Jump to content

Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was procedural close. Unless I'm missing something, no one here actually wants to rename this article. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Palestinian territories → ? – To address Greayshark09's concerns about calling the WB&GS "Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Geayshark's concerns are listed above, but for sake of clarity, I'll repeat them here:
"i think you are unaware to the different and disputed meanings of Pt term.
First of all - oPt is a very political term, which is not acceptable on Israel and several UN security council members. In addition, it is also historically inaccurate, because Israel captured and occupied the Jordanian WB (not Palestinian) and Egyptian GS (not Palestinian), and only later the PLO asked to define those as oPt by the Arab League. The term Pt and oPt is not officially implemented by the UN itself and most states, which rather use the terms WB and GS (see [5]). UN actually doesn't write anything on the map of disputed areas WB and GS [6].
Secondly, the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control (40% of WB) and Hamas Administration control (all Gaza Strip except part of its territorial waters).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25‎ October 2012 (UTC)""" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no. The [occupied] Palestinian territories (and the UNSC repeatedly has referred to the oPt, and multiple UN agencies refer to the oPt, see for example OCHA oPt) are the West Bank (in its entirety), including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The area under control of the PNA is not that. The claim that the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control is completely unsupported and easily refuted. See for example this, or this, or this. The UN uses the term all the time, the idea that it doesnt is pure fiction. So does most of the world, and so do an overwhelming number of sources. There is no basis for this request, none at all. nableezy - 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not - Greyshark is welcome to their personal views but they are entirely inconsistent with reliable sources and therefore irrelevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I'm reading this correctly, Greyshark prefers "Palestinian Authority" as a name. That's just not factually accurate. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have nothing to do with this nonsense proposal. User Emmette synthesized my remarks on the usage of the term "Palestinian territories" into a nonsense rename procedure, which i have nothing to do with. This proposal should be closed at once, and i'm going to turn to authorities on this issue as my interpretation of Emmette's action are bullying.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Without taking a position on the personal dispute here, it does look like an early close is appropriate here. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should be closed, while Emmette is now being issued a complaint on the administrators noticeboard.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Administrative center

Regarding this revert, why isn't it relevant here. We list the administrative center of Areas A and B (PNA controlled west bank). Why can we list that but not the Administrative center of Area C (settler controlled west bank)? Isn't Area C about 60% of the West Bank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't relevant because this isnt an article on the Judea and Samaria Area. That article is Judea and Samaria Area. If it were me I would remove Rammalah and Gaza City as well. nableezy - 17:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the article about the Palestinian Authority, Hamas Government, or State of Palestine either. You didn't remove Rammalah and Gaza City, so the question how is Ariel irreverent, while Ramallah and Gaza City are relevant. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Emmette, you are forcing your very narrow point of view of what are the Pt, but there are also other opinions.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
From the first sentence of this article "The Palestinian territories [...] comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip." That's my understanding of what the PT is, what am I forcing? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
And how does listing Ariel impose a different definition of PT then the one this article uses. If anything not listing Ariel, but listing Ramallah and Gaza City is forcing a different definition on the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I said take out Ramallah and Gaza. nableezy - 19:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Why remove those but not East Jerusalem? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed everything not relevant to this article. This article is not about an administration or government, it is about the oPt. nableezy - 19:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
If this is article is about the Palestinian Territories is the governance of the Palestinian territories an important aspect of that topic? Dlv999 (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I would think it would be one of the most important aspects of that topic. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
It could be discussed in the article, obviously, but it isnt something that should go in an infobox. This isnt an article on a government, and its infobox shouldnt pretend that it is. nableezy - 14:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories" vs "Palestinian Authority"

Note: This section was originally located at User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman Note: This section was originally located at User talk:Greyshark09

You seam to be making a habit of changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority". The terms are not the same. The Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority is an entity that governs parts of the Palestinian territories, it is not the WB/GS itself (tough in certain contexts "Palestinian Authority" can mean Areas A and B of the West Bank). If somethings referring to the West Bank and Gaza, rather then the entity, please leave the phrase "Palestinian territories" be. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Definitions of Palestine was not one of them, that section was only about the parts of the PT under PNA and Hamas Admistration. Thanks for catching that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of that article, I like what you've done with it. It's an article about definitions, and there is a difference between the geographic and geo-political definitions. Good to have some history of the word too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
From my talk page "Hello Emmette, regarding your remarks on preference of Pt term over PNA term regarding the geopolitical entity, i think you are unaware to the different and disputed meanings of Pt term.
First of all - oPt is a very political term, which is not acceptable on Israel and several UN security council members. In addition, it is also historically inaccurate, because Israel captured and occupied the Jordanian WB (not Palestinian) and Egyptian GS (not Palestinian), and only later the PLO asked to define those as oPt by the Arab League. The term Pt and oPt is not officially implemented by the UN itself and most states, which rather use the terms WB and GS (see [7]). UN actually doesn't write anything on the map of disputed areas WB and GS [8].

Secondly, the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control (40% of WB) and Hamas Administration control (all Gaza Strip except part of its territorial waters).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25‎ October 2012 (UTC)" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't my preference, this is how Wikipedia uses the phrases.
From "Palestinian territories": "The Palestinian territories [...] comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. Since 1993, following the Oslo Accords, parts of the territories politically came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority" From "Palestinian National Authority": The Palestinian Authority [...] is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
The article about the WB&GS is called "Palestinian territories", and throughout Wikipedia we usually call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories" (or simply "Palestine" if the context would specify that we're the WB&GS, and not the historic geographic region) not "Palestinian Authority". If you think we shouldn't use the phase "Palestinian territories" to refer to the WB&GS, I recommended you propose that the "Palestinian territories" article be moved. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, I don't expect to change your mind on this issue as we have had several discussions and have been unable to find any common ground. One thing I would say is that from the recent discussions I have been involved with, it appears that your position is not supported by any kind of consensus in the community. Take for example your recent rename proposal at Economy of the Palestinian territories which was universally rejected. Or the recent discussion which supported the move of Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Political status of the Palestinian territories. You are perfectly entitled to argue what you think is the right way to move the encyclopedia forward, but I think it would be useful in this case to acknowledge that your position is not broadly supported, that the issue is controversial, and that as a consequence you should not go about making these sort of changes without prior discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
And Talk:Mandatory Palestine#Today Part of. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Greyshark's PT to PA changes should be reverted. Like I said, they go against the normal usage of the terms on Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark has made these changes on so many pages that I think the only thing to do here is to edit Wikipedia as usual and when you see an inappropriate PA to change it to PT. Greayshark, from now on please do not impose your personal preference to not use the phrase "Palestinian territories" on Wikipedia without consensus. Wikipedia normally uses the phrase "Palestinian territories" to refer to the WB&GS. As shown in this discussion and the related discussions that Dlv999 and I have linked to, it is you, not the community that wants to change every instance of "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm inviting people who were involved in similar discussions regarding Greyshark's PT to PA changes. I've only invited people who oppose them so far. It's not that I'm wp:Canvassing, it's just that I haven't found anyone who supports Grayshark's changes to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, you have continued your PT to PA changes scene being asked to stop ([9] [10] argubly [11]).I don't think their appropriate, User:Dlv999 dosen't, It looks like User:Shrike doesn't, and it looks like User:Sean.hoyland doesn't. Please stop. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It also looks like User:Rainbowofpeace doesn't. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, a how about this? Scene you really don't want Wikipedia to call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories", I'll propose the Palestinian territories page be moved, and if this page is moved you can probably change all instances of "Palestinian territories" throughout Wikipedia to whatever the new title of this page is. If it's not moved, that means Wikipedia will continue to call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples of Greayshark's PT to PA edits [12] [13] [14]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that what makes a territory or country that territory or country is the fact that people identity as that nationality. The vast majority of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip identify as Palestinians therefore in my mind making it the Palestinian territories.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

But their Palestinian citizenship is of Palestinian Authority, not of "Palestinian territories". The areas under the control of Palestinians are Palestinian territories; the areas inhabited by Palestinians are Palestinian territories to some opinions as well; however "Palestinian territories" is not a geopolitical entity. Emmette is for some reason trying to undermine the fact that Palestinian Authority exists.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, as shown in the links Dlv999 and I have provided, Everywhere there has been any sort of discussion about your preference for PA to PT, it has been you supporting it while everyone else opposes it, your recent rename proposal of Economy of the Palestinian territories is the best example of that. If the community supports your changes, why is that? Why do we have "Palestinian territories" in the title of pages such as Economy of the Palestinian territories, why don't all those pages use "Palestinian National Authority" instead. Why is it that whenever I see an inappropriate "Palestinian Authority", I look in the edit history and find you added it there.

I'll try to explain this again, From Palestinian territories "The Palestinian territories [...] comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.", From Palestinian National Authority: The Palestinian Authority [...] is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority is not the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If you see "Palestinian territories" used to refer to the WB&GS rather then the organization, please leave it be. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, where is the conciseness to change "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority" throughout Wikipedia. Unless you can present some evidence of conciseness to do that, I think we can conclude that there isn't any, and that your doing so is inappropriate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree here with Coleman. I've been saying for a while now that there needs to be a broader discussion regarding the application of the terms "Palestinian Authority", "Gaza Strip [in reference to the Hamas-dominated administration]" and "Palestinian territories". Before that discussion takes place and a conclusion is made, we should stick with "Palestinian territories" for the general usage instead of writing "Palestinian Authority and Gaza Strip" which is ambiguous and, in my opinion, in violation of WP:NPOV. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue isn't so much what we ought to use, it's weather Greayshark should be going around changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority" throughout Wikipedia, and so far he's presented no evidence of conciseness to do that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one thing I might not have quite made clear tough. Look at almost any Wikipedia page, e.g. Southern Levant, and unless, Greyshark has changed it (and he's changed allot of them), it will call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories" not "Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He's done this to so many pages though that before using a page that cales the Territory's "Palestinian Authority" as evidence agenst this, you'd need to check the edit history to see if it is Greyshark himself who made it say "Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles such as Palestine–United States relations say "Palestinian Authority" because they are referring the origination that governs parts of the WB&GS, not the WB&GS itself.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User Emmette has been engaged over the past several weeks all over wikipedia changing all instances of the Palestinian National Authority into "Palestinian territories", including in places where it is an absolute nonsense, like creating redirects President of the Palestinian Territories (The President is of course of the Palestinian Authority), Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian territories, or Passport of the Palestinian territories. He got so much angry that there is any editor, not sharing his opinion, that he personally attacked me by spamming my talk page with meaningless repeated notifications like "you changed <this> page" (see [15], [16], [17] etc.). At some point he got so flustrated, that he issued a sockpuppet rename procedure of this article in my name (see below), presenting me in a very negative light (asking renaming "Palestinian territories" into "?" article, which is a ridiculous rename request). As a result i issued a complaint on his regard on administration board, which however didn't stop Emmette from trying to fame me on false accusations like:

He has done this to so many pages though that before using a page that calls the Territory's "Palestinian Authority" as evidence against this, you'd need to check the edit history to see if it is Greyshark himself who made it say "Palestinian Authority".
I'm inviting people who were involved in similar discussions regarding Greyshark's PT to PA changes. I've only invited people who oppose them so far.

He is trying to portrait me as the only person objecting his "rightful" or "correct" edits, but the fact is that there are of course editors, which don't share Emmette's opinion (see even at this very page Talk:Palestinian_territories#Administrative_center). I see all the above as a pointless bullying campaign by Emmette to force his opinion that "Palestinian National Authority" instances should all be renamed into "Palestinian territories", no matter the context, and misrepresent my opinion that both terms should be used according to their proper meaning (Palestinian Authority is a geopolitical entity, with territory, government and population of Palestinian Authority citizens, whilst "Palestinian territory" or "Pt" is a geographic term with several meanings, one of which is WB and GS, while another is areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority). This is my last request to Emmette to stop his aggressive actions and engage into a dialogue, rather than the above posted aggressive monologue.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My only "changes" were cleaning up your mess. "Palestinian Authority" and "Palestinian National Authority" are used to refer to the organization throughout Wikipedia, I do not which to change that, nor have I attempted to do so. The redirects were primarily to deal with a technical issue related to {{Asia topic}}. I'm not "trying to force" any definition of Palestinian territories other then "West Bank and Gaza Strip", the one this article uses. Your the one who seams to have a [different definition http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=500513787] (which seams to exclude Area C) then the the one this article and RS uses. Your claims that I spamed and bullied you were rejected on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Complaint_on_personal_attacks_by_user_Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman, your the only one who making personal attacks here. You left out the part of my quote that said "It's not that I'm wp:Canvassing, it's just that I haven't found anyone who supports Grayshark's changes to invite." You still have not presented any evidence of consensus to change "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority", when referring to the place rather then the origination, throughout Wikipedia. Your entitled to your opinion, but unless there is consensus to do that your edits are inappropriate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
What a nice words Emmette... You haven't found anyone who supports me? Except one user there are not many editors who support you (hope he is not a sock for your sake). Pls, don't tell fairy tales.
If i'm a Palestinian and i issue a passport, i will be defined as a citizen of the Palestinian Authority, having Palestinian Authority passport (not "Palestinian territories passport"), if i vote to the President, i shall vote for the President of the Palestinian Authority (not "President of the Palestinian territories"). We also both know you have already tried to make "Palestinian territories" into a country article with infobox which is a copy-paste from PNA, while pushing edits to disregard Palestinian Authority article. I have an uneasy feeling you might have some agenda against the PNA, though i hope you don't. Again, it seems we are going nowhere and the argument is getting more and more personal with your remarks of the "mess i did". You are the perfect example of what editors should not become.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I can also see you are WP:CANVASSing [18]. Not nice...Greyshark09 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
He's in this dispute, and I would appreciate his input here. About the name, here an example: Economy of the Palestinian territories is about the economy of the place. President of the Palestinian National Authority is about the origination. On Wikipedia, we normally call the place, "Palestinian territories" and the origination "Palestinian National Authority" or "Palestinian Authority". Your free to disagree with that practice, but thats the way we normally do it on Wikipedia. You still have not presented any evidence of consensus to change "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority", when referring to the place rather then the origination, throughout Wikipedia. Where is this consensus? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Emmette, you are confused, quote "On Wikipedia, we normally call the place, "Palestinian territories" and the origination "Palestinian National Authority" or "Palestinian Authority" - how many are we? Are you implying you are representing all other editors??? This is nonsense, wikipedia is a free source, any editor is independent. You also not presenting any change rationale for changes all instances of PNA to Pt, trying to imply that PNA is "just a government". PNA is an autonomy just like Iraqi Kurdistan, and of Iraqi Kurdistan is a geopolitical entity, the PNA which also has a UN observer is a geopolitical entity as well. You can seek citizens of the "Palestinian territories" as long as you wish, but you won't find any, because Palestinians are citizens of the Palestinian Authority since 1993.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a better look, it looks like I did slightly misunderstand you Greyshark. If I understand you correctly you think "PNA" is an appropriate place-name for only areas A and B, not the whole WB&GS, no misrepresentation intended. Also I think I got a little bit uncivil with you. However the points Dlv999 and I have made stand. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are more or less correct about my view - the PNA is mainly controlling areas A and B of the Oslo accords, but the exact jurisdiction of the PNA controlled areas is not fixed, because up until 2007 there were frequent changes in its controlled areas, and to this day there are some fixes in the borders of the autonomy (mainly Israeli imposed borders). In any case, practically all Palestinians in the WB (areas A,B,C) carry PNA Ids and are bound to PNA authorities, vote in PNA elections etc., though much of PNA areas are under partial of full control of the Israelis (area C full control, area B military presence), which is a natural order of things, considering PNA is an autonomy. In any case, i think this whole argument is pointless in case the State of Palestine is accepted as non-member state in the UN, which will force us to transsorm the PNA into a former country article (like All-Palestine Government) and concentrate on the State of Palestine article.
On a similar note, i would like to turn your attention to a case with high similarity to PNA -> Government of Southern Sudan (2005–2011).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, your edits make allot more sense now. I can see your point of view. I thought you were blatantly doing the equivalent of say, changing Iraqi Kurdistan to Kurdistan Regional Government, that's why I got so annoyed with you. Imagine if you were dealing with someone like that, and you tried to explain that the Kurdistan Regional Government was the government of Iraqi Kurdistan, not Iraqi Kurdistan itself, but he insisted on continuing his changes. That's how I felt dealing with you. I still think your edits go against precedent and that you ought not to be making them without finding some conciseness for them, but their not totality and completely ridiculous like I thought they were. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the same way there is Iraqi Kurdistan (an autonomy), which is governed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Palestinian Authority (an autonomy) is governed by Palestinian government (specifically Palestinian government of June 2007). PNA is much more than just a government - it is a geopolitical entity.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
GS, we are well aware of your own personal opinions on this issue by now. You do not have any community consensus behind your opinions, so unless you are going to provide some source evidence to support them, I don't really see any point in you keep repeating them. Dlv999 (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"The Palestinian Authority is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip", implays that the PNA is a meare organization and not a place. If the PNA is a full-fledged place, like Iraqi Kurdistan, rather then a mere government ( or " organization [...] to govern") like the Kurdistan Regional Government, then that sentence, is extremely misleading at best, simply incorrect at worst. The "Iraqi Kurdistan" article doesn't say it's "the administrative organization, established to govern parts of Iraq" it says that it's "an autonomous region of Iraq". Greyshark, that sentence is the reason that it took me so long to see what you were saying about the PNA being a place within the WB&GS. As long as that sentence remains, people will continue to think that the PNA is merely an organization, and not a place, and your edits will probably get more reverts like this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of that sentence on Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Organization or Place?, along with the related issue of weather the PNA is an government or a place, sense there seams to be some controversy over that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Users are welcome to express their opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When were the Palestinian territories established 1949 or 1967?

When should the infobox say the Palestinian territories were established, 1949 with the 1949 Armistice Agreements or 1967 with the Six Day War? Greyshark has supported the 1967 position with the edit summaries "term was born after 1967" and "WP:SYNTH". The term "Palestinian territories" may or may not have been created after 1967, but this article is about the Palestinian Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), not the term "Palestinian Territories". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see how WP:SYNTH would apply here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

1967. The article is about the oPt (Occupied Palestinian Territories), which was born as a result of the Israeli occupation in 1967. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
First the West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, then by Isreal. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it wasn't called oPt during the Egyptian and Jordanian occupations. The oPt concept was born after the Israeli conquest. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it that "concept" way. The modern day Israeli occupied Palestinian territories were established in 1967, the Palestinian territories before then was quite a different "concept". Still, we'll not limited to listing only one establishment event, look at the ones in the Armenia infobox. Armenia has been established as allot of different "concepts" before being born as the modern Republic of Armenia (which the Armenia article is about). I don't see a reason to treat the Palestinian territories differently. To only list 1967 would imply that the West Bank and Gaza Strip didn't exist before 1967. Maybe the infobox could look like this.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been 6 days and there have been no objections to my comprise proposal so I'll implement it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding. I forgot about it (I shamelessly blame my poor memory).
The thing is, this article isn't about the Gaza strip and the West Bank. It is about the oPt. If the article was about Gaza and WB then it should be renamed so. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says in a hatnote "This article is about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". Its lead says "The Palestinian territories [...] comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip". Besides, why treat the establishment events here that differently then the Armenia infobox establishment events? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That hot-note should probably be removed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Frederico1234 (sorry, been on holiday). This hatnote does not belong. The PT are different than West Bank + Gaza Strip. They are comprised of it, but it's a different concept that had different rules and status in the international community. Take for example the infobox of Israel itself, where it lists 1948 independence instead of a list of various forms, or Serbia and Montenegro, which only cares about the combined geographic concept, not when Serbia and Montenegro were each individually defined. If anywhere, the changes of 1949 and 1967 would belong in the individual GS/WB region pages, not here. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Map

Regarding this revert by standard we shouldn't have the map that's on Western Sahara or Hong Kong either. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the map is necessary, but I don't think adding a map means it's being called a state as per the revert text. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The map on the bottom implies that Palestinian land has increased if any article is to be taken seriously it would have to note that the territories were bound by the British to include Jordan. Thus the map would have to show how the area that the Palestinians control includes Jordan. And differentiate between the groups Like Gaza in Green for Hamas, Yesha in Red for Fatah, and Jordan in Orange for Hashemite occupation etc. Though from a standpoint, there Palestinian areas were nonexistant until after 1993 when the PA was born and started controlling land.Saxophonemn (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Jordan was never Palestinian. You are misinformed. Zerotalk 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine portal split

Recently user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman proposed to split Portal:Palestine and create Portal:Palestinian territories (see Portal talk:Palestine#Content split), with the rationale that Palestine is a geographic area without specific association with any people or politics, while Palestinian territories is about Palestinian people and modern Palestinian politics. Emmette also has already created a twin template to template:History of Palestine, named template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 to demonstrate this concept. Editor opinions are welcome on the issues of:

Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite my rationale. My rationale is the same rationale that this article and Palestine are separate articles, that they are not the same thing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories, or State of Palestine?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1311149--palestinian-president-orders-name-changed-to-state-of-palestine

The president of Palestine has requested that Palestine be referred to as the State of Palestine. Now, I'm not going to take sides in the whole ethnic, religious and land conflicts in the region; but it seems common sense that if a nation requests to be referred to by a certain name it's polite and accurate to use said name. 70.78.12.164 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit disregard that I'm a dumbass who was looking at the wrong article. It's sort of confusing. 70.78.12.164 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Did the Arab States Declare War on Israel?

In the History section of the article the following statement is made about the events of 14-15 May 1948:

The Arab countries declared war on the newly formed State of Israel.

This statement is factually incorrect, as no such declaration was made. I suggest this should be changed to:

The Arab countries announced 'an intervention in Palestine to restore law and order' [123].

The citation is to the declaration that the Arab states did make on May 15th, in a cablegram from the Secretary of the Arab League to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I quote directly from the lead sentence of that document.

Two editors say that my suggested change needs to be supported by a secondary source. I disagree: the policy says

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source

and

A secondary source contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

My statement is a straightforward, factual, descriptive statement about the content of the document cited. It contains no interpretation or analysis. I maintain there is no need for a secondary source. I further maintain that the introduction of any analysis of the Arab League document on this page about the Palestinian Territories would be inappropriate: such analysis would be more appropriately included in the page 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

What do others think? Walk Tall Hang Loose (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:No original research, one of Wikipedia's core policies, primary sources should be avoided. Please provide a secondary source that supports your proposed change. Also, please read WP:IDHT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Malik, I have read the policy carefully. I explain above how I conclude that replacing a factually incorrect phrase with no citation by a factually correct phrase citing the primary source of that fact IS in accord with the policy. Please explain to me why you disagree with my argument. Walk Tall Hang Loose (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there some part of "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" that's unclear? Please find a reliable source that supports your interpretation of the primary source (i.e., accepting it at face value). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Malik, I have made no interpretation at all, and have indeed argued that any interpretation of it would be inappropriate in this article. You still have not addressed my argument. It seems that correcting a straightforward factual error in an article is much more difficult than I expected. I have no wish for any more argument. I will no longer take part in editorial activity on this page.

AS A READER OF THIS ARTICLE I SAY TO ALL EDITORS

The statement that 'the Arab countries declared war on the State of Israel' is factually incorrect: no such declaration was made. Please either remove, or correct it. Since the Arab League did make a declaration, which did indeed herald the start of the Arab-Israel war, I suggest it would be better to correct the statement rather than remove it. The full text of their declaration is at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cablegram_from_the_Secretary-General_of_the_League_of_Arab_States_to_the_Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations.
Some editors believe that a secondary source should be cited. If so, I suggest this page from the Government of Israel website: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/5+Arab+League+declaration+on+the+invasion+of+Pales.htm

Walk Tall Hang Loose (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The cablegram can be cited in the form "The Secretary of the Arab League told the United Nations that...". It can't be taken as a true indication of intent but only as a statement that existed. However, I agree with WTHL that the existing uncited sentence is bad. It is no less an interpretation and so needs an interpreter. Zerotalk 02:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Would somebody please be kind enough to explain the meaning of the following sentence in the second paragraph of the lead to me. I have read it several times and cannot make head or tail of it, including the link [[Zionism|Israe]] [sic]. "The legal borders of the Palestinian territories are currently recognised by pro-Palestine factions the international community to be as established by the 1949 Armistice Agreements,[1] and by Israe to fall within Israeli borders." Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Considered by whom

I've tagged The borders of the Palestinian territories are currently considered[who?] to be delineated by the 1949 Armistice Agreements with a {{who}} template specifically on considered.

The article lead is a bit vague as to the article scope... The Palestinian territories or occupied Palestinian territories (OPT or oPt) comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. But Palestinian territories and occupied Palestinian territories are not synonymous, surely? Who is occupying Gaza?

In view of the loaded nature of whatever terms are used, I think this is a particularly dangerous lack of citation. The general citation at the end of the sentence is to the 1949 Egyptian-Israeli Armistice [19] which does not necessarily cover the current situation. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I will tell more - there is a clear widespread reference to "Palestinian controlled territories" or simply "Palestinian territories" (Gaza Strip+areas A,B in the West Bank); i have now added this definition in the lead to clarify, but we certainly have to make much more distinct definitions what are "Palestinian territories"/"Occupied Palestinian territories" (whole Palestine?/Arab areas of 47' partition plan?/West Bank+Gaza? only West Bank? only area C of West Bank?)/"Palestinian controlled territories" (area A,B of West Bank+Gaza?/only areas A,B of West Bank?/only Gaza?).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
As for Gaza, I can't recall a source for this off the top of my head, but if I remember correctly the sutiation is that because of the Gaza pullout Israel concedes itself to no longer be occupying Gaza, but the UN, or maybe it was the international community, says that Israel still occupies Gaza because Israel still controls Gaza's airspace, waters, entry/exist to and from Gaza, and stuff like that.
As for the meaning of Palestinian territories/Occupied Palestinian territories:
To quote what Nableezy said on this page "The [occupied] Palestinian territories (and the UNSC repeatedly has referred to the oPt, and multiple UN agencies refer to the oPt, see for example OCHA oPt) are the West Bank (in its entirety), including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The area under control of the PNA is not that. The claim that the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control is completely unsupported and easily refuted. See for example this, or this, or this. The UN uses the term all the time, the idea that it doesnt is pure fiction. So does most of the world, and so do an overwhelming number of sources."
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Redirects Greyshark asserted that PT is "dubious and vague", I quote the responses:
To quote Dlv999: "There is nothing vague or dubious about the term Palestinian Territories. It is a well defined and commonly used term used to describe Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem).
Palestinian Territories is the name used to refer to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by International media organizations [20], [21], in academic literature [22], by the UN[23], [24], EU [25], individual Governments such as the UK[26] and US[27], international human rights organizations [28], [29], the International Court of Justice [30], and the International committee of the Red Cross [31] among others.
Unless you provide evidence to support your assertions all you are giving us is your personal opinion, which does not carry much weight."
To quote Sean.hoyland: "I don't think anything you have said there is actually the case. It strikes me a quite a parochial and oddly fragmented way of looking at things. Perhaps it makes sense from the perspective of a subset of citizens of one small country, but it's out of step with RS. As for occupied Palestinian territories, "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" is even part of the ISO 3166 standard used all over the world by countless companies/organizations/systems, and covers both the entire West Bank (inc. East Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip. It seems much more dubious and vague to push for the use of PNA and Hamas Administration to describe what countless sources refer to simply and unambiguously as the Palestinian territories, with or without the "occupied". It's very clear what the Palestinian territories means because it is defined by the green line that separates Israel from not-Israel."
Also the long standing lead has described the PT as being the West Bank and Gaza, and if there were any real dispute over that, the lead's definition would have dawn far far more controversy, and would have done so a long time ago. Also, Here's a BBC map of the PT, and a US government map. They include all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
As for "currently considered", it should probably be removed. East Jerusalem aside, it is an indisputable historic fact that the 1949 Armistice Agreements established the Green line that defines the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
As for Greyshark's edit that introduced the praise "Palestinian-controlled territories" I reverted it for multiple reasons. First of all, Palestinian Administered Territories means "the Gaza Strip and the West Bank", and according to this (p.4) the PNA has some, albeit extremely limited, authority over area C, and our Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords article in area C there is "full Israeli civil and security control, except over Palestinian civilians"(emphases mine). Considering this I would like to see RS stating that "PCT" means only Area's A and B before stating that that's what is means. The sources given don't seem to define what the PCT is, at least not clearly. "Palestinian-controlled territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" could mean that the PCT are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or that they are parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Secondly very few web-pages use "PCT" in their title so it doesn't seem to be a commonly used praise, there must be a far more commonly used praise used to refer to Area's A and B. We should avoid using PCT anyway (to refer to Area's A and B) because it sounds too much like "Palestinian territories" and would be too confusing. If PCT means Area's A and B then the PCT and the PT are not the are not the same thing anyway, and this is the "Palestinian territories" article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's some info about Gaza's "occupied" status at Israeli-occupied_territories#Gaza_Strip. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Emmette, except the fact you really like the term "Palestinian territories", you bring very little actual hard sources to support your stance - most of your "support" is other editors' opinions and wikipedia quotes, which both are essentially irrelevant.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand your removal of well sourced lead material regarding "Palestinian-controlled territories" means that you would not like this material in this article:
In 1993, following the Oslo Accords, parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip politically came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority, and which began to referred as "Palestinian-controlled territories".[2][3][4][5]
I guess then i should start a new article on this? This is certainly not UNDUE topic, but i first though it should be covered in this article.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Egypt Israel Armistice Agreement UN Doc S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949
  2. ^ BBC. 1999. "...to connect the Palestinian-controlled territories of the West Bank with the Gaza Strip." [1]
  3. ^ [2]
  4. ^ Far East and Australasia 2003.[3]
  5. ^ Sharma. The New Terrorism: Islamist International. "...of the anti-Israel atmosphere that dominates the Palestinian controlled territories". [4]
  • Comment - i think it gets down to what are Palestinian territories?
Are those 1967 Occupied Palestinian territories (West Bank + Gaza Strip) [32]?
Maybe those are the currently fully Israeli-annexed and occupied territories (East Jerusalem + Area C of West Bank) [33]?
Maybe those are Palestinian-controlled territories (Gaza Strip by Hamas and Areas A,B of West Bank by PNA/SoP) [34],[35]?
Maybe even those are the designated Arab Palestinian territories of 1947 partition plan [36]?
It seems the term Pt brings a lot of ambiguity here, which is also constantly changing in the field.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
At wikiproject Palestine, among other places, you previously asserted that "Palestinian territories" is not simply comprised of the West Bank and Gaza, but is "vague and dubious" yet your assertion was unanimously rejected, that is relevant. If what Dlv999, Sean.hoyland, and Nableezy say is essentially irrelevant, so is what you say. That the lead has for years, somehow gotten away with clearly stating that the Palestinian territories comprises the West Bank and Gaza, despite "Palestinian territories" being "vague and dubious" is relevant. None of your sources define "Palestinian territories" as anything other then West Bank and Gaza, in fact this one's map of what it calls the Palestinian territories includes all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (with color coding for the Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords).
The overwhelming majority of RS defines PT as West Bank and Gaza. The closest thing I found to a source that defines PT as something other then West Bank and Gaza is this which says "The term "Palestinian territories" is used by mainstream Western journalists as a collective name for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip - two territories in Palestine. [...] [U]sed in a more general sense, the term "Palestinian territories" simply refers to areas within the geographic region known from ancient times as "Palestine" (see definitions of Palestine). This usage is rare in modern-times." All those other sources I found that clearly define the PT define it as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
So in accordance with your sources, i guess we agree that Palestinian territories can be "Palestinian controlled territories" as well as "Occupied Palestinian territories". Maybe we should also mentioned "Liberated Palestinian territories" (a used by PA and by Hamas for Palestinian-controlled areas per Palestinian terminology guide, see [48]).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the overwhelming majority of RS defines the Palestinian territories as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It looks like "Liberated Palestinian territory" and "Palestinian territories" are not the same thing, it would seem that "Liberated Palestinian territory" refers to the "liberated" (area's A and B) parts of the Palestinian territories, Also no pages have Liberated Palestinian territories or Liberated Palestinian territory in their title so it doesn't seem to be a commonly used term, there must be a far more commonly used term used to refer to Area's A and B.
From your PDF:
"The total area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is 6,187 km2 (including the Dead Sea surface). Of this, the West Bank comprises 5,822 km2 and the Gaza Strip 365 km2. The territory, which is still under Israel’s control, represents 60% of the total area of the Palestinian territory." So according to your source Area C it part of the Palestinian territory. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Also I didn't remove that whole sentence, I just reverted your edit to it. I have no objection to the sentence as it currently stands: "In 1993, following the Oslo Accords, parts of the territories politically came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Liberated-Palestinian territory" is not the main term used, so it doesn't matter (i still think it should be mentioned); the common names are "Occupied Palestinian territories" and "Palestinian controlled territories" - both are essentially "Palestinian territories", but mean slightly different things. Correct for now Palestinian Autonomous Areas redirect to Palestinian territories (redirected by yourself!) and we should mention this in the territories article, unless you want to split "Palestinian-controlled areas" from "Palestinian territories" (i'm against such split, but we can make a split proposal if you like).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I still object to using "Palestinian controlled territories" for the reasons stated above, and it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as common as "Palestinian territories" (with or without the "Occupied"). If I understand you correctly your saying that "Palestinian controlled territories" excludes area C, and if your correct about that then it is not essentially "Palestinian territories", because it excludes Area C, and as I pointed out the overwhelming majority of RS define "Palestinian territories" as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not just Areas A and B (I haven't per checked into this but I think we can safely assume that the overwhelming majority of RS also defines "Occupied Palestinian territories" as consisting of West Bank and Gaza Strip). Yesha is essentially "Palestinian territories" because it only excludes East Jerusalem, it includes Area C.
About "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" the edit summery contains a link to a dictionary (but here's a better link) that defines it as "the Gaza Strip and the West Bank", that's why it redirects here, although now that you mention it the BBC used that term to specifically refer to Area's A and B, so "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" would probably be better as a disambig.
I added "(Areas A and B)" to the end of that sentence, and if there is some commonly used term to refer to Areas A and B, I don't see why we can't add something along the lines of "Areas A and B are collectivity known as [term]" to this article and the Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As for a split, there's nothing to split. This article is about the Palestinian territories, which consists of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If Areas A and B of the Palestinian territories would warrant their own article someone can write one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that would help, but i disagree that we should write a whole new article about "Palestinian controlled territories" (or Palestinian Autonomous areas), simply because the term is pretty much loosely defined and is used interchangeably with simply "Palestinian territories".Greyshark09 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is under the jurisdiction of Israel, so despite Wikipedia's anti Israeli bias it should not be included in the lead.74.104.159.130 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be your personal opinion about what constitutes the Palestinian territories and as such it's irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is meant to reflect the content of published reliable sources rather than the misconceptions and personal views of its contributors. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No Sean it is a fact, East Jersusalem is under Israel jurisdiction. It is the capitol of Israel.74.104.159.130 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of map template in use on this page

Template:Palestinian territory development has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

untitled

WHY "Jewish Owned Land" on Map, but NO "Arab owned Land"? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg - Because they want you to get the FALSE impression Arabs owned the rest. - ` 2/3 of what became Israel was STATE LAND under the Ottomans (miri), then British; belonging to NO Arab.. Including ALL of the Negev Desert/which alone/itself became HALF of Israel. ` - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.20.88 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hamas states Gaza is not occupied?

The claim in the article that Mahmoud Zahar has stated that Gaza is no longer occupied is very dubious, especially when just following the opinion of the UN, ICJ etc. that Israel is still the occupying power. Zahar is not talking about the legal status of the territory. He is talking about the fact that there is no Israeli inside the Gaza strip after the withdrawal. Here is the full quote: "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable," Zahhar said.

This in no way supports the claim that Hamas has said that the legal status of the territories has changed. As far as I can see, this claim originated from an op-ed in the Jerusalem post by the executive director UN Watch: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Hamas-says-Gaza-not-occupied-UN-disagrees

I am rewording the sentence to explicitly cite the op-ed rather than claiming this as self-evident. I have also found this interview where Zahar refers to it as "occupation": http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/02/200928195444472727.html Kingsindian (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Political status of the Palestinian territories to change that name to Political status of the State of Palestine.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just what is this "International Community" term that keeps being bandied about?

Hi. I need a definition of this so-called "International Community" that is referred to on three separate occasions in the introductory paragraphs alone. If it simply means "The EU" or "The UN," you should plainly state this to be the case. (The references used to show "The International Community thinks A, B, or recognizes C," [when they are there at all; the statement about the Green Line is missing such documentation for a start,] in every case they stem from these international bodies (or even a part of the body as is the case of the UNOCHA reference.) But this is not the same thing as "the international community" since none of these bodies are either universal (as in the case of the Europe-based EU) or unanimous (as in the case of the UN.) To say that "the international community thinks A" therefore is quite misleading, and needs to be redefined as such. It could be said to be a "weasel word" in that you're surreptitiously trying to use language and terms to lend credibility to limited bodies with limited jurisdictions and limited internal support to suggest that they in fact speak for the entire world. They don't! Thanks12:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.158.149.192 (talk)

It's true that international communities don't think. Neither do states. It's also true that most of the world operates according to internationalì law, which is unequivocal on these matters.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC Palestine articles restructuring proposal

See RFC at Talk:State_of_Palestine#RFC:_Restructuring_Proposal.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in a discussion

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

Clarification and sources at end of lead

The previous lede ended stating that the UN had adopted the name State of Palestine in 2013, and used an ISO nomenclature page as a source. This is triply-problematic, and I have clarified the situation. The first problem is that it is not the UN as a whole, it is the UN secretariat that has adopted the change in its communication. I made that clear and added a source. The second problem is that it was the ISO that made the change in 2013, the Secretariat had already done so in 2012. However, I also kept the the original source, but for support to new text that states the ISO also adopted the naem in 2013. Since this only paints half a picture (still leaving a possible misimpression that the Secretariat's change affects all of the UN, including the UNSC), I added a "however" sentence saying the UNSC has not recognized statehood as of this past August, with a source to back it up, and that this affects member status, also with source. Dovid (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed statement: East Jerusalem residents had the option of becoming Israeli citizens

Today Monosig added unsourced material to the article, including the following statement:

East Jerusalem residents became Israeli residents with blue Israeli ID cards, with the option of becoming Israeli citizens, which very few of them chose to do.

This assertion—that Palestinian Jerusalemites were offered the option of becoming Israeli citizens but rejected it—has been debunked many times because it is not supportable by reliable sources. It's nothing more than an urban legend, and I ask Monosig to remove it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But thousands (a tiny minority) have applied over the years and received it. The residency tests are rigid (for instance people who moved from Hebron post-1967), but it's still applicable today. There's no way under Israeli law that it can be denied. But of course like everyone else, the Palestinian Jerusalemites do not accept the annexation and do not even vote in municipal elections (which are open for residents, not just citizens). Why is this contentious? Obviously Israel wanted to turn them into Israeli Arabs, but has been largely unsuccessful. What precisely has been debunked and where? Urban legend allegations are not appropriate here. Monosig (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Being allowed to apply for citizenship is entirely different from being given the option of becoming citizens. Your sentence gives the impression that all a resident had to do to get citizenship was to agree to it. No such opportunity ever existed, ergo your sentence is misleading. Zerotalk 07:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

>>>

"Being allowed to apply for citizenship is entirely different from being given the option of becoming citizens". Is this your surmise, opinion or fact based on source? Where have you ever seen evidence that 11th June 1967 East Jerusalemites and their descendants who maintained Israeli/East Jerusalem residency, are not entitled to Israeli citizenship if they apply for it? The fact that very few do, does not "debunk" the statement. They are entitled to live anywhere in Israel, if they wish to, just like Israeli Arabs who are all Israeli citizens. Monosig (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
My statement was an explanation of the English words. Lots of people who apply are rejected, so it is wrong to imply that citizenship is their's for the asking and your statement "There's no way under Israeli law that it can be denied" is simply false, in practice at least. Actual figures are hard to come by, but for example "there were 1,434 applications in 2012-13, of which 189 were approved, 1,061 are still being processed and 169 were rejected." [49] (Note how that's a 2015 article stating that the majority of applications made 2–3 years early were still being processed, it show how non-routine the procedure is.) Zerotalk 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Because they are largely Hebronites (and other West Bankers, but dominantly Hebron, Halhul etc) and their descendants, who moved in large numbers to Jerusalem between 1967 and the 1993-1994 Oslo Agreements, when that area became Area A of the PA. They make up a considerable proportion of the East Jerusalem population and their Israeli citizenship applications are routinely rejected. No argument - the Israeli East Jerusalem residency test is very stringent. Very few East Jerusalemites apply for Israeli citizenship, and many of the few that do moved there from the West Bank for that specific purpose. Hence the high rate of rejection. But that doesn't change the basic principle which was established in 1967 - when Israel wanted them to turn them into Israeli Arabs in order to cement the East Jerusalem annexation (an attitude which has now changed, certainly with regard to outlying Tzur Bahr, Sawarha etc which will probably be returned to Palestine), and they most definitely didn't. "Entitled to apply" and "entitled to citizenship" is just playing with words. Anyone can apply including the deputy mayor of Teheran, he's simply be rejected. Why not present the facts as they are, you're an objective Wikipedian aren't you? We can add that the residence tests are draconic and that very few of those that try actually succeed (referencing your sourced statistics). Monosig (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian loss of land map

File:Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010.jpg

Please add back the Palestinian loss of land map. It is an accurate map (as explained here) and helps to understand the changes in Palestinian territories through time. --179.208.195.33 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

When I removed the map from this article, I wrote that it has "questionable provenance". That remains a problem. Although Mondoweisss published a similar map, the fact remains that nobody except the person who uploaded the map to Commons (in 2014) knows what the basis of the map is. Where did the data come from? Was it thoroughly checked? Please see WP:No original research#Original images, one of Wikipedia's policies, which says we can use images created by other Wikipedians "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Since the person who uploaded the map to Commons in 2014 didn't say where they got their data, we don't know whether this map "illustrate[s] or introduce[s] unpublished ideas or arguments". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

>>>

It does not legitimately help to understand the relevant facts. It is a mish mash of land ownership (Israeli Arabs still own considerable land inside Israel!), the 1947 UN Partition Plan Resolution (rejected by the Arab states and Palestinian Arab leadership and never realized, therefore nothing was gained or lost), the quasi-sovereign division of territory between Israel, Jordan and Egyptian military rule 1949-1967, which has nothing to do with land ownership, and the 1993-1996 Oslo Agreements (ditto). For a POV website stating the plight of fhe Palestinians if might be legitimate but given that it compares the non-comparable, it cannot possibly appear in Wikipedia. Monosig (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
To address the point of Malik Shabazz, the Mondoweiss fact check and the uploaded map are functionally the same map. The exact same borders are depicted through each of the stages. It's simply in a different format. As for the allegations of Monosig, I suggest you read the Mondoweiss fact check on MSNBC's aired version of the map. While it doesn't address the point about Jordanian and Egyptian rule, which perhaps could be integrated into an updated version, your other arguments about "land ownership" isn't the same as "loss of land" in a political or national sense, which is what the map is depicting; all of Areas A and B aren't owned by Palestinians, for example some churches own a lot of land in East Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but that's not relevant to what the map is illustrating.TrickyH (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't help your case, TrickyH, that Wikipedia doesn't consider Mondoweiss a reliable source for facts, that the two maps (on Wikimedia Commons and on Mondoweiss) are similar but not the same, or that Mondoweiss's defense of its map was written by the Institute for Middle East Understanding, which is not generally considered an unbiased source of facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
On the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, the following map is included, which depicts much the same division of the West Bank into Areas A, B and C. [1] If it's good enough to accept that Areas A and B only count as Palestinian land on that page, why isn't it acceptable to include the Palestinian loss of land map? Perhaps one needs to be drawn anew, synthesising these criticisms (ie showing Egyptian & Jordanian control, etc). TrickyH (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Because it's totally POV. The first map paints Jewish land ownership white - and all the rest green, including the entire virtually-unpopulated Negev Desert, where there was virtually no land ownership (of Mandate Palestinian Jews or Mandate Palestinian Arabs) at all. Fast forward to the Partition Plan, which was never realised and has nothing to do with land ownership - but the purpose is comparison! So it's deliberately misleading. Showing Israel's borders within the 1949-1967 Armistice Agreement lines is fair enough, except that the rest is shown as "Palestinian" when it was either annexed to Hashemite Jordan or occupied by Egypt. Finally it shows what appear to be the Oslo classifications, rendering Area C (and possible B) as "Israeli" and even bits of Gaza as "Israeli" in 2010 - when Israel withdrew to the recognized border in 2005 already, removing all the settlements (I'm referring to land issues not to the other aspects of the Israel-Gaza mutual hostility since Hamas ejected the PA in 2007 - blockade etc). Israel and the Palestinians agreed at various times to a 5% land swap, so once a political process is eventually renewed, these West Bank lands are not "lost", only occupied under belligerent occupation as defined in the laws of war (the Palestinian position). In short - these maps can simply not appear in Wikipedia, whatever their provenance! What I'm saying above is entirely non-POV, and I'm sure that the various Israeli-Palestinian 1948-2016 land control issues (sovereignty, ownership, physical control) can be shown correctly. Monosig (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_%28Settlements%29.png

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2016

The cost of the occupation for Israel over 40 decades (1967-2007) should be either 40 years or 4 decades 64.110.255.16 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. I just fixed it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gaza

The article states that "The Israel Defense Forces vacated Gaza in 2005, but invaded it again in 2006 in response to rocket attacks and the abduction of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas." This is misleading as it implies Israel is still in gaza. Also it should mention subsequent wars with gaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.57.203 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Palestine

change ((Palestine)) to ((State of Palestine|Palestine)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:DB0:EB92:650:804A (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Palestine is a disambiguation page, not an article about Palestine. You'll need to build consensus on this page for any other changes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Straightforward case of resolving a link to disambiguation page. Not sure what the issue is. It is referring to the official religion specified in the constitution of the State of Palestine. If the issue is the pipe, remove it and just link "State of Palestine" directly. Rob984 (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_territories/Archive_7&oldid=1245326380"