by Churchill was a breach of international law. All of Palestine (including Jordan) was designated by the League of Nations (unanimously) as the Jewish National Home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.251 (talk • contribs)

Beersheba (Biblical southern boundary)

Dan
(Biblical northern boundary)

Haifa /
Mount Carmel (Historical coastal boundary
w/ Phoenicia)

Arish
(Historical coastal boundary
w/ Sinai)

class=notpageimage|

Red line = 1922-48 borders of Mandatory Palestine
Green line = Boundaries of Roman Syria Palaestina, where dashed green line shows the boundary between Byzantine Palaestina Prima (later Jund Filastin) and Palaestina Secunda (later Jund al-Urdunn), as well as Palaestina Salutaris (later Jebel et-Tih and the Jifar)
Dotted blue lines = Post-1967 Israel borders

OK, on the right is the new map, with the Byzantine / Arab provinces shown. Any thoughts gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The dotted blue line is actually pre-1967 borders. Chronological order for the index would probably be good. I still think the Jordanian part of the Mandate should be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - agree with both of your two sensible suggestions.

This article is not about the technicalities of a legal instrument, it is about a region. I think you made your third point in good faith, but it shows that you don't understand how the mandate was negotiated and how its name is easily misunderstood. I can try to explain, or I can refer you to some books, or we can agree to disagree - whichever you like. Either way, I hope this won't distract other editors from making constructive comments on the map. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to write "1923</u£>-48 borders"; this is the official date after which Mandate was recognized as well as its borders. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Golan Heights is not part of Israel, the 1967 war did not change Israels borders and no new land became "Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For pre 1948 borders , there should be the Israeli transjordan part (Gilead area and Where Naharayim and worker villages had been on the east of Jordan village), in the pre 1922 (S-P aggrements) the line should also include the PICA lands (as they were legally Israeli and still are)37.26.147.214 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile,concerning this:[1] you have added the borders of today's Israeli-occupied territories, about a map that is supposed to show the boundaries of Palestine, it is irrelevant. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As unlikely as it sounds, I agree with SD. The Golan is completely irrelevant here and the WB/Gaza should probably have a title that links it to this article. You can't assume a reader will know why they're relevant.

Also, since we had an RfC regarding the picture, I think you should do another RfC about this one before putting it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Canaan Disconnect

There appears to be a strange disconnect in the historical perspective of the area in question as given in the article. Perhaps this is because of the two different views of the subject matter being combined into one.

If a person accepts the Biblical time line, then the area was called Canaan, which was given over to the Israelites by God Himself. If a person accepts that such was not the case, then anything might be acceptable. Therefore there is no reason to discuss anyone's opinion, since anything is as good as another.

From a simple view of the subject, the land belonged to the Israelis for over three thousand years, and their recent reclamation of that space includes their right to call it whatever they want. The last name it should be called is Palestine. Since it is all belonging to Israel, then for three thousand years there were only invading squatters who have no right to name the place. Just because some people in ancient times called it Palestine, has no bearing on the issue. The name of the land comes from the Israelis.

So which is it? So far, this article gives no clear argument. Will it be a history based upon other than the Bible, or one that adheres to the Biblical time line? It appears to me that using other than the Biblical time line will be an offense to Jews, Arabs and Christians. After all, they all count their history from father Abraham. And they certainly have a very long history between them. Especially the first two groups.

Thanks. - KitchM (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source, not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia is based on the publications of reputable modern scholars (including notable divergent positions among them) -- who of course use the Bible as one source among many for history. Thanks for your interest. --Macrakis (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

grammar correction

In the Middle Ages section, the following needs fixing: [The word 'Arab at the time referred to Bedouin, nomads with an Arabian ancestry.] Should read: [The word Arab at the time referred to Bedouin nomads with an Arabian ancestry.]

Modern period

What a total piece of dung. In the first place the UN resolution was non-binding and called upon Britain to establish the Jewish and non-Jewish territories. This is an important detail and totally absent from the account. Britain chose not to abide by the resolution. Also missing. Moreover, in the face of a massive influx of European Jews in defiance of Britain's immigration quotas, accompanied by a similar increase in arms, ammunition and funding from the Zionist diaspora, Britain essentially threw up its hands and walked away. What followed can hardly be described as a "civil war" - it was the armed seizure of Palestinian territory by largely European Zionist rebels who unilaterally declared the State of Israel conforming to the boundaries outlined in the UN resolution. In short, in the vaccuum created by Britain's inability or unwillingness to enforce its own policies, an organized force of armed militant European- and American-backed Zionists seized control of territory which was over 90% "Arab" from a largely unarmed and unprepared populace, and unilaterally declared a Jewish state where none had existed for over a thousand years, based upon a two-thousand year old imaginary promise by a god they invented for themselves.

These are facts. The rest is simply a lie. Not an inaccuracy. Not an oversight. Not an interpretation. Not gross incompetence.

A lie.

An intentional attempt to deceive the entire Wikipedia readership to further an agenda which benefits one demographic group at the direct expense of another residing in the same territory no-less.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

It would seem that someone has missed the point of their own religious tenet.

If you think what the Zionists did was honourable and just, fair enough - but, if so, why lie about it?

This weasel-word nonsense is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.67.113 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

User No More Mr Nice Guy, please explain your rationale here. This is not a pov issue but a style point. My edit comment was clear. I look forward to your explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I explained it clearly in the edit summary, but let me try again: if someone objects to material you want to put in the article, particularly something without sources, the material is removed while the discussion is ongoing. If and when there's consensus to include it, you may do so. Hope this helps. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So, it is the sourcing you are objecting to? I would be delighted to provide these. Or are you just trying to make a wp:point? Please clarify, so we can move forward instead of wasting everyone's time. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, please clarify which if any of the four points you think are in any way debatable. They have been up in the prototype on this page for months and noone disputed them. Carmel / Dan / Beersheba are all very well known. Arish could just as well be Rafah, but both have been used and Arish is further west. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Haifa is not positioned correctly. Beersheba is only one of several possible "biblical southern boundary" and I have to wonder why you chose to highlight just this one. Same goes for Dan, replace "south" with "north". If Arish is the "historical coastal boundary w/ Sinai", why is it not touching any of the boundaries on the map?

Why are half the points on the map supposed biblical boundaries (minimal possible application) but only one point is relevant to the boundaries actually drawn on the map?

Other problems include the Golan boundary being marked despite not being relevant here, and the green line should include dates like the red one does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I can deal with the last two points easily, and will do so now.

Haifa and Arish are easy to deal with. Let's discuss Dan and Beersheba for a moment - they are there because of From_Dan_to_Beersheba#Modern_history - i.e. those points were how the British government looked at Palestine's ancient boundaries at the time Mandatory Palestine was defined. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To try not to antagnoise, I have not added back the map location points yet - looking forward to your comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the dates per NMMNG's edit comment. NMMNG, which date(s) did you not agree with please? The Timeline of the name Palestine article may be helpful here. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with the dates is that the term Jund Filastin fell out of use in the 13th century, and not the 16th as it was on the map (or was it 15th? Too lazy to check right now). I'll go dig up some sources if you think this is incorrect. Also, while we're here, why isn't Palaestina Salutaris, which if I'm not mistaken included most of the Sinai, cut off on the map? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On falling out of use in 13th century, Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun contradict that. These two are respectively the most important arabic-speaking geographer and historian of the 14th century. Let's discuss when you've got your sources together.

On Salutaris, most of that region is not treated as "Palestine" by scholars, except the Negev (as a result of the Mandate). The Sinai and northern Hejaz are therefore not part of the scope of this article. Anyway, the province only had the word Palestine in its name for a part of the Byzantine period, and the Byzantines did not exercise meaningful control over the region during those years.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source that says the term was no longer used administratively from the mid 13th century. There are plenty more if for some reason this isn't enough.

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning on why you think Palaestina Salutaris (notice the "Palaestina" there) is outside the scope of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine and the Palestinian territories in the lead section?

Should we have that article paragraph about the State of Palestine and the Palestinian territories in the lead section? This article is about the geographic region called "Palestine", not the state or territories called "Palestine". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't cover all the meanings of a word on the same article, we give them different articles, and use hatnotes to direct readers to the article about the meaning their looking for. We don't have a paragraph about the USS New York City in the New York City article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant the third paragraph, not the second. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

British Isles mentions the nations that currently cover the area. Sometimes also the common name of a nation is similar to that of the region and the point needs elaborating. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If that paragraph were about both Israel and the PT you'd have a point, but that paragraph is entirely about the PT. The lead section of British Isles doesn't give such excessive focus on Britain or Ireland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And we do mention the nations covering Palestine in the second paragraph. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That crossed out "article" above was supposed to be "paragraph". GraemeLeggett, if you thought I was saying that we shouldn't mention the PT in the lead, I wasn't. My problem is just with how the 3'rd paragraph makes the lead excessively about the PT, and treats this article as if it were the PT or SOP article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. The note at the top of the article should be enough, as it is quite explicit: "This article is about the geographic Palestine/Israel region. For the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation). Not to be confused with State of Palestine." --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been two days sense anyone's posted, and there don't seem to be any strong objections, and it looks like GL's "objection" may have been the result of a misunderstanding anyway. I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph. If there are no objections, issue resolved. If there are, WP:BRD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Issue is back again, and the map is incorrect, could you please remove it? "(cur | prev) 08:59, 13 November 2012‎ Oncenawhile (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,408 bytes) (+720)‎ . . (adding back map, but without dates per comment from NMMNG.)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi Ingel (talk • contribs)

Suggest renaming articles

I suggest renaming this article to "Palestine (disambiguation)" or even better, splitting it to separate articles like Mandatory Palestine, etc. (we more or less already have this... see the current disambiguation page for links) and rename State of Palestine to just "Palestine".

The rationale is that today's UN resolution will recognize the State of Palestine, so *that*, not various historic senses of the word "Palestine", should be the main article. The old senses, e.g., Mandatory Palestine, or the Roman province, are still interesting, but in modern context nobody will call them just "Palestine" as this word is now reserved for the state (or territory, or whatever your politics wants to call them) in the West Bank.

As a comparison, look at the article for Israel - it rightly points to the existing state of Israel, as it exists now, and not to some historic sense (like Kingdom of Israel) and not to some ideal (for some) Land of Israel, etc.

Similarly, Palestine should point to the existing State of Palestine as it exists now - not some historic sense, and not some ideal of what the Palestenians would hope to gain in a future peace process (or war...) with Israel.

Nyh (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, please make the suggested changes. Sepsis II (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Today's a great day. When will the article be updated? 78.133.67.71 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Palestine has been internationally recognized as a state, means the state has become its main meaning Twilight 00:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves is thata way. I'm not convinced that the 1988 state has suddenly become the primary topic just because the UN has had this vote today. That doesn't impact on what the primary topic is. By the way, this article isn't about Mandatory Palestine. It's about the geographical region known as Palestine. Nightw 00:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

• Palestine → Palestine (region)
• State of Palestine → Palestine

– United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 recognizes Palestine as an independent nation. Thus, the primary article about Palestine should be the one about the State, as it is with any other nation currently existing. Twilight 02:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Not only does the UN now recognize Palestine as a state, but for many years now a majority of the world has recognized Palestine as a nation. Just like when I say or type Israel, unless I clarify my meaning, I mean the state and not the land. The same is true for Palestine, when I search for Palestine, I want to find the state, not the much less important historic area. Sepsis II (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the fact that only (substitute your favorite term here) would think that Palestine is in fact a state. The UN has absolutely no authority over independent states. Israel is an independent state, and Palestine is a wholly contained territory within the boundaries of the country of Israel. "The motion was widely expected to pass, even if only symbolic". And how did Israel, one of the only two votes that, along with Palestine, mattered, vote? Rejected. The article can have the focus of the concept of the independence of Palestine, but that certainly does not make Palestine independent. But sure, go ahead and move the article. Apteva (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  I see also that the vote did not pretend to make Palestine a state, it simply gave it "non-member observer state status" at the UN. Which has nothing to do with whether Palestine is or is not a state. Apteva (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose a) It is the name of an historical area over a couple thousand years and b) obviously the international status as a "state" (or an independent state) and the full implications of UN vote is still under discussion by WP:RS. I don't see any one providing any WP:RS supporting this motion that is a full state. Even those who support a state of Palestine probably would have a problem with this proposal. CarolMooreDC 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Week Oppose I don't have any strong feelings, but Carolmooredc assessment looks about right. Let's what to see what RS says about the UN vote's implications before making any important decisions based on it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. CarolMooreDC, you say that "Even those who support a state of Palestine probably would have a problem with this proposal" is exactly why I thought this move is a good, non-political, idea. Some Palestinians would say that the current Palestenian State is not Palestine because their "Palestine" is bigger. Some Israelis would say that "Palestine" doesn't exist. But both are wrong, and the current Palestenian State is "Palestine", and in modern texts is known as "Palestine". Heck, I saw yesterday's UN discussions, and this guy was sitting behind a nice clear "Palestine" name plate, not "State of Palestine" or "Palestinian Authority" or any such longer name. Nyh (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Today's vote does not mean that the UN recognizes Palestine as a state. It was only the General Assembly that voted today. Claiming that means the UN has recognized Palestine is akin to claiming that United Kingdom has taken a position after only a vote of the House of Commons, or that the United States had taken a position after a vote of only the House of Representatives. Another reason to oppose this move is a non-political one; the region of Palestine is distinct from the State of Palestine. We have not moved The United States of America to America, nor have we moved European Union to Europe, and by the same rationale we should not move State of Palestine to Palestine. - Hoplon (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Your first point is not pertinent and your second point is a false comparison and very poor cherry picking. This discussion is not about what effect the UN vote has, this is about whether Palestine, the state, recognized by the majority of the world, should be the primary topic, like all other states, or whether it should be relegated to below that of a historic area, something never done on wikipedia. Why would America lead to the USA? The most popular name is the United States, which is why the article for The United States of America is titled United States. No one ever says Europe when they are referring to the European Union, people do often call it the EU though, which I guess explains why EU goes to the European Union and not disambiguation. China does not go to the historic area or the ROC or disambiguation, it goes to what most people mean when they say China, the PRC. Israel goes to the state of Israel, not the land, and so it follows that Palestine should go to the most popular and important meaning, the state, not the historic area. Sepsis II (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland, Micronesia vs Federated States of Micronesia, Central Africa vs Central African Republic. That was a point made at Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6#Requested_rename_.28move.29_to_Palestine anyway, how applicable it is here was debated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ireland is that way for the same reason as the congo, korea, or the virgin islands, being that their are multiple entities which have an equal claim to the name. Between the PRC and ROC both claiming the title of China, the PRC gets the name China because the common use is so very much often to mean the PRC. The FSM is the same as the USA, the USA is not primarily called America and neither is the FSM primarily called Micronesia. The CAR is primarily known as the CAR, not Central Africa. The Republic of South Africa however is widely known as South Africa, which is why South Africa goes to the nation, not the area. All these examples show that it is common practice, that when there is no conflict between two states over a name, a nation always gets priority over geographical areas with the same name. Sepsis II (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued bellow. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support It has been apparent to me for some time: State of Palestine should be renamed Palestine, content should be moved from the current Palestine page to History of Palestine, like for example Italy and History of Italy. No similar page is called "State of x" unless it is a state, like for example California (even that is redirected to California) or New South Wales, Australia, and whether or not it is completely recognised by other states is not a reason to oppose such a move, like for example Israel, which is not called State of Israel.Otkdna (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Old RM's: /Archive_11#Requested_move, /Archive_10#Requested_move, Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_6#Requested_rename_.28move.29_to_Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - frankly, first i thought to oppose (conservative position), but then i thought supporting the move; i'm however mostly neutral on this - it is that we should take in mind the huge renaming issue ahead, if this rename takes place. It should probably be renamed as proposed, but due to technical reasons it should be better to wait for things to stabilize in this geopolitical area in order to prevent great deal of confusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two reasons:
  1. This is not a triggering event. It's been previously recognized by some UN agencies; the UN GA has no power to recognize a state, and the PLO had previously been given this status.
  2. Per WP:COMMONNAME, most people who use "Palestine" mean either the geographic area or the Biblical/historical area (which are not the same....) Even if it the state were universally recognized, this would still be the case. I would support the first move, leaving Palestine as a disambiguation page, although that still requires tracking all the incoming links.
  • This could even be more disruptive than Macedonia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first reason is not a reason, this move should have been done years ago, the UN vote only supports an already overdue move. While I find your claim dubious, that people use Palestine to refer to a historic area more than to the current state, even if it were true, Palestine is a STATE, nothing, short of another state, should be able to usurp the common name of a state due to the significance of a state. As a side note, I just saw that Georgia, the state, has been relegated second to a disambiguation page, and I am very much opposed to that situation as well. Sepsis II (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All the other examples I gave may or may not have been bad examples, but Ireland the geographic region trumps the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is also called Ireland just as the State of Palestine is also called Palestine. Something short of another state has usurped the short name the Republic of Ireland. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh the region trumps the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, who's short name is Nagorno-Karabakh. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

From the second paragraph of Ireland, "Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland...and Northern Ireland", this is why Ireland does not go to the state, because two political entities want the title of Ireland. Nagorno-Karabakh, is recognized by zero UN members, I don't think it's a suitable comparison, I think Georgia is the only other state article in the same situation as Palestine is in, yet at least Georgia links to disambiguation rather than fully relegated to second place. Sepsis II (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland doesn't claim the title "Ireland", it claims the title "Northern Ireland". My point is that both Ireland and Nagorno-Karabakh refer to regions and states and yet the regions take precedence. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - while you can make a reasonable case for this move, I think the current position is more neutral. Regardless of the UN vote, the status of the 'State of Palestine' is still fiercely disputed; moving it to 'Palestine' would imply a kind of objective certainty that simply does not exist here. 'Palestine' should remain an article about the historical and geographical area, with the partially recognised state remaining at 'State of Palestine'. (As others have noted, this is the approach we have taken in some other cases of disputed states, although no two cases are exactly alike.) Robofish (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Considering Palestine and Israel have a similar level of international recognition and that both share names of historic areas, I think it is quite easy to expand your above argument to also placing Israel (region) as the primary topic with Israel (state) relegated to State of Israel. I would disagree with this as it could easily be seen as a bias anti-Israel move, a neutral position would to not relegate any states with high levels of recognition to below a historic region. Sepsis II (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing needs time to shake out. Meanwhile see United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 which should have all the accurate info per WP:RS. (Haven't read it that carefully, so don't know for sure.) CarolMooreDC 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have an interesting definition of similar. So similarly to you, I agree with 'Robofish' motion to oppose.--188.130.222.210 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

palestine is not the name of a region anymore....since 29-11-2012 its the name of a non member STATE. This subject should be changed,since it's outdated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.25.4 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a change I have believed for a long time needed to be done. The recent event in the UN is not the sole catalyst, it's long overdue. As opposed to what was said above, Palestine as a historical region is no longer the primary use of the word. I can safely assume that most people who inquire about "Palestine" are looking for the modern political Arab entity, not the historical region. In today's times, hearing the word "Palestine" in most cases is in reference to the current State of the Palestinian people. This requested move makes the title more relevant and appropriate. Arguments about "anti-Israeli" bias are unfounded because in a general sense, the word "Palestine" in fact is synonymous with the State and carries no unilateral political implications. The reverse can be said, people who strongly oppose the move could have "anti-Palestinian" bias, not wanting to give the State of Palestine the "glory" of getting the implicit recognition of having the title "Palestine" to represent the State. Naming the article with the most relevent and coherant title is the "neutral" position, instead of refraining from doing so to avoid offending the anti-Palestinian, pro-Israelis. In addition the the new recognition at the UN, the State of Palestine has simply been under the title "Palestine" at the UN for a very long time. Abueita (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, of an historical area over a couple thousand years. The event that most refer to was symbolic in nature and change nothing. The general assembly does not have the power or the authority to establish states. Furthermore Palestine or rather the PA in the West Bank do not meet any of conditions for statehood as were defined by the UN for any other candidate I can recall.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:4 1, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think we should remove all pretenses that this move solely depends on the new UN recognition. The sole facts are already in the favor of Palestine representing the State of Palestine, that was the way to was before the UN vote even took place. The current article named Palestine is about the previously commonly used name for the historical region, nowadays the word Palestine usually always refers to the country. Keeping it the way it is isn't the most relevant thing to do judging today's standards and uses for the word. 71.13.52.176 (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)