Misplaced Pages

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:25, 23 December 2012 editEmmette Hernandez Coleman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,272 editsm →Requested move← Previous edit Revision as of 04:28, 23 December 2012 edit undoEmmette Hernandez Coleman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,272 editsm →Requested moveNext edit →
Line 107: Line 107:


*Comment: There is a related broader discussion going on at ].—] ] 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) *Comment: There is a related broader discussion going on at ].—] ] 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The current title is incorrect, the PNA does not handle foreign relations, the PLO does. Normally I would be opposed to an article about the Palestinian territories using "Palestine" rather then "Palestinian territories" in it's title, and because the ] article is about the geographic region and it wouldn't be consistent with articles such as ] and ], among other reasons, but in this case we can make an exception. I don't think any body's going think thing that we are talking about the foreign relations of the geographic ] region. You could make the argument that "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" or "Foreign relations of the Palestinian territories" would be an even better title tough. ] (]) 22:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC) *'''Support'''. The current title is incorrect, the PNA does not handle foreign relations, the PLO does. Normally I would be opposed to an article about the Palestinian territories using "Palestine" rather then "Palestinian territories" in it's title, because the ] article is about the geographic region and it wouldn't be consistent with articles such as ] and ], among other reasons, but in this case we can make an exception. I don't think any body's going think thing that we are talking about the foreign relations of the geographic ] region. You could make the argument that "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" or "Foreign relations of the Palestinian territories" would be an even better title tough. ] (]) 22:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
:*Emmette, as you said the relations abroad are handled by the PLO and I agree "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is a better title - so, I proposed ]. That is factually correct and avoids the WP:EGG-like situation with the ] "Palestine" in the title that's unclear whether it's a reference to the PLO, SoP, PNA, etc. ] (]) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC) :*Emmette, as you said the relations abroad are handled by the PLO and I agree "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is a better title - so, I proposed ]. That is factually correct and avoids the WP:EGG-like situation with the ] "Palestine" in the title that's unclear whether it's a reference to the PLO, SoP, PNA, etc. ] (]) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
::* "Palestine" is completely the same as Germany, France or Russia. It is the geographical name of the territory of a political entity bearing its name. Previously Russia was greater (e.g., in the territory of the Russian Empire times), today is much smaller (Russian Federation). Earlier Palestine were larger (in the days of the British Palestine), today is much smaller (a Palestinian State/occupied territories). Change the size of the territory, or the ambiguous status of the political entity does not alter the accuracy and appropriateness of the concept of Palestine. ::* "Palestine" is completely the same as Germany, France or Russia. It is the geographical name of the territory of a political entity bearing its name. Previously Russia was greater (e.g., in the territory of the Russian Empire times), today is much smaller (Russian Federation). Earlier Palestine were larger (in the days of the British Palestine), today is much smaller (a Palestinian State/occupied territories). Change the size of the territory, or the ambiguous status of the political entity does not alter the accuracy and appropriateness of the concept of Palestine.

Revision as of 04:28, 23 December 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
The content of Template:Palestine foreign relations was merged into Foreign relations of the State of Palestine as a result of a deletion discussion. That page has been deleted. For the contribution history of the deleted page, please see here.


Solution to title

Since the last move request was closed with no consensus and the current title fails to effectively describe the topic, what are the alternatives to a page move?

Iceland

Iceland has recognized Palestine as a state - what needs to be updated here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You did everything that's required. Nightw 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 UNGA resolution

Effectively, the UN observer status was transferred from the non-state entity PLO to the State of Palestine, but since the potential source to confirm that - http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml - is not yet updated (as of 30-Nov-2012 it still shows PLO/Palestine as non-state observer entity and does not show the observer State of Palestine) - I suggest we wait until that point before changing the table. There is still the very slim possibility that both PLO and State of Palestine will be UN observers or that some different arrangement will be established such as "PLO-EC, in its capacity of provisional government of the future state", etc. (I don't think so, but it's better to have a confirmation). Japinderum (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, we should await sources signifying the changes of status, if any, at other organizations (such as specialized agencies, etc.) - not to rewrite everything without backing from a source. Japinderum (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Move article

the opening paragraph of this article is utterly incorrect: "The foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are conducted by the PLO which maintains a network of offices in foreign countries.". The PLO is not subordninate to the PNA, it is the exact opposite relationship. The PNA is a structure launched by PLO in the Oslo framework for managing the local governance in parts of the Palestinian territories. PLO always maintained direct responsibility for foreign relations, from 1988 onwards as the leading entity of the State of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the PLO is the entity that established and represents abroad the PNA and the PLO is the entity whose Executive Council is the government of the State of Palestine, thus a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is warranted. There are such proposals discussed before, but unfortunately they didn't succeed. The previous discussions are quite long and I unless there is some new information (which the recent resolution isn't since it doesn't change anything in the structures conducting foreign relations) I don't think it's good to open that pandora box again. Japinderum (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering the fact that 100+ states recognize the State of Palestine and that the State of Palestine has been admitted (by overwhelming majority in UNGA vote) as non-member observer state at the United Nations, Foreign relations of Palestine might be more apt. We usually brand these articles by the name of the state, not the political entity at its top. --Soman (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed at lenght before. State of Palestine is different entity from the PNA. They are not related. The only link between them is that both are created by the PLO (who also represents both abroad). That's why if we are going to stick to the combined article it should be at "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Of course we can have separate articles for PLO, the State of Palestine, and PNA. But using "Foreign relations of Palestine" in the title is ambiguous - confusing and unclear about which entity it is. In addition we have also Hamas claiming to represent the Palestinian people. The usual case is of one territory, one state, one government - all under the same name. But the case here is not the usual one since we have 3-4 separate political entities, most of them sharing the same goals and working together, but nevertheless they have their own separate institutions, decision making rules, etc.
UNGA observer status vote (that was not supported by 19 of the recognizers) does not change anything in that configuration, or the article titles. The 120+ states that recognize are also since long time ago, e.g. including during the time of the multiple previous move discussions. Nothing warrants re-opening these tedious discussion now. Japinderum (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Should be moved to Foreign relations of Palestine. It doesn't matter if it's ambiguous -- you argued this in all the previous discussions but it's a moot point. We don't have separate articles for each entity, this is the combined article. So "Palestine" is the best name, since it's used by all of them. Put a move request in, Soman. Nightw 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with name Foreign relations of Palestine too. Jan CZ (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The correct title is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - the PLO represents abroad all three entities - itself, the State of Palestine and the PNA. This is explained in the archives. Does Foreign relations of Palestine include Hamas or not? Japinderum (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Foreign relations of the State of Palestine be renamed and moved to Foreign relations of Palestine.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → Foreign relations of Palestine – As per the discussion above. PLO has been represented as Palestine in several international fora for decades, and since 1988 as State of Palestine. With the UNGA vote Palestine, and not PNA, is represented in the United Nations. Soman (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Whether a country declares its relations are with the PNA, the SoP, or the PLO, it's the same Palestinian administration handling the relations. CMD (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title is ambiguous and unclear whose relations it refers to - contrary to WP:TITLE. The correct title is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - the PLO represents abroad all three entities - itself, the State of Palestine and the PNA. This is explained and sourced in the archives - there were such move proposals and there were long discussions about that. Nothing has changed recently, so I don't see a reason to re-open this tedious debate. Does "Foreign relations of Palestine" include Hamas foreign relations? Japinderum (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment the "foreign relations" (liaisons with international bodies and foreign and Arab agencies) of the Hamas cabinet in Gaza is coordinated through the PNA in Ramallah. It is a tricky relationship, and there have been disagreements on whether Hamas has stepped over the line in making direct talks with foreign and Arab countries. Most notably, Fatah sharply criticized Haniye after his visit to Egypt after Morsi's election. Hamas replied that Haniye had not visited Egypt as head of government, like they have said that visits abroad at international events of Hamas leaders are done as representatives of the party and not the government, stressing that they have not broken the consensus on external relations. These contacts do deserve a chapter in the article, but they are not separate from the foreign relations of Palestine. It is just a bit complex. --Soman (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Re: "Unclear whose relations" -- it's Palestinian relations. Sources rarely bother making pedantic distinctions between branches of administration. The article certainly doesn't and the text combines all of it together. The title should match. Nightw 11:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • A source for Hamas-PNA official coordination? Is Hamas subordinated to PNA MFA or how is it done? Hamas or PNA agreeing or disagreeing with particular foreign actions of the other side is one thing - having an institutionalized coordination is quite different. And yes, it's unclear. What does "Palestinian relations" mean? Relations of the PNA, of PLO, of the State of Palestine, of Hamas, of whom? Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Correction - there already is an article on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine, it is named International recognition of the State of Palestine. Since the State of Palestine won some kind of recognition, the international recognition article should be renamed into "foreign relations article".Greyshark09 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As the primary author of that article, I can tell you that is not what the page is about. It's a chronology of diplomatic recognition, not diplomatic relations. Two totally different subjects, and most disputed countries have articles for both. Nightw 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As should be clear to anyone who has read it, this article combines foreign relations of the three capable entities most commonly known as "Palestine". WP:PRECISION dictates that we only be as precise as needed -- Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine is ridiculously unnecessary given that all three of them are commonly referred to as "Palestine". The proposed name is also the name most commonly used for Palestinian representation in international organisations (including in the United Nations System). Nightw 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not up to Misplaced Pages editors to "combine" foreign relations of entities that are separate. Exactly because the three entities are COMMONLY referred to as Palestine (e.g. it's ambiguous who it's a reference to) - that's why the article title should NOT BE "Foreign relations of Palestine" - it should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - because that's the entity that represents abroad all three of them and that's the entity that has established the other two entities. Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You've just contradicted yourself. You say we shouldn't "combine foreign relations of entities that are separate" and then argue that "all three of them" should be combined in an article under a different title to the one proposed. Misplaced Pages editors should reflect whatever reliable sources do. Sources don't bother with the obscure distinctions half the time, so neither have we. Regardless of that, the article presently describes all three, and unless you're going to try creating a fork again, it'll stay that way. Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "all three of them" excludes the fourth, Hamas - combined should only be those that are have official institutional links between each other. Misplaced Pages should not copy from sources that "don't bother" about details. There are plenty of other websites that fulfill that role. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So you agree that the current title is not correct, but you're quite happy to keep it that way because you oppose the only name that could encompass all of the article's current content matter? Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No. The current title is not correct, but the proposed isn't correct either - I oppose both. And I already explained what's the correct title that encompasses the foreign relations of PLO, State of Palestine and PNA. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - a related move request was recently closed at Talk:Palestine#Requested_move. And again - this discussion here is a repetition of a previous long discussion - and nothing has changed since then in the institutional arrangement of PLO, State of Palestine and PNA foreign relations, so there is no reason to re-open this discussion. Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That has no bearing on this request. I opposed that move because in geography "Palestine" can refer to a region. This is the subject of foreign relations, where "Palestine" always refers to the Palestinian government. Apolitical regions don't conduct foreign relations. Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a related move request. Of course apolitical regions don't have foreign relations. The problem with the proposed title here is that it's ambiguous "Palestine government" - which one? Hamas government? PNA Cabinet? PLO executive council? We should not bring ambiguities in the titles of the articles. If you want to include all of these in the scope "Foreign relations of Palestinian organizations" is more suitable. If you want to include only the internationally recognized ones then "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is the correct one as explained above.
  • Nothing in the institutional setup has changed since the previous discussion. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • All the articles "Foreign relations of.." are primarily on the relations of States, not Governments. This article is about the relations of Palestine. The PLO's relations are something like the Foreign relations of the French Government or Foreign relations of National Transitional Council. Special article can be created, for example Foreign relations of Hamas. But this article is a summary, it is about the relations of Palestine. Jan CZ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the common case you have a single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory. The case here is different - special, because there are four entities conducting "foreign affairs" (one liberation organization, one state, two local administrations) under the name of a territory, that's under the control/occupation of another state (Israel). PLO represents abroad both the PNA and the State of Palestine. So there should be two articles - one for the PLO foreign relations (that covers also the State of Palestine and PNA) and one for Hamas relations. In the context of foreign relations "Palestine" is ambiguous term - and that's why it's not suitable for WP:TITLE without additional qualifier. Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine is the short name for State of Palestine. This article is about the relations of that State. The fact that the term Palestine sometimes means something else, is not a relevant argument against renaming the article. After all, the article could designate the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine, much like International recognition of State of Palestine, to remove these doubts. More entities acting on its behalf is not at all a problem (because here is two governments for Syria, here is not possible to have article Foreign relations of Syria??). On the contrary, precisely because we need to have the article universal name covering everything. In this article and should be relations of all the relevant players (including Hamas). For Hamas is then possible addition article also to create a separate article. Jan CZ (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - What consist of foreign relations? In particular, from the relations with other States. It is a bit absurd that we have articles as Albania-Palestine relations, China–Palestine relations etc. (no China–PNA relations or China PLO relations).. but the General article is not named Foreign relations of the Palestine. The status quo has no logic and is unsustainable. Jan CZ (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether other article titles should be changed, and the degree of ambiguity acceptable in those, is a separate issue. But the "main" article title should not be changed into an ambiguous one. Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine is the short name for the State of Palestine. All articles (bilateral relations, diplomatic missions of/in etc... used this name). Article International recognition use full name of State. No article used the name PNA or the PLO. Foreign relations of Palestine (or of the State of Palestine) is better name for the article. Jan CZ (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine (disambiguation) is the short name also for the PLO and the PNA. This article is not about relations of the State of Palestine, but about all foreign relations conducted by the PLO (and PLO-EC) - as internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people (including refugees outside of Palestine (region)), as provisional government in exile of the State of Palestine, as representative abroad for the PNA. The State of Palestine and the PNA are also created by and accountable to the PLO and the PLO's PNC, PCC and PLO-EC. The sources for all of this are in the article(s), e.g. , : ISBN 978-0-19-826837-6 and others. The recognition article is only about SoP, but the relations article is about all PLO activities (covering also SoP and PNA) - if the relations article was restricted to SoP relations only, then most of the "participation in international organizations" and half of the "bilateral relations" tables would've been deleted. for the other articles titles you mention see my previous 09:17, 15 December 2012 comment There are not "more entities acting on behalf of SoP" - there are "more entities that the PLO acts on behalf of", e.g. the SoP and PNA - it's the PLO that acts on their behalf abroad, not the other way around. So, the proper title for the article is "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Hamas is a separate organization (from PLO and SoP and from the internationally recognized PNA government - albeit it claims that it's the legitimate PNA government) so a separate article for it is fine (and of course it should be mentioned briefly also here). Japinderum (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If the PLO acts abroad under the name of Palestine, then I see no reason at all, why should the aggregate article could not designate the Foreign relations of Palestine. Especially if actually includes all relations, PLO, PNA, and SoP, and basic information on the relations of Hamas. I still think that Foreign relations of Palestine is the correct name for the article. And it is definitely a better and more accurate, than the name of the existing, which is factually completely incorrect and, therefore, we have to change it. Jan CZ (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • PLO uses the designation "Palestine" in the UN (following resolution 43/177) and for some, but not all of its bilateral relations. But the name of the organization is PLO, not "Palestine". Misplaced Pages does not follow UNGA resolutions - whatever the political advantages somebody gets from those do not dictate article titles. The article title should not be like an WP:EGG link - it should be as clear and explicit as possible. The WP:TITLE problem in "Foreign relations of Palestine" is not that "the entity conducting the relations is not called Palestine" by anybody, but that in the context of foreign relations that name is ambiguous since the same name is utilized also for other entities. I understand that supporters of Palestine want to make it look "upgraded" and "just like any other regular state" in as many places and ways as possible - but as said above - unlike the regular case of "single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory" - here the case is unique, not like that - and we should not use article title hiding the facts.
  • The entity conducting the foreign relations is the PLO, thus the title should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. I don't see any reason for us to invent something else. And in the article itself it's already explained what does PLO have in common with SoP, PNA, who uses the designation "Palestine", where and why, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - the move request also includes incorrect statement: "With the UNGA vote Palestine, and not PNA, is represented in the United Nations." - PNA was never represented in the UN. Since 1974 the UN observer is the PLO and nobody else. Since 1988 the designation "Palestine" is utilized for the PLO delegation (just like you use "France" instead of "French republic"). The PLO conducts foreign relations since before 1974, since 1988 the PLO-EC represents also the State of Palestine (established by the PLO's PNC) as its provisional government-in-exile, since 1994 the PLO represents also the unrelated local Oslo accords (signed by PLO, Israel, USA, Russia) administrative entity - the PNA (established by and accountable to the PLO). Nothing in this setup changes with the recent UNGA vote that changes the PLO UN delegation into SoP UN delegation (and PNA is not subject of the 2012 resolution). The foreign relations are still conducted by the PLO. Japinderum (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Enough about politics. This is Misplaced Pages. We have policies and guidelines that pay no attention to that. Palestine is the WP:COMMONNAME here, as evinced by the name of its seat in almost all diplomatic organisations. Whether it's ambiguous or not, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since we only have one article on Palestinian foreign relations. Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's COMMONNAME, but ambiguous in the context of "foreign relations" - it's common for more than one entity. Also the primary topic are the PLO relations (see below). Anyway, WP:TITLE prevents us from using the ambiguous term you prefer - the title has to be specific about whose entity foreign relations the article is. Japinderum (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Summing up: So, of the editors who participated, all except one are against the current title. Of those against the current title, all except one support the proposed title, while the other suggests a different one (below). Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't twist. There are 2 editors opposing and 3 supporting. One of the supporting also supports the alternative proposal if that one fails. Also, as the proposing sentence shows this repetition of the move request is made now because of the recent UN vote (WP:RECENTISM) - which changes the UN delegation title, but not the institutional setup or who conducts the relations, etc. Ironically see Greyshark09's link - Palestine delegation itself seems to go away from the "Palestine" term and to prefer the more specific and unambiguous "State of Palestine". Japinderum (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No... There are five editors (not three) who agree the current title is not correct: Me, Jan, Chip, Soman, and yourself (you just said it 15 minutes ago). Of those five, only you are against the main proposal. Nightw 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Summary-current status:
Yep. Although they're not really votes. We've also got to look at each editors' stance on the current title, and there's a clear agreement that the current title is incorrect. Nightw 14:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Night w, I stated clearly that I OPPOSE this proposal for ambiguous WP:EGG title. I don't like the status quo either, but that's a separate issue. And I provided sources showing what's the correct title - see below. Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Emmette, as you said the relations abroad are handled by the PLO and I agree "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is a better title - so, I proposed to use it. That is factually correct and avoids the WP:EGG-like situation with the ambiguous "Palestine" in the title that's unclear whether it's a reference to the PLO, SoP, PNA, etc. Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Palestine" is completely the same as Germany, France or Russia. It is the geographical name of the territory of a political entity bearing its name. Previously Russia was greater (e.g., in the territory of the Russian Empire times), today is much smaller (Russian Federation). Earlier Palestine were larger (in the days of the British Palestine), today is much smaller (a Palestinian State/occupied territories). Change the size of the territory, or the ambiguous status of the political entity does not alter the accuracy and appropriateness of the concept of Palestine.
  • In the case of Palestine is unclear its status. but that's no reason to question the use of the name Palestine or Foreign relations of Palestine. Unclear status of Abkhazia also does not prevent the use of names such as Foreign relations of Abkhazia.
  • The article shows the relationships of all relevant palestinian actors (PLO, PNA, SoP, Hamas), and the Foreign relations of Palestine is optimal, factually correct name. Jan CZ (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Territorial size has nothing to do with the discussion. The status of each of the political entities is tangentially relevant, but what's most important is that it's not only one political entity (as your comment implies), but there are multiple - and that's why the title should use the name of the correct one. It's not that "Palestine" should not be used because someone questions SoP sovereignty (e.g. "unclear status" as you say) - it should not be used, because the PLO and PNA are also commonly called "Palestine" - that's why there is Palestine (disambiguation).
  • In Abkhazia you don't have multiple entities such as Abkhazia Liberation Organization, Republic of Abkhazia declared by that organization and a separate "Authority of Abkhazian Civilian Advisors to Russian Military Command in Greater Caucasus" that's not related to the republic, but only to the organization.
  • "Palestine" is not the same as Germany, France, etc. those have a single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory. The case here is different - special, because there are four entities conducting "foreign affairs" (one liberation organization, one state, two local administrations) under the name of a territory, that's under the control/occupation of another state (Israel). PLO represents abroad both the PNA and the State of Palestine. For sources see 09:02, 17 December 2012 and the articles. So there should be two articles - one for the PLO foreign relations (that covers also the State of Palestine and PNA) and one for Hamas relations. In the context of foreign relations "Palestine" is ambiguous term - and that's why it's not suitable for WP:TITLE without additional qualifier. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Each entity has its own article Foreign relations of Entity, regardless of the number of Governments, or control of the territory, or etc. Content of the article isn't the problem described in the intro. I disagree with you, it's still the same repetition of arguments. I don't see sense in continuing. Jan CZ (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

  • Jan CZ, this is not a voting poll, and also no need for such summary after every response. Also some of those 5 also support the title "Foreign relations of the PLO". My summary of the above is the following:
  • The same proposal was discussed before and not approved. Nothing has changed in the topic of the article or in the institutional setup of the entities involved since the last discussion. Recent UN vote also doesn't affect any of those and it's also RECENTISM. The proposal should not be approved per WP:TITLE - titles should not use ambiguous terms in an WP:EGG-like fashion. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal endorsed by most editors. Inclusion of CI+Niue on the List of sovereign states had been discussed repeatedly. And finally, we have the inclusion of the two countries on the list. Niue was included with a minimum consensus of 61%. All those who were against the inclusion respect it. Jan CZ (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Palestinian supporters prefer "Palestine" as it looks like a "normal state" and Israeli supporters prefer "anything other than Palestine" so that it don't look like a normal state (the same motivation that was behind the Palestinian initiative at the UN in 1988 for the short-form designation of the Palestinian delegation - and ironically now they want to reverse that back to full-name - as that now suits their cause better). But Misplaced Pages should be NPOV. Titles should describe the topic - they should not be tools for political promotion of noble causes. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Close this already It's been 15 days, and conciseness is overwhelming to move this, I think it's time to close this RM and move the page. I strongly suggest relisting the below RM tough, everyone has been so focused on this one that there hasn't been much perpetration in that one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative

  • I'm not against waiting, but had to propose the proper title, because of the above renaming request. The problem with waiting is the big probability that nothing substantial will happen (e.g. no "big bang" announcement of "PNA is disbanded" or "PNA is merged into SoP") - there may be some renaming here and there (like the health ministry website) and that's it. That will only complicate our editing work by increasing uncertainty in sources. Japinderum (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If, one day, the situation will change (really born SoP, cease the PLO..), then the article can be renamed again. But that does not alter the fact that the article should now correspond to the current situation. Today the name is factually incorrect. Let's change it. Jan CZ (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Japinderum, this story might cause you to reconsider your mind - the Arab League website now says the member name is "State of Palestine" (Da'wlat Falastin). It seems to become the official designation of all PLO institutions, as the representative in the UN also attempted to change the sign from "Palestine" (under PLO) to "State of Palestine" (standalone) .Greyshark09 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • State of Palestine is member of the Arab League since decades. Nothing new there. Long time ago other editors and I fished out sources explicitly showing "State of Palestine" as the Arab League member (for the table of international organizations participation in the article here). Same for OIC. The UN designation source is interesting, but it only shows what we already knew - PLO observer delegation is changed into SoP observer delegation. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes about as much sense as the current title. Bilateral relations and foreign relations of the Palestinian Authority are not conducted by the PLO, nor are they attributed to it. Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Current title is wrong - contrary to that proposed here. Have you seen the sources at 09:26, 16 December 2012 and also in the articles? PNA does not have ANY representatives or missions abroad - only the PLO does. Japinderum (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Unless something has changed since 1995, the only Palestinian body that exercise diplomatic functions is PLO. In fact according to their agreement PNA is not allowed to conduct any type of foreign missions including establishment of embassies.--Mor2 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories: