The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This is part of a contentious topic, so in general we want to tread carefully, but after one week the consensus seems clear enough already - 9 in favour and only 2 against, plus this result effectively fits with the result of the previous RM, which already concluded that Palestine should be a primary redirect. So I think it's fairly clear where the community consensus lies.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine → Palestine – Per WP:COMMONNAME, and for conciseness and consistency, the article should be moved. It was established that the State of Palestine is the primary topic for Palestine in the English language here, and the Palestine page is currently a redirect to the State of Palestine article. The State of Palestine is most commonly referred to as simply Palestine. In the cases of other county articles which also may refer to a region and in which the country is the primary topic, such as Syria and Syria (region) and Italy and Italy (geographical region), the country article titles reflect the common name rather than the full name. 2018rebel 01:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move. This is a perennial move request, but I feel like it's finally been established that "Palestine" overwhelmingly refers to the country. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Commonname is a bit of a red herring here, as this page is named as it is due to disambiguation of the commonname of Palestine. There are also other countries not primary to their region such as Congo and Ireland. That said, this is a ptopic question, and that seems to have been the issue discussed at Talk:Palestine (disambiguation)#Requested move 29 June 2024. I'm surprised the disambiguation was moved independently of this page. CMD (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been a long running affair on WP (where the official position of Israel and its supporters/the US, has been that Palestine either isn't a state, doesn't exist and/or refers to all of Palestine including Israel and/or is a POV violation, etc etc and so attempts to move this page to Palestine have always failed as can be seen above, the most recent attempt being Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 19#Requested move 18 April 2024. Yes, the ideal set up would probably be Palestine (this page) and a disambiguation page for everything else and it would seem that when people say/write Palestine, they in all likelihood are referring to what is officially (by ISO/The UN) called the State of Palestine. Is there a tech whiz about that can see where users go after having entered Palestine in the search box? Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know the answer to your question, but I can see the pageviews including from redirects that end up here. No idea why the API breaks the Arabic redirects up into individual letters. The numbers won't match precisely with number above the lead because the API sets the end date back one day (to yesterday) whereas I count 30 days back from now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom This is the primary usage of Palestine, as now clearly set down by the target of the redirect, so this is not comparable to cases like Congo and Ireland. There's no need to redirect to a longer form when the shorter name is the most common. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This reference to Congo and Ireland is a bit circular, but the odd thing here is the technical situation arising where that comparison could have been made. The disambiguation move has put these out of kilter, because as you say given Palestine as a redirect points here, it then follows from the naming guidelines that this page should have been moved to that redirect as it no longer needed disambiguation. CMD (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right in theory but this is Palestine and invariably problematic. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That shouldn't mean we complicate it further by an Ptopic move that doesn't actually move the Ptopic. Your question above for example would be easy to answer if the disambiguation page still disambiguated from the base name, as the data would be on WikiNav. At a look through I can't see an easy option to pull March data. CMD (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The root of the problem is that it shouldn't have been a redirect to here, rather should have been a disambiguation page, or perhaps to the generalised page for the region. ~~~ Mathmo ^Talk 10:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the way it was before until consensus decided otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The recent redirct change should definitely be relooked at, then overturned. Mathmo ^Talk 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As of now, this is emphatically not the primary meaning of Palestine. Palestine (region) or the dab page should be at that name. The redirect was and is a bad idea. As I said in that RM, ngrams show usage of "Palestine" has only modestly increased since 1948. In other words, we have good reason to think the word has the same meaning in 2024 as it did in 1924. And nobody meant "State of Palestine" until very recently. —Srnec (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Could that data also be interpreted to suggest that Mandatory Palestine, rather than the region, was the primary topic between 1920 and 1948. For at least the past five years, the articles for the State of Palestine, Mandatory Palestine, and Occupied Palestinian territories (incl. previous name) had more monthly views than Palestine (region), with State of Palestine having an absolute majority (62%) of the number of views during the period. Thus, by number of page views, Palestine (region) is the fourth most-visited page that potentially means Palestine. 2018rebel 02:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In Wikipedia terms, your interpretation of ngrams data is WP:Original research. There are multiple ways to interpret that data. It's possible that while usage of Palestine has not increased significantly, the usage has shifted in terms of what it refers to. Bogazicili (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nom, clear PRIMARYTOPIC especially with uptick in global coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move to rename the article GucciNuzayer (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Palestine (region) is primary, why wasn't Israel moved to State of Israel? Bogazicili (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nomination. Firecat93 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per above. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose the proposed future country/state of Palestine is completely different to the term "Palestine", which has had numerous other meanings over the centuries, and thus the waters shouldn't be muddied by mixing them up. Mathmo ^Talk 10:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Palestine already redirects to here? Thus the waters are already "muddied" in your terms. This RM is more like the last leg of a house cleaning operation. Btw, the state is not "proposed", it exists, that the US is alone in not recognizing that (on behalf of its ally, presumably) is neither surprising nor determinative. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The root of the problem is that it shouldn't have been a redirect to here (that btw was a very very recent change, just a few months ago), rather should have been a disambiguation page, or perhaps to the generalised page for the region. Moving this page to there then just doubles down on the initial wrong decision by making another wrong decision rather than fixing the original root problem.

  And Palestine is very much so a proposed future state, as it does not currently exist, and it has never existed ever in the past. Currently Israel has granted a certain degree of limited autonomy to the Palestinian Authority in Areas A & B of Judea & Samaria (plus also in Gaza to an even greater degree). But Israel has never granted them statehood, so until a two state peace deal is reached (or the other option: they violently seize land from Israel and thus after defeating Israel they establish by conquest a new state. Which they're certainly also giving a try and doing, as was seen on Oct7th) then there is no such country established. Mathmo ^Talk 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  as it does not currently exist Tell that to the just over 3/4 of UN member states that recognize it as existing, I'm sure they they will take your personal opinion into account in their diplomatic dealings. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Referring to whatever the majority of the UN thinks about Israel is utterly irrelevant, as that is no surprise, it's well known how the UN will easily pass whatever random new anti-Israel resolution they wish to pass. https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/01/04/absurd-un-condemned-israel-twice-often-all-other-countries-combined-2023/ But we shouldn't be denying what are obvious facts, because for a country to exist is needs to meet certain criteria. And you can't even give answers for the country of Palestine about basic facts such as: what day was it founded on? What are its defined borders? Mathmo ^Talk 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the article? Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read the article, and it doesn't answer any of my basic questions. Because:

  Founding Date: Are you going to claim the state of Palestine was created in 1988?? Even though in 1988 the Arab leadership didn't have control over a single inch of land of their own until Israel gave them some in the Oslo Accords, and thus finally for the first time ever they had some degree of autonomy of their own. (as Egypt and Jordan certainly didn't! The British offered it, but got it turned down by the Arabs. The Ottoman's also certainly didn't offer the Arabs their own country in the region of Palestine! Neither did anybody else. The Israelis were the first to make it happen with their plan the PLO)

  Country Borders: are you going to claim Area C is currently part of the state of Palestine? As it's blatantly obviously not, this is Israeli held and run land. Also why in 1964 did the lands of Gaza or Judea & Samaria (none of it, not lands the which are now are Area A, or Area B, or Area C. ) never ever get mentioned in the original Palestine National Charter founding document as part of the state of Palestine? Instead they got specifically excluded as not being part of the land they claimed. So what then were they claiming as part of their country, would Tel Aviv thus be part of "the state of Palestine"? That's clearly total nonsense. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-original-palestine-national-charter-1964

  Thus, no, none of this makes sense at all. Very clearly the country of Palestine does not currently exist, and never has. Mathmo ^Talk 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see I am wasting my time here, bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The UN and international community consider the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip to be occupied Palestinian territories. I strongly support the proposed renaming. Firecat93 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The base term already redirects here and the UN recognises the name of the state as such, so Palestine is a seated state, which takes precedence over geographical regions and history. Readers looking for something else are already and will continue to be well looked after by the hatnotes. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The available evidence and the previous PTopic discussion suggests that we should take the final step here, no evidence (rather than opinion) has been presented that when most WP users search for Palestine they are looking for anything other than this article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: the DAB page move was a tacit recognition that the PTOPIC for "Palestine" is the state of Palestine, so the need for natural disambiguation isn't really needed. COMMONNAME for the state of Palestine is, well, simply "Palestine". Sceptre (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]