Jump to content

Talk:Palestine (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

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)

principal meanings section

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)

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)
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)


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)


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)

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)


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)
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)
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)

Revert explanation

@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)

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)
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)
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)
OK, thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, regarding to your map: pls check the "Israel?" topic here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
+ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sure, but it should say "and historical". Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine"

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)

Requested move 19 August 2015

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)


– 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)

"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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Whether a use is derivative or not is irrelevant. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rob984 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
The terms "historical Palestine" and "land of Palestine" are often used to refer to the region. Rob984 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
'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)
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

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)

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)
"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)

Map

@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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I have added the map back. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
@Oncenawhile: there wasn't consensus for this var. See
in Talk:Palestine#Revert explanation above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
@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)

Discussion relevant to this topic

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)

drop word "Levant"

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)

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)
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)

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

 Done

correct description of Palestinian National Authority

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)

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)

revise regarding "de jure" and State of Palestine

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)

See this discussion. “WarKosign” 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Or pipe link technically Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
So, WarKosign, would you prefer to link the "de jure" then? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@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)

See also section

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

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

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)
That's a topic for another conversation. --Bolter21 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
It's in the See Also, not in the article it self.

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

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)

Archiving old sections

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)

"by international and internal organisations"

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_(disambiguation)/Archive_1&oldid=1262886707"