Talk:Iran–Palestinian relations

Untitled

Any ideas?

I found this in December 2006 with 1 sentence... It would be cool to get some more information in here.

Not a GA class article nor it is that important

Someone rated the article as GA class and as being very important. It is neither at the moment. I am going to rate it as "Start" class and importance "Mid" which I think is roughly accurate. --Abnn 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I find it totally inappropriate someone would do that.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT ISRAEL SHIPPED ARMS TO IRAN DURING IRAN-IRAQ WAR? THIS IS A MYTH THAT HAS BEEN ON WIKIPEDIA RELATED TOPICS, EITHER SOURCE OR REMOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Paperpusher21 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Iran's offer to accept a two-state solution

The first footnote refers to a statement by the former President of Iran. That's his idea of what might happen rather than an official policy. I think it should be removed and the second foot note stay.

Labellesanslebete (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the entity

However Iran is not the official name of Iran. Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Iran–Palestinian relations. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Iran – Palestinian National Authority relations → Iran–Palestine relations – The article was moved to the current name unilaterally in September last year. Another editor seemingly objected on the talk page (see thread above), but it was not moved back nor was the protest met with any response. I suggest it be moved back, since Iran does not have relations with the Palestinian National Authority. Instead, its embassy is accredited to the State of Palestine, represented by the PLO (see here). Nightw 19:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• The name you are suggesting is ambiguous, see Palestine. The sources cited in this article specifically mention the Palestinian National Authority. Marokwitz (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A "mention" of something isn't good enough. None of the sources state that Iran deals with the PNA, and they wouldn't because Iran doesn't recognise Israel. It deals exclusively with the PLO, for which "Palestine" is the name used in international politics (see Res. 43/177). This is also now the only Palestine bilateral relations article to be named this way. Nightw 06:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per the sources given. It'd also help in this case for the name to be flexible. Rennell435 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Palestine is defined as both a region and a political entity, and it's important not to artificially conflate the two denotations into one. Furthermore, Wikipedia is bound not to United Nations resolutions but prevailing conventions among reliable sources. I agree that some other formula should probably be found in place of "Palestinian National Authority," but it should not substitute one inaccuracy with another. Rennell435 (talk · contribs), can you propose an alternative to "Iran – Palestinian National Authority relations" that's neutrally worded?—Biosketch (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't just about the UN. Iran only recognises Palestine. So as far as this topic is concerned, the region and the political entity are the same. Nightw 08:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that Iran doesn't recognize the Palestinian National Authority is both unsourced and false. And even if this was true, this article does discuss relations between the PNA and Iran, which according to the cited sources, do exist, in various forms. Recognition is irrelevant - Iran doesn't recognize Israel but still we have an article about Iran–Israel relations. Marokwitz (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You moved the page unilaterally in September. An objection was raised on the talk page, may I ask why you didn't respond? By titling the article as you have, you've now narrowed the scope of the article so that the content related to Iran's relations with the PLO and the State of Palestine is off-topic. Consequently, unless we can effectively correct this, the content on the PLO will have to be split off into a new article; see WP:POVFUNNEL. Nightw 09:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that remark until now, and even now it wasn't immediately apparent that it was related to the move. The current name is broad enough to include the PLO as well as Hamas which are political parties of the Palestinian National Authority. I'm open to any suggestions that resolve the ambiguity with other meanings of the word Palestine (For instance, the British Mandate of Palestine, or the Geographical region). Perhaps a solution to your concerns could be using the term "Palestinian territories". Marokwitz (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the move was controversial and, given that this page isn't watched by many editors, you should have lodged a proper move request. There is no way to expand upon PLO-related information in this article under the current name. Are you confusing the PLO with Fatah? The PLO is in no way a political party and the PNA is subordinate to the PLO. The Palestinian territories do not conduct foreign relations, it's an administrative term. Nightw 11:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about Fatah, the largest faction in PLO. PNA is subordinate to the PLO so "Iran-PLO relations" is also a possible title. Do you have any other suggestions? Marokwitz (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be more accurate, yes, although again, the common name for the PLO in international affairs is Palestine. Nightw 12:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but per comment by Biosketch above this is also an ambiguous name, and according to WP:NAME, article titles are required to be unambiguous. If you feel that "PLO" is a more accurate name, I would be fine with that. Remember that both the current title, and the previous title, will still be available as redirect pages.12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Biosketch, I personally never see the issues with using "Palestine" that other editors seem to, but I also see Iran–Palestinian relations as another alternative. This is already in use on the Holy See– page. Rennell435 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable idea. Marokwitz (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems an acceptable solution. Nightw 02:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well.—Biosketch (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.