Jump to content

Talk:State of Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Completely true (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 25 June 2014 (→"State of Palestine" also can refer to the state declared in 1964). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.

"State of Palestine" also can refer to the state declared in 1964

"State of Palestine" also can be used to refer to the state of Palestine declared by the Palestine National Charter adopted in 1964 which became the proposal for a "Single Democratic State" and which was the position of the PLO until 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])


People who live in the disputed areas of Palestine know that statehood is just a political vision of the Arab movement - yet not a state... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.23.42 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "The State of Palestine" can and should be used to describe the state of Palestine declain by the UN in 1947. However, to remain neutral there should be a distiction made by making another page for it. The current entity that is controled by the Palestinian Authority has a similar status as Somaliland (See Article on Samaliland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland). Both entities have legitimate, howbeit controversial, claims to statehood. Therefore such claim as "sovereign" State of Palestine, should be omitted. The term "Sovereign" does not appear on many other pages for actual sovereign states anyway. I would sugjest we copy the term used for Somaliland: "self-declared independent state that is internationally recognised as an autonomous region...". Anything more than that seriously puts the neutrality of Wikipedia into question.

Grammatical error, please fix!

The State of Palestine tourism is becoming popular in recent few years for its natural beauty and the historical background.Every year more than one million of international visitors are Tourism in the Palestinian territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.76.69 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State Today

The "State of Palestine" is controversial, contentious, disputed, etc., to such an extent, that I would like to propose we split it into as many and as small different articles as possible.

This, IMHO, is the only way to bring to the readers the different facets and aspects of the subject, with the least controversy.

88.114.128.29 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Just me.[reply]

Proposed merge with Palestinian territories

Geez, what am I thinking? Actually carrying out this merge would be a nightmare even if we could all agree on it. But here's what I'm thinking: these articles describe the same subject. That's a perfectly good reason for merging. Look, I don't really have a dog in this fight. If anything, I'm more sympathetic to Israel. But the objective reality is that there is a Palestinian state, with a surprisingly high level of recognition. In practice, it gets messy, but we don't have separate articles on Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia. Besides, it's still up to the body of the article to explain the status of the government. Having separate articles on the geographic area and the government that claims it just doesn't make good sense. There are four options before us here, as I see it. Let me know what you think. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Merge both articles under the title State of Palestine.
  2. Merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories.
  3. Merge both articles under a different title (indicate your preference).
  4. Don't merge the articles.
  • I vote to merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories. Good luck. --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super duper strong oppose. The articles do not describe the same subject, one describes, or should describe, the state declared in 1988 and has since been recognized by over 100 other states and the other describes the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine that has been held under Israeli occupation since the 1967 War. Until the State of Palestine actually exercises sovereignty over the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel then the two subjects are separate, and combining them in to one article is simply unworkable. nableezy - 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles cover different topics as explained by Nableezy. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the subject-matter is different. Land of Israel and Israel are similarly separate articles, even if wikipedia articles aren't sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point number one is fine. Both, if merged, should be merged to State of Palestine. Palestine is a non-observer state at the UN too. Faizan 09:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 1, and also merge with Palestinian National Authority (which has officially changed ita name to State of Palestine), with subarticles created to avoid losing detail. Nableezy has a point, but since the State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories we are massively overcomplicating things for readers by keeping these topics separate. The one thing we can all agree on is that we want to help readers understand, and the current state of these articles is super duper unclear (to borrow Nableezy's term). To deal with Nableezy's point we should make very clear in the first paragraph that the state does not actually control most of the territory it claims. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If by "subarticles" you mean sections, that's an interesting point. The Palestinian territories article doesn't have a government and politics section, and it really should. The section could divided it into sub-sections for Palestine's "governments" (see my post bellow) which explain their roles (for example that the PLO handles the foreign relations). The problem with your approach (if I understand it correctly) is that a merge with both this and the PNA article would cause the government and politics section to overwhelm the rest of the article, even with a major reorganization of the merged page.
Here's another idea that might address the concern you've raised, it's more of a very rough draft of an idea tough. Perhaps this article's info on the political/legal status and recognition of Palestine (most of this article) could be moved to Palestinian territories and/or Political status of the Palestinian territories. This article could then focus on the State's government, and it's institutions (somewhat similar to Palestinian National Authority). Possibly then it could be renamed "Government of the State of Palestine" with "State of Palestine" redirecting to "Palestinian territories". Basically, a halfway point between merging this article, and keeping it separate. I'd imagine that allot of the opposers would oppose this idea tough, especially the part about renaming and redirecting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine however, is an highly unusual case, it's not as simple as "the geographic area and the government that claims it". Unlike other countries which consist of a single "government" (for lack of a better term), Republic of Abkhazia for Abkhazia, Republic of Kosovo for Kosovo etc., Palestine has three. The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO). The PNA and SOP (and to a partial extent the PLO) have have separate governments, separate heads of government (PNA President SOP President/PLO Chairman), and separate legislatures (PNA Palestinian Legislative Council, SOP/PLO Palestinian National Council), and separate institutions. PLO ensures smooth interaction and synchronous actions of the two. All three should have their own articles.
They have different roles, for example the PLO handles the foreign relations, and the PNA does most of the internal governing within Palestine such as law enforcement. If it helps, you could think of the PLO, PNA, and SOP as the three separate breaches of the Palestinian government.
I which Japinderum weren't an a wilibreack, he's far more kownigable about this then I am, and I don't think I doing a good job of explaining this. I used (and adapted) some of his words in my post. I'll invite hem here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum my above post, to quote User:Soman "To be clear, the State of Palestine [...] and the Palestinian National Authority are not the same. The PNA is an organ for local self-governance, but not a state. It is subordinate to the PLO, and founded several years after the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to merge both articles under the title State of Palestine, Palestine is a UN Observer state like the Vatican so why don't u use this name?? is it because most of it's land is occupied? Gaza is Free and Palestine is not the only state with occupied territories. 3bdulelah (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Strip is still under Israeli occupation. See Israeli-occupied territories#Gaza Strip. It's not the State of Palestine that controls Gaza, it's the Palestinian Authority. More specifically the Hamas government in Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement might be confusing so here something from the Governance of the Gaza Strip that should clarify it: "Hamas party won the Palestinian legislative elections [...] establishing a Palestinian national unity government with Fatah, which effectively collapsed when Hamas and Fatah engaged in a violent conflict. [...] Both administrations – the Fatah government in Ramallah and the Hamas government in Gaza– regard themselves as the sole legitimate government of the Palestinian National Authority." The point is that it's the it's the Authority's Hamas government, not the State, that controls Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a few problems merging this under the title "State of Palestine"
First of all WP:COMMONNAME. "Palestinian territories" (including the variant "Palestinian territory") has 74 times more Google results then "State of Palestine". "Palestinian territories" OR "Palestinian territory" -wikipedia has 74,200,000 results, vs "State of Palestine" -wikipedia mere 1,020,000 results.
It is my understanding that over the past few mounts some sources have swished to using the term "State of Palestine" instead of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", many (if not most) have not, for example: The Guardian [1], BBC News [www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14630174‎], United Nations Human Rights Council [2], Huffington Post [3], the British Council [www.britishcouncil.org/ps.htm], Carter Center [4], Amnesty International [5], the Germian goverment's GIZ [6], the Brookings Institution [7], the British goverment's UK Trade & Investment [8], the UN's World Health Organization [9], Médecins Sans Frontières [10], Doctors Without Borders [www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=60], The Washington Times [11], The UN's UN News Centre [12], Bahrain News Agency [13], Prensa Latina [14], Kuwait News Agency [15], Gulf News [16], the Chicago Tribune [17]; well that's a much bigger collection of sources then I meant to gather, but I think you get the idea.
As I pointed out above, the The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO), are not the same thing. While "State of Palestine" can be used as a synonym of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", it would be confusing to use "State of Palestine" as our main term for Palestine (which would encompass the SOP, PNA, and PLO), especially in a context where we would want to talk about the State of Palestine specifiably. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to EHC's post of 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC), "single top level summary article": I like your thinking. Below is the table of contents of how the articles are currently organised.
Palestinian territories State of Palestine Palestinian National Authority

1 Name
2 Boundaries
3 Future Palestinian state
4 East Jerusalem
5 Gaza Strip
6 Political status
7 Legal status
8 Demographics
8.1 Exodus
8.2 Language
9 Administrative divisions
9.1 Areas
9.2 Governorates
10 History

1 Etymology

2 Background
2.1 The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (1915–1916)
2.2 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1920–1948)
2.2.1 The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee (1945)
2.3 1947-1948 War in Palestine
2.3.1 Partition of Palestine (1948)
2.3.2 Arab–Israeli War (1948)
2.4 After the war
2.4.1 All-Palestine government
2.5 The Six-Day War (1967)
2.6 Rift between Jordan and Palestinian leadership (1970)
2.7 Rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (1974)

3 History
3.1 Declaration of Independence (1988)
3.2 Palestinian Authority (1994)
3.2.1 Split of the Fatah and Hamas
3.2.2 2013 change of name
3.3 Palestine in the United Nations
3.3.1 2011 United Nations membership application
3.3.2 2011 UNESCO membership
3.3.3 2012 United Nations observer state status

4 Institutions

5 International recognition and foreign relations
5.1 EU's position

6 Legal status
6.1 Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter
6.2 Declaration and Act of State Doctrine
6.3 Consequences of the occupation
6.4 Decisions of international and national tribunals
6.5 State succession
6.6 Opinions of officials and legal scholars

1 Overview

2 History
2.1 Establishment
2.2 Second Intifada
2.3 Hamas–Fatah conflict
2.4 2007–present

3 Geography

4 Politics and internal structure
4.1 Officials
4.2 Political parties and elections

5 Law
5.1 Human rights

6 Crime and law enforcement
6.1 Violence against civilians
6.2 Violence against officials (2001–2004)
6.3 Palestinian measures to keep law and order

7 Administrative divisions
7.1 West Bank governorates
7.2 Gaza Strip governorates

8 Foreign relations
8.1 Palestinian Authority passport

9 Economy and budget
9.1 Corruption

10 International aid
10.1 Foreign aid and budget deficit
10.2 Economic sanctions following January 2006 legislative elections
10.3 Use of European Union assistance
10.4 US foreign aid packages
10.5 Payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons
10.6 James G. Lindsay

11 Demographics

12 Communications

13 Transportation

A quick look through this illustrates how much overlap there is here. We need to simplify this if a reader is going to have any chance of navigating it all successfully.

Importantly though, to make this easy to understand, I think we need one of these articles to become a single "top level" summary article, so that a reader new to the subject can read just one article with summaries of all the key points and understand the modern political situation of Palestine. Once that is done, we can have create clearer scopes for each of these articles, so that they remain focused on their respective areas, providing more detail to support the summary in the top level article.

So question 1 is, which name should be the "single top level summary article"? DEFINITELY CHANGE TO OPTION 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.233.179 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "top level summary article". If you mean for Palestine in general, not politics specifically, but just in general, it should be "Palestinian territories" per my second 12:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) post, and it already is. If you mean political/legal status, is it a state, is it occupied, that kind of thing, Political status of the Palestinian territories. If you mean internal politics, elections and appointments, powers of the PLO, SOP, AND PNA, that kind of thing the Politics of the Palestinian territories. As I pointed out the Palestinian Authority And the State of Palestine are two separate entities, so one should not be the main article for the other.
Part of my point in my response to your previous post what that this article focuses allot on the legal status of the Palestinian territories, when in my tentative opinion, after thinking about what you've said, that should be something for the Political status of the Palestinian territories and Palestinian territories articles. This article (under whatever name would be appropriate) should focus on the State's government (not the Authorty's government, the State's), similarly to the Palestinian National Authority article. Sense the Authority does most of the axueal internal governing within Palestine, and (if my understanding is correct) has many more institutions then the Authority, the Authority article would be longer then this one under the scope I propose. I'm of the Opposers, but I think my position is a middle ground between the Opposers and the Supporters. I think my position is closer to your's and BDD's then it is to the other Opposers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles should probably be merged with Palestine as well, with all articles redirecting to "Palestine"; this will eliminate confusion. However, that may be too complicated a merge to carry out, as these three articles cover somewhat different things. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to merge both articles under the title "Palestine" and the former page “Palestine” be moved to "Palestinian area"， the reason are as follows:

The State of Palestine is a country which exists in fact, and there are 134 members of the United Nations recognize the State of Palestine, while only 59 members refuse to recognize it. You can't create a conception called "Palestinian territories" just because your country don't recognize it, this is ridiculous!

Some country didn't recognize Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, but I haven't saw any counties use the Kosovo territories, Abkhaz territories, South Ossetia territories in their official documents, Wikipedia could't do the ridiculous thing either.--MacArthur1945 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if such sovereign state existed, the Palestinians wouldn't be threatening that if the current round of Peace talks will fail they would push for unilateral statehood. The fact is that all Palestinian authority and recognition comes through the Oslo accords(and UN), which is very specific about this issues and all your talk about recognition and UN statements is nothing but a huge Synthesis.
oppose, despite the overlap shown in the table above, those articles have distinct purpose. Territories, administration and proclaimed/future state.--PLNR (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-ish, after further examination and reading of this article content, I support the merger of most of this article with 'Palestinian territories' (any chance it was moved here from there in the first place? because it reads that way) --PLNR (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to summarise all topics under "Palestine"

This is another can of worms I've tried to avoid, but what about Palestine itself? I think the SoP/PTs is the primary topic for that term, and the current article should be at a title like Palestine (region). Does it make any sense for that to be the top level article? I know, I know, not that this issue needed further complication... --BDD (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be moved to Palestine, Palestine moved to Palestine (region), and the other two articles remain separate. The PNA has nothing, or close to nothing, to do with the establishment, history, or present status of the State. The territories could conceivably be in this article (the PNA article should really be a sub-article to that one), but both are big enough to deal with separately, and I see no overlap necessary between the two. nableezy - 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that too, although I wouldn't be so binary re the PNA or any other topic which has some overlap as the reality is a little more nuanced. A top-level "Palestine" article about the State of Palestine should provide readers with an entry level summary of every relevant / adjacent topic.

It's worth noting that this idea has been proposed before, but ran out of steam because there was no agreement re what the article would actually look like, and others viewed it as politically motivated. It would be a shame if that happened again. I think the success of the proposed move will depend wholly on the ability to show to the community that the article will achieve the goal of being a truly helpful introduction to what is a complex subject, which would be of real value for readers. That will need hard work, coordination and structured debate from all of us here.

If this makes sense to people, before we try to get broader community support for this, can i suggest we try to agree amongst ourselves exactly what the contents of this "Palestine" article would be? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand well Nableezy's proposal, I agree :
State of Palestine should be moved to Palestine
Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region)
Anyway, I also agree that this deserves a discussion.
We should find good clues (not to say evidences) that the word "Palestine" refers more today to the "State" than to the "region" in the minds of the majority of people.
That's not obvious. For Israelis and Palestinians, of course but in the Christian world, I have some doubt... And in any case, our mind doesn't matter, we need evidences...
Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. From yesterday's Haaretz:
[Google statement to the Knesset committee]: “I wish to stress that as part of this process, we merely try to reflect the state of international naming standards. We have no interest in being the arbiter of political disputes. I want to make it absolutely clear that in making these decisions we are in no way taking a political stance.”
Hale read out Google’s official position, under which the selection of geopolitical names is based on decisions by organizations such as the United Nations, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the International Organization for Standardization.[18]
In summary, google's analysis, which they were prepared to defend in front of a Knesset committee, is that the name "Palestine" is preferred over "Palestinian territories"
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merger of these articles. 72.211.220.246 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. I agree with Nableezy here. Palestine (in its various meanings) is a sui generis situation, far more complicated than Abkhazia or other partially-recognized or disputed cases. The only vaguely comparable case I can think of is with China although even then it isn't really similar. It's hard enough even for people familiar with the situation to sort out what the different Palestinian organizations are; what the difference between Areas A/B/C are; where the Green Line lies vis-a-vis where people of differing nationalities/ethnicities are currently living and where the separation barrier runs; what the status of Jerusalem is; etc. Nearly every related term ("capital", "settler", "occupation", "state", "Jerusalem", "Palestine", "Palestinians", "refugee", "international community", etc.) is subject to often highly charged disputes. On top of this it's highly doubtful, if/when a peace agreement is worked out and an actually sovereign State of Palestine comes into existence, that its boundaries will correspond to the current Green Line that marks the formal definition of the Palestinian Territories. Merging these articles would make it all the harder to keep all the different concepts straight. (Contrast e.g. Abkhazia, which is a de-facto sovereign state run by a single entity whose boundaries closely correspond both to the region of Abkhazia and the area inhabited by Abkhazians.)
  • OTOH I don't have any problem with renaming the articles, e.g. as proposed by Nableezy (although I don't feel strongly about this -- again this is a unique situation, and e.g. arguments could easily be made as well that the article "Palestine" should refer to the Palestinian Territories). Benwing (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this page should be moved to Palestine and that article to Palestine (region). If Palestine is not a country, it should not be under the name "State of" anything, and if Palestine is a country, it should be moved to Palestine to be consistent with articles of other countries. State of Israel redirects to Israel, People's Republic of China redirects to China, etc. Whichever way you look at it, this article should be moved to Palestine. As for the merge, I'm not sure on whether to merge Palestine and Palestinian territories, but Palestinian National Authority should not be merged. Many other governments, both national and sub-national, have their own article separate from what they govern, this is no different, and wouldn't necessarily be an endorsement to any solution, since sub-national governments sometimes have their own article too.Smartyllama (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think the former page “Palestine” should be moved to "Palestinian area", and we could merge the page "State of Palestine" with the page "Palestinian territories" under the title "Palestine". my reason is as follows:

The State of Palestine is a country which exists in fact, and there are 134 members of the United Nations recognize the State of Palestine, while only 59 members refuse to recognize it. You can't create a conception called "Palestinian territories" just because your country don't recognize it, this is ridiculous!

Some country didn't recognize Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, but I haven't saw any counties use the Kosovo territories, Abkhaz territories, South Ossetia territories in their official documents, Wikipedia could't do the ridiculous thing either.--MacArthur1945 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, politics are irrelevant to this move and the article should be put at Palestine either way with that existing article moved. If Palestine is its own sovereign nation, the full name of the nation should still be a redirect, like People's Republic of China, State of Israel, and Russian Federation. If Palestine is a territory, it still should be moved to Palestine, because no other territories, save those whose full proper name includes the word "territory" (for instance the Yukon Territory) have the main article at that name. For instance, Guam territory does not even exist as an article while Guam territory, United States redirects to Guam. So in the end, whether Palestine is a territory or an independent country, the article should still be at Palestine since that is the naming convention for both territories and independent countries. Smartyllama (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive. My understanding is that the international community considers Palestine to be both a (de jure) state, and an occupied territory (hence the term "occupied Palestinian territories" or "Palestinian territories"). As for official government documents with that them, here's one from the UK, and one from the UN. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, One article refers territory. One article refers to a proposed state. The article on the proposed state also refers to a Government body that exercises some control over some of the territory for that proposed state. I would worry about merging Palestinian National Authority here first since the entity recognized before the UN as the State of Palestine is the PNA. I would also like to remind everyone WP:Soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Any position to merge should not be based on emotion or political position in my opinion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at this point, especially with murky situation among the two Palestinian factions, however, it does seem like a logical solution for when the State of Palestine will be officially formed (e.g. Israel not State of Israel)--PLNR (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposition. Most people look for "Palestine", not "State of Palestine". It would be easier for anyone who was searching for it to have both these articles under ONE title. Justmephotography (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Nableezy Cinemwallz44 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support. Palestine is the simplest term, the most general, the easiest to search for. There is ample precedent, not just with Abkhazia etc., but even with “regular” countries such as Germany. There have been many historical regions, entities and states described as “Germany”, but the article Germany is the article for the present-day country, which is not under Federal Republic of Germany. —ThorstenNY (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De jure Vs De Facto

You use two sources to Justify the inclusion of Palestine De Jure Status as a State. 1 is a news article about a UN General Assembly resolution. 1 specifically states that they got De Facto recognition. The first source mentions neither De facto nor De jure status as a Sovereign state. The second one only mentions de facto recognition. Again these also use a UN Generally Assembly. It's a Nonbinding resolution. They change a word. Entity. They changed that to state. This neither adds not removes Sovereignty from to to Palestine. The General Assembly can not do that. Unless you have a source that's this status is their De Jure status then you need to use your sources and change it to de facto.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Noting in the lead that it is "De facto Sovereign state", based on two "breaking news" articles is completely uncalled for and misleading(***). Just as the later mention that "within the United Nations system, and implicitly recognizing PLO's sovereignty", to say implicitly when the UN resolution doesn't mention that word is misleading.
The article correctly notes that State of Palestine claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories and it should note that the UN resolution was seen by many as de facto recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty. Until such time that it finally gains sovereignty, that it.
(***) It should be noted that the article is about the "the state proclaimed in 1988" not PNA, by saying De facto Sovereign state, it means that proclaimed state is:
A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.
However, the proclamation in 1988 doesn't have juridical entity or represented by a centralized government. The only thing that comes close is PNA which draws its legitimacy from Oslo accords, specifically recognized as administration not a state(even UN resolution which is thought to recognize its Sovereignty specifically states that its final status is pending negotiations), it do not have supreme independent authority over its area, nor full capacity enter into relations.--PLNR (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You guys reached a consensus, could someone go ahead an implement it? Yambaram (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section State of Palestine#Legal status looks more like a quasi-scientific essay written by a student than an encyclopedic article for the common reader. I propose to boltly delete this rubbish (except the last three subsections). If relevant, it is better to write a new section, starting from scratch, --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the legal status section is long, but I also think the legal-status aspect is a significant perspective into the subject of this article. Maybe a less radical shortening than the one you propose would work? For example, the text that doesn't directly discuss Palestine seems possible to delete, ditto some repetitive text. --Dailycare (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wanted to avoid. Why spend much time to adapt this rubbish? Just start with a few new sentences. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the 64,000€ question really: why does anyone spend time editing Wikipedia? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's your proposal for "new sentences" ?
I am personnaly open to discuss this but based on something concrete (and based on sources, of course).
Pluto2012 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename article to "History of the State of Palestine"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. 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: No consensus to move. An RfC might be helpful to get a much broader consensus on how to scope our articles on the Palestinian territories/state and the history thereof. Until then, there clearly wasn't a consensus here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine → History of the State of Palestine – No chance to merge with Palestinian territories (see discussion above). We need "History of the State of Palestine" anyway. Such an article will pretty much look like the current article.

The title State of Palestine should be a redirect to Palestinian territories. The next discussion will be if Palestinian territories should be renamed to State of Palestine. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Wickey-nl (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the need of a State of Palestine article, but my approach is a practical one. First get rid of the current content under that title. The discussion about Palestinian National Authority, State of Palestine and Palestinian territories is quite complex. This is the first step. Palestinian National Authority will, and should, never be renamed to State of Palestine, because the PA is an impotent government with some authority over some territory and not a state, while the PLO represents the State of Palestine (and bears that name in the UN). Compare it with Israel: one article State of Israel and one Government of Israel. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair point re PNA, I agree it is complex.
On reflection I don't think moving articles like these is a good idea, as too difficult with too many links.
I think an easier plan is simply moving chunks of text to where they are most relevant.
I have made a proposal at Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal. If you agree this is a reasonable starting point, perhaps you could edit the proposal to show the optimal structure as you view it?
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the pages that link to this article, I don see a problem. It remains the same subject, and links will eventually be adapted. Links in this article cannot be a problem.
Your proposal has two essential problems. 1. State of Palestine will be overloaded by the history sections (the reason why we need an article with the present -adapted- content); 2. Remaining two parallel articles. You cannot split the State of Palestine and its territory. The Territories are part of the State. By keeping both you do not solve the current problem. In your proposal, State of Palestine remains a history article, just what is the problem for many, many readers/editors, who see the Palestinian territories as the State of Palestine.
I have no intention to write a new article, rather give a solution. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather oppose - I fear that if this move is accepted, the article State of Palestine may never appear. I also disagree with the idea of merging Palestinian authority in State of Palestine. I think the first one more refers to the notion of "government" and the second one to a notion of "state". Finally,I think there is an easy solution to satisfy everybody : remove from this article the material related to the History of the State and keep here only what is directly related to the State. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the history part is actually consistent with my proposal, as that is nearly all. Your fear is baseless. There are two possibilities. Either Israel realises its one-state solution, a racist apartheid-state, by annexing the settlements and the Jordan Valley. In that case we can finish the history article. Or the Palestinian territories will be recognized as the State of Palestine by UN and Israel. Thus I prefer to keep State of Palestine as a redirect until things will be clear. I also support Palestinian territories as a redirect. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Nom has indicated that they have no intention to build an expanded History of the State of Palestine, but that's the obvious solution to what this RM seeks to address and such an article is mentioned in the various restructuring proposals so I hope they may reconsider, or someone else may take it on. Note also that the article previously at that title is now at Proposals for a Palestinian state and you might find good material there and/or in its page history too. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a disputed sovereign state in the Levant that is recognized as an observer state by the United Nations.[13][14] Its (somewhat) independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[15] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] Most of the areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been in control of Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7] In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[16]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a highly contentious subject matter and I am not inclined to change the lead without consensus and reliable sources to back it up. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Largest City

While the State of Palestine claims East Jerusalem (or more accurately "al Quds") as its capital, it makes no claims with regards to West Jerusalem. As such, Gaza is its largest city. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to support your personal opinion. Sources I have consulted refer to Jerusalem, see e.g. Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem – Some Legal Issues". The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. pp. 21–26. Reprinted from: Rüdiger Wolfrum (Ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, online 2008-, print 2011)
"The attitude of the Palestinians was expressed inter alia in 1988 and 2002. When the Palestine National Council proclaimed in November 1988 the establishment of a Palestinian State, it asserted that Jerusalem was its capital. In October 2002 the Palestinian Legislative Council adopted the Law on the Capital, which stipulates that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian State, the main seat of its three branches of government. The State of Palestine is the sovereign of Jerusalem and of its holy places. Any statute or agreement that diminishes the rights of the Palestinian State in Jerusalem is invalid. This statute can be amended only with the consent of two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council. The 2003 Basic Law also asserts that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine" Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to fix mixed citation styles

This article currently uses a mixture of citation templates, short footnotes, parenthetical references, and other forms of referencing. I've been trying to clean up the citations, but it's proving difficult accommodating all the different styles. I'm proposing that

  1. the Notes section be retained as is, but possibly formatted in two columns to reduce its use of vertical space.
  2. convert to list-defined references, where all references are named and only the reference name appears in the text (e.g. <ref name=Kassim /> to make editing easier; all complete references would be listed in the References section and called from there. To see how this works, take a look at Attila or Virginia Tech massacre. For detailed explanations of implementation, see Help:List-defined references and Template:Reflist/doc#List-defined references.
  3. works in the Bibliography section which are used as specific citations be converted to citation templates and included in the References section, with page number references appended inline using {{rp|#}}, which displays the page number immediately following the footnote. It looks like this: [23]: 249 . (See the reference for Kassim, which first appears in the State of Palestine#Arab–Israeli War (1948) section, in the very last paragraph). This avoids having to have an individual reference for each page or range of pages cited in the same source; the source can be listed once and the page number specified next to the note number. The short reference for Kassim in the References section would be replaced with the full citation from the Bibliography section; note how I've managed to include links to Google books previews of the different pages cited without cluttering up the text of the article itself.

I got involved here by cleaning up some citations with deprecated parameters and noticing that the {{UN document}} template was broken—it was linking to a defunct website—so I got it fixed. I'd like to finish making the references easier to navigate. Since this is a major change, I don't want to expend tons of energy carrying it out if there are serious objections. Absent those, I'm willing to do the clean-up. I'd like to start about two weeks from now; that should give ample time for comments, which are welcome. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine&oldid=614383932"