Talk:List of twin towns and sister cities in the State of Palestine

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Out of process move[edit]

Breein1007 moved this page to List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian Territories. I moved it back since no request to WP:MOVE was filed, there was no discussion, and as far as I can tell, this has the name of the page since its inception.

If people would like to initiate a move discussion, please do it properly by listing the request at WP:RM. Tiamut^talk 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

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

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of twin towns and sister cities in Palestine → List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories — These cities are not in "Palestine". The so-called state of "Palestine" does not control one inch of soil. Breein1007 (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Breein1007: do you have a reliable source that states that Palestine does not control one inch of soil? Tiamut^talk 10:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut – are you trying to say you believe the State of Palestine has de facto control over all the territories it claims, including the partly Israeli-occupied West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anything IP. I'm asking Breein1007 to provide a source for his statement (which is his sole rationale for a move). In fact, the argument he raises is a red herring. Whether or not Palestine exercises full control over the territories it claims is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Palestinian cities are viewed by most of the world as being part of Palestine. As the sources below demonstrate, this is the most common name for this area, and per our Wiki policies, should therefore be the one we use. Tiamut^talk 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the facts backs that up. According to the Palestinian territories article: "The United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, International Committee of the Red Cross and the Government of the United Kingdom all refer to the "Occupied Palestinian Territories".UK Government Foreign Office House of Commons International Development Committee.International Committee of the Red Cross Journalists also use the description to indicate lands outside the Green Line." 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but according to the sources cited in the State of Palestine article, about 110 states recognize Palestine. I'd say that's a majority that outweighs the opinions of those you have listed above. Furthermore, the google search results indicate Palestine is much more commonly used than Palestinian territories. Tiamut^talk 08:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that reliable sources, and the situation on the ground, are more important than the extent of the State of Palestine's legal sovereignty, or international relations. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. What exactly does this international recognition mean in practical terms? Not much. Furthermore, in terms of "Palestine" being more common than "Palestinian territories" on google, a) you know very well that google search results don't count for shit and b) the word Palestine has been used in MANY historical contexts other than the one that you are pushing so hard for, and that has certainly skewed the results tremendously. Breein1007 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The cities and towns in this list are commonly referred to as being located in Palestine. See, for example, the "Worldwide Government Directory 2006: With International Organizations" by Barbara Roger. Note that Ramallah is listed as being in "Ramallah, Palestine" and not "Ramallah, Palestinian Territories". Indeed, while "Ramallah, Palestine" gets 636 hits in google books, "Ramallah, Palestinian Territories" gets only 17 hits. Similarly, "Bethlehem, Palestine" gets 637 hits while "Bethlehem, Palestinian territories" gets only 3 hits. "Qalqilya, Palestine" gets 11 hits, while "Qalqilya, Palestinian territories" gets 0 hits. And so on and so forth. Clearly, "Palestine" is the most common name for the territory in which Palestinian cities are located. Tiamut^talk 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Palestine" is a geographic region which currently include the territory of Israel proper. The "Palestinian territories" is the proper name for the West Bank and Gaza, which are not de facto under the political control of the State of Palestine. This article is only about cities and towns in the Palestinian territories. "Palestine" may be more commonly used because of its historical and cultural connotations, but the fact is it is not a precise geographic or political entity, and its usage here does not seem either accurate or neutral. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please. Unsourced opinions don't count for much. Tiamut^talk 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed sources above to support my arguments. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the move request as per 84.92.117.93 - "Palestinian territories" instead of "Palestinian Territories". Here is the source you requested, Tiamut (although there is no reason that I need to find this for you, because I am not asking that we insert the fact that "Palestine" controls no land into the article.) [1] "country-without-a-country" "non-existent on any current political map". Breein1007 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein1007, that source does not say what you said. I would further note the entry itself on this "country-without-a-country" (which is referring to the people of Palestine who live in exile) is entitled "Palestine" and not "Palestinian territories", so clearly, this is not a source that supports your renaming proposition. Tiamut^talk 18:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, are you saying that I'm lying? You must be reading between the lines to get out of the source what you want to get. I copied direct quotes from the book. I await a retraction of your statement and if you are accusing me of lying, an apology would be fitting. Breein1007 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I should have said, "that source does not say what you said earlier on." I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Now please address the points raised. Tiamut^talk 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's silly to ask me to find a source saying "Palestine doesn't control one inch of soil". Just because sources don't use the same wording as me doesn't mean they don't portray the same meaning. Do you claim that "Palestine" is a state that does have control over this land? Breein1007 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to support your sole rationale for the move with sources, that's your perogative. The source you cite in support, uses the word "Palestine" to describe the country in question. In other words, your argument about terrotorial control is clearly irrelevant to determining which is the most appropriate term to use. If that's all you have to go on right now, I'm going to vote in favor of the phrasing used by reiable soruces, rather than that which you favor based on your personal preferences. Tiamut^talk 08:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting the sources, Tiamut. "Palestine" is not a country, and the source does not suggest that it is. The fact that this so-called "Palestine" does not have any territorial control is clearly relevant. How can you suggest otherwise? If "Palestine" controls no territory, the territory of Bethlehem for example, is clearly not in "Palestine", since no territory is in "Palestine". Do you follow? It seems quite relevant to me. Also, I will request that you please stop acting as if you own this article and other articles in this area. This is a dicussion, and you have no right to use such a tone when other editors contribute. This article isn't yours, and you do not make the final decision of whether or not someone's opinion and vote is valid or worth as much as your own. Breein1007 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support List of twin towns and sister cities in the State of Palestine. The lead article is State of Palestine so best to stick the the standardized approach. I'll Weak Support List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories, but only because it is better than the current name. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic behind the proposition to rename to "... in the State of Palestine". However, despite the title of that article, the official and most common name for the state is simply "Palestine" (as the sources at Talk:State of Palestine and those above demonstrate). A name change proposal to move State of Palestine to Palestine (state) has not yet been attempted. But I hope it will be done soon, since the current title is not in line with Wiki naming conventions. Tiamut^talk 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the state is called is irrelevent, because it does not have any practical existance - it is a theoretical concept, nothing more. Ramallah and Gaza and others are demonstratably within the Palestinian territories - they are not part of any state called "Palestine". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer what reliable sources have to say over your unverifiable opinion. I've added links to books that describe and define each city listed as being in Palestine. If people have refs that say otherwise (and they believe that there are more of these refs than hose saying Palestine), please present the evidence. As I've demonstrated above however, I don't think you will find the sources support your position. Tiamut^talk 08:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided my sources above showing that most international organisations and observers favour "Occupied Palestinian Territories" as their terminology for the region, and depreciate the use of "Palestine" owing to the lack of a functioning sovereign state controlling the territory. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate the sources you brought foward. They do not, however, support moving this page to List of twin towns and sisters in the Palestinian territories, though they do make an argument for moving it to List of twin towns and sisters in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I still believe that given that reliable sources use the term "Palestine" much more commonly, and that the official name of the country of Palestinians, and the name they are rpesented at in the UN is "Palestine" (see State of Palestine) that we should name our articles accordingly. This is in line with our naming policies as outlined at WP:PLACE. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian territories" and "Occupied Palestinian Territories" both refer to the same land, and are much closer in terminology than "Occupied Palestinian Territories" and "Palestine". Both former terms ultimately describe the West Bank and Gaza, while "Palestine" can mean a whole host of things, given that Palestine before 1948 included all of what is now Israel. Again, the State of Palestine is not a geographical entity - right now it's simply a government run by the PLO. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every List of twin towns and sister cities follows the name convention of the main article. This one, although a contentious subject is no different. If you want to put forward a move request for regarding the article currently named State of Palestine feel free to do so, but that is a debate best left there. By convention this list should follow name of the main article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the "State of Palestine" is the main article here. The geographic area is the Palestinian territories, as recognised by most observers, while the State is largely unrecognised with little control over the actual area. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Palestine" is an unclear term. It can, and usually does, represent a region, but it could represent the Palestinian territories. The more precise "cities in the Palestinian territories" should be used if that is what is meant. State of Palestine, by the way, does not work, because although there may be a state, a government, it controls no land. You can't have cities in a state without land. -- tariqabjotu 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... it's as simple as that. I don't think I could outline my support for this any more clearly than that. Breein1007 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that clearly defines the "Palestinian territories"? Because in the discussion at Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory, there is clear confusion over its geographical scope as well. Furthermore, can you explain why we should ignore that the official name of this area is Palestine, so as to favor the use of a less common euphemism, an idea which flies in the face of WP:PLACE? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are a lot of people who say Palestine and mean the West Bank and Gaza, and maybe it is the official name (although I'm not sure about that), but that doesn't change the fact that Palestine is used to mean a region including Isarel to a similar degree it is used to mean the West Bank and Gaza. There is no justification for using a more ambiguous term (Palestine) instead of a less ambiguous term (Palestinian territories) simply because the latter term is ambiguous at all. And there's really very little dispute over how to handle such situations, if we were to look at similar cases where terms are used to denote two geographical areas.

For example, the term "New York" is very commonly used to mean New York, the state, and New York City; it is the official name for both, even though internationally it is used almost exclusively to mean the city. When we have articles about transportation, geography, environmental issues, or food and water in the city, we title those articles "X in New York City", even when there are no conflicting articles for the state (i.e. there is no Food and water in New York (state) article). You're supposed to be consistent. A similar pattern can be seen in Ireland (the island) vs. Republic of Ireland (the country), or Georgia (U.S. state) vs. Georgia (country), or Portland, Oregon, vs. Portland, Maine.

Currently, Palestine is about the region including Israel. So, any articles entitled "X of/in Palestine" should be about Xs in that entire region. This article, I presume, is not what that's about, or, if it were, it'd be a rather silly article. It's about the sister cities in the Palestinian territories, so that's the term that should be used. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with linking to State of Palestine to make clear it is the political entity and not the geographical region that is being referred to. I am against changing the title to read "in the State of Palestine" because the official name of that political entity is Palestine, which is also its name at the UN. "Palestinian territories" is neither the official nor most common name for where these cities are located. Sources have been provided for each entry attesting to their location in Palestine. There is nothing unclear about this. What is unclear is why we would use "Palestinian territories" when it is not the most common name and is not an official name. Where in WP:PLACE does it say we should use less common and unofficial names when the official/common name can be confused with somewhere else? Tiamut^talk 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would expect our naming to follow the most authoritative sources which, to my mind, would be the ICJ and the UN. There seem to be various claims above but no citations. Could people provide some, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians are represented at the United Nations General Assembly under the name 'Palestine'.
The UNDP refers to Palestinian lands as the occupied Palestinian territories [2], as does the UNOCHA [3] and the ICJ [4]. This source [5] indicates that 'Palestine' is another name for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Tiamut^talk 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is not now nor has there ever been an independent nation-state called "Palestine". The Palestinian territories, call them occupied if you wish, are still part of Israel, and are merely being administered by a Palestinian National Authority. They are not a member state of the UN, and as other users have cited above, "Palestine" is more often than not used as an abbreviation or euphemism for the Occupied Territories, the Palestinian Territories, or whatever, and not to refer to a mythical State of Palestine. I hope one day to see a two-state solution, and to see peace settle over the region, but today is not that day, and Palestine is not yet a free and independent country. LordAmeth (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As of now, the name "Palestine" cannot be said to refer explicitly to any geopolitical entity. "Palestinian Territories", on the other hand, has become a known and accepted name to the WB&Gaza since the Oslo Accords. DrorK (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

", Palestine"[edit]

As per the consensus to rename the article, I have updated the contents accordingly. This includes the first sentence as well as later references to "Palestine". It would be just as easy for me to find sources and put "Ramallah, Palestinian Territories" or "Ramallah, West Bank". By removing the qualifier, we can avoid this problem altogether. Breein1007 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't bother to did you? And I doubt it would be easy actually, since search results for some places brought back no hits for "x, Palestinian territories". In any case, you have gotten your rename and I'm not going to restore the sources that you deleted [6] which attest to their being located in Palestine. So enjoy it ... One day soon, when Palestine and Palestinians are finally free to determine the name of their land and their own destiny without outside interference, you may look back on these days with some wistfulness. Tiamut^talk 08:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One day, maybe. Soon? I'd be willing to bet against that. I wish it could happen; it's a shame that extremists succeed in preventing peace from reigning. But I digress. Breein1007 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Quds is the arabic word for Jerusalem[edit]

Al Quds is the arabic word for Jerusalem, this is English Wikipedia, not Arabic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? See 2009_Arab_Capital_of_Culture Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081112163846/http://www.grenoble.fr/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?page_id=92 to http://www.grenoble.fr/jsp/site/Portal.jsp?page_id=92

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of twin towns and sister cities in the Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]