Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Countries that recognize Jerusalem as capital

Are there any countries that recognize Jerusalem/East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine? Marko8726 (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I only found Russia (East Jerusalem) Marko8726 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

See Status of Jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Countries that recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital should be mentioned, just like in Israel article. Marko8726 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead says "Although Palestine claims Jerusalem as its capital, the city is under the control of Israel; both Palestine's and Israel's claims to the city are mostly not recognized by the international community. Personally I would rather not be in the business of listing out individual countries that have agreed with one claim or another, those are political opinions after all. Palestine has claimed Jerusalem as capital although State of Palestine includes East Jerusalem within it and that territory is considered as occupied. It has to be agreed by the parties ultimately. That's my 2 cents, others might not agree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid needless lists - and particularly ones of pointed political opinions. Russia just does it to bug the US, not out of any sort of principled stance. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

188.248.47.26 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Palestine is an occupied country Write it correctly and don't falsify history

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

IvarKHei (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Update population count to 5,404,000 Redditor686 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding “de jure sovereign”

The state of palestine carry a non-member observer status in UN, non member observer states ARE recognized as de jure sovereign states even if many parts of it’s lands are under foreign occupation, even if the country is completely occupied another one it remains de jure, it’s recognized as such by the all the international community (138 countries) except western countries, when iraq occupied kuwait it neither made kuwait government “non de jure” nor made it lose it’s “sovereignty” title, kuwait remained a de jure state even during the occupation, countries remain “de jure” even if 100% of all it’s lands are under foreign occupation Amr.elmowaled (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

See the RFC above about this issue. Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

population

The article in three different places gives three different numbers. Please syncronize.99.73.36.110 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

93.172.205.135 (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)change first sentences,  It is written Palestinian state is occupied by Israel since 1967 but actually Palestine was never a state prior to 1967 west bank was belong to Jordanian kingdom and Gaza belonged to Egypt  Please clarify this on the first rows.

 Done Tombah (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because the info is already included in the article lead at the end of para 2. Good idea, in general, to require sourcing for edit reqs, especially from random IP editreqs. Good idea to actually read the article as well before editing it. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Palestine is a country not a state 2A00:1851:8017:7D68:200C:465B:8490:3D8F (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Consensus for a change is needed, although note that many people would say exactly the opposite as both these words mean different things to different people. CMD (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change 'though' to 'although' or however in the intro.

Near the end of a sentence, though is confusing and would be better served by another word. Safes007 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Change the name to just "Palestine", so that the page uses the common name of the state like most other pages about nation states.

I think the name of the page "State of Palestine", which is about the nation state commonly referred to as simply "Palestine". This would mean the page uses the name that most people use to refer to the state. When searching for the page, people are going to type in "Palestine" by default, and the search bar dropdown doesn't suggest "State of Palestine" as one of the things they could be looking for. Also, most pages on Wikipedia about nation states use the common name of the state as the title of the page. Just a few examples, with format "common English name (official English name)":

United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland) United States (United States of America) China (People's Republic of China) France (French Republic) Brazil (Federative Republic of Brazil) Egypt (Arab Republic of Egypt) Israel (State of Israel) Australia (Commonwealth of Australia) East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste) Tanzania (United Republic of Tanzania) Kosovo (Republic of Kosovo) North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus) Armenia (Republic of Armenia)

And many more. There is also nothing that they have in common with each other that Palestine doesn't that means it should not be named the same way as them. 81.106.42.190 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Lemonaka (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: No, a page move request would be made here, see WP:RSPM. Zero^talk 01:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Procedural close because the nominating editor is not ecp qualified to participate in RFC discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

---

State of Palestine → Palestine – I think the name of the page "State of Palestine", which is about the nation state commonly referred to as simply "Palestine". This would mean the page uses the name that most people use to refer to the state. When searching for the page, people are going to type in "Palestine" by default, and the search bar dropdown doesn't suggest "State of Palestine" as one of the things they could be looking for. Also, most pages on Wikipedia about nation states use the common name of the state as the title of the page. Just a few examples, with format "common English name (official English name)":

United Kingdom (United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland), United States (United States of America), China (People's Republic of China), France (French Republic), Brazil (Federative Republic of Brazil), Egypt (Arab Republic of Egypt), Israel (State of Israel), Australia (Commonwealth of Australia), East Timor (Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste), Tanzania (United Republic of Tanzania), Kosovo (Republic of Kosovo), North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), Cyprus (Republic of Cyprus), Armenia (Republic of Armenia)

And many more. There is also nothing that they have in common with each other that Palestine doesn't that means it should not be named the same way as them. 81.106.42.190 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Palestine has a number of meanings Palestine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment In principle, I agree with the proposal. However, if you create the wikilink Palestine, or the Category:Palestine and see where you end up, it can be seen why this is not currently done. Perhaps not impossible to solve but I doubt that the will to do it exists. If one looks up the page, there were three prior attempts to do this, the last time in 2017 here, no consensus Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, clearly PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I believe this should be procedurally closed as the filer is not allowed to participate in these discussions.

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partially recognized state

I made this edit which was reverted by @Selfstudier. I was referred to the RfC here above, but it was actually inconclusive with no consensus reached. It's already mentioned as such in the infobox, which gives me confidence in the correctness of the label.

My motivation for writing "partially recognized state" is because it reflects the situation the best. 55 states, including the US, Canada, the UK, AUS/NZ and most of the EU, do not recognize the State of Palestine. Which is where I'm pretty sure the bulk of English Wikipedia readers come from, which makes these two words worth mentioning. Synotia (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to include defaults to not included. Which you would know if you actually read the conclusion of the RFC. nableezy - 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the RFC is here, the close is up above due to a quirk in timing. nableezy - 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Hmm, I see I'm far from alone... Synotia (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also far from a consensus. nableezy - 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I will change the infobox back as well at some point. Since Israel is also included in Partially recognized state (ie List of states with limited recognition), how about I wander over to the Israel page and mark it as a partially recognized state, see what happens? Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done nableezy - 23:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

I would just like to fix a mention of Stefan Löfven's name, it's written as "Stefan Lofven" somewhere. Polishedrelish (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done . Thanks, Polishedrelish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, please add that the state of Palestine is in the Levant. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:8DBA:2280:EBCA:EF37 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Southern Levant). Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Palestine a country? since when? why the topic of article say “State of Palestine”

just a confusion, the article say since 1967 it was under israel control, if it is under israel control than how it can be a separate country and in the first place when it became a country. i found no specific date when it become a country. If it is not a country then why the article say it is country? i am totally unaware of israeli-palestine conflict recently heared about it, came here to find out but nothing is written clearly can anyone guide? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm confused about which part you are confused about. Country has a definition of the term, it says "A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state." The Palestinian State seems to qualify under that reading. The evolution of the State of Palestine is described in the article titled History of the State of Palestine. The relationship between the State of Palestine and the State of Israel is complex, especially as the two states have claimed mutual territory, and have de facto control over different parts of the land. If you want to know a definitive initial date, it's probably hard to nail down a specific date, but it's going to functionally be the end of The British Mandate over the land in question; after which point both Israel and Palestine have claimed the land; and done so more or less continuously since then. The Palestinian territories were those lands that after 1948 were functionally under the control of the State of Palestine, while the balance of the land has been functionally under the control of the State of Israel; this is complicated by the fact that since the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinian territories have been under Israeli occupation to various levels. The answer is ultimately yes it is a country, but it's messy. --Jayron32 21:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Initially, Israel was founded on Mandate Palestine in the territory assigned as a Jewish state by the UN partition plan. Then a war, resulting in the so called "67 borders" (before the 1967 six day war). The UN and the ICJ have subsequently defined the occupied Palestinian territory as being those areas within those borders, accepted the Palestinian right to self determination within those borders and a goodly number of countries have recognized the state also on those borders. Recognition as a state by UN member states is one way of becoming a state and there you go (arguably, SoP also meets the Montevideo criteria, at least the ICC prosecutor made a case for that as well). So on that basis you could say 1967. Some would argue that the country was founded in 1948 but since that issue never got tested in any court and given the 1948 war, it is probably rather too late for that argument now. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Palestine declared its independence in 1988. It is certainly a state, though I dont quite think it qualifies as a country as it lacks a monopoly on violence, obviously since it is under military occupation. But the article never once calls Palestine a country (or it did once in the sports section, and Ive changed that to "state" instead of "country"). nableezy - 22:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Your definition of country seems peculiar, and not at all in line with the definitions noted at Country, which besides the one I quote, state "The definition and usage of the word "country" is flexible and has changed over time. The Economist wrote in 2010 that "any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies." "Often, a country is presumed to be identical with a collection of citizens. Sometimes, people say that a country is a project, or an idea, or an ideal. Occasionally, philosophers entertain more metaphysically ambitious pictures, suggesting that a country is an organic entity with its own independent life and character, or that a country is an autonomous agent, just like you or me. Such claims are rarely explained or defended, however, and it is not clear how they should be assessed. We attribute so many different kinds of properties to countries, speaking as though a country can feature wheat fields waving or be girt by sea, can have a founding date and be democratic and free, can be English speaking, culturally diverse, war torn or Islamic." 'When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, a constituent country, or a dependent territory...There is no universal agreement on the number of "countries" in the world since several states have disputed sovereignty status, and a number of non-sovereign entities are commonly called countries." etc. etc. I will note that literally nowhere in that article is the Monopoly on violence mentioned. Max Weber's use of the term refers only to a sovereign state's monopoly on violence; but not to countries (Weber used the term "state" only; but his usage is clearly referring to sovereign states only). Weber also considers such definitions of statehood to be contingent on the legitimate monopoly on violence, which then brings us right into the No True Scotsman-type problem of deciding whether the State of Palestine or the State of Israel has legitimate claim to the monopoly on violence within the mutually claimed territory. Let us completely avoid such claims, which is not relevant to answering the OP's question; that boils down to a matter of opinion, and in the opinion of the world, the UN and well over half of the other universally-recognized-sovereign nations in the world, covering most of the world's population, recognizes the legitimacy of the the Palestinian State at least nominally. Everything else is irrelevant to this discussion. In every reasonable definition of "state" "country" or "sovereign state", it is perfectly fine to discuss the State of Palestine as qualifying for any and all of them. --Jayron32 17:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This isnt a no true scotsman issue, it isnt about what is right or wrong, only about what is or is not. As far as what other Wikipedia articles say or dont say, I dont really depend on Wikipedia articles for evidence tbh. But my understanding of the term country is an area in which a state exercises supreme authority. A state is an entity that is recognized by other states as a state, without the necessity of exercising any such authority over any territory. Part of exercising supreme authority is maintaining the monopoly on the use of violence within that territory. nableezy - 18:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A state can exist even with fairly limited recognition if you go by the Montevideo criteria. It needs some else how could it conduct affairs external to itself. I seem to recall there was a big debate somewhere about the country thing, I'll see if I can find it.

without the necessity of exercising any such authority over any territory I would say that having the right to exercise such authority is the key thing (in order to deal with the occupation case, you don't lose statehood just because you are occupied, else what is it that is being occupied? Loosely speaking.) Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The territory. nableezy - 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean territory belonging to no-one? That is a well known Israeli position, although in a distinct minority.

Per ICJ Western Sahara

"'Occupation' being legally an original means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid 'occupation' that the territory should be terra nullius – a territory belonging to no-one – at the time of the act alleged to constitute the 'occupation'." Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy: If you're going to invent your own definitions for words, and use them in peculiar ways, you're going to get the kind of pushback against such things. Saying "my understanding of the term country is an area in which a state exercises supreme authority" runs counter to both what the everyday use of the word Country is, and what most reliable sources say about it. I mean, you can say you mean something counterfactual, do whatever you want inside your own mind; its your mind. You just can't expect the rest of the world to take the same trip through your fantasy land where words mean different from how they are actually used. --Jayron32 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh ffs, Im not inventing anything. Kindly take that condescending tone and shove it. You didnt cite a reliable source genius, you cited Wikipedia. Here are some actual sources if you are interested in learning something and not continuing with your misplaced condescension on topics you think yourself an expert in. Here's a dictionary for you: an area of land that has its own government, army, etc. Oxford (via google) has it as a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. Having a government occupying a territory indeed includes maintaining a monopoly on the use of violence. But it is incredibly annoying discussing anything with somebody whose default reaction to any disagreement is condescension mixed with a side of patronizing snide comments. So Ill stop now. nableezy - 20:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How then is Scotland not a country? It's a nation, it has a government, it occupies a territory. The Scottish government does not have a monopoly on violence, and yet Scotland is still universally referred to as a country. Also, you're right. I was rude above. I should not have done so. You didn't deserve that. I apologize. I was trying (and failing in my rudeness) to make the point that the term "country" doesn't have a simple definition, it's a complex concept with distinctly fuzzy edges; the State of Palestine surely fits within such fuzzy edges comfortably. It has a territory, it has a government above which there is no recognized higher power, it has people. That there are some disputes over the extent of such territory, or the rights of its government to administer the land and the people is a true thing, but it certainly has all of the functions of a country, a state, whatever fuzzy concept you want to use to define it. The monopoly on violence issue is largely a distraction from the discussion, it represents one particular political philosopher's attempt to put stark, well-defined lines around what statehood means. There have certainly been other such attempts (the Montevideo Convention, Westphalian Statehood, the Declarative Theory of Statehood, etc.) The issue is, real, actual countries keep confounding every one of these definitions. That's a general fact about any categorization scheme; any time we try to create clear boundaries around any categorization, like "is a country" or "is not a country" or whatever, there will always be edge cases that confound our definitions. Is Scotland a country? Is the State of Palestine a country? Is Abkhazia a country? Is Bosnia and Herzegovina a country? Is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta a country? Is the Vatican City a country? I mean, we have enough contradictory definitions of country that I'm sure you can first decide what you believe to be true, and then pick your favorite already-established-definition to meet your conclusions. Want Palestine to be a country? Pick country definition "A". Want it to not be a country? Pick country definition "B". It's complex and messy because humans are complex and messy. That's all. And I am legitimately sorry that I insulted you above, and was rude. As I said, you did nothing to deserve that, and your criticism of my actions was spot on: It was wrong of me to distract from what was a reasonable disagreement between reasonable people, and personalize it in that way. I was rude, I was wrong, I have no excuse, and I apologize for that. --Jayron32 21:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That was very decent and kind of you, thank you. And yes, youre right, there are lots of definitions, but if we are going to maintain the idea that a state, a territory, and a country have different but correlated meanings then what? And yes, because of these different meanings, and because of quirks in some states compositions such as the UK, these words all get used in different and often times conflicting ways. Ive mostly tried to operate in a way that takes a conservative stance on what to claim about Palestine specifically as being factually true, ie said in Wikipedia's voice. Palestine is a state is one of the statements that I think can be, and is, copiously backed up by sources. Palestine is a country less so. And yes, looking back monopoly on violence is not really useful here, I suppose I should have said a country being the territory that a state exercises sovereignty over, at least according to the definition that corresponds to what Ive read, and that Palestine the state does not exercise sovereignty over any territory. nableezy - 06:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's when we get to the "no true Scotsman" problem. Does the State of Palestine have the legitimate right to sovereignty over its territories (West Bank and Gaza)? If so, then it meets your definition of country. Being occupied doesn't nullify the right. The State of Palestine has a government, it passes laws and enforces regulations over the people living on the land it has jurisdiction over. It does not ask for permission to do so. --Jayron32 11:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it was this particular discussion I saw before, I think there were a few of them in 2008, back when List of sovereign states was List of countries Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

thank you all for your valuable suggestions and definitions, i am new to this issue so asked for guidance. so there is no need of any debates or arguments, i would recommend everyone to stay respectful. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2023

Could you please add the page of State of Palestine to "Category:Muslim Majority Nations"? I think it will be a great information for future readers Innitiative.35 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the category that you just created may need a bit more work (spelling, categorization, definition) before being considered for wide application. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? I think the category is relatively clear. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I know it's pretty clear, but let's just follow their small game for a few moments. Innitiative.35 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The cat is currently nominated for deletion, best to argue there first. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Discussion is ongoing. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

Sir, I want to edit this for correcting some mistakes. Those mistakes can make violence. So,I want to correct those problems. 42.0.7.230 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit edit request should be "I want to make this edit" or "I want this edit to be made" A request to remove page protection is not an edit request. Y9ou need to tell us what the edit you want to make is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

VERY MISLEADING

The article fails to mention that Palestine hasn't been a state since 1968 when it disbanded

The article fails to mention that PLO, PA or whatever acronym are explicitly the Palestine Liberation Organization.... The Palestine Authority etc.... THIS DOES NOT EQUAL PALESTINE.

Article fails to address the fact that "Palestine" Merely Claims to be Palestine......."Palestine" Claims their capitol is in a different country. I claim to be a country, My capitol is in in Mobile, Alabama. See how that works? It doesn't. These claims are equally invalid.

Article insistently mentions that "Palestine" claims to be under Israeli Occupation. This is kind of true as long as the article fails to mention "Palestine" has shifted to a state of Hamas control As long as the article neglects to mention that Hamas merely claims to be "Palestine" Article conveniently frames "Palestine" as a place that still exist as if they never lost a war and disbanded. Article conveniently sounds like it was written by some West Bank or Gaza Strip inhabitant, from the Illusion that Palestine Exist to the "Israeli Occupation" (Really dodges the fact that Isreal is occupying their own land?) Which is great if you want to ignore the fact that "Palestinians" are actually Hamas and that the De Facto Mission statement of Hamas....is Jihad, Destroy Israel, Take Israel Land, Establish Islamic State, Eradicate Jews

Lets mention here how, for decades, even after losing a war, what used to be Palestine, totally dissolved, became something else and for some very "Special" reason they seem to think that If they just keep claiming Palestine exist, Claiming to be Palestinian (despite a lack of Palestine), that Israel is just going to give them that land....and kill themselves?

Maybe if they keep claiming to be a legitimate state seeking peace and wellbeing...and keep pretending not to seek eradication of Israel or yet another genocide of Jews...or for Israel to just suddenly concede all of its land to them and stop existing... Maybe if they keep claiming the capitol of another COUNTRY is the capitol of their imaginary state. Suddenly everyone will pressure Israel to just give them THIER holy land? Lets also neglect the abandoning of Jews. Dont mention Britain screwing everyone.

Lets talk western media promoting anti-semitism by insisting we should help non existent "Palestine" 2604:2D80:B687:B000:98DA:F49B:1081:5E61 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. As far as the pertinent bit, East Jerusalem is widely recognized as being in the Palestinian territories. And nothing was disbanded in 1968, but rather in 1988 the PLO declared Palestine's independence. But the Palestinian territories is not Israel's land. nableezy - 22:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Palestine = Hamas" certainly cuts to the thrust of the whole right-wing Israeli propaganda machine - and works well as a parody of the whole disinformation ecosystem, but, as a sincere expression of thought, it's a pretty pitiful display. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"right-wing Israeli propaganda machine" Who the heck listens to it? The only person I have recently heard praising Israel is my brother, and he has been voting for far right and neo-nazi parties for the last couple of decades. When I hear praise for Israel's oppressive and genocidal policies, I tune out. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2023

Add this page to Category:Middle Eastern countries. Innitiative.35 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Innitiative.35: The page already has that category —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice.

Thanks. Innitiative.35 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023

There is no information in introduction that Pallestine is a country illegally occupied by Israel. Despite being extremely important to note. So add the update to the lead chapter after the last paragraph, that; the occupation of Palestine since 1967, was recently ruled as illegal under international laws by UN legal authority experts in 2022. Sources are below.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/experts-decry-israeli-occupation-palestinian-areas-91819219

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20221231-un-asks-icj-to-consider-consequences-for-israeli-occupation-of-palestinian-territories

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129722 Tudor89manners (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Reading the sources, the suggested edit is a clear oversimplification. It also seems quite unlikely that such individual events merit inclusion in the very high-level WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless you tell me there's now a consensus on Wikipedia to not ever mention Israeli occupation breaking any laws. I do believe it should be mentioned. Israel are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, meaning "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory". Israel are breaking those laws so it's no oversimplification. It's just facts. I think when respectable panel in the UN professionally deems it as illegal and so rules Israel is breaking international laws. It's major. When you think international community, the closest you can get is the UN and Geneva convention are Major international laws that cannot be violated. Yet there is no mention in the opening paragraph that Israel is violating international laws in their occupation of Palestine.Tudor89manners (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The occupation is mentioned in the lead. The occupation itself is likely now illegal (several experts have said that it is in their opinion) but for a confirmation of that we await the opinion of the ICJ. Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is Palestine not called a country here?

If Taiwan is a country in wikipedia. Shouldn't that be fair to say Palestine is a country? Sorry for the maybe dumb question but what is the protocol here? It is amusing that Palestine is now being listed as a state yet Taiwan is called a country here in Wikipedia? Why are they so very different? What is exactly the established authority there that determines this because it appear to me like Wikipedia is just relying on the outspoken western mainstream media that's obviously taking political sides. The irony here is that Pallestine is more closer to an illegally occupied country since 1967. It had been ruled as illegally occupied, according to legal experts at the UN in 2022 under international laws.[1] Whereas the UN doesn't recognise the splitting up of China or that Taiwan ROC is a legal state, let alone a country. Does Wikipedia have a monopoly over international facts? Is it so permissible to take political sides that's not internationally recognised, as long as you have consensus from like minded political editors? If Taiwan can be called a country in wikipedia despite limited recognition. Then Pallestine can be similarly called a country given it has far larger international recognition from the global community for being an occupied country. Arab media frequently calls it an illegally occupied country which is reasonable. Tudor89manners (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The difference between state and country is more apparent than real, state is just clearer. Eg UK is a "state" whereas England is a constituent "country" of it. Experts in the relevant area will usually refer to state rather than country. In any case, we go by sources here not individual opinions, if there are a plurality of sources saying Palestine is a "state" (there are) then that is what we say. Selfstudier (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

None of these terms, and related terms like "nation", are very precisely defined, and often have overlapping and highly flexible, fuzzy, definitions. There's no bright lines here, and there's nothing meant by using one and not the other, besides being consistent per WP:ENGVAR. --Jayron32 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

There is no such thing as the State of Palestine. It is currently the state of Israel. The state of Palestine does not exist although some wished it did exist it does not. To publish your unaccomplished wishes is simply a lie and does not belong on a public website designed to provide the public with true facts, not false ones. Thank you 212.199.62.2 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion. nableezy - 17:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"state, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government"

There's Britannica's definition of a state - most other sources (OED for instance) have similar if not equal-in-meaning definitions.

Well, let's see:

• "Political organization of society" - there are clear Palestinian organizational apparatuses (Hamas and the PLO)
• "The body politic" - there is a clear structure of PLO politics, and to some degree with Hamas as well
• "The institutions of government" - the PLO does still govern to some degree, and Hamas definitely does still govern

That makes Palestine a state, and basically the entire world (minus pro-Israel imperialists like the US) has recognized such. The people of Palestine also recognize it as a state significantly more than any other disputed-status state currently.

Palestine is also a nation ("a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory" - Oxford Languages). There's a clear line of descent (as we can see both through Palestinians living in Palestine and the well-known Palestinian diaspora), has a shared history (both long-standing and current), and an (albeit non-unique) semi-shared culture and language. With the exception of those driven out by fascist actions of the State of Israel, there has also been continuous occupation of the now Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, satisfying the last requirement. Amyipdev (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

References

No mention of Hamas in the Government and Politics section

How can you go without mentioning Hamas in the government and politics section? At least have a one-liner like "Hamas has de facto control over Palestinian management of the Gaza Strip." - that contribution would be fine to include somewhere in there. It's all reduced to the PLO/PNA with little bits on Israeli control, but there's no mentions of Hamas. Amyipdev (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Likud is barely mentioned in Israel as well. Which makes sense as it is about the state and not any one party. nableezy - 02:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy Hamas is the active governing party of the Gaza Strip, though, and given the rifts between it when the rest of the PLO...

A state comprises all of the governance, not just part. The rest of the PLO has little effect on the decisions Hamas makes in the Strip as far as I know, especially given how different Strip law is from WB law. Amyipdev (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what rift there is between Hamas and the PLO, there is certainly one within the PNA. The state isnt the supposedly interim government set up by Oslo. nableezy - 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Free Palestine

Palestine is an part of Asia. 103.109.214.11 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? Relevance? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It says Western Asia in the first sentence already. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So what does the IP want us to do? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a post just to justify a "Free Palestine" subhead, a.k.a. WP:FORUM. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Concern: Biased Terminology Regarding Palestine and Israel

As an editor and advocate for neutral point of view (NPOV), I would like to express my concerns regarding the terminology used in the Palestine Wikipedia page. It is evident that there exists a biased approach when referring to Palestine as a "state" while consistently using the term "country" for Israel. Such terminology perpetuates a one-sided narrative and fails to reflect the complexities and differing perspectives surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to international discourse, the status of Palestine remains a matter of contention, with various political entities recognizing it as a state while others dispute its legitimacy. It is crucial for Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia striving for objectivity, to acknowledge these divergent views and present them impartially. The repeated use of the term "state" for Palestine without similar language applied to Israel undermines the NPOV principle. To rectify this issue, I suggest employing more neutral terminology throughout the article, such as referring to both entities as "states" or "countries" interchangeably. This change would contribute to a more balanced presentation and avoid favoring one side oven the other. I encourage fellow editors and the Wikipedia community to engage in a thoughtful discussion and work toward achieving a consensus on how to address this NPOV concern. By doing so, we can uphold Wikipedia's commitment to accuracy, fairness, and inclusivity in covering sensitive and contentious topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. FF toho (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The repeated use of the term "state" for Palestine without similar language applied to Israel undermines the NPOV principle

How so? Point out examples from the text please? Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The OP says "while consistently using the term "country" for Israel". I searched the article for the use of the word "country". There were nine such uses, four were in the titles of references, which leaves five in the article text. None of them refer to Israel. The first says "These areas would constitute the world's 163rd largest country by land area" using the term generically. The second is "but this annexation is not recognised by any other country.", again using the term generically, referring to all of the countries in the world collectively. The third is "In 2013 the Swedish Parliament upgraded the status of the Palestinian representative office in the country to full embassy status." where country refers to Sweden. The fourth is "pursuant to the country cooperation strategy for WHO" which is referring to a WHO thing called the "country cooperation strategy" and not to any specific place. The fifth is "World Bank Country Director", the name of a specific title. The objections they note in relation to this article simply aren't there. --Jayron32 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the editor here .

The statehood of areas under the Palestinian Authority is no longer disputable .

Though , while The Palestinian government's current capabilities are limited due to the Israeli-occupation  ; such capacities can still be considered to be out the characteristic of limited statehood , rather than no-state hood .

From both the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood : the Palestinian Authority is a state . it is recognized by many other states as such except Western states and their proxies (Japan , South Korea etc) due to Israeli-pressure to normalize their precense in the west bank (in which in any other problem ; they would normally be called Invaders ).

Areas under PA's rule also has a Permanent population , Cleary designated borders (Area C was supposed to be transferred to Palestinian Jurisdiction per Oslo Accords II ; the Israeli-state withheld it due to their expansionist-Colonization motives which were expressed by the Likud since the 70s , as well as them wanting to decapitate the purpose of Oslo negotiations being about voluntary unofficial Bantustans , than a independent sovereign state ) , has authority over at least a portion of its areas , and has entered bi-lateral relations with other states , and international organizations such as the Rome Convention , the ICJ , and the UN .

I propose a better phrasing as follows :

"A country located in the Levant as a partially recognized state " .

I know editors wouldn't mind the second part , but will start crying over the first part , resurrecting countless debates on this page of the past 15 years .

It should simply be made clear that the connotations of "country" in English are largely contemporary post-WWII . Territories that were Colonies , Protectorates , or simply other types of political entities , and even areas that were a literal tera-nullus , were described as "countries" long before the 20th century , including Palestine before the Mandate (as seen in one account quoted in the Article covering the Palestine Exploration Fund) .

The etymology of the word itself is "(land) lying opposite " . A land is opposed (differentiated) from another primarily through a Name (border too , but not always . Stopping just at that point in defining opposite land would just mean said land is a stretch of insignificant wilderness and dirt) .

In German : "land" can mean either country , or state , but the meaning can be discerned from context. In Arabic : "Dawlah" (state) is different from Balad (country) .

I don't get it why the English "country" in our time has to invariably be a non poli-sci synonym to "state" .

There were plenty of "countries" , especially in the past before the 20th century , were not sovereign states for at least 3/4ths of their history the past 3000 years except fairly recently such as Ukraine now.

(Like come on ; do you really think someone before 1946 would ask "where did Cleopatra live ? " , with the response being "Egypt" , and the answer to the follow-up question is "What is Egypt ?" being "a fairytale ?" or "it doesn't exist" , rather than "country"  ? . )

This is especially said when the area we are talking about was recognized as special land called "Palestine" for at least 25 centuries starting from Herodotus by both Islamic/Arab and Western preceptive .

Making a fuss out of the validity of the name and its connotations only came after 1948 , where Israeli-Jews are sore and trying so hard to pretend that the last 2000 years never happened , and the world is still stuck in 135 AD , and centered around the failed state of a random self-proclaimed Messiah .

Again , it's best to put an end to this dispute , by phrasing it the way I did in Bold . Some might oppose by citing areas like Northern Cyprus and Kosovo ; but from their very names the states are located in countries called "Cyprus" and "Kosovo" respectively (in fact : the later in its Wikipedia page is called "country" ) .

I believe that I have made a strong case here for the word "country" to be used in the lead here . There really is no need for further arguing on this except by radical sympathists of the Israeli-state .

Hope editors listen , and apply the proposal . 188.54.48.171 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"A country located in the Levant as a partially recognized state"

Oppose, per previous discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

The map is wrong inaccurate map 2600:4040:AEDA:4100:3451:ABE5:D74:23DA (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

I'm literally living in Palestine right now, we never use Egyptian Pound, i even asked people if there's something i don't know about this, our local exchange office never seen an Egyptian Pound, the local banks never accept Egyptian Pound, nobody here ever used Egyptian Pound ever 95.130.91.58 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess i forgot to officially add the request so

Remove Egyptian Pound from currency section 95.130.91.58 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Given source says it is widely accepted in Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV: State as Absolute Fact

Blocked sockpuppet account

In my opinion, it is POV to write of the State of Palestine's existence as fact. There are many reliable sources which either don't recognize the State of Palestine, whether because they support the Israeli right or consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories that Palestinians aspire to create a future state upon while supporting the aspiration. The Palestinian Authority, the power internationally recognized by most countries as the sovereign over those territories has no control over the Gaza Strip and is not sovereign over the West Bank due to Israel's frequent military activity there. Unlike Ukraine, the State of Palestine was neversovereign over those territories and does not have the near-unanimous recognition that Ukraine does over the Russian-occupied territories. On the other hand, the State of Israel clearly exists. They are soverign over their territory. Any country that doesn't officially recognize it typically calls for its destruction or secretly engages with it. That's why it's not POV to state Israel exists - it's a fact anyone can verify. This assertion of the existence of the State of Palestine as absolute fact is POV and rampant throughout Wikipedia. At least that’s what I think. I’m looking forward to engaging with my dissenting colleagues about this. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Well you could try going through the talk page archives to see what has been argued before. I for one see no new arguments if your statement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Please direct me to the responses in the previous discussions. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Here is the first one (of many) [[2]], you can search for the rest yourself. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I agree the article’s title should remain State of Palestine. That was the subject of the first discussion. Which discussions address my points above? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC) If one accepts the article title, that would appear to render unsourced argumentation moot. What in the article requires to be changed and based on what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I was about to say that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) The vast majority of the international community recognises it but a significant minority doesn’t. Titles go by the majority. What else would you call it? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) You do know that statement has just undermined any claim to wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) No, it didn’t. See WP:COMMONNAME. The State of Palestine is the common name for the dispirited entity in question. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC) See WP:PROPORTION if the majority of nations say it exists, it exists, no matter what a minority say, we do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) This is not a false balance. Many countries, especially most Western countries, reject the State of Palestine’s existence. This is a significant minority, which is the whole reason for NPOV’s existence. See this article from the BBC as an example. The majority position is attributed as such and the minority position is stated. Rejection of the State of Palestine is not fringe, like flat Earth, freeman on the land, or climate change denial. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Another example: the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al-Jazeera writes in the lead of one of its articles: “By continuing its settlement policy, Israel is eliminating the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.”. If even Al Jazeera rejects the current existence of the State of Palestine, how can Wikipedia claim it as absolute fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Not AJ, it is "Walid Abdel Hay" who appears to be some sort of student. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC) He is a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies. That Centre for Studies is part of the Al Jazeera Media Network. Therefore, it is safe to say that the studies promoted by the Centre reflect the Network’s POV. If you are skeptical, I challenge you to find a study promoted by the Centre with a pro-Israel POV. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC) In case you don't find that satisfying, here is something straight from Al Jazeera's news division: "The international community, along with the Palestinians, considers settlement construction illegal and an obstacle to peace. More than 700,000 Israelis live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – territories captured by Israel in 1967 and sought by the Palestinians for a future state." If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC) If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? Not sure why this needs to be repeated, in any case, AJ is not saying what is being alleged, it is not disputed that SoP claims the OPT for a state and that Israel claims to have sovereignty over East Jerusalem for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Virtually everyone agrees that the SoP (currently represented by the Palestinian Authority (PA) officially claims the West Bank the and Gaza Strip. This is not what I disputed. The phrase “a future state” implies there is no current state. If AJ believed the SoP currently existed, it would write something like this: “Palestinians claim the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for their state.” There is no reasonable way to explain the full quote if you insist AJ affirms that a current Palestinian state. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Sovereignty is in part disputed by Israel so what AJ is saying is correct until a future resolution. The State and the claim to territory exist nevertheless. Try reading some scholarly sources and consult the various Legal status of... articles such as Legal status of the State of Palestine. I do not intend to debate the meaning of a press article any further. And since, at the moment the only editor disputing the consensus is yourself, I don't intend to debate that any further either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Sovereignty is not determined from the de jure situation (that’s the subject of Legal status of the State of Palestine). Sovereignty is determined from the de facto situation. De jure asks ‘should X’? De facto asks ‘does X’? RomanHannibal (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Here. This source explains the difference very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Apart from the fact that I am not asking for an explanation of the difference, Britannica is a tertiary source (ie no better than WP). Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) De jure and de facto are legal terms. Virtually nobody disagrees with the definitions Britannica gives. I just used Britannica because it explains the terms very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Britannica is also reliable, unlike Wikipedia. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I don't need an explanation of de facto and de jure either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) With that out of the way, let me now restate my argument. Is the SoP de facto sovereign (i.e. sovereign in practice)? The answer is pretty clear: no. Is the SoP de jure sovereign? (i.e. Should the SoP be sovereign?). Most countries and sources say yes, but a significant minority of both say no. Therefore, my version accurately reflects NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) The recent RFC debated all these points already. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Back to the precedent argument, which is flawed per WP:CCC. Using previous discussions, please summarise the rationale behind the current version. If you cannot, the current version has no satisfactory rationale and should be changed in favour of my version, which I have extensively demonstrated to conform to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) The previous RFC stands until there is a new consensus. I see no evidence of such at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Consensus is based on the strength of the rationale for a specific version, not the majority. Either you defend the current version, or you concede. Stop fillibustering. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC) What's a "dispirited entity"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I meant disputed entity. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC) For context, I believe this discussion started at Talk:Jordan#West_Bank_or_Palestinian_West_Bank? and specifically how the western neighbors of Jordan should be described in the intro. Erp (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Now bring a new argument, and actually tell us what you want to be changed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I believe my current argument is still alive and well right now. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Still waiting for input on article changes with sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I made my proposed changes. Per WP:LEAD, statements made in the lead need not be sourced if they are sourced in the body, which they are. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Reverted per recent RFC that you were already made aware of earlier. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) For some reason only part of the RFC is showing up, the rest of it is in Archive 17 Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Lack of previous consensus is not an eternal prohibition against change. Let’s try to establish a consensus here. You dared me to be bold, I was bold, you reverted and now we’re discussing. Let’s focus on the substance, not the bureaucratic formalities RomanHannibal (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) We already have a consensus. The RFC specifically asked "Should the first sentence of the lead include the phrase de jure.." and the conclusion was not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) No consensus, the result of the previous discussion, carries lest weight than a consensus. And even consensus can change. So let’s argue the substance and not appeal to the weak precedent. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC) An RFC is not a weak precedent and the RFC close needs to be properly read. Having adduced no consensus, it asks what to do when there is no consensus and concludes that WP:VERIFIABILITY is the key policy and by virtue of which, the verbiage "de jure" must go ..I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Consensus is a precedent which can change. No consensus is weaker than consensus, therefore I called it a weak precedent. It is deducable from sources that the SoP has no de facto sovereignty; therefore, it is a de jure state according to countries and sources that recognise it. Therefore, your verifiability argument fails. The actual reason why the current version stayed was because WP:NOCONSENSUS dictates that without a consensus, the previous version typically remains. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) And there is still con consensus. Do any of these sources use the term "de jure"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) The sources above don’t recognise the SoP, so no. However, most countries and sources recognise the SoP. It is a fact that the SoP currently has no de facto sovereignty, so de jure can be derived. Additionally, it is explicitly stated in some sources. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Then by all means seek a new consensus (and it's not my verifiability argument, it's that of the RFC closer and the previous version did include de jure). Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Lets have an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I agree. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I decided to go to WP:DRN instead. Hopefully we get a third-party mediator to resolve our dispute. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC) @Selfstudier, @Slatersteven and @Erp, I invite you to state your side of the dispute in the DRN. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC) For anyone clinging onto the precedent argument, it is flawed per WP:CCC. Consensus is not determined by the majority per WP:DEMOCRACY. Instead, I offer you this challenge. Using previous discussions, please summarise the rationale behind the current version. If you cannot, the current version has no satisfactory rationale and should be changed in favour of my version, which I have extensively demonstrated to conform to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This convo has degenerated into classic WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. This needs to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC) You are accusing me of the exact behaviours of which you are guilty. Stop it. The facts are on my side. The law is on my side. You are pounding the table but I won’t back down. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) The facts are on my side. The law is on my side. You are pounding the table As the mother once said watching a cadet parade, 'Everyone is out of step but my Johnnie'.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Did you read the thread? @Selfstudier‘s whole argument is that due to precedent, the existing version can’t change. But consensus can change and is not determined solely by a majority. Selfstudier couldn’t even defend the current version. Instead, he falsely accused me of incivility. That’s what prompted me to write that response. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) I have, per wp:v we say what wp:rs say. Even you admit it is recognized by most nations as a state, so it can be argued (as I have already) this might violate wp:fringe or wp:falseblance. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Before responding, I would like to congratulate you (@Slatersteven) on accepting the challenge. Thank you. (@Selfstudier, this proves the challenge was reasonable. Now please accept it or else you have effectively conceded this dispute.) Now for the response. Many reliable sources, including sources 1 and 3 (one from BBC then one from Al Jazeera) do not claim the existence of the State of Palestine as an absolute fact. The staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera implicitly rejects the concept of a current Palestinian state (see source 3). These articles constitute verifications from reliable sources and prove there is a significant minority that doesn’t recognise the State of Palestine. Therefore, your objections based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE are unsubstantiated. Rather, I am arguing for the implementation of my version in order to avoid rejecting the significant minority view per WP:NOV. @Onceinawhile, the UN is not a divine body which overrules all other sources. There are many reliable sources (including the BBC and the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera) which don’t recognise the State of Palestine, which constitute a significant minority. The whole point of WP:NPOV is to prevent the rejections of significant minority views. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) For your convenience, here are the sources. Source 1 (BBC): www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14630174.amp Source 3 (Al Jazeera): www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/26/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-illegal-settlement-homes RomanHannibal (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) None of these sources say what you claim they do. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Yes they do. From source 3: “Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state.” The phrase “a future independent state” implies there is no current Palestinian state. Fron Source 1: “Efforts to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the River Jordan and Gaza on the Mediterranean coast have been frustrated by the continuing conflict with Israel.” In simpler terms, all past attempts to create a Palestinian state failed. This implies there is no current Palestinian state. Pro tip: read the sources before making a claim about them. CTRL+F is a valuable tool here. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC) The United Nations says that Palestine is a state. A Wikipedia editor says it is not. Who should we believe? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) This is, frankly, silly. Statehood generally implies recognition, but that is not the ultimate arbiter. There are states with limited recognition, among which Israel (with 28 countries refusing to recognize it) and Palestine (with 54 countries not recognizing it). Even in the EU countries that withhold formal recognition, bipartisan parliamentary majorities have consistently urged their respective governments to recognize Palestine since 2014, France and Italy included. I.e. there is a political majority recognizing that it is a state, but the lack of a formal government passage reflecting that consensus. We all know the reason why this European anomaly persists, the US and Israel exercise a veto power which, however, cannot overthrow the consensus of 193 UN member states from recognizing that Palestine is a state. So we must persist with the farce: Palestine for the US, Germany and Israel must obtain Israel's consent before they accord it their recognition, and this notwithstanding the fact that it is the declared policy of Israel's longest-running PM that a Palestinian state will never exist, as long as he is the negotiator. We go with the UN consensus, just as we recognize Israel is a state despite the dissonant refusal of 28 countries to accord it their recognition. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)  Checkuser note: The OP is a now blocked sockpuppet. I’ll leave it to regular editors here as to if they feel anything is worth continuing to discuss. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) This can be closed, as it has no support. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Discussion died as soon as the sock was blocked so I'm just gonna go ahead and close this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Should be moved to Palestine

Literally every other country article has the unofficial name. India (not "Republic of India"), China (not "Republic of China"), Pakistan (not "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"), the list goes on. Besides, the intro literally says "Palestine, (...), officially the State of Palestine...". — $T.O.M.$ 13:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In principle, I would agree but because Palestine.

Same thing at ISO, you have https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:PS and https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:IN, The "short name" for the Republic of India is India but for State of Palestine, the short name is Palestine, State of :/ Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now... Well, nevermind then. $T.O.M.$ 13:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Palestine is not a state, it is a country. 14.200.95.158 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been extensively discussed before. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

There are inaccuracies in the phrases, claiming that Palestine is a state is not true. It is authority that lives under Israeli occupation. Israel military forces found in the west bank ruling the region, preventing terrorism. Gaza is not ruled by the Israeli military forces, and still it is not a country. 83.130.20.85 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism

The support of the PLO and the Palestinian people in terrorism has shaped both their identity and their current political situation, yet it is only mentioned in the article as a BTW.

There are countless sources citing palestinian terrorism, published by virtually all reputable news providers. Here is one example from only a day ago. Other possible sources include foreign travel advice and peer reviewed papers. More resources: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1078854 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26298536 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100701329550

With two full scale intifadas and a lot of radical indoctrination in between, the Palestinian community has been actively perpetrating terrorism more often then not since they started identifying as Palestinians. Naturally, there are thousands of publications that can be used as sources. Omitting these facts makes the article look whitewashed and extremely biased. 37.251.95.62 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

For the PLO or Palestinian political violence, why not view those pages? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Factually incomplete map

I suggest changing the map image in the infobox with File:State of Palestine Lands and Claims.png, which shows both the actually controlled areas of the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas (Gaza Strip), as well as the Palestinian territorial claims. The current one is giving incomplete image on the situation in the region, completely ignoring the fact that the border with Jordan, for example, is completely under Israeli control. CapLiber (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The map is about claims not control, SOP claims certain territory and a part of that territory is claimed by Israel (East Jerusalem). That Israel occupies the claimed territory is covered in the second sentence of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The article should give a clear understanding of the current state of things from the beginning. Every other article on any nation shows both claimed and actual territories controlled by said nation, why should Palestine and Israel be exceptional? The only other exception I could think of is Ukraine, with the reason of the ongoing war, but in the case of Israel/Palestine there is a long spanning conflict and the current state of things had been relevant since 2005. CapLiber (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They do? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

On the articles about the nations with disputed regions or border disputes, they do. CapLiber (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Odd as I can think of any number that do not, for example, Spain, or the UK or Ireland, or Sweeden or Finland or, but the list goes on., Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably because they either have no disputes or have only minor ones, not that they do not control 100% of their claimed border, which is the case for Palestine in the West Bank. CapLiber (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Every one I listed have a dispute with one of the other in my list, and you said "Every other article on any nation shows both claimed and actual territories controlled by said nation", it is clear that is not true, and you are now changing the goal posts. So with that, I can't do anything but oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference. While Ireland dreams of controlling Northern Ireland, Spain dreams of controlling Gibraltar, Sweden dreams of controlling the Aland Islands, and Morocco dreams of controlling Spain's African enclaves, they accept that they don't and maintain strong diplomatic relations with the country that does. Only fringe nationalist movements disagree. Therefore, the claimed territories should be omitted from the map of the country or territory.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, the opposite is true. It is fringe within Palestinian politics to accept Israeli control and push for strong diplomatic relations with Israel. Therefore, there should be a prominent differences between controlled and claimed territories in the map of the State of Palestine. Closetside (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree here. The dispute is central to Palestinian politics, even to the very existence of the State of Palestine. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A comparable example would be Taiwan, where arguably the claim to the mainland is slightly less integral to the nature of all the state's politics than Palestine's claim to the West Bank, and that article has a detailed map. Though it also offers a map of the actual administered area; maybe having both could be an option on this article too? AntiDionysius (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the second sentence of the lead, the entire West Bank (including East Jerusalem)/Gaza is occupied territory in international law and the occupied territory is equal in area to the territory claimed. I have added the sentence "All claimed territory is occupied by Israel" to the map, nothing more is needed to match up with the article/explain the situation for readers. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I don't think anyone is arguing that the article currently doesn't explain the situation. The idea (to me, anyway) is both to provide an visualisation of what the article describes, and/or to make the map more informative for someone who really is just glancing at it without reading much/at all AntiDionysius (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

One can reasonably assume that even a casual reader will read the caption. What else would one need to know? For the suggested map per the diff here, all the A, B and C (Oslo) has nothing to do with SoP, that and the pop up labels would only confuse such a casual reader, in addition to not being NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the NPOV problem? AntiDionysius (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The attempt to explain via a map, topics that have entire articles devoted to them. The need is to keep it simple and wikilinked. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as an NPOV problem really; just a question of how we want to present information. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ireland doesn't claim NI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Maps should be detailed. Many readers just look at the map while barely reading the article, even the lead. Closetside (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

OK so what about the land taken by Israel in 1948, is that not still claimed by Palestine, so should it not also be included? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If it turns out that the Palestinian claim to the whole Mandate Palestine territory is indeed relevant, then I'd suggest adding another map with the entirity of Palesitne's claims, like the article on Taiwan shows ROC's claims for pre 1949-borders separately from the actual controlled territory. CapLiber (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

So two maps instead of one, by the way, the pre-1948 borders are not "the whole of Palestine", but thanks for pointing out the HAMAS claim (to the whole of Palestine) so what we now have is (in effect) 4 separate claims, and it is not for us to determine which ones are valid (that is a violation of wp:npov). This level of complexity can't be done by maps in the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant if the PNA pursues the pre-1948 borders (minus Transjordan), then this claim should be aknowledged in the infobox, if it is only claimed by HAMAS then it is irrelevant. HAMAS does not represent the State of Palestine in international institutions and doesn't execute authority on most of its de facto territory. CapLiber (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It still claims it, and you have identified another issue, the PA claims some of the territories the Palestians control, and Hamas also claims it. So we have a three-way control issue. So again we go back to this is too complex an issue for an info box map. I disagree it's not irrelevant what Hamas claims, they are a party to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

They are not the State of Palestine, which is the topic of the article. Regarding the HAMAS issue, a caption noting they are in control in the Gaza Strip is simple and informative enough. CapLiber (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting question; the claim and control situation here in somewhat unique and doesn't fit into the usual map conventions. Israel doesn't formally claim the territory outside of East Jerusalem, yet Palestinian control (ie. effective sovereignty) is not firm even in the Gaza Strip. The current map does seem slightly misleading in the context of the map set. The proposed map may be a useful way to give a bit more insight into the unique situation. Alternatively, if the argument above goes that the entire territory is occupied holds, then perhaps it should all be in the usual lighter shade of green for claimed territory under outside control rather than the standard dark green. CMD (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Technically, all of Jerusalem is a Corpus separatum and the claim of neither is recognized although some countries recognize one or another. Would we try to explain the entirety of Status of Jerusalem by way of a map, I think not. I don't object to the shading suggestion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment didn't address recognition, that's another issue which I doubt can be conveyed through a locator map. Control/claim only is useful in that respect, it just doesn't quite work as well here as it usually does. CMD (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Mexico recognized Palestine

[3]https://www.taghribnews.com/en/news/595741/mexico-fully-recognizes-palestine-welcomes-embassy 69.166.119.181 (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a strange one; the announcement seems solely to have come from the Palestinian side, but Mexico also doesn't seem to have repudiated it since June. It's sourced in a few places, but mostly fairly explicitly pro-Palestine and/or left wing publications. Unsure what to think AntiDionysius (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed, see archives. We need a clearcut statement from the Mexican side, until then, nothing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough AntiDionysius (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Ramapoball (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Change the flag because the flag is wrong and I’m Palestinian

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

I think this line should have the word "of" deleted.

CHANGE THIS - After Israel captured and occupied of the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza Strip from Egypt, it began to establish Israeli settlements there.

TO THIS - After Israel captured and occupied the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza Strip from Egypt, it began to establish Israeli settlements there. 69.174.145.123 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

2 Governments 1 State?

The article explains the two different ruling governments that are separated geographically (Gaza and West Bank), but it does not explain why they are to be considered a single state despite this.75.71.235.168 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You could start with Oslo, see here - "1. The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period." and then UN resolutions restating that as well as designating Palestine a UN observer state. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)