From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Asia (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ottoman Empire (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottoman Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottoman Empire and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Unrecognized countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Haavara Agreement[edit]

Why the Haavara Agreement are not mentionned in this article ? It is an important detail to understand the help of the EU to the zionism thom 12h 10/08/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomMonteillet (talkcontribs) 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please let me add that Palesine is derived from the hebrew word "polesh" which means invader[edit]

and that is is named after the plhistin, a nation invading from overseas (probaly cyprus)

{Edit semi-protected} is needed as i cant edit it , or someone who could would add this fact by himself. The article makes it look like this name has no meaning --Dor25 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an entire etymology section, so this addition would be completely unnecessary. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

it is not written in there --Dor25 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable source for this claim, it could warrant inclusion. Otherwise, it's just speculation. Icarus of old (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The term palestine (paleshet) is about the area of five city state in Southern israel[edit] Not the whole so ? if the article writes abotu the whole land as "paleshet" but paleshet is onyl this certain area.. --Dor25 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Palestine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. No issues
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fixed. Regarding layout, there is a "Bibliography" section, then a "Further reading" section with a couple works listed (refer to WP:FURTHER). There are issues with the citation style that require separate sections (see 2a.).
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Fixed. Significant issues, see notes after table.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. Fixed. While I don't believe it to be "original research", most of the "History" section is poorly sourced and there are many unreferenced statements. See notes after table.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Main aspects mentioned. Some suggestions have been implemented. A couple suggestions for expansion/improvement among the other suggestions after the table (but aren't required to be promoted)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No issues
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. No neutrality issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Page history shows no recent content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues with copyright status.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant with suitable captions. However, there is no source for the information in many maps (see 2b. above)
7. Overall assessment. All issues have been fixed. Article has significant issues with references and reference formatting. Issues that need to be fixed before promotion are outlined below.

Issues which need to be address for promotion to GA (nominator, please respond after all my comments, not after each comment):

  • Lots of unsourced text, this is especially important for this article given the contentious subject. I will add some citation needed templates where very necessary. The history section is largely unsourced (being written in summary style does not excuse a lack of citations) and the "Modern politics" section has just one source. Furthermore, many maps simply say "own work" and do not cite a source for the information. These maps are an integral part of the article, conveying information that prose alone doesn't/can't convey, and require reliable sources just the same as prose. (The citation need to be on the file page and can, but don't need to, be added in the captions in this article)
  • Citations!!!!:
  • The citation style does not meet the notes and references style guidelines. If the article uses short citation footnotes (which this article does), then they must be separated from the full citations: "[Short citations] are used together with full citations, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate "References" section." (emphasis mine) To fix this issue, consider using named references together with Template:Rp.
  • (This issue is related and should be done, but isn't necessary for a promotion to GA) Furthermore, there are a lot of explanatory footnotes mixed in with the other references. "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists, using the grouping feature described in the Grouping footnotes section of the footnotes help page." (WP:CITEFOOT) Although it says that separating explanatory footnotes is not necessary, it should be done, partly to reduce clutter but more importantly it makes it easier to properly cite the source. For example, the explanatory footnote "In his work, Herodotus...use circumcision. The History of Herodotus" does not properly cite the source; if the explanatory footnotes were placed in a separate section, then this footnote could then be "In his work, Herodotus...use circumcision.[1]" (with [1] representing a proper citation footnote). A couple of the explanatory footnotes are quite long and should be considered for inclusion in the prose, rather than using the footnote.
  • There are lots of citations that are not properly formatted (and I have had a hard time trying to discern which are short footnotes and which are intended to be full citations, but are incomplete). Examples:
  • "Studies in Hellenistic Judaism :Louis H. Feldman"
  • "Judea[dead link]" and many more dead links with a bare URL or poor description...Wikipedia:Good article criteria states: "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source." (Use the "External links" link in the "GA toolbox" at the top of this review to see dead links in this article)
  • "Finkelstein and Silberman, Free Press, New York, 2001, 385 pp., ISBN 0-684-86912-8, p 107" This appears to be the book The Bible Unearthed, based on the ISBN and matching info. I noticed this because this is the only reference of the "History>Ancient history" subsection and seems to either support the whole section or the last sentence, which is a rather bold statement: "Modern archaeologists dispute parts of the Biblical tradition...elsewhere."
  • Last statement of "Demographics>Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods" subsection has no inline citation, but states "(UNSCOP report, including bedouin)"
  • There is a "Bibliography" section, then a "Further reading" section with a couple works listed. The topical works should be gathered in one section, per WP:FURTHER. That MOS guideline also states that this section should contain "a reasonable number of publications"; consider splitting this into a new list article (see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY for details). I guess "reasonable number" is up for interpretation, but at least divide the "Bibliography" and "Further reading sections" into "Further reading" and "External links" (which would include the maps).

Other suggestions (these are not required to be fixed/addressed/added for the article to be promoted):

  1. The "Modern politics" section seems woefully short/inadequate and I think it is better placed adjacent to the "Boundaries" section, or even as a subsection of it, since the former really only discusses the use of the term as related to the current, differing boundaries of what is called "Palestine". However, I think this section should be expanded to more clearly describe the regions/states present in the historical region of Palestine and the current political status of the region: self-government and international recognition of the Palestinian state, partition of Jerusalem, expanding settlement of Jews in the West Bank, as well as the security situation (boundaries between Israel & West Bank/Gaza). Israel isn't mentioned in this section.
  2. Under "History>Ottoman Palestine" is: "The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of Zionist immigration and the Revival of the Hebrew language." The mention of the Hebrew language is probably not necessary but, on the other hand, "Zionist" should be defined in the sentence to note that this refers to immigration of Jews. For example: "The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of a Jewish nationalist movement—Zionism—which sought to establish a Jewish homeland in the former land of Israel. Immigration of Jews into Palestine [continue with a remark about how the population increased/accelerated until 1948]".
  3. Per MOS:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I did not add the bold to the text. Most of these links are already found in the article and in the "Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine" navbox.
  4. Additional maps for the "Boundaries" section.
  5. A "culture" section should be added with a summary style overview of Palestinian people, plus other relevant culture in the region historically: cities, how the people lived off the land, cuisine. I realize this is about a historical region, but "geography" (including climate) section would still be useful. This would tie in with the culture section to give readers a better understanding of how the people lived.
  6. While offline resources are completely acceptable, given the contentious nature of this subject, more easily-accessible online citations would be appropriate for readers to more easily verify content.
  7. The "Evolution of Mandate Palestine and modern Palestinian Territories" maps would be best placed at the bottom of the "Boundaries" section, not before it.
  8. Template:Main is "used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been summarized." (emphasis mine, summarized=summary style) The "Modern politics" section is not a summary of those articles; Template:Further should be used.

I am very tempted to fail the nomination because of how significant the referencing problems are. However, I'll put this nomination on hold for a week for the issues to be fixed (and will allow more time if there appears to be steady/lots of progress towards fixing these issues). I hope I've left enough comments/suggestions to improve this article. AHeneen (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AHeneen, thanks again for the extremely detailed and thorough review. I have made a lot of progress on the points above. Please could you have a look at the direction and let me know if you have any comments in the interim? I am particularly keen to ensure that the improved sourcing I have put in place is acceptable.
Also, how do you want me to record on this talk page which comments I think have been completed? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I see you have made progress fixing this article and will keep the review open for another 1-2 weeks for the article to be fixed. I do not have time to thoroughly review the article, but I see some things that still need to be fixed. There is some content that does not have an inline citation and the citation style is still not fixed.
Please read Help:Shortened footnotes. An example featured article is George Harrison. The notes, citations, sources, & further reading sections of that article show how to separate the footnotes. The "References" section of this article has some full citations that need to be moved into the "Bibliography" section. Some of the short citations in the "References" section use Template:Sfn to link to the full citation. Template:Sfn is not required (but very useful), but short citations need to be consistent...use or do not use the template for all short citations.
I noticed that the boundaries section has been changed and is a nice improvement. I did not look for progress with the suggestions (listed #1-8 above) because they not not need to be fixed to promote this article to GA status. I only looked for the things that must be fixed. I do not care how you respond. You can refer to the suggestions using the numbers (1-8), but the citation and unreferenced content are the most important problems to fix. AHeneen (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you. I have drafted a list below that I will update to track progress:

  • Unsourced text
    • Filling citation neededs Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Yes check.svg Done
    • History section Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Yes check.svg Done
    • Modern politics section Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Yes check.svg Done
    • Maps Yes check.svg Done
  • Citations
    • Overall consistency with WP:SRF Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Yes check.svg Done
    • Three examples given Yes check.svg Done
    • UNSCOP ref Yes check.svg Done
    • Consistency with WP:FURTHER Yes check.svg Done
  • Other suggestions

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightbluowl[edit]

Apologies for butting in un-invited but I would like to stress some very strong reservations about this article receiving GA status without a very significant amount of improvement. Some great work has been done here, but there remain far too many un-referenced passages throughout the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is mentioned above and needs to be fixed before the article is promoted to GA status. AHeneen (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, agreed and understood. I will add the references in throughout the article. For the avoidance of doubt, all the references exist already in the "sub-articles":
So this is in progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl and AHeneen, I have now finished implementing all the comments received. Please could you let me know if I have satisfied your concerns? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
So are you ready for a complete GA review? I will hopefully have enough time in the next 2-3 days. AHeneen (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am ready. Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. The only issues I see is an unreferenced section (in "Middle Ages") from "In 1073, Palestine was captured..." until "...reducing Christian influence throughout the region." AHeneen (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I have now referenced this section. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright. The article is promoted to GA! AHeneen (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! And thanks for your help in improving the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference style[edit]

AHeneen, I am almost done on the "style" points. Before I move on to filling in the additional references needed, please could you confirm your thoughts on the revised referencing style? If so, I will then use that style when adding the new references. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. The referencing style is much better. The layout is ok. There are two notes that need a reference: :*"According to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1906" and
  • "According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911)"
Starting the note with these words is ok, but they still need a reference footnote like the other notes. The use of the short footnotes (in "References" section) is much better, but there are still some short footnotes that need to be fixed: bare links (#8 "KGF p123-124" and #13 "The History of Herodotus") and the presence of full citations in the "References" section (the last four, #90-93). AHeneen (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi AHeneen, I have fixed the JE and EB refs as suggested.
With respect to your comments on refs #8, #13 and #92-95, my concern here is that since these references are so specific such that they each only support one fact in the article, it seems unhelpful for the Bibliography to add these in there and then cross reference them in References. In other words, such specific references don't feel to me like they fit in a bibliography which has much broader relevance to the topic. I was looking again at the George Harrison article, and the editors there appear to have made some of the footnotes longer where the underlying source was not in the bibliography.
Please could you kindly let me know your thoughts on this?
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are talking about in the George Harrison article, but I do not find anything on any Wikipedia policy/guideline page to support this. Because this only affects six references, I think you should just use the standard approach (short citation in References plus long citation in Bibliography). AHeneen (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I have fixed this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition of the term "sovereign state"[edit]

An editor amended the hat note citing "(sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. This doesn't apply to Palestine unless you think Israel isn't an external power)". I reverted the edit citing, "this refers to normal relations. Wartime is different". This short note should be expanded. While the first citation is correct in normal, peacetime situations, it is not true in wartime. For example, did the sovereign state of Poland cease to exist in 1939 or did it continue while under Nazi / Soviet occupation? By December 1939, the Polish nation no longer had de facto control "over its territory and domestic affairs". However, it's de jure rights to such control were not extinguished by the state of war and the occupation of the national territory. The same principle is true for Palestine. While it may not have de facto control over its territory and domestic affairs, it's de jure rights to such control remain undiminished. It is legitimate therefore to describe it as a sovereign state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you have failed to provide a source for the dubious claim that the definition of sovereignty fundamentally changes during wartime, you have also neglected to make a distinction between recognized sovereignty, and actual de facto sovereignty. Who a country recognizes as an area's sovereign depends upon the foreign policy of the countries doing the recognizing. Actual soverignty depends upon full control over borders, foreign policy, taxation, movement, etc. none of which the PA control in the West Bank. For several centuries in Europe, the recognized sovereign of modern Israel and Palestine were various monarchs that had no actual control of the land that they claimed. I obviously recognize the difficulty in describing this, which is why I invite you to write whatever you want in the body to correctly explain the situation. Trying to make the correct distinction in a blurb at the top is impossible.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
While it is now seen as a sovereign state, it may still be okay to just write "for the country" as I don't think other states are described different from that but they are just stating it is a country. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Moshe is confusing sovereignty with the ability to exercise sovereignty. They are different. (For the record, I don't care whether the word "sovereign" appears in this place in the article or not.) Zerotalk 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I am confusing anything. In fact I believe that the confusion is on the part of those that do not see the difference between being a sovereign state and being recognized as a sovereign state, which is a key distinction. I am a little annoyed that there is a refusal to even accept that an argument exists. Also for the record I don't even believe that whether or not the word sovereign appears really supports the pov I may or may not have. In fact there is an argument to be made that I since it actually doesn't look very good stylistically that it affects the article's credibility. It's good to see you again Zero, its been a long time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Also I wrote this in response to something on MShabazz's talk page- I hear you, you're making the point that the vast majority of the countries that exist today recognize Palestine, whether is be de facto or de jure recognition, as a sovereign nation. That is valid. My, and I believe Igor's, argument is that this country whether or not it is recognized as a sovereign nation is not able to exercise sovereignty over any meaningful geography. That is also a valid point. You could argue that this is irrelevant and that the State of Palestine could exist in an abstract way as a sovereign entity without any actual land under its control by virtue of the aforementioned recognition. My point would be a one sentence blurb at the top of an article is not the best place to explore these arguments, and that any attempt to do so would appear either out of place, or risk simply being inaccurate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It is obvious (and sourced) that Palestine has been recognized as a sovereign State and it is obvious that it cannot exercise this sovereignty.
I think we should just explain the situation as the sources explain this.
I mean: how do sources introduce the situation of the State of Palestine ? Are there sources that underline it cannot exercise its sovereignty ? If so, we should follow the advice of Moshe, else we should not.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Moshe, as I wrote on my Talk page, you are engaging in original research. The article State of Palestine describes Palestine as a sovereign state and cites reliable sources to that effect. That you're edit-warring over a hatnote — a hatnote, for fucks sake! — despite the fact that these sources have been pointed out to you repeatedly indicates a serious problem on your part. Continue down this path and you will end up at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not original research; no one here has even suggested that the article would be better off with sovereign included in the note. Also I don't appreciate you blaming me for the edit war since it was clearly going on before. The fact that you continue to push the original research argument shows you have not been paying much attention. If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I have engaged with the arguments of others, have never assumed bad faith, and never added information that was based upon original research. The same cannot be said about you. Also in my experience actually talking to people rather than citing rules (rules which I would say you are clearly misquoting) generally works better. When you begin the confrontation by adding a WP:ARBPIA alert on my talk page, and then proceed by citing wikipedia policy, it makes me instantly not like you. Just as much as I would instantly not like a coworker who began our first interaction by self-servingly citing an odd interpretation of company policy. I genuinely say this for your future benefit, and the benefit of Wikipedia since it is highly unlikely I am going to continue to edit any IP articles with any amount of regularity in the future, and as a result, unlikely that I will encounter you much again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The best solution to this issue is to use the simplest term, which I think is the current version (at the time of my edit): "state (country)". The State of Palestine is only de jure sovereign, not de facto sovereign. Noting such a distinction is not really necessary in the hatnote and I think simply stating "state (country)" is sufficient. I also want to remind everyone in this discussion that this article is under a one revert per editor per 24 hours sanction (refer to notes at top of this talk page), which User:Laurel Lodged violated on March 8 (2 reverts within 4 hours) and User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg came close to (2 reverts in 26 hours). AHeneen (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, Moshe made three reverts within 24 hours, two of them within two hours of one another.[1][2][3] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Question: Can somebody explain me why so many editors have to waste so many time for a couple of words?
I'd remind what we'are talking about:

{{About}} is a commonly used hatnote template on Wikipedia, and should be placed at the top of an article, linking the reader to other articles with similar titles or concepts (with names very similar to the name of the article) that they may have been seeking instead.

As I see, almost no one here has principal objection to the State of Palestine duality. The easiest & complete version: only "For the state (country), see State of Palestine" was proposed by me and argued on the Malik Shabazz' Talk page after his revert yet at 10:48, 8 March 2015. Unfortunately, so far I have not gotten there a technical answer from him.
Moreover, after discussion has been continued here (as I hope after my proposal) it was already emerging consensus in favor of this simple option, so that a detailed explanation (de jure, de facto, full or limited recogntion, etc.) should be in a main article. It may be then be changed, RS may be added, etc.
But unfortunately, the discussion again slipping into an administrative rather than technical issues.
Can we still go back to common sense? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The additional word "sovereign" is useful in distinguishing between the many other Palestines mentioned in the hat note. Moshe's apparent issue with de facto vs de jure vs full recognition vs partial recognition of sovereignty vs the ability to exercise that sovereignty, is, at best, a distraction from what is quite clear - that the state is a sovereign state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about just using the term "state (country)". Adding the word "sovereign" is not necessary. AHeneen (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: I know only one administrative unit, called itself as State of Palestine, what it's clearly "distinguished between the many other Palestines mentioned in the hat note" :
This page is about the historical geographic region. For the state (country), see State of Palestine. For the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, see Palestinian territories. For other uses, see Palestine (disambiguation).
Can you point to another such one ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
So Palestine is just an "administrative unit"? That speaks volumes about the motivations of any editor that would want to delete the word "sovereign" from the description. I need say no more. Thanks to Igorp, my work here is done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear example of not assuming good faith Laurel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, Laurel Lodged, both of us may have any personal opinion about what is called as State of Palestine, but it does not matter, my version is talking just about the State of Palestine, neither about some administrated / governed object nor about your "So Palestine[clarification needed] is..." (BTW, what about your "That speaks volumes about" motivation? :) )
Any way, your guesses are not reason to move away from my question about "another such one". So I'm waiting for your answer. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not just say for the country like any other country? The state (country) thing just looks kind of weird and clunky. A problem with the Israel and Palestine articles is people are always trying to hammer home some point or another. If the sources say Palestine is a country and we all consider it a country, then just treat it like any other country like IRISZOOM said. It doesn't need to be emphasised over and over just make a point. I would say the same for Israel were the situations reversed. Honestly, guys, the only way for us to actually take a neutral approach to editing Israel and Palestine articles is to actually take a neutral approach to editing Israel and Palestine articles. And Moshe, if you're the only one still strongly advocating a point, then it means one of two possibilities: either you're the holdout with a bright and innovative idea who needs time to sell their idea properly, or it might be best just to put down the stick. You're saying people here aren't getting what you've been saying and so the latter might be the case here. If many other people here don't get what you're trying to say, then what makes you think readers will? Please consider these points. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20 Adar 5775 23:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm clearly not the only person trying to argue my position. In fact I think it has been shown that I am in the majority of people who think "sovereign" should be removed. It's clunky, awkward, and makes it seem like a point is being made in a hatnote. Beyond that I'm fine with it just saying country of Palestine. The annoyance I exhibited was a result of two editors beginning the conversation by basically saying any change to what was there is a violation of policy, which is stupid and dishonest. By the way, that's a cool picture of you with the hoe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. I tend to speed-read on controversial article talk pages (as they're usually rife with insults), and usually I get a good idea of everyone's viewpoints. Sorry for any offence caused, though I stand by everything else as good general advice for everyone imo (including myself if I manage to follow it). And thanks! It was a pickaxe (technically a mattock) though and I was very happy that day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21 Adar 5775 04:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Oncenawhile[edit]

I congratulate you too on getting GA status for the article and appreciate your hard work on it. I also found out about this treatment only in the current process of its editing.

But :( now the question on your revert of one of my edits.
The following is is the quote from the UN document referenced by me in it. “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: enough of aggression, settlements and occupation,” said Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, as he called on the 193-member body to “issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine”.

So my edit was based on this source:

In November 2012, the Palestinian National Authority was upgraded to non-member observer state status in the United Nations.[1][i]

I got messages about the edits' conflict (as well as about your revert) just adding to it the following new information:

and on January 2013, by an official decree of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority has officially transformed all of its designations into the State of Palestine.[2][3]

To simplify the question, I can offer such compromise variant for this edit:

  • "In November 2012, the the status of Palestinian delegation in UN was upgraded to..."

P.S. Regarding to your "please could you use short citation format" - ok. BTW: will I receive the same "Check date values in: |date=" message passing to it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Igorp_lj, thanks for your message. I am inclined to agree with your proposal, which seems like a good suggestion. Having said that, I think that this question has been discussed in great detail before on another page - let me see if I can find that.

On the date= error, I have made a quick fix above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read the talk pages behind a variety of pages including State of Palestine, International recognition of the State of Palestine and United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. There seem to be a number of ways of describing what the UN vote achieved. I think your new version is fine, and if others with better technical knowledge have a different view then we can discuss again later.
By the way, the reason I reverted your edit was that the relationship between the PNA / PLO / PNC etc is quite complex. As explained on State of Palestine: "An analysis outlining the relationship between the PLO, the PNA (or PA), Palestine and Israel in light of the interim arrangements set out in the Oslo Accords begins by stating that, "Palestine may best be described as a transitional association between the PA and the PLO." It goes on to explain that this transitional association accords the PA responsibility for local government and the PLO responsibility for representation of the Palestinian people in the international arena, while prohibiting it from concluding international agreements that affect the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This situation is said to be accepted by the Palestinian population insofar as it is viewed as a temporary arrangement."
Another good explanation is in this diagram.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I just want to comment that the recent addition of "Afterwards" as a subsection heading is really odd. I suggest "Post-partition" or "Since 1948" as better section names. AHeneen (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Since 1948" may be a good alternative. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Oncenawhile. You're right about a relationship's complexity. I've already seen some of such diagrams, but simpler that this one. :)
BTW, the Arafat & Abbas have used such different titles as Сhairman / President of PLO, PNA, State of Palestine (what else), sometimes almost simultaneously, depending on circumstances.
I do not know who is an author of these wordings, but he did his best to get the following :
  • 'the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system'
  • 'to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice'
So "UN Palestinian delegation" seems me a good choice. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it time to finish on something as :
 :) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Igorp lj, yes I am fine with this. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
On the date= error: If I understand well, you've changed my '|date=29 NOVEMBER 2012' to simple '|date=2012'. Do you know how to use a full date? Sometimes I'm changing it to as '2012-11-29' for this purpose, but as I think it should be some standard way. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry am not sure. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ "General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine ‘Non-Member Observer State’ Status in United Nations" (in English). United Nations. 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2015. 
  2. ^ Palestine: What is in a name (change)? Al Jazeera, 8 Jan 2013.
  3. ^ "Palestinian Authority officially changes name to 'State of Palestine'". 5 January 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2014. 

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-roman> tags or {{efn-lr}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-roman}} template or {{notelist-lr}} template (see the help page).