Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Google changes Palestinian location from 'Territories' to 'Palestine'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22395494
10 comments
Borders change quite a bit, Yugoslavia broke up, and Czechoslovakia too, both of which I am sure many HN readers are from. East and West Germany merged, even more HN readers from there.
Guilty on this one, especially since Germany is a neighboring country and I didn't even think of it. Which illustrates my point: when our borders never changed, we can have a tendency to take them for granted and not imagine that other countries are struggling to have theirs recognized.
We've already had our first Google Maps "war". http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-go...
Well done Google. Palestine is and always has been a country, occupation or not. To call it by any other name is simply ignorant and uneducated.
Part of me (the part that watches Better Off Ted) thinks this is just another change along the lines of the recent Gmail minimalism.
The new logo which drops the word "territories" looks much cleaner and switching to Palestine from Palestinian really tightens things up.
The new logo which drops the word "territories" looks much cleaner and switching to Palestine from Palestinian really tightens things up.
I don't think it's as simple as that. For example there was a debate about Google Farsi[1]. It used to be Google Parsi which is closer to Persian culture but then it changed to Google Farsi which is new name of Parsi (Persian language) after adopting Arabic alphabet by Persians.
Farsi vs. Parsi has tons of difference. People got mad and happy for this decision. I don't believe this kind of decision is made by design team.
[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=fa
Farsi vs. Parsi has tons of difference. People got mad and happy for this decision. I don't believe this kind of decision is made by design team.
[1] https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=fa
Wow, odd coincidence here. I was just taking a stroll through the ISO 3166-1 country lists to update our own database and noticed that they had changed it to "Palestine, State Of".
I'm not sure when it happened, but I dutifully changed ours to match (in the same way Google has) as following the standards orgs is generally good practice.
I'm not sure when it happened, but I dutifully changed ours to match (in the same way Google has) as following the standards orgs is generally good practice.
Bravo Google.
And the relevant XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/787/
http://xkcd.com/787/
A relevant letter sent to the New York Times in 1975:
---
Dear Sir:
Your newspaper frequently uses the term "Palestinian" to describe a section of the Middle East population which is Arab, to differentiate it from Israeli Jews. As the holder of a Palestinian Identity Card and a Certificate of Discharge from a Palestinian Unit of the British army, I find this practice annoying and certainly untrue...
We Palestinian Jews wore the uniform of the British Army, and on our shoulder epaulettes the single word, "Palestine" in English. We tried to get permission to wear Hebrew insignia, fly the Jewish flag and be recognized as Palestinian Jews, but-no, Palestinian meant Jew and Arab, and who cared if there were fewer than 3000 Arabs as compared to 36,000 Jews in khaki? In British Army nomenclature, the equivalent of a GI is BOR, meaning British Other Rank. We were formally known as POR, Palestinian Other Ranks.
So we fought the war as Palestinians, set up the Jewish Brigade as Palestinians, and I'll be damned if I agree that only Arafat and his assassins are Palestinians.
As a Palestinian, I was arrested by the British on suspicion of smuggling immigrants into the country. As a Palestinian, I had the honor of commanding the 329th Palestinian Company of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME - all Jews). There were no equivalent Arab units. Once a British general said to me, "Migawd| I have so many things to dislike you for, for being a Jew, American born, a Palestinian-and you don't even know how to handle a knife and fork!
So cut it out, please. Call them what you will, but not Palestinians.
Yours truly, Joe Criden
---
Source: http://afsi.org/pamphlets/PalestiniansKahn.pdf
---
Dear Sir:
Your newspaper frequently uses the term "Palestinian" to describe a section of the Middle East population which is Arab, to differentiate it from Israeli Jews. As the holder of a Palestinian Identity Card and a Certificate of Discharge from a Palestinian Unit of the British army, I find this practice annoying and certainly untrue...
We Palestinian Jews wore the uniform of the British Army, and on our shoulder epaulettes the single word, "Palestine" in English. We tried to get permission to wear Hebrew insignia, fly the Jewish flag and be recognized as Palestinian Jews, but-no, Palestinian meant Jew and Arab, and who cared if there were fewer than 3000 Arabs as compared to 36,000 Jews in khaki? In British Army nomenclature, the equivalent of a GI is BOR, meaning British Other Rank. We were formally known as POR, Palestinian Other Ranks.
So we fought the war as Palestinians, set up the Jewish Brigade as Palestinians, and I'll be damned if I agree that only Arafat and his assassins are Palestinians.
As a Palestinian, I was arrested by the British on suspicion of smuggling immigrants into the country. As a Palestinian, I had the honor of commanding the 329th Palestinian Company of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME - all Jews). There were no equivalent Arab units. Once a British general said to me, "Migawd| I have so many things to dislike you for, for being a Jew, American born, a Palestinian-and you don't even know how to handle a knife and fork!
So cut it out, please. Call them what you will, but not Palestinians.
Yours truly, Joe Criden
---
Source: http://afsi.org/pamphlets/PalestiniansKahn.pdf
While this helps showcase the problem in nomenclatures and how people relate to them, I personally don't feel there was that much to this specific claim/complaint.
The population at the 'British Mandate of Palestine' (which resulted in the name of the unit in the British army at the time) was mostly of Arabs. Especially if you also count parts of Transjordan that some claim where also "Palestinian".
Agreeing to definitions is usually hard, and especially so in that region.
The population at the 'British Mandate of Palestine' (which resulted in the name of the unit in the British army at the time) was mostly of Arabs. Especially if you also count parts of Transjordan that some claim where also "Palestinian".
Agreeing to definitions is usually hard, and especially so in that region.
I find the source, the subject matter, and the motive of the letter to be rather questionable.
I hereby declare Quebec free.
> "In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, Icann, ISO and other international organisations."
Maybe corporations will start to recognize Quebec as free when the UN, ICANN, ISO, and a handful of other apolitical organizations do too, as is the case with the officially recognized state of Palestine.
Maybe corporations will start to recognize Quebec as free when the UN, ICANN, ISO, and a handful of other apolitical organizations do too, as is the case with the officially recognized state of Palestine.
> Maybe corporations will start to recognize Quebec as free when the UN, ICANN, ISO, and a handful of other apolitical organizations do too
UN, ICANN, and ISO aren't apolitical organizations.
UN, ICANN, and ISO aren't apolitical organizations.
Vive le Québec libre! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vive_le_Qu%C3%A9bec_libre)
You do that. Nobody wants Quebec.
It could end up like Lesotho, or worse, like Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, or Venda. (the trick to setting up independent states to get rid of territory seems to be setting up several at once, which all cross-recognize each other, so you can claim they're each recognized by "several states". Maybe ditch the Maritimes at the same time?
Declare everyone free, within Quebec and without, and I'll be there with you. Until then it's just another government deciding what to do with "its" people.
It's interesting how internet companies are taking authority over many things away from official entities that nominally should have that authority.
For example owning the domain name is more important than registering a trademark for that name.
For example owning the domain name is more important than registering a trademark for that name.
> It's interesting how internet companies are taking authority over many things away from official entities that nominally should have that authority.
What authority is google taking up here? A text change on a localized website? Nothing about the I/P conflict is changed here. Unless Google's gotten a seat on the UN Security Council since I last read the news.
What authority is google taking up here? A text change on a localized website? Nothing about the I/P conflict is changed here. Unless Google's gotten a seat on the UN Security Council since I last read the news.
The point is that these days having Google recognize your claims to being a country is more important than having the UN recognize it (which it doesn't, yet Google does).
> The point is that these days having Google recognize your claims to being a country is more important than having the UN recognize it (which it doesn't, yet Google does).
Actually, Google is (and this is covered in their announcement) following the UN and other international organizations in the wording change (which is not, on Google's part, recognition of Palestine as a State so much as recognition that it is an entity with the name "Palestine" rather than "Palestinian Territories".)
Also, the UN, as of last year, actually does recognize Palestine as a State, having accorded it the status of a "Non-member observer State". http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
Actually, Google is (and this is covered in their announcement) following the UN and other international organizations in the wording change (which is not, on Google's part, recognition of Palestine as a State so much as recognition that it is an entity with the name "Palestine" rather than "Palestinian Territories".)
Also, the UN, as of last year, actually does recognize Palestine as a State, having accorded it the status of a "Non-member observer State". http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm
Thanks for the link.
When the UN recognizes Palestine, it will be much more significant than Google's copy change.
> When the UN recognizes Palestine, it will be much more significant than Google's copy change.
The UN granted Palestine the status of "Non-member observer State" last year. This status change is one of the many by international organizations with regard to Palestine that led to Google making the "copy change" at issue here.
The UN granted Palestine the status of "Non-member observer State" last year. This status change is one of the many by international organizations with regard to Palestine that led to Google making the "copy change" at issue here.
Notice Google said "In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, Icann, ISO and other international organisations."
Not only does the UN recognize Palestine as a state. But ICANN, ISO, and other international standards organizations do too.
Not only does the UN recognize Palestine as a state. But ICANN, ISO, and other international standards organizations do too.
Maps really are just lines on paper. "A text change on a localized website" is all the power you need to recognize someone's authority.
True, though recognition of someone's authority is not "taking" authority at all, which is what OP was complaining about.
One can make the argument that Google shouldn't be endorsing either side, but taking authority away from either they are not.
One can make the argument that Google shouldn't be endorsing either side, but taking authority away from either they are not.
> One can make the argument that Google shouldn't be endorsing either side, but taking authority away from either they are not.
Referring to Palestine as an entity is (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.
Not referring to Palestine as an entity in and of itself but instead referring to "Palestinian Territories" is also (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.
Even having or not having a .ps localized site would meet that description.
There really is nothing with regard to the whole Israel/Palestine issue that is not going to be seen as endorsing one side or the other.
Referring to Palestine as an entity is (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.
Not referring to Palestine as an entity in and of itself but instead referring to "Palestinian Territories" is also (an act certain to be seen, especially by the other side, as) endorsing one sides position.
Even having or not having a .ps localized site would meet that description.
There really is nothing with regard to the whole Israel/Palestine issue that is not going to be seen as endorsing one side or the other.
I don't think companies should take a stance on political issues, which is what Google is doing here.
Would actually prefer companies have totally no influence on politics at all, but as we all know, that would be an utopia.
Would actually prefer companies have totally no influence on politics at all, but as we all know, that would be an utopia.
I don't think this comment makes much sense. If the original name was not political, then the change should be apolitical too. If the choice of text on the .ps page was a "political issue," then google's use of "Palestinian Territories" was already political in a pro-Israeli way – changing it is no worse than keeping up the old text.
Yes, I know you're jumping on the "corporations have too much power" bandwagon, but here I don't think it makes any sense.
Yes, I know you're jumping on the "corporations have too much power" bandwagon, but here I don't think it makes any sense.
How could Google avoid taking a stance? Either they call it one thing or the other. Or they could call every contested bit of land Narnia but then no one would be happy with them.
I agree. The domain name is already in political territory. Maybe if domain names were by language instead of location...
That would be nowhere easier.
Many languages have different names across populations. And people strongly identify to a specific nomenclature.
Also, many people speak multiple languages, languages that cross disputed borders, and languages spoken only by populations that want independence from the current states where they're located (e.g. Basque).
Many languages have different names across populations. And people strongly identify to a specific nomenclature.
Also, many people speak multiple languages, languages that cross disputed borders, and languages spoken only by populations that want independence from the current states where they're located (e.g. Basque).
That wouldn't solve or even sidestep any political issues. You've still got problems like:
* ip geocoding to decide which language to serve the UI in
* what do you call the languages? Chinese vs Traditional vs Simplified, or Farsi vs Parsi vs Persian, as mentioned elsewhere
And while political boundaries are messy, language boundaries are even more so. How do you decide dialect boundaries? And once you do, how do you decide which dialects get separate domains?
And while political boundaries are messy, language boundaries are even more so. How do you decide dialect boundaries? And once you do, how do you decide which dialects get separate domains?
You do realise that however they refer to the region ('Palestine' or 'Palestinian Territories'), they're making a political statement.
Their reasoning (following the example of multiple international organisations - including the UN, ICANN, and ISO) is sound.
Their reasoning (following the example of multiple international organisations - including the UN, ICANN, and ISO) is sound.
And it's not just Google that's affected either.
Imagine making a desktop environment and e.g. showing a world map to select your time zone.
Or having a list of countries & regions to assist the user with localization. Seemingly any list of countries you show will "make a political statement" to someone out there. KDE, for example, had many bugs filed about the naming used for what the ISO calls the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/country_...
Imagine making a desktop environment and e.g. showing a world map to select your time zone.
Or having a list of countries & regions to assist the user with localization. Seemingly any list of countries you show will "make a political statement" to someone out there. KDE, for example, had many bugs filed about the naming used for what the ISO calls the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/country_...
Why Google made this change, from the article, "In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, Icann [the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers], ISO [International Organisation for Standardisation] and other international organisations."
When it comes to Israel/Palestine, every mapmaker in the world is taking a stance.
When it comes to Israel/Palestine, every mapmaker in the world is taking a stance.
> I don't think companies should take a stance on political issues, which is what Google is doing here.
Every possible choice of wording for anything having to do with the area of land bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt involves taking a stance on a contentious political issue.
I don't think corporations (or anyone else) should avoid making such choices because they inherently require taking such a stance, nor do I think that they should avoid changing such choices because of that.
Every possible choice of wording for anything having to do with the area of land bounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt involves taking a stance on a contentious political issue.
I don't think corporations (or anyone else) should avoid making such choices because they inherently require taking such a stance, nor do I think that they should avoid changing such choices because of that.
My maps show Lebanon with Syria to the north and east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west. I imagine yours do also.
Yeah, yeah.
Edited: Turkey -> Lebanon
Edited: Turkey -> Lebanon
Even those bordering countries/areas are unclear. cf Golan Heights (which resulted in Facebook being banned by the Syrian government); and the dispute between Lebanon and Israel on maritime borders.
Talk about messy...
Talk about messy...
It felt eye-opening when I stumbled on this issue some years ago. We were building a Google Maps app for a branch of the UN and my boss told me we needed to hide the map's boundaries and use the ones supplied by the UN. I was rather intrigued and he explained how the boundaries used by Google sometimes clashed with the UN's recognition of boundaries for some countries. So I went and loaded the KML using the UN-official boundaries.
Of course, I see some were quick to jump the "Google is taking too much power" bandwagon, but a story is not just on HN to be told but also to engage our minds to reflect. And to me, the story here seems to be about digital recognition of countries beginning to be almost on par with international recognition, and how the digital world, that we thought (hoped?) would abolish the frontiers between men, is still taking these frontiers in account.