Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

Please change this paragraph:

East Jerusalem, the proclaimed capital of Palestine, is administered as part of the Jerusalem District of Israel, but is claimed by Palestine as part of the Jerusalem Governorate. It was annexed by Israel in 1980,[1] but this annexation is not recognised by any other country.[2] Of the 456,000 people in East Jerusalem, rough 60% are Palestinian and 40% are Israeli.[1][3]

New text of the paragraph:

East Jerusalem, the proclaimed capital of Palestine, is administered as part of the Jerusalem District of Israel, but is claimed by Palestine as part of the Jerusalem Governorate. In 1980 the Israeli Knesset passed the Jerusalem Law, making East Jerusalem part of the Jerusalem municipality. This action has been called annexation,[1] but there are differences; for example, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem were not granted Israeli citizenship. The Jerusalem Law is not recognised by any other country.[4] The boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality have been extended since 1967 and now reach almost to Bethlehem and Ramallah. Of the 456,000 people in East Jerusalem, rough 60% are Palestinian and 40% are Israeli.[1][3]

These changes make the description of east Jerusalem in the State of Palestine article more consistent with the East Jerusalem article. Jarnon (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's too detailed for an article not dealing primarily with East Jerusalem.“WarKosign” 07:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WarKosign. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that I'm autoconfirmed, I can make the edit, but I removed the unnecessary details. — Jon Arnon, 13 June 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Jon Arnon, please try to build consensus for your proposed change. That's the way Wikipedia works, especially in contentious areas. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Zahriyeh2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Kelly, Tobias (May 2009). Von Benda-Beckmann, Franz; Von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet; Eckert, Julia M. (eds.). Laws of Suspicion:Legal Status, Space and the Impossibility of Separation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ashgate Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 9780754672395. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b Jerusalem, Facts and Trends 2009/2010 (PDF) (Report). Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. 2010. p. 11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 8 August 2014. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Kelly, Tobias (May 2009). Von Benda-Beckmann, Franz; Von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet; Eckert, Julia M. (eds.). Laws of Suspicion:Legal Status, Space and the Impossibility of Separation in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ashgate Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 9780754672395. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Edit request - remove the section on tourism

As it stands now, the section is: "Tourism in the State of Palestine is becoming popular in recent years[when?] due to the natural beauty and historical background of the area. Every year Palestine receives more than one million international visitors.[citation needed]"

All three claims here are either baseless or unencylopedic: 1) There is no reliable source for the growing popularity of tourism, and until one is produced such claim does not belong in the article. 2) "due to the natural beauty and historical background of the area" is a subjective and self-promotional statement which, again, does not belong in an encyclopedic article. 3) There is no reliable source for one million international visitors, and until one is produced such claim does not belong in the article.

As such, I believe these two sentences are to be removed and replaced with a link to the general article on tourism in the Palestinian region.

Cheers, --~There were better times. (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eyal3400: Your edit also fixed another problem: Palestinian Territories and State of Palestine are two distinct entities: first is a piece of land claimed but not actually controlled by the second, therefore a link to Tourism in Palestinian Territories that was called Tourism in State of Palestine was misleading. Now the link to the main article is titled correctly. “WarKosign” 18:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweden and Palestine

Has Sweden really recognised Palestine as a sovereign state? The current government under Löfven has, but they hold a minority of the seats and afaik the parliament does not recognise Palestine. --217.211.215.25 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

According to BBC on October 3 2014 "Sweden is to recognise the state of Palestine" "without giving a timeline for the recognition". If I understand it correctly, it means that Sweden decided to recognize the state in some unspecified point in the future and not that it has already recognized it.
The guardian (and others) reported on October 30 2014 that it has already happened. “WarKosign” 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sweden retracted their recognition of Palestine, learn more through a simple search. 80.6.70.42 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine" as primary title

Shhhhwwww!! Here you made "Palestine" a WP:BOLDTITLE, implying that it "is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject". As you can see in the move discussion that you initiated, so far most of the editors disagree with this notion. If the unofficial name should appear in the lead at all, it should appear second. “WarKosign” 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this for now. The edit was certainly not "minor". Also, it needs further discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I forgot to comment on WP:MINOR: "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit". Marking an obviously controversial edit as minor creates the impression that you tried to sneak it in without anyone noticing. “WarKosign” 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine" and "Palestine (region)"

A move request, that conflicts with the one open above, has been opened at Talk:Palestine -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough consensus against moving the articles. Regardless, even if the result had been no consensus we still would have stuck with the status quo. However, there did seem to be a reasonable level of support for having a dab page at the base location, so there should be no prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of moving Palestine (disambiguation) → Palestine and Palestine to Palestine (region) (or some variant). If anyone does propose this, please make sure it's a correctly formatted multi-move RM. Also I know some people might be irked that I've just procedurally closed an RM arguably about this at Talk:Palestine, but frankly you should have waited until this one had closed – don't reopen that one either. Jenks24 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Since it has been recognized by the United Nations and two thirds of the world's sovereign states, most references to the word "Palestine" refers to the sovereign state. The demonym "Palestinian people" refers to citizens of this state. The current region of Palestine is now "Israel" so the names should reflect the reality. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. In modern usage, "Palestine (state)" is not less notable than Palestine (region). The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Palestine" is not the ancient cultural region especially in modern contemporary sources. Khestwol (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, if this article is not moved to "Palestine", then I agree with the below suggestion by Oncenawhile. Make the base title "Palestine" the location of the disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The current titles are WP:ASTONISHing. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A few factual corrections to the nomination:
  • Palestinian people refers to the people defining themselves as Palestinians wherever they are in the world, and only about a third of them live in the West Bank and Gaza, probably not all of them are citizens of the state. There are significant populations in Jordan, Israel and in many other countries all over the world.
  • UN and international recognition of the state does nothing to establish whether it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, what matter is - what would an average person expect to find under "Palestine" when looking it up in an encyclopedia. A google (or google books) search for "Palestine" gives results referring both to the historical region and the current state-to-be, it is hard to tell which is more prominent.
  • Israel is located only in part of Mandatory Palestine, the other part is claimed by the State of Palestine. There are broader definitions of historical Palestine, which include parts of modern Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. “WarKosign” 07:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Particularly the first point - many, if not most, Palestinians are refugees who descend from the region that is now Israel (previously Mandatory Palestine), not the State of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Having said which, a very similar situation exists with:
Yet all of these have their primary topic as the modern country.
I am not aware of any other modern country which isn't the primary topic at that name in wikipedia.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the difference is that Palestinians derived their name from the name of the land, while presumably it was the other way around for the peoples you listed. “WarKosign” 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes for Armenians and Somalis, no for Azeris and Moldovans. Azeri / Azerbaijan was adopted for the nationality / nation only in the early 20th century, in reference to ancient Atropatene, and Moldov(i)a was a Danubian Principality named for the Moldova river. Azeri and Moldovan are therefore the closest parallels. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Region of Palestine is still more notorious than the State of Palestine. As a proof: to distinguish both and avoid ambiguity, we often find the wordings State of Palestine to refer to the State. Eg: [1], [2], [3], [4], ... Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: In general, I oppose this. One of the premises is incorrect: the "Palestinian people" does not in general refer to "citizens of State of Palestine", but inhabitants of historic Palestine, much of which is Israel now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
See comments by Oncenawhile below, which I agree with. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no evidence that the state is the primary meaning, and the current title is natural, recognizable, precise, concise and consistent. This is the usual way to disambiguate the two, such as at official sites like [5][6][7][8][9]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have to oppose for now because there are too many variants for the name of modern-day country and I don't think there are enough authoritative sources which omit any qualifiers before 'Palestine'. I'm basing my vote mainly on the name designated by the UN. Al Jazeera ([10] [11]) is also known to use 'State of Palestine'. Elspamo4 (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the change as the word "Palestine" is nowadays usually used to refer to the State of Palestine. Glen Spearleat (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
    (does not apply to you personally!) Maybe it will flatter to someone from editors or corresponds to his desire, but we have to consider that such renamings are in fact a contribution of Wikipedia in promotion of idea that "the word "Palestine" is nowadays usually used to refer to the State of Palestine. IMHO, this is a not-NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per official name of the State of Palestine, and not to confuse the object subject with such multi-valued term as Palestine.
  • Oppose. It's like Ireland. The historical and broad meaning is the more basic one. That might change in the future, but the Palestine/Israel issue is far from resolved. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point, although for Cyprus, we do the opposite (well, not quite the opposite - it is currently a bizarre and confusing hybrid). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A couple of other examples which also do the opposite: Sudan (region) and Guinea (region). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate I think this has been discussed before, but I have felt for a while that the term Palestine confuses a lot of people, and disambiguation might be best. Perhaps the primary example of this in wikipedia is Macedonia, which I think works quite well. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I too strongly agree with Oncenawhile. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Palestine is the common off-hand name and needs to be addressed as such. "State of Palestine" is awkward.--Sιgε |д･) 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per many support reasons given above. Pandeist (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name Palestine is associated with the land. The people that decided to call themselves after the land come second, and the name they chose for the self-declared state comes third. “WarKosign” 16:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per many reasons given above.--Opdire657 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reason we have Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno Karabakh Republic and also Ireland and Republic of Ireland. The state is named after the region and the region itself consists also the Green Line, where Israel currently sits. --Bolter21 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prefer to consider the ancient Greek and Roman use Primary. The current setup is not astonishing because no reasonable reader knowing even a little about any Palestine thing would not know that there is significant geography and history to Palestine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Failing that, if there is not PrimaryTopic, Palestine should be or lead to the disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I agree with your second proposal, I strongly disagree with your first. 99% of people fully recognize 'Palestine' as the State of Palestine; the issue, simply put, is that it is not documented in enough reliable sources (hence my 'oppose' to this rename.) Elspamo4 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
100% of your 99% will know that the State of Palestine is associated with the place. 95% of them will appreciate that Palestine is an ancient place. The other 5% should feel appropriately informed. My preference for respecting original and historically long term uses over recent history is that this encyclopedia should be seen first as an historical document in progress, and far less as a record of current affairs. Even if the current affairs is intense and has been for decades. that said, yes the disambiguation page idea might be the most agreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree over which title should take precedence in regards to the term's historical relevance, I think we do agree that we find common ground that Palestine should be disambiguation page, correct? Elspamo4 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. On Wikipedia, articles that are named "State of <name>" (All pages with titles beginning with State of, and use "hide redirects") are used to describe former regimes ("was a"), where "<name>" is usually the main article for the current state ("is a"). State of Palestine appears to be the only article with this name format that describes an existing state. +mt 04:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of 206 sovereign state names, only 9 begin with "State of". Official names of the rest typically begin with "Republic of" or "Kingdom of", and indeed when the name of the state is unambiguous the name of the article is the unofficial name. As was pointed out before, whenever there is ambiguity between the state and the land - such as in cases of Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the official name of the state is used as the name of the article. “WarKosign” 07:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"Whereever there is ambiguity between the state and the land"?? Why did you ignore all the counter-examples already given in the thread above: Syria (region), Sudan (region), Guinea (region), Cyprus? And your Kingdom of the Netherlands example is wrong - that is done to differentiate the country of the Netherlands from the sovereign state which also includes three Caribbean islands.
Please don't mislead the thread. Let's just agree that wikipedia is not consistent on this issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree --Bolter21 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support To leave the article with it's current name would be to create a wiki neologism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Then why Ireland is the Island and not the Country even though the Republic of Ireland's official name is "Ireland" (Unlike Palestine, whose official name is "State of Palestine")?
Same with Nagorno-Karabakh, in which the region gets the name and the state don't.
We also have Congo in which the name leads to the disambiguation page and not the countries (RC and Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Palestine (the region) is much older then Palestine (the state) in all matters. Palestine the region was named in the 3rd-4th centuries BC while Palestine the state is a de-jure state that was proclaimed in 1988. SOP is still a de-jure thing since the Palestinian Goverment have authority (and not sovereignty) only on the Arab settlements in the West Bank while the Gaza Strip acts as a seperate entity with it's own administration. --Bolter21 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see my comment just above this. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - the edit warring over Ireland's name has an even longer history than the naming conflict at issue here. Let's eliminate inconsistencies one at a time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose moving State of Palestine to Palestine, however I support moving Palestine to Palestine (region) per WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The region is not "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". "Palestine" is an ambiguous term with two primary meanings and should therefore direct to a disambiguation page. Rob984 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Palestine has far more meanings with far more history behind them than the current state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2015 (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.

"Palestine"

The usage and primary topic of Palestine is under discussion, see talk:Palestine (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in State of Palestine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of State of Palestine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Slavik2001 p.60":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"partially recognized de jure sovereign state "

I think this is a really poor description. It is equally applicable to Israel, or even Taiwan.

First, while 135 (70%) is technically "partially", it's also more precisely "widely", ie, "recognised by most states". "partially" suggests a minority of countries recognise the state.

"de jure sovereign state"—what does this actually mean? The State of Palestine is recognised by 135 UN member states; therefore, 135 UN member states recognised that the State of Palestine posses sovereignty. Sovereignty is about the right to govern, so the statement: "the State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state" is perfectly accurate. No need for the ambiguous, undescriptive "de jure" nonsense.

Of course, that statement could also apply to Israel, or any other state. So how do we actually explain the status of the State of Palestine?

"the State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state with partial control over its territory"

I think that is a much more descriptive than the current lead sentence. Thoughts?

Rob984 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Partial control over its territory ? What is this territory, exactly ? The state has no defined borders, it can't be said to have any territory at all. De jure means "according to law", since it is a state on paper only, lacking many attributes of a "real" state, such as defined borders and any degree of control over the territory within these borders. “WarKosign” 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if Palestine has 5 recognizers or 192, it is a partially recognized country. Unlike the State of Israel, China, Cyprus and other countries without recognition from all UN members, the State of Palestine is blocked via recognition following the fact 3 of the 5 permenent members of the UN's security council have veto power among another 55 other states who don't recognize Palestine. Kosovo is also Widely recognized with 108 recognizers but Kosovo lacks the recognition of 2 of the Big Five and therefore is designated as a "partially recognized state". The same goes to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is also recognized by 39 members, and especially by it's neighbors on the African continent who allowed it to join the African Union. Those two also controll lands as a sovereign independent partially recognized states. On the other hand, Palestine doesn't controll lands as a state but as an authority via the Palestinian National Authority, that said, the PLO was accepted by the UN as an observer member to represent the State of Palestine and therefore are a de jure country. --Bolter21 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's focus on the de jure part to begin.
WarKosign, that's not exactly correct, is it now? I assume you have determined that from the Declaration of Independence in 1988, which proclaimed a "State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem" and "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be"?
That was 30 years ago.
In 2011 the Foreign Minister stated:
"We are not going [to the UN] for a unilateral declaration of the Palestinian state. We declared our state in 1988 and we have embassies in more than 130 countries and more countries are recognising our state on the 1967 borders. The recognition of the Palestinian state is a sovereignty decision by the countries and it doesn't need to happen through the UN."
The state stated it's claimed territorial extent in its application for UN membership in 2011:
"I would like to inform you that, before delivering this statement, I, in my capacity as President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, submitted to H.E. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations an application for the admission of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with Al-Kuds Al-Sharif as its capital, as a full member of the United Nations."
As an observer state in the UN, the State of Palestine is permitted to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space; and has the right to sue in regards to its sovereignty over its rightful territory in the International Court of Justice, and to bring crimes against humanity and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawful occupation of the territory of State of Palestine, against other states in the International Criminal Court. How would this be possible if "it can't be said to have any territory at all"?
On 31 December 2014 Palestinian President Abbas signed a declaration in which Palestine recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for any crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. Again, if it has no territory, how is this possible?
Following the recognition of the State of Palestine as a non-member UN state in 2012, the official designation used in ISO 3166-1 (which defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest) for territory was changed by the Organization for Standardisation from "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" to "Palestine, State of". These codes are derived from the United Nations Terminology Bulletin Country Names, or Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division; and they refer to a designated area.
"it is a state on paper only"
So the National Council, embassies, government departments, the local Governorate administrations are "on paper only"? There is an administration currently governing Areas A and B which is recognised by 135 UN member states as having sovereignty over that territory, but you think the state lacks "any degree of control over the territory"?
We agree on one thing: "de jure" implies there is no territory. This is clearly nonsense.
Rob984 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of "partially recognized". 70% may be the majority of countries, but most states are recognized by virtually all other states, so we have an exceptional situation here. Also Palestine is still in the difficult process of establishing it's status in the International community. About the "de jure" part. If that implies it's only a state in name there should be good reasons to let it remain in the article text. One of those could be that Palestine has essentially no real control over the territories it governs, but it will be quite hard to make that stick i.m.o. so I lean towards letting that part go. There is a defined territory (West-Bank, including East-Jerusalem and Gaza). I know of no country that recognizes Israeli sovereignty beyond the borders of 1949 armistice agreement (Green Line). The State of Palestine doesn't have full control over all of it, but even in the parts where Israeli troops are present, some tasks (education, local government) are performed by the Palestinian Authority I believe. So yes partially recognized, scrap "de jure" but keep sovereign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm convinced by the argument for the "State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state with partial control over its territory." it is accurate and fits the present facts.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not avoid "widely" and "partially altogether and just name the numbers? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rob's suggestion. Khestwol (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hebel, Because Palestine currently fights for recognition. And I did some readings and for the De-Jure part I am bit netural, I would say as an Israeli that the Palestinian National Authority is not the State of Palestine but this is much more complicated then that. for the other one, "Partially" is an important statement because it explanes the State of Palestine's legal situation. Same thing was done with Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Kosovo which has recognition problem alongside De-Facto controll. If you want, you can add: "Partially recognized (135/70% of UN members recognize Palestine as a sovereign country but USA, UK and France impose a veto on it's independence)", maybe better wording and puting it in a [note] like thing can be made but you get the idea.--Bolter21 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think the five members of the UN Security Council, or even the UN at all, determine "independence" or "sovereignty"?
The State of Palestine is already widely recognised. The reason it "currently fights for recognition" is because it is being occupied by another state. "partially recognised" certainly does not explain that fact at all. Rob984 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "partially recognized" is misleading and as mentioned here, Israel and others could be described like that too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, on the French wiki, we finally chose to talk about proto-State. Palestine has numerous features of a State (starting by recognition) but lack some others (eg a define territory and a control of this). It is a State de jure -partly- but not really de facto -with some exception-. So it is a State in building: a proto-State.
Some sources (in French) use that wording. I don't know in English.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: The state is not occupied, it never was. The state was declared in 1988, while the alleged occupation happened in 1967. Saying that "the state is being occupied" contradicts facts and common sense.
Palestinian territories are considered occupied, and the state claims them as their own. Many UN members recognize this claim and agree that it should be used as a base for negotiations that would determine the actual territory of the state.
In 1993 Palestinian National Authority was granted administrative authority over 39% of the West Bank. While it is likely that these territories will be part of State of Palestine, this is not a certainty and can't be presented as if they already are.
The state has limited recognition, missing critical recognition of the UN members with veto power, we can't describe it as a "real/complete/proper" state in wikipedia voice. Pluto2012 idea of "proto-State" sounds reasonable, since it's exactly what it is - an entity that may become a usual state one day, but lacks many critical properties at the moment. “WarKosign” 06:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I will reiterate:
The UN has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people".
In 1967 the UN designated the West Bank and Gaza Strip "occupied Palestinian territory", and designated Israel as the "occupying power". See this UN Resolution.
Israel's actions in settling in the West Bank are widely regarded as a violation of international law, per the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".
135 states recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine applied for UN membership on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine gained UN Non-member observer state status on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine administers ~31% of the combined area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (27% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip), although about ~70% of this territory is in "joint Israeli-Palestinian security control".
In 2013, the United Nations Terminology Bulletin Country Names, and Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division gave the West Bank and Gaza Strip the designation "Palestine, State of".
The concept of sovereignty has little do the the UN. There are many reasons why the State of Palestine would like to achieve full UN membership, but sovereignty is not one. The Republic of China is regarded as a sovereign state despite lacking UN membership. Recognition and sovereignty are two separate, but related issues. The State of Palestine lacks full sovereignty over its territory because it lacks the power to govern its entire territory without any interference from outside sources, not because it lacks recognition. Like I said, it's sovereignty is recognised by the UN and 135 member states. Israel similarly lacks full recognition but is still considered a sovereign state. Referring to the state as a "de jure state" or "proto-state" is not helpful. It is ambiguous, tells the reader very little, and in the case of "de jure state", is misleading.
Now like I said, the state lacks full sovereignty over its territory, however this doesn't mean it is not a sovereign state. Many states lack the power to govern their entire territory due to occupations: Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. Many other states have territorial disputes meaning they lack the power to govern certain parts of their claimed territory.
So, we seem to be clear on these things:
  • the State of Palestine is a partially/widely recognised state (I will set aside the "partially"–"widely" argument for now)
  • the State of Palestine lacks full-control over its territory
"a partially/widely recognised sovereign state with partial control over its territory" is clear on both these issues.
Rob984 (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
If you prefer, you could change "territory" to "claimed territory":
"partial control over its claimed territory"
Rob984 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"The State of Palestine gained UN Non-member observer state status on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders" - false. See UN's press release. Borders were never specified, they are envisioned to be "agreed", "internationally recognized" and "clearly defined" in the future. 1967 lines are mentioned as a basis for negotiations. Only Kuwait and Syria explicitly called to use 1967 lines as the state's borders.
So we seem to be clear on these things:
  • The State of Palestine has no defined territory
  • The State claims West Bank and Gaza as its territory
  • It has partial control over parts of the territory that it claims. “WarKosign” 11:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what's wrong with:
"a partially/widely recognised sovereign state with partial control over its claimed territory"
Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What you wrote is correct but incomplete. Sources refer to it as a de-jure state, or proto-state. It is wrong not to mention such an important fact in the lead. “WarKosign” 11:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
de jure state is misleading, as it suggests, de facto there is no state. Both those terms are ambiguous and weakly defined. What exactly does either mean? What is the "important fact" that they convey? Rob984 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources define a de jure state as one that has no actual control, such as a government-in-exile. If applying that term to the State of Palestine is correct, then it is a very broad term. "partial control over its claimed territory" is much more precise, and also negates the need for that term. Rob984 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the Palestinians are anything but contained? At an extreme it can be commented that even a prisoner has partial control on what goes on in h' cell. I think that it may be of more relevance to talk of a level of partial control of governance.
I agree with WarKosign that there is no definitive view on the territory of the State of Palestine but also question any certainty in regard to any definitive view of the territory of the State of Israel. Nothing is decided and everything is POV.
Could a text present something such as or perhaps based on:
  1. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial control of governance within claimed territories."?
  2. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial of governance up to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements."?
  3. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial of governance within territories up to the 1949 Armistice lines."?
GregKaye 11:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Is there any evidence that the Palestinians are anything but contained?"
Is this a joke? The State of Palestine has a National Council, embassies, government departments, membership of many international organisations. It fully administers ~10% of its claimed territory. A further ~20% is largely governed by the State however is under "joint Israeli-Palestinian security control". The Palestinians are under an occupation, not "contained". Comparing people living on land widely recognised as belonging to them to convicts in a prison is absurd.
"there is no definitive view on the territory of the State of Palestine"
I think everybody agrees with this. There are 58 states which do not recognise the State of Palestine. The wording that is proposed does not contradict that: "a partially recognised sovereign state with partial control over its claimed territory". The State of Palestine has laid claim to the occupied Palestinian territories as defined by the June 1967 borders.
"with partial control of governance within claimed territories"
This is incorrect. Like I said, it has full control of governance within ~10% of its claimed territory. It also seems like a clunky re-word of what I proposed.
"territories up to the 1949 Armistice lines"
"up to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements."
Why is this relevant? In this sentence, we are referring to the state's status. The introduction later refers to its claimed territorial extent: "The State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip". "claimed territory" is sufficient for the lead sentence.
Rob984 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not see, when the Israelis have complete control of (for instance) the Allenby border crossing and when they can do things like build high walls and fences in the midst of disputed territories, that any claim of "control" means very much at all.
One thing that I question is the fairness to the Palestinians in just presenting the West Bank and Gaza as territories of relevance in the wide picture of Palestinian claim. I have regularly heard of the Palestinians making general claim with regard to Jerusalem as capital with no specific mention of East Jerusalem. Negotiations, should they again be undertaken, are in the context that the only internationally agreed long term plan for Jewish and Arab states was the 1947 UN partition plan. We cannot speculate on the size of the final areas that the Palestinians and Israelis may eventually draw up but I do not think it encyclopedic to limit the negotiating potential of either side. We have to give fair representation of relevant facts. GregKaye 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's because the 27% of the West Bank under Palestinian control is surrounded by Israeli administered areas. The Gaza Strip is fully administered by the State of Palestine and the state has control over its border crossing with Egypt. Infact, despite the blockade, under international law the Gaza Strip is not occupied:
“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
–Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
This may also apply to Area A of the West Bank where the State of Palestine has full civil and security control. Even if the state never gains control over the border with Jordan, it does not necessarily mean it would lack control of the territory it administers in the West Bank. South Africa does not control Lesotho for example.
To put in perspective: Israeli military personal have no right to enter Area A of the West Bank, or the Gaza Strip, and the State of Palestine could legally detain them in that territory.
Nobody is speculating on the size of the State of Palestine. And few states recognise the State of Palestine's or Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The fact is, no other state claims the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and the State of Palestine claims and controls 30% of its combined area. It is recognised by 135 UN member states. You question the fairness of referring to this territory simply as "partially controlled claimed territory"? Really? How the hell is that not "fair representation of relevant facts"?
Rob984 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not have strong feelings on what it should be called, but there is a lot of WP:OR going on here. Firstly, it is not up to editors to determine the status of occupation of an area. Gaza Strip is indeed occupied - all of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is part of the "occupied Palestinian territories" (see ICRC page here) for just one example, many more can be given. The Area A, B, C divisions are primarily administrative, and has no role in determining status of occupation. What should be done here is to check how reliable academic sources describe Palestine (do they call it "partially recognized sovereign state", etc.). International law is complex. Wikipedia editors should not be making such determinations. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well actually it's widely disputed whether the entire Palestinian territories are still occupied (the UN designated the territories as occupied in 1967). However this was reaffirmed by a UN resolution in January 2012 (I provided a citation in a previous comment).
Many sources refer to the State of Palestine as having "control" over the Gaza Strip and Area A and B of the West Bank (see the BBC profile for example). "partial control" is simply summarising: "no control over Area C, civil control over Area B, and civilian and security control over Area A and the Gaza Strip", as the lead sentence should do (the BBC uses the term "limited control", however many others use the term "partial control"). I have already provided sourced statements indicating the State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
To make something clear, there is actually no dispute that the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is occupied, in fora which matter. Of course individual people and countries make opposing arguments sometimes. The citation which you provided in your earlier comment gave your interpretation of Article 42, which is a totally separate matter. This is precisely the kind of WP:OR which I am talking about. The ICRC is the custodian of the Geneva conventions, it consistently refers to Gaza as occupied everywhere, for instance. See this for another example. Anyway, to come back to the point, there is indeed de facto control of parts of West Bank by the PA. As I said above, I do not have strong feelings about this matter. Any phrase widely supported in the academic literature is acceptable to me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have amended the wording to something I think will be uncontentious: simply not mentioning the extent of control. I don't think this is ideal but it's certainly better than inferring the state is equivalent to a government-in-exile. Rob984 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

State Sponsor of Terror

Is Palestine a state sponsor of terror? SHould that be added? 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Give a source that SoP sponser terror. --Bolter21 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We need sources for every claim, and for such a claim they need to be pretty good. “WarKosign” 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There is one acusation that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO (i.e State of Palestine since 2013) sponsered terrorist attacks against American civilians between 2002-2004 (During the Second Intifada). Such acusations can be on all attacks in those years since some of those attacks were done by PLO's various millitary wings. But that was during the Second Intifada which was over for over 10 years + I don't think this is enough evidence to acually claim that SoP is sponsering terrorism, which can be contradicted with the fact SoP work with Israel in order to capture Hamas personal in the West Bank. Yet, accuarding to Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, 89% of Palestinians support rocket attacks (Which are considered terror) against Israel. Still I don't think this is enough to acually write something about it. --Bolter21 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP"

See Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP"

--Bolter21 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine link

please change "Palestine#Etymology" to "Palestine (region)#Etymology"

 Done - as it linked to a DaB page not an article - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015

Please add Mawtini as the de-facto anthem, majority of Palestinians consider Mawtini to be their anthem more than Fidai. Mawtini was written by the Palestinian nationalist and poet Ibrahim Tuqan in the 1930s. It was the national anthem for Palestinians since then and then the PLO came along with their anthem Fidai. DrNein (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


RFC: Restructuring Proposal

Please comment on the need to restructure the three overlapping and jumbled articles (previously proposed at Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal):

The particular issues to be resolved are:

  • All three contain largely overlapping detailed sections on History and Politics
  • The SoP article does not contain a number of sections which would be usual for a country article, such as:
(1) Geography and Administrative Divisions (currently in PT and PNA)
(2) Demographics (currently in PT and PNA)
(3) Foreign relations (currently in PNA)
(4) Communications and Transportation (currently in PNA)

Please comment on the proposal to move these sections between the different articles to create more cohesive and focused articles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the need for a restructure, beginning with a clear definition of a scope of each article.
There is a dispute whether SoP was actually established. There are two positions:
  • PNA was established by Oslo accords, and those prevent it unilateral actions, such as requesting UN recognition of SoP, therefore SoP doesn't exists and areas A and B are still controlled by PNA.
  • PNA's rename to SoP was legal, SoP replaced PNA for every purpose so areas A and B are legally controlled by SoP.
If we merge the articles on PNA and SoP, we can avoid the argument which of these positions should be represented in wikipedia voice. A single article would be detailing the history of PNA and its current disputed name and partial international recognition as SoP. Demographics and geography still belong with PT, which are the physical lands, regardless of the political entity in (partial) control of them.“WarKosign” 13:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we could just slim down the Palestinian National Authority article to focus on its administration of the Palestinian territories during the period it existed. I also think we should avoid imply that "Palestinian territories" is a superseded description. Even if many organisations and countries now refer to the territories as the "State of Palestine", the term "Palestinian territories" is still widely used, particularly by those who do not recognise the state. The topical scope of the State of Palestine and Palestinian territories will overlap, however Palestinian territories has a broader scope including the Israeli administration, and much more detail on pre-1988 history. Rob984 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that something should be done about the overlap. I will read the articles a bit more and give more precise suggestions soon. My own viewpoint is to merge PNA and SoP, since SoP is the direct successor to the PNA. The Gaza/West Bank division creates problems, but those can be handled in one article better, rather than two articles. If a total merge is not done, I support the proposal of Rob984 in slimming down the PNA article considerably. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Further to the discussion at Talk:History_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Requested_move_12_September_2015, I propose that the first step of this restructuring is a merging of the extremely long and detailed State_of_Palestine#History into the History_of_the_State_of_Palestine article. Before I embark on this, does anyone have any thoughts on what level of detail should remain here? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be one or two paragraphs summarizing the subject, about the length of a typical article lead. In fact, it can be the lead of the history article transcluded here. “WarKosign” 13:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have completed the merge of those two history sections. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now moved a bunch of overly detailed information into the relevant sub articles.
The next step is bringing the relevant information in from Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. Any thoughts on how best to do this?
@Greyshark09:: But Area C has never been under the remit of the PNA? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09:: What you wrote is factually incorrect. PT are a piece of land, PNA is a political entity that claims the land but never fully controlled it. One was never a nick for another. “WarKosign” 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
PNA was an autonomy (not fully sovereign geopolitical entity) [12]. It used to be referred as "oPt" by the UN from 1999 to 2013; now this entity is under "State of Palestine" brand in the UN with the status of "non-member observer state" on one hand, but it is still not fully sovereign on another - in many aspects functioning as an autonomy of Israel (not having currency of its own and not really controlling its borders, etc).GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't make sense. There's more going on inside the Palestinian territories than just the State of Palestine, and the description is still widely used despite the redesignation. Furthermore, much of the territory is administered directly by Israel and there are Israeli settlements. We must present the de facto situation from a neutral perspective. That is impossible at an article named "State of Palestine". Rob984 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Rob984:, I was inclined to agree with you, but then I started thinking about what "Palestinian territories" implies and why the ISO made the change. The term Palestinian territories has all the same connotations as State of Palestine in terms of Palestinian "ownership" or similar. State is just an upgraded political form versus Territory. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Even with the claim that the SoP is the PNA (Which is wrong), the Palestinian controlled lands are just 40% of the West Bank, which is the significant part of the Palestinian Territories. You can't exclude tha fact half of the Palestinian territories are under Israeli controll and label it under "State of Palestine". Doing so will be a complete non-sense. It is not like there is an article about Cyprus that talks about the country recognized within the whole island and an article for Northern Cyprus, the Palestinian Territories existed long before the State of Palestine and long before you could"ve even claim that both articles should be merged. --Bolter21 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @Bolter21: - thank you for providing the exact example that supports my proposal. The Cyprus situation is exactly consistent with the merge proposal. You just haven't read the Cyprus article properly!!! Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Called here by a bot. Uninvolved previously. The land is the land. Palestinians live on the land. The articles cover the same territory. There is confusion because there is dispute as to the status of the "state" and the "authority" and the land itself, in terms of what it is considered, right? But in the end, it's the land itself that is the land itself, and Palestinian people are living on the land. That is the ground reality, right? A state is a construct, and whatever the place is called is a construct. There are different groups with hugely differing agendas in regard to what the land is called, and how it's categorized. Wikipedia should describe this conflict, not engage in it. This is not the place for this battle to be fought, but rather a place where we must try to transcend this conflict. We must show what the conflict looks like from a bird's eye perspective the best we can. I support the merging of the duplicated material into a common page where it can be edited singly, and referred to in some way that allows the conflict to be outlined in a meta-way. Does this make sense to others? SageRad (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@SageRad:, I totally agree. This is exactly what we should do here, and across wikipedia in Israel-Palestine. That is what WP:IPCOLL intends to do. One of my favourite examples of transcendence is the introduction to Jerusalem#History.
Per above, I would like to see State of Palestine merged with Palestinian territories, and then we can describe each of the various disputes from there. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two opposing POVs, whether State of Palestine's claim on Palestinian Territories is justified or not. By merging the two articles wikipedia would completely endorse one view and discredit the other, so this merge is absolutely unacceptable per NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." “WarKosign” 07:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Opposing POVs exist throughout wikipedia. The solution is not to have parallel articles. The solution is to have an explanatory paragraph in the lead. The title of the merged article should be decided per wikipedia policy at WP:TITLE. I will start a discussion below. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Title for a merged PT and SoP article

Should consensus decide that a merger of the "Territory" article with the "State" article is warranted, we will need to agree on a name for the combined article. A paragraph in the lead will then explain the alternative viewpoints. Please provide a view for the combined title (either "State of Palestine" or "Palestinian territories") below, with explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, since they are two different entities - physical piece of land and a legal/political entity. If it is decided to merge them, the merged article should be called "Palestinian Territories" as the older and better known entity of the two. Inside this article we can have a section about the declaration of the state made in Algiers in 1988 claiming the land and about partial recognition this declaration received since 2012. “WarKosign” 08:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "Palestinian Territories" is not a geographic term but an unofficial term without formally defined borders. It began to be used widely post 1967, but has never been formally accepted. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I oppose: Accuarding to UNOCHA the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 1. The CIA factbook have a detailed definition to the West Bank as all the areas out of the green line are the West Bank 2 while there is no dispute about where is the Gaza Strip 3. There should be an article for the Palestinian Territories about the areas occupied by Israel and semi-administrated by the PNA and the self proclaimed Hamas government in the Gaza Strip --Bolter21 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Without even opening your link I can tell you that you have misrepresented it. Various UN related organizations use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". And the rest of your comment is WP:SYNTH. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian Territories is a term used by stupid facist zionists who doesn't want to say occupied. Palestinian Territories and oPt is the same name. There can't be a merge between the oPt (call them whatever you want) and the State of Palsetine since those are two different things. --Bolter21 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually i had a dimmed idea you represent the Zionists yourself. Apparently i was wrong (lucky for your soul, saved from the eternal fire or WikiHell).GreyShark (dibra) 21:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What is eternal fire or WikiHell? Some exotic unknown place? --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as mentioned before - Palestinian territories stands (more or less) for the Palestinian National Authority. ISO referred to PNA as oPt during 1999-2013, while Palestine was represented by PLO at the UN (as organization); In 2013, all three concepts changed into SoP - the Palestinian entity became "non-member observer state" in the UN named "State of Palestine", which is sufficiently different than the organization status of PLO; the ISO changed oPt into SoP in parallel to that decision. Palestinian organizations are also utilizing this since.GreyShark (dibra) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09:, I agree with that. So why do you oppose the change? Surely it's the logical outcome of the facts you just described? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I claim that oPt=PNA; you claim that oPt=SoP. This is radically different.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. Two questions (1) how do you reconcile your judgement that PT≠SoP with the ISO, which made exactly that change?, and (2) isn't PNA specifically defined by Oslo to cover only A and B? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Formal move but not a significant one since most media continue to use the orignial name. SoP is misleading, a better and much more reasonable change would be to merge oPt article with Israeli-occupied territories --Bolter21 14:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, first of all, the usage of oPt has decreased since 2013; secondly, oPt is refers to an "Administrative division" in Google (referring to PNA), while SoP refers to the state (UN non-member state since 2013); third, oPt referred only to the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli-occupied territories is a term for all areas conquered by the Zionists in the June War (WB, GH, GS, SP).GreyShark (dibra) 20:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And for the second question, the Aslo agreements draw first lines of Israeli withdrawal and were later changed by Wye River Memorandum, Hebron Protocol and Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. The PNA was supposed to exist only for 5 years anyway. --Bolter21 14:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
my answers: (1) ISO made the change from oPt to SoP -> meaning that oPt became SoP; similar to Southern Sudan Autonomous Region (2005–11) (not listed in ISO) becoming the state of South Sudan (listed in ISO as state). (2) PNA control - area A: citizens+security+civil matters, area B: citizens+civil matters, area C: citizens (civil matters under Israeli Civil Administration in coordination with PNA). Hence PNA had presence in areas A+B+C in a varying manner, but this is sematics - the same is with SoP.GreyShark (dibra) 20:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support Although the proposal is chanceless, I support, because the Palestinians deserve an article from their view, like the Israeli's have. I observe that SoP, OPT and PA are confused. The OPT are part of the SoP anyway, whether occupied and disputed or not. The PA is not a territory at all, only the government of a tiny part of the OPT. As I have argued here, the PA still exists beside the OPT. Israeli claims can be discussed in the article anyway. --Qualitatis (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of all states on earth recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders. Only a neglectable percentage of the world population supports the ISraeli occupation and even the majority of the population of the three dozen states that shamefully do not recognize Palestine does not support their respective government in that opinion. So, it is long overdue to merge OPT into SoP to meet the common sense and political reality. Not merge is POV and a political choice of Wikipedia to adopt the Zionist narrative. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Israeli point of view is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital, Golan Heights is part of Israel and Palestine is a nation lead by ex-Terrorists (PLO). Now, is this reflected in Wikipedia? No. Palestinians might deserve many things, that's not Wikipedia's concern. The claim that "oPt" is part of the "SoP" is rejected by 58 members of the UN. --Bolter21 18:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
A typical map, reading "Palestinian Authority"
This is a your private POV interpretation, very distant from sources. PNA was not just a government - it was an autonomous region (geo-politic entity with population, area, government, parliament, security, etc.), established under the Oslo accords. How can you say it is not an area if many maps read "PNA"?GreyShark (dibra) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)GreyShark (dibra) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok maybe the last one is not "Israel's POV" but the rest, Jerusalem and Golan Heights, are things that are the Israeli POV since they are lawed. --Bolter21 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You persist in your skewed view. I doubt if I can make you wiser, but study the Oslo Accords or consult people who are able to understand them. You added a map that shows the area that is supposed to be governed by the PA, and it does not cover the OPT, so? --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You can say that PNA was/is an area - but this area is only a part of PT, so the two are not identical. In the map you can clearly see substantial areas in the west bank that are part of PT but were never under PNA authority.“WarKosign” 08:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This map is wrong, I can't even say what is it based on. The current map in Palestinian Authority is the map that describes PNA today (Since no changes were made since withdrawal after Second Intifada and withdrawals from Gaza]] --Bolter21 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
A typical map, reading "Occupied Palestinian Territories"
@Bolter21: "Wrong" and "right" can say someone, who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules. There is no wrong and right, there are only reliable sources. And the sources show almost identical maps of PNA and oPt - meaning those two are the same.GreyShark (dibra) 17:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qualitatis: There are maps which show oPt/PNA as whole WB+GB [13] (including Israeli annexed parts); there are maps which show oPt/PNA as areas A+B+C [14] (excluding Israeli annexed EJ and GE); There are maps which show oPt/PNA as areas A+B only [15]. Your theory doesn't explain this.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Legends of maps are really not RS. --Qualitatis (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in a discussion

There is a discussion whether the article should present State of Palestine as being located in the Palestinian Territories, your input is welcome. “WarKosign” 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl and Palestine

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency". Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism, from his book "The Jewish State", 1896.--MichaelURSA (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelURSA: Do you want to add that in the article? --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If ever should be added to an article related to Palestine, it would probably be Palestine (region) but I don't see the reason. Be more spesific and we will try to understand what do you want. --Bolter21 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Partially de jure

Hi,

Instead of Partially de jure, what about proto-State ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support it. We need good sources for this, though. “WarKosign” 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are many that can be found through googlebook.
This one is a "nice one" among them: [16].
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the term is unclear (it doesn't tell readers what it means) and I can only see it be used by few sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are two terms here; Partially recognized (Which is Palestine who currently face a recognition problem that blocks it's legal independence and the 'de jure' part which indicates that the State it self doesn't controll any lands, but the lands are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and also the Gaza Strip is currently seperatly controlled by Hamas' government. The 'De Jure' part is disputed by the users here, the partially recognized is not, becuase regardless of the number of recognizers, the fact that Palestine is blocked via recognition give it the same status of Kosovo and Western Sahara who both have many recognizers. Israel, China, Cyprus, Armenia and other countries with unrecognizers don't meet any problem with recognition, they are considered legal sovereign countries.
By the way, there is already a discusion going around this specific subject in this talk page. --Bolter21 20:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The term has now been inserted by Rob984. I think the term is far too uncommon to be used and more common and clear terms should be used. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But what? I think we should just describe it in plain English: "state with partial control over its claimed territory", but this is a opposed by a number of editors. "de jure state" usually refers to governments-in-exile, so hardly describes this state. "proto-state" is not very descriptive either, but at least it's not misleading. Rob984 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM and Rob984: The problem is not the term, the problem (as I see it) is that the users doesn't have full agreement on what exactly is the State of Palestine. I claim that the State of Palestine is limited to what it was before 1993 plus the previlege of the observer status in the UN. This claim can be reflected in the article's section Government.
I belive that the term De Jure is the right one but currently there is not enough acception and also not enough soruces. I suggest the add a section to explane this and I think maybe a short sentence will replace the De Jure/Proto in the lead section. But first we need to have a sourced consensus about what is exactly the State of Palestine since we are lacking an agreement on what is even the State of Palestine. --Bolter21 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Im in favour of replacing "de jure", "proto-state" etc. with a sentence that explain the status. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I changed it from "proto-state" to just "state". A sentence that explain the status in a clear and common way is much better. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at this and that --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

the palestinian authority and hamas also see the state of israel as the state of palestine

http://www.hamasoncampus.org/#!From-the-River-to-the-Sea/cjds/2 add this please --Dorpwnz (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an extremely poor source. This is an article by an unknown author, on a site that clearly has an agenda, attributing alleged calls to genocide to groups such as SJP and MSA, which in turn are alleged to be related to Hamas. State of Palestine is not even mentioned. The article on Hamas Covenant already clearly explains Hamas's position against Israel, and it is supported by far better sources. If you have a good source documenting State of Palestine's official position that is not covered properly here - please present it. “WarKosign” 09:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi i wanted to add to you they say it's the palestinian national airport http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4633998,00.html [the pa] Take a look how they promote their tourism it's also written in the article . translation from the press : הדוכן הפלסטיני, הנמצא דרך קבע ביריד, הציג את היעדים הבולטים בפלסטין, אליהם תוכלו להגיע דרך שדה התעופה הפלסטיני, בן גוריון: בית שאן, נחל הבניאס, נחל דן, הר הזיתים בירושלים ועוד. מבולבלים? גם אנחנו. כן, היעדים שהפלסטינים הוצגו בחלקם הגדול נמצאים בטריטוריה ישראלית שאין עליה עוררין, אבל אם זה יביא תיירים לישראל, מי אנחנו שנתלונן. the palestinian stand , which is permanantly placed in the fair , displays the prominent destination in palestine,which you can go to via the palestinian aiorport,Ben Gurion . Beit Shaan,Banias stream, Dan stream,olives mountain in jerusalem and more. confused ? we too. yes,the palestinian destinations that were displayed in their major part are in an israeli terrritory without doubt , but if it will bring tourists to israel , who are we to complain ? [humor] So you see ,they think they own the state of israel. 

--Dorpwnz (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ynet is considered a reliable source. This source proves that someone working on the Palestinian booth in the tourism expo decided to present these places as being in Palestine. We do not know who made these claims or why - perhaps it's a honest mistake, or personal agenda. There is no proof that these claims are in any form supported by Palestinian officials. “WarKosign” 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_12&oldid=1075607023"