Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Solution to title[edit]

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?

  • In most countries, Palestinian delegations are accredited to "Palestine" (Australia and New Zealand, Ireland, Spain, France, Russia, China, check the article for more);
  • In the United Nations system, the seat of the Palestinian representation is named "Palestine", including in the WHO, UNWTO, ITU, UNESCO, WIPO, the ECOSOC and the General Assembly;
  • This article is about the foreign relations of other entities unrelated to the PNA (it has no status within most inter-governmental organisations listed, no official bilateral relations with many states listed, and much of the history is unrelated). Nightw 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Iceland[edit]

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

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

2012 UNGA resolution[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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: There was broad consensus that a change needed to be made, the difficult issue was determining the destination title. After a close read-through of both this discussion and the article, I've determined the current consensus is to move to Foreign Relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. —Darkwind (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)



Foreign relations of the Palestinian National AuthorityForeign 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)
  • I thought I was clear: It refers to all of them, just like the article itself. Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even though the State of Palestine is now more relevant than in the past, that doesn't change the fact that Palestinian Authority has had foreign relations. We can simply create another article on the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:55, 9 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)
  • Support. The existing name is not correct, does not correspond to the content of the article. The proposed name is more correct. Jan CZ (talk) 15:44, 10 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)
  • 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. in order not to duplicate the rest of the comment see my comment with the same date below Japinderum (talk) 09:26, 16 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. [1], [11]: 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". Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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"[2]. 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:
  • Voters: 6
  • For the proposed tittle Foreign relations of Palestine: 4
  • Result: 67% consensus for it. Jan CZ (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
  • Comment: There is a related broader discussion going on at WP:VPR#Are "Palestinian territories" titles still appropriate for topic articles.—Emil J. 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, because the Palestine article is about the geographic region and it wouldn't be consistent with articles such as Economy of the Palestinian territories and Tourism in the Palestinian territories, 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 Palestine 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. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 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 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)
  • If each entity has its own article, then we should have separate articles such as "Foreign relations of PNA", "Foreign relations of PLO", "Foreign relations of SoP". I don't think you are anybody else is proposing such setup. If by "entity" you mean "Palestine" - then you get to the core problem with the proposal - there are multiple "Palestine" entities and that's the reason the title should be explicit and not ambiguous and WP:EGG-like. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

  • Voters: 7
  • For the proposed tittle Foreign relations of Palestine: 5
  • Result: 71% consensus for it. Jan CZ (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting % is not the decision taking instrument and consensus is not measured in %. Also, I think CI/Niue are absolutely irrelevant here. What's important are the arguments - per WP:TITLE we can't have ambiguous WP:EGG-like titles. Japinderum (talk) 08:28, 27 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 [3] - as that now suits their cause better). But Wikipedia 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)
  • I Agree. Jan CZ (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree to close it, but not to move it. Proposed move target is ambiguous and WP:EGG-like. Japinderum (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That bellow oppose tiped the scales, we can't call the support overweling anymore. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, The proposed title is ambiguous and unclear whose relations it refers. The alternative suggestion seem like a solution.--Mor2 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - with Mor2's opinion it seems that there is no solid majority for Soman's proposal; on the other hand also Japinderum's proposal doesn't seem to work...Greyshark09 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Niue was included with a minimum consensus of 61% on the List of sovereign states. Here is consensus 62% for proposed name of the article. Jan CZ (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but i couldn't understand your comment; please reformulate.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I want to say that here most consensus although not strong but it is sufficient to make a change. And I said for example, the change was made with even less support (case of Niue, see Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue). Moreover, it is clear that the retention of the existing name has almost no support. 12% prefers the retention of the existing name, 62% prefers the proposed name, 25% prefers the alternative name. Leaving the current name in this situation probably is not the best solution, I think. Jan CZ (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I did read the discussion there, and it seems that 58% (or 60%) is not counted as "consensus" for Niue inclusion [4]. There is some attempt to include Niue based on hard Academic source, but that is a different thing. Consensus is usually considered as 75%; in some cases 67% can be considered (with good sources); less than 66% (which is what we have here) is very problematic and can be decided only by admins.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting % is not the decision taking instrument and consensus is not measured in %. What's important are the arguments - per WP:TITLE we can't have ambiguous WP:EGG-like titles. Japinderum (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

  • Still I support name Foreign relations of Palestine, but Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is certainly better than the current name. If here cannot reach a consensus on the proposal Foreign relations of Palestine, I'll support your alternative proposal Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Jan CZ (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - i think we should wait to see what happens with the PNA and SoP.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 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" [6] (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) [7].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)
  • Thanks for your input, i thought Palestinians were simply represented as "Palestine" in the Arab League prior to the UN vote in November.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Long time ago other editors and I..." -- You might want to take care when it comes to recounting your history. Have a look at just how long ago that was done... Nightw 12:11, 20 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)
  • Your reason for opposing the move contradicts the article which says "The foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are conducted by the PLO". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2013 (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)
I suggest you should take a look at the above move proposal by Soman (the main discussion), to rename this article to "Foreign relations of Palestine".Greyshark09 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, you have already voted there, never mind...Greyshark09 (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - i think i was too early to talk about possible disband of PNA. Just today Abbas talked about PNA in present sense.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying the PNA is disbanded. The proposal here is exactly the opposite - the article should be 'FR of PLO', because the PLO is the one conducting the foreign relations since decades, since before the PNA and since before SoP, and continues to do it in the present time. Whether PNA is disbanded or merged into SoP is entirely separate issue. Japinderum (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually there are talks about it. On one hand as i wrote here - Abbas mentioned PNA in present sense, but on the other the mission in the UN was officially changed from "Palestine" (under PLO) to "State of Palestine" (see UN announcement [8]; change at UNOG [9])and Mahmud Abbas is now officially related by the UN as the President of the State of Palestine and not as Chairman of PLO/President of the Palestinian National Authority.
Interestingly, in one of prior conferences in 2012 it was said that "... This transformation will, logically, require the prior dissolution of the Palestinian Authority (which, legally, should have ceased to exist in 1999, at the end of the "interim period" provided for in the Oslo Accords) and the accompanying proclamation that all of its ministries and other governmental agencies have become ministries or agencies of the State of Palestine. In this context, it would, of course, be highly desirable for a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas to be achieved prior to September." [10].
It is not clear when all other Palestinian institutions will be transformed, but it seems it is on the way.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
With "nobody is saying" I mean - nobody of the editors making proposals above. I don't doubt Palestinian officials take all scenarios into account. On the other hand - PNA was NEVER represented at the UN and it still is not. The UN may refer to some acts of the PNA or may give it support or whatever, that's it. MEPC can speculate as much as they want (although I don't agree that Fatah and Hamas "peace" is a pre-condition for the dissolution of PNA or its merge into SoP - the "internationally recognized PNA" is the Fatah-PNA. Hamas may claim they are the legitimate PNA rulers, but that won't prevent the PLO - the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people - from dissolving the PNA/merging it into its other project, the SoP). Actually there were speculations that this act was to be done BEFORE the application for UN membership in 2011! Taking this step will be a huge event - and hopefully will make our job here easier (e.g. reduce the details that should be taken care of not be stamped over by over-enthusiastic cause supporters), but we shall see... it all depends on how it's executed. For Wikipedia editors sake I prefer a "big bang" announcement instead of creepy step-by-step behind the scenes "takeover" of PNA by SoP which will led to uncertainty and wrong reports by uninformed sources.
Anyway, the forumish discussion we drifted into is at best tangential to the topic here (or even irrelevant). When it happens and when we know what exactly happened, then we can discuss what changes in the articles it requires. Japinderum (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The process however is ongoing - now it is Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics to change its title to be that of State of Palestine (see [11]). This of course applies all the figures of demographics etc. to be those of the State of Palestine. I'm not implying i intend to change this right away in the wiki, but other editors will go on this process in parallel with the ongoing transition of PNA->SoP.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bureau changing its title doesn't change the statistics themselves and also the SoP article infobox already uses the oPt/PNA statistics. And this is irrelevant to the foreign relations discussion. Japinderum (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per my "Palistine" support. If this article isn't going to cover Hamas Gaza foreign relations then this is my first choice, Palestine my second. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - looking at the progressing change of Palestinian institutions into SoP designation, it seems that PLO would very soon be outdated for such article. I herewith change from weak oppose to oppose.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Why, unless this has changed the PLO handles foreign relation for the SOP, what does the PLO shifting institutions between it's "subsidiaries" have to do with this? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And what PLO (not PNA) institution is changed into SoP institution? I haven't seen such example so far. And besides that's irrelevant since the PLO-EC is the SoP government - do you have a source stating that this will change? In case you have sources to confirm neither of those questions, then PLO will continue to be as relevant as today. Japinderum (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Abbas announced transition from PNA to SoP in the near time; the change has already begun.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Closer's comment[edit]

Please make sure to edit the article appropriately to reflect its new title. I had enough trouble fighting the server to get the page to actually move that I'm not going to try editing it myself. —Darkwind (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (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.