Talk:State of Palestine: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:58, 11 October 2023

Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about State of Palestine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about State of Palestine at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palestine B‑class Top‑importance

	Palestine portal 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.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Limited recognition B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arab world B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Countries B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations: Law B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics B‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Western Asia B‑class Top‑importance

	Asia portal 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.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Haviv Rettig Gur (16 May 2010). "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Wikipedia". The Jerusalem Post.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 15, 2015 and November 15, 2020.

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

NPOV: State as Absolute Fact

Blocked sockpuppet account

In my opinion, it is POV to write of the State of Palestine's existence as fact. There are many reliable sources which either don't recognize the State of Palestine, whether because they support the Israeli right or consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories that Palestinians aspire to create a future state upon while supporting the aspiration.

The Palestinian Authority, the power internationally recognized by most countries as the sovereign over those territories has no control over the Gaza Strip and is not sovereign over the West Bank due to Israel's frequent military activity there. Unlike Ukraine, the State of Palestine was neversovereign over those territories and does not have the near-unanimous recognition that Ukraine does over the Russian-occupied territories.

On the other hand, the State of Israel clearly exists. They are soverign over their territory. Any country that doesn't officially recognize it typically calls for its destruction or secretly engages with it. That's why it's not POV to state Israel exists - it's a fact anyone can verify.

This assertion of the existence of the State of Palestine as absolute fact is POV and rampant throughout Wikipedia. At least that’s what I think. I’m looking forward to engaging with my dissenting colleagues about this. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could try going through the talk page archives to see what has been argued before. I for one see no new arguments if your statement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to the responses in the previous discussions. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first one (of many) [[1]], you can search for the rest yourself. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article’s title should remain State of Palestine. That was the subject of the first discussion. Which discussions address my points above? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If one accepts the article title, that would appear to render unsourced argumentation moot. What in the article requires to be changed and based on what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the international community recognises it but a significant minority doesn’t. Titles go by the majority. What else would you call it? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that statement has just undermined any claim to wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn’t. See WP:COMMONNAME. The State of Palestine is the common name for the dispirited entity in question. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROPORTION if the majority of nations say it exists, it exists, no matter what a minority say, we do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a false balance. Many countries, especially most Western countries, reject the State of Palestine’s existence. This is a significant minority, which is the whole reason for NPOV’s existence. See this article from the BBC as an example^[1]. The majority position is attributed as such and the minority position is stated. Rejection of the State of Palestine is not fringe, like flat Earth, freeman on the land, or climate change denial. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al-Jazeera writes in the lead of one of its articles: “By continuing its settlement policy, Israel is eliminating the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.”^[2]. If even Al Jazeera rejects the current existence of the State of Palestine, how can Wikipedia claim it as absolute fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not AJ, it is "Walid Abdel Hay" who appears to be some sort of student. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies. That Centre for Studies is part of the Al Jazeera Media Network. Therefore, it is safe to say that the studies promoted by the Centre reflect the Network’s POV. If you are skeptical, I challenge you to find a study promoted by the Centre with a pro-Israel POV. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't find that satisfying, here is something straight from Al Jazeera's news division: "The international community, along with the Palestinians, considers settlement construction illegal and an obstacle to peace. More than 700,000 Israelis live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – territories captured by Israel in 1967 and sought by the Palestinians for a future state."^[3] If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? Not sure why this needs to be repeated, in any case, AJ is not saying what is being alleged, it is not disputed that SoP claims the OPT for a state and that Israel claims to have sovereignty over East Jerusalem for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually everyone agrees that the SoP (currently represented by the Palestinian Authority (PA) officially claims the West Bank the and Gaza Strip. This is not what I disputed.

The phrase “a future state” implies there is no current state. If AJ believed the SoP currently existed, it would write something like this: “Palestinians claim the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for their state.”

There is no reasonable way to explain the full quote if you insist AJ affirms that a current Palestinian state. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty is in part disputed by Israel so what AJ is saying is correct until a future resolution. The State and the claim to territory exist nevertheless. Try reading some scholarly sources and consult the various Legal status of... articles such as Legal status of the State of Palestine. I do not intend to debate the meaning of a press article any further. And since, at the moment the only editor disputing the consensus is yourself, I don't intend to debate that any further either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty is not determined from the de jure situation (that’s the subject of Legal status of the State of Palestine). Sovereignty is determined from the de facto situation. De jure asks ‘should X’? De facto asks ‘does X’? RomanHannibal (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here^[4]. This source explains the difference very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I am not asking for an explanation of the difference, Britannica is a tertiary source (ie no better than WP). Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De jure and de facto are legal terms. Virtually nobody disagrees with the definitions Britannica gives. I just used Britannica because it explains the terms very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is also reliable, unlike Wikipedia. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need an explanation of de facto and de jure either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that out of the way, let me now restate my argument. Is the SoP de facto sovereign (i.e. sovereign in practice)? The answer is pretty clear: no. Is the SoP de jure sovereign? (i.e. Should the SoP be sovereign?). Most countries and sources say yes, but a significant minority of both say no. Therefore, my version accurately reflects NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent RFC debated all these points already. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the precedent argument, which is flawed per WP:CCC. Using previous discussions, please summarise the rationale behind the current version. If you cannot, the current version has no satisfactory rationale and should be changed in favour of my version, which I have extensively demonstrated to conform to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RFC stands until there is a new consensus. I see no evidence of such at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on the strength of the rationale for a specific version, not the majority. Either you defend the current version, or you concede. Stop fillibustering. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "dispirited entity"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant disputed entity. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context, I believe this discussion started at Talk:Jordan#West_Bank_or_Palestinian_West_Bank? and specifically how the western neighbors of Jordan should be described in the intro. Erp (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now bring a new argument, and actually tell us what you want to be changed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my current argument is still alive and well right now. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for input on article changes with sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made my proposed changes. Per WP:LEAD, statements made in the lead need not be sourced if they are sourced in the body, which they are. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per recent RFC that you were already made aware of earlier. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason only part of the RFC is showing up, the rest of it is in Archive 17 Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of previous consensus is not an eternal prohibition against change. Let’s try to establish a consensus here. You dared me to be bold, I was bold, you reverted and now we’re discussing. Let’s focus on the substance, not the bureaucratic formalities RomanHannibal (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a consensus. The RFC specifically asked "Should the first sentence of the lead include the phrase de jure.." and the conclusion was not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus, the result of the previous discussion, carries lest weight than a consensus. And even consensus can change. So let’s argue the substance and not appeal to the weak precedent. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is not a weak precedent and the RFC close needs to be properly read. Having adduced no consensus, it asks what to do when there is no consensus and concludes that WP:VERIFIABILITY is the key policy and by virtue of which, the verbiage "de jure" must go ..I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a precedent which can change. No consensus is weaker than consensus, therefore I called it a weak precedent. It is deducable from sources that the SoP has no de facto sovereignty; therefore, it is a de jure state according to countries and sources that recognise it. Therefore, your verifiability argument fails. The actual reason why the current version stayed was because WP:NOCONSENSUS dictates that without a consensus, the previous version typically remains. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there is still con consensus. Do any of these sources use the term "de jure"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above don’t recognise the SoP, so no. However, most countries and sources recognise the SoP. It is a fact that the SoP currently has no de facto sovereignty, so de jure can be derived. Additionally, it is explicitly stated in some sources. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means seek a new consensus (and it's not my verifiability argument, it's that of the RFC closer and the previous version did include de jure). Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go to WP:DRN instead. Hopefully we get a third-party mediator to resolve our dispute. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, @Slatersteven and @Erp, I invite you to state your side of the dispute in the DRN. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone clinging onto the precedent argument, it is flawed per WP:CCC. Consensus is not determined by the majority per WP:DEMOCRACY. Instead, I offer you this challenge. Using previous discussions, please summarise the rationale behind the current version. If you cannot, the current version has no satisfactory rationale and should be changed in favour of my version, which I have extensively demonstrated to conform to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This convo has degenerated into classic WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. This needs to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing me of the exact behaviours of which you are guilty. Stop it. The facts are on my side. The law is on my side. You are pounding the table but I won’t back down. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are on my side. The law is on my side. You are pounding the table

As the mother once said watching a cadet parade, 'Everyone is out of step but my Johnnie'.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the thread? @Selfstudier‘s whole argument is that due to precedent, the existing version can’t change. But consensus can change and is not determined solely by a majority. Selfstudier couldn’t even defend the current version. Instead, he falsely accused me of incivility. That’s what prompted me to write that response. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have, per wp:v we say what wp:rs say. Even you admit it is recognized by most nations as a state, so it can be argued (as I have already) this might violate wp:fringe or wp:falseblance. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before responding, I would like to congratulate you (@Slatersteven) on accepting the challenge. Thank you. (@Selfstudier, this proves the challenge was reasonable. Now please accept it or else you have effectively conceded this dispute.)

Now for the response. Many reliable sources, including sources 1 and 3 (one from BBC then one from Al Jazeera) do not claim the existence of the State of Palestine as an absolute fact. The staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera implicitly rejects the concept of a current Palestinian state (see source 3). These articles constitute verifications from reliable sources and prove there is a significant minority that doesn’t recognise the State of Palestine. Therefore, your objections based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE are unsubstantiated. Rather, I am arguing for the implementation of my version in order to avoid rejecting the significant minority view per WP:NOV.

@Onceinawhile, the UN is not a divine body which overrules all other sources. There are many reliable sources (including the BBC and the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera) which don’t recognise the State of Palestine, which constitute a significant minority. The whole point of WP:NPOV is to prevent the rejections of significant minority views. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, here are the sources.

Source 1 (BBC): www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14630174.amp

Source 3 (Al Jazeera): www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/26/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-illegal-settlement-homes RomanHannibal (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources say what you claim they do. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do.

From source 3: “Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state.” The phrase “a future independent state” implies there is no current Palestinian state.

Fron Source 1: “Efforts to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the River Jordan and Gaza on the Mediterranean coast have been frustrated by the continuing conflict with Israel.” In simpler terms, all past attempts to create a Palestinian state failed. This implies there is no current Palestinian state.

Pro tip: read the sources before making a claim about them. CTRL+F is a valuable tool here. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations says that Palestine is a state. A Wikipedia editor says it is not. Who should we believe? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is, frankly, silly. Statehood generally implies recognition, but that is not the ultimate arbiter. There are states with limited recognition, among which Israel (with 28 countries refusing to recognize it) and Palestine (with 54 countries not recognizing it). Even in the EU countries that withhold formal recognition, bipartisan parliamentary majorities have consistently urged their respective governments to recognize Palestine since 2014, France and Italy included. I.e. there is a political majority recognizing that it is a state, but the lack of a formal government passage reflecting that consensus. We all know the reason why this European anomaly persists, the US and Israel exercise a veto power which, however, cannot overthrow the consensus of 193 UN member states from recognizing that Palestine is a state. So we must persist with the farce: Palestine for the US, Germany and Israel must obtain Israel's consent before they accord it their recognition, and this notwithstanding the fact that it is the declared policy of Israel's longest-running PM that a Palestinian state will never exist, as long as he is the negotiator. We go with the UN consensus, just as we recognize Israel is a state despite the dissonant refusal of 28 countries to accord it their recognition. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: The OP is a now blocked sockpuppet. I’ll leave it to regular editors here as to if they feel anything is worth continuing to discuss. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This can be closed, as it has no support. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion died as soon as the sock was blocked so I'm just gonna go ahead and close this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Palestine

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

In principle, I would agree but because Palestine.

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

Oh, I see now... Well, nevermind then.

T.O.M.

13:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Terrorism

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

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

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

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

Factually incomplete map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mexico recognized Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Statehood

Is there any scholarly consensus as to whether SoP actually qualifies as a state? The most recent academic treatise I could find weighing the issue concludes that "It is a subject of controversy as to whether the State of Palestine [can] be considered a State in accordance with classical international law definitions."^[1] Another somewhat recent book from OUP summarizes that "while Palestine enjoys some of the attributes of statehood, primarily international recognition, it would be wrong to classify Palestine as a state".^[2] In light of this it seems untenable to have the first sentence of our article simply assert statehood. – St.nerol (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Consensus is that Palestine is a state. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current entity sometimes called Palestine is simply not a State by any internationally agreed convention, and its status (as well as the status of the associated territories) is a subject of great contention. From the juridical perspective of the United States & Europe, it is not a State. Labeling the entity as "Palestine" much less a state is not neutral, rather advocates a point of view and political position/aspiration. As well, it leads to a variety of confusions, including that this imagined entity is historically or otherwise equivalent to other historical, cultural or political entities such as Mandate Palestine.

See the two reference materials below. KenThomas (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sabel, Robbie (2022). "Is Palestine a state?". International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
^ Robinson, Glenn E. (2016). "Whither Palestine? Weak State, Failed State, or No State at All?". Fragile Politics. Oxford University Press.

2 Governments 1 State?

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

[1] ttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14630174.amp

[2] ttps://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2012/05/201251394125380663.html

[3] ttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/26/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-illegal-settlement-homes

[4] ttps://www.britannica.com/topic/de-facto

[5] Sabel, Robbie (2022). "Is Palestine a state?". International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press.

[6] Robinson, Glenn E. (2016). "Whither Palestine? Weak State, Failed State, or No State at All?". Fragile Politics. Oxford University Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 :See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_18#De_jure here]. Consensus is that Palestine is a state. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
+:The current entity sometimes called Palestine is simply not a State by any internationally agreed convention,   and its status (as well as the status of the associated territories) is a subject of great contention.   From the juridical perspective of the United States & Europe,  it is not a State.  Labeling the entity as "Palestine" much less a state is not neutral,  rather advocates a point of view and political position/aspiration.  As well, it leads to a variety of confusions,   including that this imagined entity is historically or otherwise equivalent to other historical, cultural or political entities such as Mandate Palestine.
+:See the two reference materials below. [[User:KenThomas|KenThomas]] ([[User talk:KenThomas|talk]]) 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 {{reftalk}}