Talk:State of Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Unrecognized countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.


Bolter21, Israel does not claim the whole of the West Bank, only East Jerusalem. In addition Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank, not just the area highlighted on your map, although the Palestinian National Council administers that part. Rob984 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Israel claim, This is a map of The State of Palestine. The State of Palestine has the areas they claim and areas they hold. The State of Palestine is a name of The Palestinian National Authority (And it's a shame that Wikipedia show it as if The Palestinian National Authority reformed into the State of Palestine). The PNA is not a sovargion entity but an Authority of the PLO goverment on certain areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel does not occupy the whole of the West Bank. The Area is Devided into Area A, Area B and Area C. Area A and B are the areas where the Palestinian Law applies (Dark Green) while Area A is under full Palestinian controll (Civil and security) while Area C is under Direct Israeli controll and where all the settlements are.
In addition, Israel does not have a rule or a constitution that defind what Israel claim and what not. They have laws that apply only for East Jerusalem and the Golan Highets. Israel has only two defined international borders, between Egypt and between Jordan. The border with Jordan goes through the Jordan river inside the West Bank. Israel don't claim the whole West Bank but they also don't claim Tel Aviv.
And accuarding to international law, the West Bank has the status of disputed and not occupaid because:
1) Israel conquered the area from Jordan and not from Palestine. In 1988, Jordan relinquished all claims to the West Bank.
2) The State of Palestine lacks the recognition needed to become a legitemete state.
3) The Areas claimed by the State of Palestine were never held by a legitemete sovargion state under the name of Palestine.
Bolter21 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You need a source to claim it is "disputed" with Israel, not occupied. A number of states don't control all of their territory due to occupations by other states, terrorists, etc; for example Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Somalia, etc. We do not indicate this territory on their maps because it is not formally claimed by any other widely recognised state. The State of Palestine is recognised by 135 UN member states. For comparison, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Both are widely recognised states and therefore "legitimate". Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The territories are listed in List of territorial disputes. You can also look at Political status of the Palestinian territories, it opens with "... is one of the most violently disputed issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict" and does NOT use the word "occupied" to describe the territories. WarKosign 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
They are occupied and it is the neutral description of the status quo. It is not only wrong, but impertinently contrafactual to keep insisting against all the evidence.

26.The Occupied Palestinian Territory is comprised of the West Bank, including East-Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel adopts the position that since it withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 during the “disengagement”, it no longer has effective control over what happens in Gaza and thus can no longer be considered as an occupying power under international law. The commission agrees that the exercise of ‘effective control’ test is the correct standard to use in determining whether a State is the occupying power over a given territory, but notes that the continuous presence of soldiers on the ground is only one criterion to be used in determining effective control


27. International law does not require the continuous presence of troops of the occupying forces in all areas of a territory, in order for it to be considered as being occupied. In the Naletelic case, the ICTY held that the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt.” The size of Gaza and the fact that it is almost completely surrounded by Israel facilitates the ability for Israel to make its presence felt. This principle was confirmed by the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated:

It is clear that the German Armed Forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German Armed Forces of its status of an occupant.

28. This analysis also applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territory which is considered a single territorial unit by the international community, and by Israel in the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza, which recognized the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.Report of the detailed findings of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict A/HRC/29/CRP.4

That commission also specifically mentions the State of Palestine, I.e., the state that is the, in international law, legal heir to the unified areas covered by occupied Palestinian territories. If political accords change this, fine. At the moment, as ever, this is the state of play.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement on another article is not a reliable source. That map needs a reliable source that states that the area highlighted is disputed territory between Israel and the State of Palestine. Rob984 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem here, is really simple. There is a huge mistake Wikipedia did and It was transforming the PA to the State of Palestine, which never happened. Sure the goverment of the State of Palestine is the goverment of the PA but it does not change the fact that the only thing that changed after the acceptation of the PA as a UN observer member was that Abu Mazen changed the name of the Authority to "State of Palestine" for the political intrests of doing so. Physiclly, nothing changed, therefore, the State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas. Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER. Wikipedia is a source that provides information, therefore, we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. Area A and B are under Palestinian rule, they are dependent on Israel but so do some other entities in the world. The State of Palestine is a goverment that was declared in 1988, it is still the same goverment, it's just that Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security. The PA enclaves are the lands where the law of the State of Palestine apply, they must be shown!.
Not showing this can give the Idea that: The Palestinian has no controll over any area in the West Bank what so ever or that the Palestinians have controll over the area, depends on the person who reads it. Bolter21 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A huge number of states historically has had no control over the territory assigned to them because it is 'occupied'. That is not an argument. Israel has formally recognized that it is occupying another country, which the world, and the best legal sources, ICC et al., do not dispute is 'The State of Palestine'. The rest is politics.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"State of Palestine is the PA and therefore the lands owned by the PA which are De-Facto sovargion needs to be showen alongside the Claimed Areas."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but, the State of Palestine claims sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. 135 UN member states recognise this claim (some exclude East Jerusalem however). No other sovereign state claims this territory.
"Even if the land is occupaid or not, even if it's desputed or not, IT DOESENT MATTER."
Yes it does. This is Wikipedia convention. We do not indicate occupied land unless it is claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state.
"we should provide the information about what does the state we claim that exist as a sovargion state acually hold. "
In the article body, sure. But the map in the infobox is a locator map, for locating the State of Palestine. If the territory is not claimed by another widely recognised sovereign state, then there is no reason to indicate on the locator map.
"Isareli provided it with an authority in the West Bank and Gaza to govern the people and in the cities, also to provide security."
I agree. Israel occupies the whole of the West Bank and delegates authority to the Palestine Authority (now the Palestinian National Council). Another reason why your map is misleading. Allowing the Palestinian Authority to administer a number of small territories surrounded by Israeli military checkpoints does not seem to me like the Palestinian Authority has "control" over that territory.
Rob984 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
PNA a.k.a State of Palestine claims whole of West Bank and Gaza. Currently it has partial control over areas designated as A and B by the Oslo accords and Gaza. The map has to show 3 colors: controlled territory, claimed territory, and area neither claimed nor controlled. WarKosign 08:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It has to show the state's territory and disputed territory; just like every other country's article on Wikipedia. If you think we should show all uncontrolled claimed territory of states then you should propose that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries because it would affect a large number of articles and therefore require wide consensus. Rob984 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
The locator map of Nigeria does not show the area occupied by Boko Haram.
The locator map of Azerbaijan does not show the area occupied by Armenia.
The locator map of Somalia does not show the area occupied by the Republic of Somaliland.
Why should Israel's occupation of certain parts of the West Bank be shown on the State of Palestine's locator map?
Rob984 (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, map of Ukraine shows occupied Crimea in a different color.
In addition, there is a big difference: the territories claimed but not controlled by State of Palestine were never controlled by the state, Israel did not occupy the state of Palestine, Israel occupied territories that at that moment were controlled by Jordan and Egypt and only later State of Palestine was formed and claimed the territories. Showing all of West Bank and Gaza as part of State of Palestine would be akin to showing ISIL territorial claims as actually being part of ISIL that is currently occupied by Iraq, Syria, etcWarKosign 17:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Crimea is a disputed territory. Russia and Ukraine both claim that territory. Parts of Donbass are occupied but not disputed. These are not shown.
No. The State of Palestine, recognised by 135 UN member states, is not at all comparable to ISIL. The historical situation is irrelevant.
Rob984 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that ISIL was a terrible analogy. AcidSnow (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what's so terrible about this analogy and am sorry if it offended someone, it was not my intention. Currently the article shows a map of the claimed territories and it is correctly labelled. In my opinion it would be useful to indicate on the map area where the claim already became a reality, but I am quite ok without it as well.WarKosign 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You didn't offend me but you probably did others (but it wasn't your intent and you did apologize) . Anyways, as Rob984 already stated, Palestine is a recognized country while ISIL isn't. But let's move on from this analogy lol. There's no need to focus on it. AcidSnow (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Offence isn't my problem. The analogy is just bad. Anyway...
The locator map has one purpose: to locate the state. Disputed territories are outlined because it is ambiguous as to whether they are part of the state being located. There is no ambiguity as to what state an "occupied territory" is part of. Hence the term "occupied". One state must be being occupied by another party.
For example, it is ambiguous as to whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. It is not ambiguous as to whether Donbass is part of Ukraine. This is for one simple fact: Crimea's status is disputed with another state, Donbass's is not.
I don't disagree the fact that Israel occupies and administers that part of the West Bank is important information and should be conveyed to the reader. I disagree that it should be indicated on the locator map, which should be used solely to convey the location of the state. This is the same reason why we don't show administrative boundaries, labels, etc on locator maps.
I would support adding a map to the body of the article to show what areas are administered by the State of Palestine, and what are occupied by Israel, ie an administrative map, as oppose to the locator map.
Rob984 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You are making an incorrect statement - these are not "occupied territories of State of Palestine" since they were not part of the state when they were occupied. The territories are considered under occupation and the state does claim them, but they were never a part of the state so they can't be occupied territories of the state. You can call them "occupied territories claimed by the state".WarKosign 06:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well who else does that territory belong to? Nobody? The State of Palestine is the only state that claims sovereignty over that territory, and the international community considers it to be "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Regardless, it isn't disputed territory either way. Rob984 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The territory does not belong to anybody. It is claimed of the State of Palestine, and is controlled by Israel. The name is misleading, but it is important to remember that for now State of Palestine and Palestinian Territories are two distinct entities.WarKosign 13:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people". And the United Nations regards the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territory" and designates Israel as the "occupying power". In addition, as an observer state in the UN, the State of Palestine is permitted to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space; and has the right to sue in regards to its sovereignty over its rightful territory in the International Court of Justice, and to bring crimes against humanity and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawful occupation of the territory of State of Palestine, against Israel in the International Criminal Court. The UN does not regard the occupied Palestinian territory and the State of Palestine as "two distinct entities". In fact, the International Organization for Standardisation changed the designation in ISO 3166-1 from "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" to "the State of Palestine" in 2013. Rob984 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no contradiction between any of these statements and what I wrote - except your incorrect conclusion, of course. WarKosign 16:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who said that "Israel does not claim the West Bank", I say it again, it doesnt change the fact that the PNA holds lands and don't hold other lands. I"ve been in both Area B and C, belive me, It's not just "occupaid land". There are settlements there that pay taxes to Israel and being provided with aid from Israel. it is one of Israel's provinces: Judea and Samaria Area. It is under the Millitary Law because Israel can't make the civil law apply in it becuase it will be seen as an act of annexation. Polititians in Israel did tried to inforce the civil law of Israel on the area. [1]. It is not black and white, "Palestinians claim the land, Israelis don't". There is dispution about lands in the area, about resources and about transportation, it is needed to show where does the "State of Palestine"'s law applies to and where it don't. Bolter21 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The international community regards the territory as occupied, not disputed. Settling in occupied territory is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Therefore this does not change the status of the territory. I realise the State of Israel does not regard the territory as occupied, however this is contrary to the view of the international community. Why should the State of Israel's point of view be conveyed over the view of the international community? See WP:NPOV. Rob984 (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No legitemte country claim the land. It is disputed. The settlements were built since the 70's when the land was still claimed by one party: Jorda. The thing is, the Jordanian occupation of the land was bearly recognized by any country nor any Arab country so also back then the land was disputed. In 1988, the PLO declared a goverment-in-exile for the State of Palestine and Jordan relinquished all of it's claims, the new party that now claim the land, but the State of Palestine lacks the international recognition to be considered legitemite. Not to mention, Palestine never held this lands as a legitemite state but as subjects of forgion rulers. This land, until the USA, France and UK will be "disputed" and not "occupaid" since there is no legitemite state to "occupy". The local people were given an Autonomy called "The Palestinian National Authority". Bolter21 (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bolter21: The international community considers the territory occupied, Israel disputes this definition, and that's it. This is the state of affairs, this is what the sources say and this is what wikipedia reports, there is no point arguing who is right or wrong. WarKosign 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:Alright then. The land is occupaid. The PNA is the State of Palestine. The PNA holds land an claim land. Why won't we show the lands they own and the lands they don't own? Sovargionity is about where you law and jurisdiction applies to, so the PNA's land are where the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Palestine is and therefore this is the land they own, the rest are under Israel's occupation and therfore this are the claims of the State of Palestine, why won't we show them both?
State of Palestine Lands and Claims.png
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Because it's not disputed. The international community regards it as "Palestinian territory" under Israeli occupation. This discussion is beginning to go round in circles. I'm not going to repeat everything I have already said. The State of Palestine is legitimate; it is recognised by 135 UN member states and has been granted observer state status by the UN. This is also the established consensus on Wikipedia. Rob984 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The state is recognized, its claimed territory is not. Current location map correctly shows the lands claimed by the state, it could show the actually controlled land as well but for some reason you insist to have less information in the article. WarKosign 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984:So what if (parts of) the international community recognized it as occupaid? The State of Palestine is still not a legit state because they are rejected by another 58 memebers, how does a dispute start? -When people don't agree with each other! In this scenario we have 75% who don't agree with 25% but this 25% are all of Western Europe (exept for Sweden) and North America, this is an harsh dispute mostly between Western and Eastern (and should I remind that Palestinians always used Soviet made weapons?). Should we delete the article about Somaliland because no country recognize it as a legit state? Come on, it doesn't change anything. The State of Palestine is represented by the PNA (which also has no controll over Gaza) and the PNA holds lands and claim lands. Just because some politicians said they recognize something, doesnt mean we should hide information from people.
WarKosign, I don't insist on having less information in the article. I support adding a map to the body of the article to show controlled and uncontrolled territory, possibly under the Government section? I oppose showing uncontrolled territory that is not disputed in the locator map. Why? Because every other article only shows disputed territory in light green, not undisputed occupied territory. This is the convention. Surely it is misleading to show undisputed territory in the colour we use to show disputed territory?
Bolter21, Israel is only recognised by 160 UN member states. Is it illegitimate also? The states which do not recognise the State of Palestine still regard Israel's presence in the West Bank as an occupation. Numerous UN resolutions have shown that the international community regard Israel's occupation as a violation of international law. These resolutions have been supported by many western states which do not recognise the State of Palestine.
Also on Israel's article, Jerusalem is not shown as disputed when the international community does not recognise its sovereignty there.
Rob984 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Rob984 and his recent edit seems to be an appropriate compromise. I don't believe one-sided pseudo legal arguments carry as much weight as a Wikipedia convention which have been applied to virtually every single country article. I don't see any real basis for why this article should be an exception. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Elspamo4:There you go:
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
Donetsk People's Republic
Luhansk People's Republic
Novorossiya (confederation)
China (China's desputed areas)
Tibet (Same Idea of the Palestine, but here they show the De-Facto controll).
Iraqi Kurdistan
Russia and Ukraine (Crimea's desputed area, still a De-Facto controll).
Kenya (Second map on the border of South Sudan)
Spain (In morroco)
Ethiopia's and Somalia's border
Argentina (Falklands)
Moldova (Transnistria)
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Let me say another thing, You want to show in the main map all the lands the Palestinians claim without showing the Israeli controll over them... This is very misleading because it is wierd no to show the "Real Picture" of the State of Palestine. You are just hiding the most basic info: "Where is the State of Palestine"? -Not in all of the West Bank.Bolter21 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? Those are examples of disputed territories and unrecognised states. Undisputed occupied territory is not shown:
The locator map of Ukraine does not show the area occupied by pro-Russia rebels/Russia, that is not disputed with Russia.
The locator map of Syria does not show the area occupied by the Israel, the Free Syrian Army or Kurdish forces.
The locator map of Libya does not show the area occupied by the Libya Dawn Coalition.
The locator map of Nigeria does not show the area occupied by Boko Haram.
The locator map of Azerbaijan does not show the area occupied by Armenia.
The locator map of Somalia does not show the area occupied by the Republic of Somaliland.
Rob984 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Moldova is the exception. Russian occupation should not be shown there either. Rob984 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If Kosovo is an unrecognized State, Palestine is also an unrecognized State. Oh, and last time I checked, Turkey kicked some thousneds of people from Northen Cyprus... "Dispute". NKR kicked 700,000 Azerbijani people out of the land they conquered... Just because they have less recognition then Palestine so The win the privelege of showing the full picture?
THE STATE OF PALESTINE IS A NEW NAME FOR THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 01:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Try Azerbaijan, Armenia or Ukraine. The claim that Palestine is not occupied have been met with overwhelming rejection from the international community, including the UN. The occupation of sovereign nations, whether administered by the occupier or not, are not reflected in any locator map unless they have been annexed (only if the annexation was internationally recognized, i.e. not including areas like Crimea, East Jerusalem).
Re your most recent comment, Palestine is indeed a recognized sovereign state and is a non-member state of the UN. Kosovo is not. Neither are any the self-proclaimed countries you listed. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Correction on my comment about occupied territory not being reflected in any locator map - for some reason unfathomable to me, Cyprus' map seems to denote the occupied territory in the north. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter there's no point in continuing this discussion. I believe I have address some of the concerns raised by adding a map showing the area administered by the State of Palestine in the government section. We will never agree because you believe that territory's ownership is disputed while I believe it belongs to the Palestinian people. The difference is your view is supported by Israel only, while mine is supported by the vast majority of the international community. While the view of Israel should be portrayed, it should not be given undue weight. Regardless of what you think, that would be in breach of WP:NPOV. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: While I respect your claim that the land is belong to the Palestinians as an observer, I have to contiune saying that the land is disputed, you can't argue with that. If the land was never disputed, today there was a Palestine or Israel and Judea and Samaria but there isn't. The Palestinians fight for existance through lands while the Israelis fight for existance through security. You can't deny that Palestine claim 300,000 Israeli citizens, Israeli millitary bases, Israeli factories etc that are in Area C. Just like the Republic of Cyprus show De-Facto controll and occupaid land's, so do the State of Palestine. You call them occupaid, I call them disputed, it doesn't matter. What's matter is the fact that you serve a Palestinian intrests to remove any mention to Israel in the West Bank for removing it's legitemacy, which is clearly making Wikipedia as a one side supporter. If China's disputed terrotories are showen, so do Palestine's and Israel's should be shown because they give the exact idea of "What is Palestine and what is not Palestine, yet". Bolter21 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is no dispute about ownership - at the moment the land does not belong to anyone. It is claimed by State of Palestine, the actual control is divided between SoP and Israel. Israel never annexed the lands, which means it never claimed ownership. The location map should answer one simple question - "where is the subject of this article located?" If SoP can be said to be located anywhere at all, it's in the areas controlled by the state. It is also important to show land claimed by the state as the place where it is likely to be located eventually. Those are not occupied langs of State of Palestine, since the state was never occupied. The lands claimed by the state are considered occupied, but they were occupied before the state was declared, hence it's wrong to compare the situation with occupied lands of other states. WarKosign 14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: It doesn't matter if Israel officialy claim that lands or not, this is not a map about Israel, This is a map about the SoP. By a dispute I am not talking about De-Jure sovereignty dispute. This is a dispute about what should Palestine hold and what it won't. Israel agreed for compromises that will resault in withrawal from lands it currently under it's controll in the West Bank, including Jewish Settlemet but never agreed to withraw from all of the land. The last peace offer was made by Olmert in 2008 and it gaved the Palestinians 91% of the West Bank while the other 9% will be all of the Settlement blocs. Some polititians in the ruling party Likud including the PM in Israel said that they want to annex the settlement north to Rammalah who lie in the center (or heart) of the West Bank. Also a major discussion was made about annexing the Etzion Bloc south to Jerusalem and west to Bethlehem. Also, A party who held 12 seats (10%) in the previus goverment and 8 seats (6%) in existing goverment is still holding a plan to the whole Area C which in their claim will only resault that the settlements will be directly ruled by the goverment of Israel but we all know that it won't sound nice in the international communities's ears. The area C issue can't be excluded while discussing the sovereignty of the SoP. Unsigned comment by Bolter21
@Bolter21: My reply was addressed not to you but to Rob984, I explained why the argument "other states don't show their occupied territories" is irrelevant since other states owned the land in question before it became occupied while SoP never owned the disputed territories. I don't quite understand what are you trying to prove me. WarKosign 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter, the peace offer was rejected because the land belongs to the Palestinians. Your whole argument is flawed because nobody except Israel recognises that Israel has any right to that territory. This is because Israel's actions in settling in the West Bank are widely regarded as a violation of international law and no state can support such actions. Not even the United States. If Russia moved its populations into Donbass would that somehow legitimise the occupation? No. It makes no difference.
WarKosign, I don't think the fact that the State of Palestine has never controlled those territories matters. The Palestinians owned the land before the occupying Israeli forces forcibly took it from them and then allowed Israeli citizens to move into the territory. The ownership of the territory still belongs to the Palestinians (hence why the UN regards the territory as "occupied Palestinian territory") and the State of Palestine is regarded as "representative of the Palestinian people".
Rob984 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: Why for the love of god does it matter? We are talking on a map that describes the State of Palestine which is the new name of the Palestinian National Authority. You are using this map for expressing your love to Palestine by showing a "one big Palestine" and you don't seem to give any excuse for not showing the lands that Palestine hold and the lands they HAVE NEVER HELD. By the way, do you expect Israel to withraw from all of the settlements? Your argument: "The Palestinians owned the land before the occupying Israeli forces forcibly took it from them and then allowed Israeli citizens to move into the territory" is:
1) Historicaly wrong.
2) very very retarted.
I won't even go and try to understand how a mind like yours managed to have some kind of force on me in Wikipedia. I think that your level is no more then a lying Palestinian propaganda machine. Your knowlege of the Israeli-Arab conflict seems to be at 0.
God sake "Israel forcibly took it from them"...
Enjoy some readings about Palestine.
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, 1948 Palestine war. Six-Day War, Mandatory Palestine, Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, Jund Filastin, Palaestina Prima.
@Rob984: Check the article on Palestinians. It says that the prevailing view is that they did not exist as distinct nation until the beginning of 20th century, well after Jews began returning to their homeland, Palestine. Palestinians chose their name after the land and not the other way around, so similarity of the name does not legitimize their claim on the land in any way. Regardless of how legitimate in your opinion the claim of State of Palestine is, it is only a claim - the state never owned or controlled the land, so presenting the land as a part of the state is obvious misrepresentation of the facts. Israel does not claim rights to the territory, but it does claim effective control in order to maintain security for its people within internationally recognized borders. WarKosign 19:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bolter, we're talking about people who owned the land. The Palestinian people. The conflicts displaced both Israelis and Palestinians, however the armistice line was drawn. Between 1948 to 1967 the land was owned by Palestinians under Jordanian occupation. And since 1967, the UN has designated that land as "occupied Palestinian territory". Do you not understand what that means? Israeli occupation is illegal under international law. The settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The land still belongs to the Palestinians, as it did before the settlements began in 1967.
WarKosign, the current State of Israel wasn't declared until 1948. Between 1948 to 1967 the land in the West Bank was very much owned by Palestinian people.
Rob984 (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank was occupied by Jordan. Also, how exactly did the people come to "own" this land ? Who gave it to them ?WarKosign 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: Hah! "The land was owned by Palestinians under Jordanian occupation"! Tell this to the al-Husayni clan who assasinated the king of Jordan while visiting the "Second most holy place in Islam". After carefully reading the article about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank I wasn't suprised to know that wikipedia agree with all the knowlege I had since I was born. Nothing such is "Palestinians owned the land" was true. It was a group of provinces in the Hashimite Kingdom, no autonomy or special status was given to them (Israel was the first to name a self-governing entity as Palestinian). I also took a close look about the page about the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, No special status was there also, acually there was, it was under the direct controll of the capital. It was also stated there that the people were identfied by their religions. If you would give me one reliable source who claims that the Palestinians as a people had a special status of owners of the land (although there are already a thousend who says there wasn't, I might consider picking up again all the books of good knowlege and read them all over again to see who are the madmen behind them who hid such fatal fact that the Palestinian people were the owners of the land. The Palestinian people were the owners of the Lands and not the "Land". Accuarding to your logic, the Jewish quarter in the Holy City belongs to the Jewish people while Jaffa is under Israeli occupation. Give me a break we are talking about THE STATE OF PALESTINE and not about the Palestinian people. I know that it's hard to you, it's also hard to me to see all of this imaginary lines in the Golan Highets because some other people say so. The PNA is the State of Palestine and the rest of the lands are not, there are places in the State of Israel that are more of a "Palestine" then Area C and Area C should be shown as a claimd area while the actual controll of the SoN should be shown as owned.Bolter21 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jesus, do you two not understand the concept of land ownership? Did Jordan confiscate land from the Palestinians and move its own populations into the west bank in violation of international law? No. It belonged to Palestinians. Unlike Israel, Jordan both annexed the territory and gave the Palestinians Jordanian citizenship. I very much understand that the Palestinians were not happy about this however it was completely different to the current occupation.
Bolter, the United Nations has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people". Your distinction is pointless.
Rob984 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You have just legitimised some Jewish settlements. Gush Etzion and Kfar Darom were built in areas that were legaly owned by Jews and were destroyed by Arab forces in 1948. Israel should annex the potash factories in the north of the Dead Sea, deep inside the "occupaid Palestinian territories". These settlements were build legaly under the Brittish mandate and were destroyed illegaly by Arab forces who illegaly tried to violet the UN decision. Land ownership =/= state's soverenigty. Lots of Palestinian muncipal lands were annexed to Israel, these lands were held by Palestinians and were agreed to be transfered to the State of Israel in 1949 but yet, no one claim these lands. Nowone have ever mentioned that Israel holds more then 50% of the original jurisdiction area of the Gaza city. Look at this map and this map
The argument that "Palestine is a legit state" doesn't change the fact that THEY HAVE LANDS THEY CLAIM AND LANDS THEY OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: So you're saying that Palestinians own the land because they lived on the land for generations, and being forcibly removed generations ago doesn't change their rights ? That the claims of the invaders are null and void ? I agree. Now read Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) and see why the land belongs to descendants of the Israelites. WarKosign 03:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I already said: The conflicts displaced both Israelis and Palestinians.
And like I already: The armistice line was drawn.
And like I already said: Between 1948 to 1967 the land in the West Bank was very much owned by Palestinian people.
And like I already said: In 1967 the UN designated the land "occupied Palestinian territory"
Why do you both see the need to read everything I have said in isolation?
The fact is: there is no territorial dispute. No country other than Israel regards the West Bank as disputed territory (Edit: except for the parts already indicated on the map). Granted, the Palestinians do not control the territory. However the international community regards its sovereignty as un-disputably Palestinian. Another important fact is that according to the United Nations, the whole of the West Bank is occupied. Even the areas administered by the State of Palestine.
Showing a map that shows the area that the State of Palestine "administers" and the area that is "occupied" unhelpful because: 1. It would give the impression that the State of Palestine actually controls any territory, which in reality, it doesn't (administering territory is not the same as controlling it); and 2. It would remove information from the map showing territory that is actually disputed (eg East Jerusalem).
So my question is, do you propose no longer showing actually disputed territory, or do you think the map should indicate three areas? Occupied & disputed, occupied, and occupied & partially administered? Because I would like to see a map that actually clearly shows those three areas without misleading the reader. All I see proposed currently is a map which shows much of the State of Palestine in the colour conventionally used to indicate disputed territory, which is misleading and incorrect.
Rob984 (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Also please don't ping me anymore. If I'm on Wikipedia I will see you have replied. Rob984 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the location map for a state is to show where the state is located. Since State of Palestine is a de-jure state, it does not have internationally recognized geographical boundaries, I see 3 possible answers to the question:
  • "Nowhere" - have no location map. Perhaps technically correct but useless, and seems very POV.
  • "Claims all of West Bank and Gaza" - current state of the article. Technically correct but does not really answer the question and also is POV - it is internationally accepted that the borders between SoP and Israel are to be subject to negotiations based on the green line, which means that the green line is not necessarily the border of the future state.
  • "Claims all of West Bank and Gaza, currently controls A and B territories and Gaza" in my opinion is the best answer because it present the state of affairs exactly as it is.
WarKosign 09:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that's misleading due to convention and I think we should not remove information concerning what territory is actually disputed, and what is recognise as sovereign Palestinian territory.
The only way I can think to show undisputed territory that is not administered would be checkered green and grey. That way there would be no conflict with existing convention. However because of the nature of the territory it probably would't be very clear. For example the corridors that segment the Palestinian administered territory would not be very clear.
Another option is having two separate maps in the infobox: the current one (or something similar) and one which shows administered territory.
Or even just a map showing the location of Palestine on a globe (eg with a circle), without the zoom insert. Then in the body of the article, include administrative maps showing what territory is administered, claimed, and disputed.
Rob984 (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I think any of these solutions would work, I prefer a single map with a unique color marking the unique situation in the West Bank. Would yellow or brown do ? I wonder if there is some style guide for location maps. WarKosign 11:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Rob, If the State of f Palestine don't hold lands in your damn theory, why do you even show any lands for f sake?! You drive me crazy. your arguments are baseless and rediculus. You are doing everything you can to hide the Israeli hold in the West Bank just because you are a Palestinian supporter. I would like maps to show the Golan Highets and East Jerusalem without immaginary borders and I want all of the maps to show the PNA so people will see "where" is Palestine but it doesn't happen and me as an Isareli citizen can't do anything about it, but you? You are using unbased non-related arguments to show a map who gives 0 important information.
You are talking about stuped armistice lines? Palestine agreed to split the land to A B and C. In other words, Palestine agreed that area C won't be Palestinian at all and if any Palestinian held lands in this place, Yasser Arafath is the responsable, because out of dozens of offers to get 40%-91% of the West Bank as an Independent State he decided to take only the offer who gaved him AUTONOMY in 40% of the land and give 60% of the land to be administrated by Israel while in it 100,000 of your precius Palestinians, these are the only land owners in Area C. THe rest was empty, 60% of the West Bank was empty.
If you could please give me one source that explains how in the love of the mother (AND I AM JEWISH) that Area A is occupaid and not owned by The "State of Palestine" which is Palestinian National Authority#Transition into State of Palestine the new name that Abu Mazen gave to the PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY I will be thankfull but you didn't gave any source to anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 12:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This file shows some ways to show disputed territory. We could apply one of those ideas to the green-grey scheme. I will see what I can come up with tomorrow. Also I think this discussion would benefit from some wider input. Rob984 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Good find. Looks like this guide tells us to use solid red for marking A and B areas and Gaza, and striped red for market disputed (which is defined here as "claimed or controlled by other states", which seems to apply) for the rest of the west bank. Unless you want to stick with the definition that whole of West Bank and Gaza are considered occupied, on which case we could use striped red for all the territory but then we would lose the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled claimed areas. It also recommends to use a vector image which I don't know how to make, so I'll ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps.WarKosign 21:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Well @Rob984: it seems that we didn't advanced too much. I made this one to illustrate why this scheme will not work (in my opinion) and forgive my Inkscape skills.--
Map of Palestine for talk page.png
TUBS already made a good map with his shceme and his version is much better then mine but still the small enclaves get lost inside the stripes.. I think that a dark green(or red) for the A and B areas, Lighter green for claimed and maybe striped green on disputed (in your terms of what is "disputed").
Palestinian controlled areas (zones A and B, C hatched) in Israel and in its region.svg
Bolter21 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: well?
I think the stripes cause loss of detail. We could respect the color scheme and use dark red and pink, but drop the stripes for clarity. WarKosign 09:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
'Looks like this guide tells us to use solid red for marking A and B areas and Gaza, and striped red for market disputed (which is defined here as "claimed or controlled by other states", which seems to apply) for the rest of the West Bank'
Any map along those lines is still going to falsify the reality that A/B/C are all 'occupied', (b) that 'striped red' does not indicate 'claimed or disputed' at all. Israel can and regularly does, enter, meddle in, take land in B, and also penetrates in regular military operations C, disregarding your little map niceties. That is Israeli POV pushing. The map is simply trying to naturalize an Israeli bid to annex C, by asserting that Israel and Palestinian claims are equally subjective. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani: No sir. The Palestinian National Authority (Commonly known as the State of Palestine) is an autonomous entity inside the West Bank. Area A is all residential areas and some core areas while Area B is mainly nothing and farms, which is partolled by Israeli soldiers. Area C is 100% under Israeli controll while the 170,000 Arabs living there (mostly Beduins) also live under Israeli controll. The State of Palestine acually exist as a sovargion nation accuarding to this article, although it declared it self while being occupaid and somewhere in 2012 just changed it's name, therefore the State of Palestine acually never controlled Area C because the State of Palestine was only declared in 1988 as a goverment in exile and only in 1994 they acually controlled some lands. If you want to show the whole West Bank as claimed by the Palestinians, you need to change to whole article to the Idea of a Palestinian State rather then an acauly page on a sovargion Palestinian State giving the fact it was created only in 1994 and not before the West Bank was conquered by Israel. If you want to put a map which describes the State of Palestine you have to show what lands are under Palestinian law and jurisdiction and what lands are not, else you are just trying to hide the Israeli hold in the West Bank and reality it self, in which Palestine controlles only 40% of the West Bank.
You don't know anything about the topic (confusing for one, a Political Body like the PNA with a State, which is ridiculous, like saying Likud is the State of Israel) in legal terms, and therefore this is pointless, since it only leads to forum opinionizing. The above is all WP:OR. Wikipedia works exclusively by reference to reliable sourcesNishidani (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
State of Palestine doesn't fully control any lands and never had, since it was declared in 1988, so there can be no normal location map showing lands of the state with occupied parts.
Instead we can show a map with two kinds of lands associated with the state: those under partial control, and those claimed for future control. WarKosign 11:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Connecting up the dots not linked themselves in sources in WP:OR. some sources say that the State of Palestine is a sovereign non-territorial state. Police supervision or military control of an area is not ipso facto sovreignty, and therefore it is quite fatuous, not to speak of POV-pushing, to link the provisory areas of control with the sovereignty accorded in international law to a state. The only point of this mapping exercise, as I see it, is to insinuate a delimination of Palestine's potential sovereign extent in the future before that has been legally determined, and as such, it is a preemptive exercise in furthering a n Israeli POV that would claim interim sovereignty over land to which it has not legal title or legal claim. Unless one can come up with specific textual support for the assumption being made in this kind of map, it is WP:OR for a 'State of Palestine' defined territorially. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you propose not to have an map whatsoever for State of Palestine ? Note that the current image displayed in the infobox is not a usual location map, the caption says "Territory claimed by the state", and it is sourced. There is no problem to support the map of the actually controlled territories. What is OR, overlapping one map on top of another ? I believe the requirements are far more lax for user-created, and I do not see how such a map can be disputed. WarKosign 14:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is pointless adding a map to what we already have, since there is no existing neutral map for 'The State of Palestine', as opposed to maps of the 'Palestinian territories', whose topological dimensions are known, and can be objectively mapped.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani:In case you never read a word about the conflict, I must remind you that the State of Palestine is no more then the Palestinian National Authority following the fact it is the new name of the Palestinian National Authority since 2013. Look at This, Do you see the last PM? It says "(Became the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine)". The State of Palestine is more of a political body and the Palestinian National Authority is more of a state. Why? Becuase before 1994, the State of Palestine was just a group of Palestinian Groups, mainly the PLO who established a goverment who controlles nothing and only in 1994 when the Palestinian National Authority was established, the goverment wasn't the govener of the PNA but most of the people that were in the goverment, were also in the PNA's goverment. In 2013, the PNA and the State of Palestine merged into one thing: The State of Palestine, well.. exept for the fact Palestine has two active goverments working as two de-facto entities trying to unite as one goverment (The Gaza Strip and the West Bank). And nevermind how many times you will say that "135 members of the UN and the holy see recognize Palestine", it doesn't change the fact that Palestine is not a legal state following the fact they are acually vetoed by 3 of the 5 permenent members of the UN who claim they want an agreement that will establish the State of Palestine and not a one side move that will destroy Palestine and Israel togather. Following all the things I"ve said, I think that if we are showing a state who was maybe recognized by Asian, African and South American states but failed to be legit by the Western World and 3 of the Big-5 who all have veto power, we should show them as we showed SADR in the map, they also have 45UN members who recognize them.--Bolter21 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That's just barroom chat, for wiki poiposes. Show me a respectable scholarly source that identifies the State of Palestine as the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia for example...--Bolter21 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source.Nishidani (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but WP's sources normally are. Here and here, for example. WarKosign 07:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Good. You have one source (AP via Haaretz and Al Jazeera citing WAFA, the same source) noting that the PNA now officially calls itself the State of Palestine. Your map includes in the State of Palestine Gaza, which is not ruled by the PNA (which is by the way no longer elected democratically), but a democratically elected party, Hamas. Your map is saying that the PNA qua State of Palestine includes Gaza, which is contrafactual. The PNA doesn't exist in Gaza, and a map that conflates these complexities to imply the two are under the PNA/State of Palestine authority falsifies the reality. Your map is also implying, against what Erekat said the same day in connection with this 'symbolic' (Haaretz) declaration, that the 'disputed' areas are not , as they are in law 'occupied'. See Erekat's statement attached to the source, glossing it:

'"Palestine is a country under occupation. What was Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Korea, Philippines between 1939 and 1945 - nation states under occupation. Today, the state of Palestine is officially a state under occupation. It has 192 member countries that recognise this and a nation state, Israel, which is the occupying power; these are the new realities."

In the world's nd the State of Palestine's interpretation, the West Bank is under occupation. By rewriting this to imply, with the term 'disputed' (disputed only by Israel) that the belligerent occupier has a claim on a par with the people whose land it occupies, is an obvious distortion of the legal and physical realities.
Three days before the Normandy landing, de Gaulle established a provisional government of France. This did not mean that his declaration asserted sovereignty in Algiers: it meant that sovereignty declared in France's liberated overseas (north African) possessions was coextensive with sovereignty over France, even though it was occupied. The attempt here to transform the de jure situation that Israel is a belligerent occupier of the West Bank into a 'legitimate a actor' on a par with the legitimate heirs to that territory, both being said to 'claim' 'disputed territory' outside of the townships over which, nota bene, the PNA/State of Palestine still does not exercise sovereignty, since it fails on all of the criteria for sovereign control. This is an obvious POV push, and should have no place on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" -Nishidani - the one who had a significant contributions to over 200 pages. If you have forgot, Wikipedia only cite and merge reliable sources into articles.. you know, those [1] you"ve added probably thousends of times. This argument last for almost a month because the ones who don't accept what me and Kosign are saying refuse to argue and enjoy their veto power over this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with the rule I cited. When I add material to Wikipedia, it is sourced. That means that each edit shows to a reader where my addition comes from, an external source, which is considered reliable. It is not Wikipedia which lends reliability, but the sources that compose it. And learn to sign your edits.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that there's a significant difference between Palestinian control over Gaza and the West Bank territories ? Makes sense. We could mark them with different colors and label accordingly. WarKosign 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
A bit more complex. The intention is to make a map of the state of Palestine which however is not recognized by the occupying power, which uses interchangeably the name Palestinian Authority, which which has no security or territorial control over Hamas-ruled Gaza, and which lost the 2006 legislative elections, and is ruled by a President whose term has expired for some years (his declaration postdates the expiry of his mandate), whose control over what tidbits of the West Bank fall under his technical civil and military jurisdiction is not sovereign, and whose legl dimension for A is defined variously as 2%(Oslo 2) Sharm el Sheikh 2 (24) or (OCHA) 18%. A map cannot include even Area B, since it has mixed control. If you include in the map Gaza, which the State of Palestine/PNA doesn't control or exercise even limited sovereignty over, then logically one could claim that the whole of the West Bank should be incorporated per international law, since the Palestinian state/PNA equally claims as its rightful title, as heir to the territory defined as 'occupied' by a belligerent power. Israel in this scheme is on a par with Hamas: both govern land the 'State of Palestine/PNA' claim as their own.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
How many different types of area (by current control) do you see within the lands claimed by State of Palestine ? We already established that the state doesn't have full physical existence on any land, so there can be no regular location map. Instead the map in the infobox shows the area claimed by the state. In my opinion it is more useful/informative to also show on that map areas where some level of control has been achieved. While the model that I was proposing (single color for any area where Palestinians administers their civilians in some form) is simplistic, I think it's better than not showing this information. 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: (Question) I won't comment on whether or not this map should be included as of yet since I can't quite keep up with the discussion, but would the map scheme you are proposing be somewhat similar to that on Iraqi Kurdistan? I'm not supporting or opposing, but only asking so that I can establish a clear understanding of your proposal. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Elspamo4: I don't know if the geopolitical situation is anything alike, but the map looks like what I meant - areas in different shades indicating different types/levels of control or aspiration.WarKosign 10:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Here Greyshark09. It was discussed whether the West Bank is "disputed territory", and whether undisputed occupied territory should be indicated. No consensus to change current map. Rob984 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2015[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough consensus against moving the articles. Regardless, even if the result had been no consensus we still would have stuck with the status quo. However, there did seem to be a reasonable level of support for having a dab page at the base location, so there should be no prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of moving Palestine (disambiguation)Palestine and Palestine to Palestine (region) (or some variant). If anyone does propose this, please make sure it's a correctly formatted multi-move RM. Also I know some people might be irked that I've just procedurally closed an RM arguably about this at Talk:Palestine, but frankly you should have waited until this one had closed – don't reopen that one either. Jenks24 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Since it has been recognized by the United Nations and two thirds of the world's sovereign states, most references to the word "Palestine" refers to the sovereign state. The demonym "Palestinian people" refers to citizens of this state. The current region of Palestine is now "Israel" so the names should reflect the reality. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. In modern usage, "Palestine (state)" is not less notable than Palestine (region). The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Palestine" is not the ancient cultural region especially in modern contemporary sources. Khestwol (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, if this article is not moved to "Palestine", then I agree with the below suggestion by Oncenawhile. Make the base title "Palestine" the location of the disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The current titles are WP:ASTONISHing. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 03:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A few factual corrections to the nomination:
  • Palestinian people refers to the people defining themselves as Palestinians wherever they are in the world, and only about a third of them live in the West Bank and Gaza, probably not all of them are citizens of the state. There are significant populations in Jordan, Israel and in many other countries all over the world.
  • UN and international recognition of the state does nothing to establish whether it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, what matter is - what would an average person expect to find under "Palestine" when looking it up in an encyclopedia. A google (or google books) search for "Palestine" gives results referring both to the historical region and the current state-to-be, it is hard to tell which is more prominent.
  • Israel is located only in part of Mandatory Palestine, the other part is claimed by the State of Palestine. There are broader definitions of historical Palestine, which include parts of modern Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. WarKosign 07:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Particularly the first point - many, if not most, Palestinians are refugees who descend from the region that is now Israel (previously Mandatory Palestine), not the State of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Having said which, a very similar situation exists with:
Yet all of these have their primary topic as the modern country.
I am not aware of any other modern country which isn't the primary topic at that name in wikipedia.
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the difference is that Palestinians derived their name from the name of the land, while presumably it was the other way around for the peoples you listed. WarKosign 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes for Armenians and Somalis, no for Azeris and Moldovans. Azeri / Azerbaijan was adopted for the nationality / nation only in the early 20th century, in reference to ancient Atropatene, and Moldov(i)a was a Danubian Principality named for the Moldova river. Azeri and Moldovan are therefore the closest parallels. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Region of Palestine is still more notorious than the State of Palestine. As a proof: to distinguish both and avoid ambiguity, we often find the wordings State of Palestine to refer to the State. Eg: [1], [2], [3], [4], ... Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: In general, I oppose this. One of the premises is incorrect: the "Palestinian people" does not in general refer to "citizens of State of Palestine", but inhabitants of historic Palestine, much of which is Israel now. Kingsindian  13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
See comments by Oncenawhile below, which I agree with. Kingsindian  14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no evidence that the state is the primary meaning, and the current title is natural, recognizable, precise, concise and consistent. This is the usual way to disambiguate the two, such as at official sites like [5][6][7][8][9]. DrKiernan (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have to oppose for now because there are too many variants for the name of modern-day country and I don't think there are enough authoritative sources which omit any qualifiers before 'Palestine'. I'm basing my vote mainly on the name designated by the UN. Al Jazeera ([10] [11]) is also known to use 'State of Palestine'. Elspamo4 (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the change as the word "Palestine" is nowadays usually used to refer to the State of Palestine. Glen Spearleat (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
    (does not apply to you personally!) Maybe it will flatter to someone from editors or corresponds to his desire, but we have to consider that such renamings are in fact a contribution of Wikipedia in promotion of idea that "the word "Palestine" is nowadays usually used to refer to the State of Palestine. IMHO, this is a not-NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per official name of the State of Palestine, and not to confuse the object subject with such multi-valued term as Palestine.
  • Oppose. It's like Ireland. The historical and broad meaning is the more basic one. That might change in the future, but the Palestine/Israel issue is far from resolved. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point, although for Cyprus, we do the opposite (well, not quite the opposite - it is currently a bizarre and confusing hybrid). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A couple of other examples which also do the opposite: Sudan (region) and Guinea (region). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate I think this has been discussed before, but I have felt for a while that the term Palestine confuses a lot of people, and disambiguation might be best. Perhaps the primary example of this in wikipedia is Macedonia, which I think works quite well. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis. Kingsindian  14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I too strongly agree with Oncenawhile. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Palestine is the common off-hand name and needs to be addressed as such. "State of Palestine" is awkward.--Sιgε |д・) 21:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per many support reasons given above. Pandeist (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The name Palestine is associated with the land. The people that decided to call themselves after the land come second, and the name they chose for the self-declared state comes third. WarKosign 16:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per many reasons given above.--Opdire657 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reason we have Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno Karabakh Republic and also Ireland and Republic of Ireland. The state is named after the region and the region itself consists also the Green Line, where Israel currently sits. --Bolter21 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prefer to consider the ancient Greek and Roman use Primary. The current setup is not astonishing because no reasonable reader knowing even a little about any Palestine thing would not know that there is significant geography and history to Palestine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Failing that, if there is not PrimaryTopic, Palestine should be or lead to the disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I agree with your second proposal, I strongly disagree with your first. 99% of people fully recognize 'Palestine' as the State of Palestine; the issue, simply put, is that it is not documented in enough reliable sources (hence my 'oppose' to this rename.) Elspamo4 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
100% of your 99% will know that the State of Palestine is associated with the place. 95% of them will appreciate that Palestine is an ancient place. The other 5% should feel appropriately informed. My preference for respecting original and historically long term uses over recent history is that this encyclopedia should be seen first as an historical document in progress, and far less as a record of current affairs. Even if the current affairs is intense and has been for decades. that said, yes the disambiguation page idea might be the most agreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
While I disagree over which title should take precedence in regards to the term's historical relevance, I think we do agree that we find common ground that Palestine should be disambiguation page, correct? Elspamo4 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. On Wikipedia, articles that are named "State of <name>" (All pages beginning with "State of", and use "hide redirects") are used to describe former regimes ("was a"), where "<name>" is usually the main article for the current state ("is a"). State of Palestine appears to be the only article with this name format that describes an existing state. +mt 04:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of 206 sovereign state names, only 9 begin with "State of". Official names of the rest typically begin with "Republic of" or "Kingdom of", and indeed when the name of the state is unambiguous the name of the article is the unofficial name. As was pointed out before, whenever there is ambiguity between the state and the land - such as in cases of Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the official name of the state is used as the name of the article. WarKosign 07:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"Whereever there is ambiguity between the state and the land"?? Why did you ignore all the counter-examples already given in the thread above: Syria (region), Sudan (region), Guinea (region), Cyprus? And your Kingdom of the Netherlands example is wrong - that is done to differentiate the country of the Netherlands from the sovereign state which also includes three Caribbean islands.
Please don't mislead the thread. Let's just agree that wikipedia is not consistent on this issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree --Bolter21 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support To leave the article with it's current name would be to create a wiki neologism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Then why Ireland is the Island and not the Country even though the Republic of Ireland's official name is "Ireland" (Unlike Palestine, whose official name is "State of Palestine")?
Same with Nagorno-Karabakh, in which the region gets the name and the state don't.
We also have Congo in which the name leads to the disambiguation page and not the countries (RC and Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Palestine (the region) is much older then Palestine (the state) in all matters. Palestine the region was named in the 3rd-4th centuries BC while Palestine the state is a de-jure state that was proclaimed in 1988. SOP is still a de-jure thing since the Palestinian Goverment have authority (and not sovereignty) only on the Arab settlements in the West Bank while the Gaza Strip acts as a seperate entity with it's own administration. --Bolter21 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see my comment just above this. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment - the edit warring over Ireland's name has an even longer history than the naming conflict at issue here. Let's eliminate inconsistencies one at a time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose moving State of Palestine to Palestine, however I support moving Palestine to Palestine (region) per WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The region is not "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". "Palestine" is an ambiguous term with two primary meanings and should therefore direct to a disambiguation page. Rob984 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Palestine has far more meanings with far more history behind them than the current state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Palestine" as primary title[edit]

Shhhhwwww!! Here you made "Palestine" a WP:BOLDTITLE, implying that it "is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject". As you can see in the move discussion that you initiated, so far most of the editors disagree with this notion. If the unofficial name should appear in the lead at all, it should appear second. WarKosign 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this for now. The edit was certainly not "minor". Also, it needs further discussion. Kingsindian  10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I forgot to comment on WP:MINOR: "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit". Marking an obviously controversial edit as minor creates the impression that you tried to sneak it in without anyone noticing. WarKosign 11:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine" and "Palestine (region)"[edit]

A move request, that conflicts with the one open above, has been opened at Talk:Palestine -- (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of Palestine is under discussion, see talk:Palestine (disambiguation) -- (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"partially recognized de jure sovereign state "[edit]

I think this is a really poor description. It is equally applicable to Israel, or even Taiwan.

First, while 135 (70%) is technically "partially", it's also more precisely "widely", ie, "recognised by most states". "partially" suggests a minority of countries recognise the state.

"de jure sovereign state"—what does this actually mean? The State of Palestine is recognised by 135 UN member states; therefore, 135 UN member states recognised that the State of Palestine posses sovereignty. Sovereignty is about the right to govern, so the statement: "the State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state" is perfectly accurate. No need for the ambiguous, undescriptive "de jure" nonsense.

Of course, that statement could also apply to Israel, or any other state. So how do we actually explain the status of the State of Palestine?

"the State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state with partial control over its territory"

I think that is a much more descriptive than the current lead sentence. Thoughts?

Rob984 (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Partial control over its territory ? What is this territory, exactly ? The state has no defined borders, it can't be said to have any territory at all. De jure means "according to law", since it is a state on paper only, lacking many attributes of a "real" state, such as defined borders and any degree of control over the territory within these borders. WarKosign 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if Palestine has 5 recognizers or 192, it is a partially recognized country. Unlike the State of Israel, China, Cyprus and other countries without recognition from all UN members, the State of Palestine is blocked via recognition following the fact 3 of the 5 permenent members of the UN's security council have veto power among another 55 other states who don't recognize Palestine. Kosovo is also Widely recognized with 108 recognizers but Kosovo lacks the recognition of 2 of the Big Five and therefore is designated as a "partially recognized state". The same goes to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is also recognized by 39 members, and especially by it's neighbors on the African continent who allowed it to join the African Union. Those two also controll lands as a sovereign independent partially recognized states. On the other hand, Palestine doesn't controll lands as a state but as an authority via the Palestinian National Authority, that said, the PLO was accepted by the UN as an observer member to represent the State of Palestine and therefore are a de jure country. --Bolter21 15:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's focus on the de jure part to begin.
WarKosign, that's not exactly correct, is it now? I assume you have determined that from the Declaration of Independence in 1988, which proclaimed a "State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem" and "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be"?
That was 30 years ago.
In 2011 the Foreign Minister stated:
"We are not going [to the UN] for a unilateral declaration of the Palestinian state. We declared our state in 1988 and we have embassies in more than 130 countries and more countries are recognising our state on the 1967 borders. The recognition of the Palestinian state is a sovereignty decision by the countries and it doesn't need to happen through the UN."
The state stated it's claimed territorial extent in its application for UN membership in 2011:
"I would like to inform you that, before delivering this statement, I, in my capacity as President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, submitted to H.E. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations an application for the admission of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders, with Al-Kuds Al-Sharif as its capital, as a full member of the United Nations."
As an observer state in the UN, the State of Palestine is permitted to pursue legal rights over its territorial waters and air space; and has the right to sue in regards to its sovereignty over its rightful territory in the International Court of Justice, and to bring crimes against humanity and war-crimes charges, including that of unlawful occupation of the territory of State of Palestine, against other states in the International Criminal Court. How would this be possible if "it can't be said to have any territory at all"?
On 31 December 2014 Palestinian President Abbas signed a declaration in which Palestine recognized the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for any crimes committed in the Palestinian territories. Again, if it has no territory, how is this possible?
Following the recognition of the State of Palestine as a non-member UN state in 2012, the official designation used in ISO 3166-1 (which defines codes for the names of countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest) for territory was changed by the Organization for Standardisation from "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" to "Palestine, State of". These codes are derived from the United Nations Terminology Bulletin Country Names, or Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division; and they refer to a designated area.
"it is a state on paper only"
So the National Council, embassies, government departments, the local Governorate administrations are "on paper only"? There is an administration currently governing Areas A and B which is recognised by 135 UN member states as having sovereignty over that territory, but you think the state lacks "any degree of control over the territory"?
We agree on one thing: "de jure" implies there is no territory. This is clearly nonsense.
Rob984 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of "partially recognized". 70% may be the majority of countries, but most states are recognized by virtually all other states, so we have an exceptional situation here. Also Palestine is still in the difficult process of establishing it's status in the International community. About the "de jure" part. If that implies it's only a state in name there should be good reasons to let it remain in the article text. One of those could be that Palestine has essentially no real control over the territories it governs, but it will be quite hard to make that stick i.m.o. so I lean towards letting that part go. There is a defined territory (West-Bank, including East-Jerusalem and Gaza). I know of no country that recognizes Israeli sovereignty beyond the borders of 1949 armistice agreement (Green Line). The State of Palestine doesn't have full control over all of it, but even in the parts where Israeli troops are present, some tasks (education, local government) are performed by the Palestinian Authority I believe. So yes partially recognized, scrap "de jure" but keep sovereign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm convinced by the argument for the "State of Palestine is widely recognised as a sovereign state with partial control over its territory." it is accurate and fits the present facts.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not avoid "widely" and "partially altogether and just name the numbers? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rob's suggestion. Khestwol (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hebel, Because Palestine currently fights for recognition. And I did some readings and for the De-Jure part I am bit netural, I would say as an Israeli that the Palestinian National Authority is not the State of Palestine but this is much more complicated then that. for the other one, "Partially" is an important statement because it explanes the State of Palestine's legal situation. Same thing was done with Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Kosovo which has recognition problem alongside De-Facto controll. If you want, you can add: "Partially recognized (135/70% of UN members recognize Palestine as a sovereign country but USA, UK and France impose a veto on it's independence)", maybe better wording and puting it in a [note] like thing can be made but you get the idea.--Bolter21 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think the five members of the UN Security Council, or even the UN at all, determine "independence" or "sovereignty"?
The State of Palestine is already widely recognised. The reason it "currently fights for recognition" is because it is being occupied by another state. "partially recognised" certainly does not explain that fact at all. Rob984 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "partially recognized" is misleading and as mentioned here, Israel and others could be described like that too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI, on the French wiki, we finally chose to talk about proto-State. Palestine has numerous features of a State (starting by recognition) but lack some others (eg a define territory and a control of this). It is a State de jure -partly- but not really de facto -with some exception-. So it is a State in building: a proto-State.
Some sources (in French) use that wording. I don't know in English.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rob984: The state is not occupied, it never was. The state was declared in 1988, while the alleged occupation happened in 1967. Saying that "the state is being occupied" contradicts facts and common sense.
Palestinian territories are considered occupied, and the state claims them as their own. Many UN members recognize this claim and agree that it should be used as a base for negotiations that would determine the actual territory of the state.
In 1993 Palestinian National Authority was granted administrative authority over 39% of the West Bank. While it is likely that these territories will be part of State of Palestine, this is not a certainty and can't be presented as if they already are.
The state has limited recognition, missing critical recognition of the UN members with veto power, we can't describe it as a "real/complete/proper" state in wikipedia voice. Pluto2012 idea of "proto-State" sounds reasonable, since it's exactly what it is - an entity that may become a usual state one day, but lacks many critical properties at the moment. WarKosign 06:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I will reiterate:
The UN has recognised the right of the Palestinian people to "self-determination", "national independence" and "sovereignty in Palestine". It has also recognised the State of Palestine as "representative of the Palestinian people".
In 1967 the UN designated the West Bank and Gaza Strip "occupied Palestinian territory", and designated Israel as the "occupying power". See this UN Resolution.
Israel's actions in settling in the West Bank are widely regarded as a violation of international law, per the Fourth Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".
135 states recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine applied for UN membership on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine gained UN Non-member observer state status on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
The State of Palestine administers ~31% of the combined area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (27% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip), although about ~70% of this territory is in "joint Israeli-Palestinian security control".
In 2013, the United Nations Terminology Bulletin Country Names, and Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division gave the West Bank and Gaza Strip the designation "Palestine, State of".
The concept of sovereignty has little do the the UN. There are many reasons why the State of Palestine would like to achieve full UN membership, but sovereignty is not one. The Republic of China is regarded as a sovereign state despite lacking UN membership. Recognition and sovereignty are two separate, but related issues. The State of Palestine lacks full sovereignty over its territory because it lacks the power to govern its entire territory without any interference from outside sources, not because it lacks recognition. Like I said, it's sovereignty is recognised by the UN and 135 member states. Israel similarly lacks full recognition but is still considered a sovereign state. Referring to the state as a "de jure state" or "proto-state" is not helpful. It is ambiguous, tells the reader very little, and in the case of "de jure state", is misleading.
Now like I said, the state lacks full sovereignty over its territory, however this doesn't mean it is not a sovereign state. Many states lack the power to govern their entire territory due to occupations: Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. Many other states have territorial disputes meaning they lack the power to govern certain parts of their claimed territory.
So, we seem to be clear on these things:
  • the State of Palestine is a partially/widely recognised state (I will set aside the "partially"–"widely" argument for now)
  • the State of Palestine lacks full-control over its territory
"a partially/widely recognised sovereign state with partial control over its territory" is clear on both these issues.
Rob984 (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
If you prefer, you could change "territory" to "claimed territory":
"partial control over its claimed territory"
Rob984 (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"The State of Palestine gained UN Non-member observer state status on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders" - false. See UN's press release. Borders were never specified, they are envisioned to be "agreed", "internationally recognized" and "clearly defined" in the future. 1967 lines are mentioned as a basis for negotiations. Only Kuwait and Syria explicitly called to use 1967 lines as the state's borders.
So we seem to be clear on these things:
  • The State of Palestine has no defined territory
  • The State claims West Bank and Gaza as its territory
  • It has partial control over parts of the territory that it claims. WarKosign 11:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what's wrong with:
"a partially/widely recognised sovereign state with partial control over its claimed territory"
Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
What you wrote is correct but incomplete. Sources refer to it as a de-jure state, or proto-state. It is wrong not to mention such an important fact in the lead. WarKosign 11:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
de jure state is misleading, as it suggests, de facto there is no state. Both those terms are ambiguous and weakly defined. What exactly does either mean? What is the "important fact" that they convey? Rob984 (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources define a de jure state as one that has no actual control, such as a government-in-exile. If applying that term to the State of Palestine is correct, then it is a very broad term. "partial control over its claimed territory" is much more precise, and also negates the need for that term. Rob984 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the Palestinians are anything but contained? At an extreme it can be commented that even a prisoner has partial control on what goes on in h' cell. I think that it may be of more relevance to talk of a level of partial control of governance.
I agree with WarKosign that there is no definitive view on the territory of the State of Palestine but also question any certainty in regard to any definitive view of the territory of the State of Israel. Nothing is decided and everything is POV.
Could a text present something such as or perhaps based on:
  1. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطينDawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial control of governance within claimed territories."?
  2. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطينDawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial of governance up to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements."?
  3. "The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطينDawlat Filasṭīn) is a partially recognized state with partial of governance within territories up to the 1949 Armistice lines."?
GregKaye 11:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
"Is there any evidence that the Palestinians are anything but contained?"
Is this a joke? The State of Palestine has a National Council, embassies, government departments, membership of many international organisations. It fully administers ~10% of its claimed territory. A further ~20% is largely governed by the State however is under "joint Israeli-Palestinian security control". The Palestinians are under an occupation, not "contained". Comparing people living on land widely recognised as belonging to them to convicts in a prison is absurd.
"there is no definitive view on the territory of the State of Palestine"
I think everybody agrees with this. There are 58 states which do not recognise the State of Palestine. The wording that is proposed does not contradict that: "a partially recognised sovereign state with partial control over its claimed territory". The State of Palestine has laid claim to the occupied Palestinian territories as defined by the June 1967 borders.
"with partial control of governance within claimed territories"
This is incorrect. Like I said, it has full control of governance within ~10% of its claimed territory. It also seems like a clunky re-word of what I proposed.
"territories up to the 1949 Armistice lines"
"up to the demarcation lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements."
Why is this relevant? In this sentence, we are referring to the state's status. The introduction later refers to its claimed territorial extent: "The State of Palestine claims the West Bank and Gaza Strip". "claimed territory" is sufficient for the lead sentence.
Rob984 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not see, when the Israelis have complete control of (for instance) the Allenby border crossing and when they can do things like build high walls and fences in the midst of disputed territories, that any claim of "control" means very much at all.
One thing that I question is the fairness to the Palestinians in just presenting the West Bank and Gaza as territories of relevance in the wide picture of Palestinian claim. I have regularly heard of the Palestinians making general claim with regard to Jerusalem as capital with no specific mention of East Jerusalem. Negotiations, should they again be undertaken, are in the context that the only internationally agreed long term plan for Jewish and Arab states was the 1947 UN partition plan. We cannot speculate on the size of the final areas that the Palestinians and Israelis may eventually draw up but I do not think it encyclopedic to limit the negotiating potential of either side. We have to give fair representation of relevant facts. GregKaye 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
That's because the 27% of the West Bank under Palestinian control is surrounded by Israeli administered areas. The Gaza Strip is fully administered by the State of Palestine and the state has control over its border crossing with Egypt. Infact, despite the blockade, under international law the Gaza Strip is not occupied:
“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
–Article 42 of the Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907.
This may also apply to Area A of the West Bank where the State of Palestine has full civil and security control. Even if the state never gains control over the border with Jordan, it does not necessarily mean it would lack control of the territory it administers in the West Bank. South Africa does not control Lesotho for example.
To put in perspective: Israeli military personal have no right to enter Area A of the West Bank, or the Gaza Strip, and the State of Palestine could legally detain them in that territory.
Nobody is speculating on the size of the State of Palestine. And few states recognise the State of Palestine's or Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The fact is, no other state claims the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and the State of Palestine claims and controls 30% of its combined area. It is recognised by 135 UN member states. You question the fairness of referring to this territory simply as "partially controlled claimed territory"? Really? How the hell is that not "fair representation of relevant facts"?
Rob984 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not have strong feelings on what it should be called, but there is a lot of WP:OR going on here. Firstly, it is not up to editors to determine the status of occupation of an area. Gaza Strip is indeed occupied - all of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is part of the "occupied Palestinian territories" (see ICRC page here) for just one example, many more can be given. The Area A, B, C divisions are primarily administrative, and has no role in determining status of occupation. What should be done here is to check how reliable academic sources describe Palestine (do they call it "partially recognized sovereign state", etc.). International law is complex. Wikipedia editors should not be making such determinations. Kingsindian  16:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well actually it's widely disputed whether the entire Palestinian territories are still occupied (the UN designated the territories as occupied in 1967). However this was reaffirmed by a UN resolution in January 2012 (I provided a citation in a previous comment).
Many sources refer to the State of Palestine as having "control" over the Gaza Strip and Area A and B of the West Bank (see the BBC profile for example). "partial control" is simply summarising: "no control over Area C, civil control over Area B, and civilian and security control over Area A and the Gaza Strip", as the lead sentence should do (the BBC uses the term "limited control", however many others use the term "partial control"). I have already provided sourced statements indicating the State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories on the basis of the 4 June 1967 borders.
Rob984 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
To make something clear, there is actually no dispute that the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is occupied, in fora which matter. Of course individual people and countries make opposing arguments sometimes. The citation which you provided in your earlier comment gave your interpretation of Article 42, which is a totally separate matter. This is precisely the kind of WP:OR which I am talking about. The ICRC is the custodian of the Geneva conventions, it consistently refers to Gaza as occupied everywhere, for instance. See this for another example. Anyway, to come back to the point, there is indeed de facto control of parts of West Bank by the PA. As I said above, I do not have strong feelings about this matter. Any phrase widely supported in the academic literature is acceptable to me. Kingsindian  10:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have amended the wording to something I think will be uncontentious: simply not mentioning the extent of control. I don't think this is ideal but it's certainly better than inferring the state is equivalent to a government-in-exile. Rob984 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in State of Palestine[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of State of Palestine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Slavik2001 p.60":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Partially de jure[edit]


Instead of Partially de jure, what about proto-State ? Pluto2012 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I support it. We need good sources for this, though. WarKosign 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are many that can be found through googlebook.
This one is a "nice one" among them: [12].
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the term is unclear (it doesn't tell readers what it means) and I can only see it be used by few sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are two terms here; Partially recognized (Which is Palestine who currently face a recognition problem that blocks it's legal independence and the 'de jure' part which indicates that the State it self doesn't controll any lands, but the lands are controlled by the Palestinian Authority and also the Gaza Strip is currently seperatly controlled by Hamas' government. The 'De Jure' part is disputed by the users here, the partially recognized is not, becuase regardless of the number of recognizers, the fact that Palestine is blocked via recognition give it the same status of Kosovo and Western Sahara who both have many recognizers. Israel, China, Cyprus, Armenia and other countries with unrecognizers don't meet any problem with recognition, they are considered legal sovereign countries.
By the way, there is already a discusion going around this specific subject in this talk page. --Bolter21 20:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The term has now been inserted by Rob984. I think the term is far too uncommon to be used and more common and clear terms should be used. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But what? I think we should just describe it in plain English: "state with partial control over its claimed territory", but this is a opposed by a number of editors. "de jure state" usually refers to governments-in-exile, so hardly describes this state. "proto-state" is not very descriptive either, but at least it's not misleading. Rob984 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM and Rob984: The problem is not the term, the problem (as I see it) is that the users doesn't have full agreement on what exactly is the State of Palestine. I claim that the State of Palestine is limited to what it was before 1993 plus the previlege of the observer status in the UN. This claim can be reflected in the article's section Government.
I belive that the term De Jure is the right one but currently there is not enough acception and also not enough soruces. I suggest the add a section to explane this and I think maybe a short sentence will replace the De Jure/Proto in the lead section. But first we need to have a sourced consensus about what is exactly the State of Palestine since we are lacking an agreement on what is even the State of Palestine. --Bolter21 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Restructuring Proposal[edit]

Please comment on the need to restructure the three overlapping and jumbled articles (previously proposed at Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal):

The particular issues to be resolved are:

  • All three contain largely overlapping detailed sections on History and Politics
  • The SoP article does not contain a number of sections which would be usual for a country article, such as:
(1) Geography and Administrative Divisions (currently in PT and PNA)
(2) Demographics (currently in PT and PNA)
(3) Foreign relations (currently in PNA)
(4) Communications and Transportation (currently in PNA)

Please comment on the proposal to move these sections between the different articles to create more cohesive and focused articles.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the need for a restructure, beginning with a clear definition of a scope of each article.
There is a dispute whether SoP was actually established. There are two positions:
  • PNA was established by Oslo accords, and those prevent it unilateral actions, such as requesting UN recognition of SoP, therefore SoP doesn't exists and areas A and B are still controlled by PNA.
  • PNA's rename to SoP was legal, SoP replaced PNA for every purpose so areas A and B are legally controlled by SoP.
If we merge the articles on PNA and SoP, we can avoid the argument which of these positions should be represented in wikipedia voice. A single article would be detailing the history of PNA and its current disputed name and partial international recognition as SoP. Demographics and geography still belong with PT, which are the physical lands, regardless of the political entity in (partial) control of them.WarKosign 13:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we could just slim down the Palestinian National Authority article to focus on its administration of the Palestinian territories during the period it existed. I also think we should avoid imply that "Palestinian territories" is a superseded description. Even if many organisations and countries now refer to the territories as the "State of Palestine", the term "Palestinian territories" is still widely used, particularly by those who do not recognise the state. The topical scope of the State of Palestine and Palestinian territories will overlap, however Palestinian territories has a broader scope including the Israeli administration, and much more detail on pre-1988 history. Rob984 (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that something should be done about the overlap. I will read the articles a bit more and give more precise suggestions soon. My own viewpoint is to merge PNA and SoP, since SoP is the direct successor to the PNA. The Gaza/West Bank division creates problems, but those can be handled in one article better, rather than two articles. If a total merge is not done, I support the proposal of Rob984 in slimming down the PNA article considerably. Kingsindian  14:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Further to the discussion at Talk:History_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Requested_move_12_September_2015, I propose that the first step of this restructuring is a merging of the extremely long and detailed State_of_Palestine#History into the History_of_the_State_of_Palestine article. Before I embark on this, does anyone have any thoughts on what level of detail should remain here? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be one or two paragraphs summarizing the subject, about the length of a typical article lead. In fact, it can be the lead of the history article transcluded here. WarKosign 13:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have completed the merge of those two history sections. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now moved a bunch of overly detailed information into the relevant sub articles.
The next step is bringing the relevant information in from Palestinian territories and Palestinian National Authority. Any thoughts on how best to do this?
@Greyshark09:: But Area C has never been under the remit of the PNA? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09:: What you wrote is factually incorrect. PT are a piece of land, PNA is a political entity that claims the land but never fully controlled it. One was never a nick for another. WarKosign 11:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
PNA was an autonomy (not fully sovereign geopolitical entity) [13]. It used to be referred as "oPt" by the UN from 1999 to 2013; now this entity is under "State of Palestine" brand in the UN with the status of "non-member observer state" on one hand, but it is still not fully sovereign on another - in many aspects functioning as an autonomy of Israel (not having currency of its own and not really controlling its borders, etc).GreyShark (dibra) 12:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't make sense. There's more going on inside the Palestinian territories than just the State of Palestine, and the description is still widely used despite the redesignation. Furthermore, much of the territory is administered directly by Israel and there are Israeli settlements. We must present the de facto situation from a neutral perspective. That is impossible at an article named "State of Palestine". Rob984 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Rob984:, I was inclined to agree with you, but then I started thinking about what "Palestinian territories" implies and why the ISO made the change. The term Palestinian territories has all the same connotations as State of Palestine in terms of Palestinian "ownership" or similar. State is just an upgraded political form versus Territory. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Even with the claim that the SoP is the PNA (Which is wrong), the Palestinian controlled lands are just 40% of the West Bank, which is the significant part of the Palestinian Territories. You can't exclude tha fact half of the Palestinian territories are under Israeli controll and label it under "State of Palestine". Doing so will be a complete non-sense. It is not like there is an article about Cyprus that talks about the country recognized within the whole island and an article for Northern Cyprus, the Palestinian Territories existed long before the State of Palestine and long before you could"ve even claim that both articles should be merged. --Bolter21 14:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @Bolter21: - thank you for providing the exact example that supports my proposal. The Cyprus situation is exactly consistent with the merge proposal. You just haven't read the Cyprus article properly!!! Oncenawhile (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Called here by a bot. Uninvolved previously. The land is the land. Palestinians live on the land. The articles cover the same territory. There is confusion because there is dispute as to the status of the "state" and the "authority" and the land itself, in terms of what it is considered, right? But in the end, it's the land itself that is the land itself, and Palestinian people are living on the land. That is the ground reality, right? A state is a construct, and whatever the place is called is a construct. There are different groups with hugely differing agendas in regard to what the land is called, and how it's categorized. Wikipedia should describe this conflict, not engage in it. This is not the place for this battle to be fought, but rather a place where we must try to transcend this conflict. We must show what the conflict looks like from a bird's eye perspective the best we can. I support the merging of the duplicated material into a common page where it can be edited singly, and referred to in some way that allows the conflict to be outlined in a meta-way. Does this make sense to others? SageRad (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@SageRad:, I totally agree. This is exactly what we should do here, and across wikipedia in Israel-Palestine. That is what WP:IPCOLL intends to do. One of my favourite examples of transcendence is the introduction to Jerusalem#History.
Per above, I would like to see State of Palestine merged with Palestinian territories, and then we can describe each of the various disputes from there. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two opposing POVs, whether State of Palestine's claim on Palestinian Territories is justified or not. By merging the two articles wikipedia would completely endorse one view and discredit the other, so this merge is absolutely unacceptable per NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." WarKosign 07:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Opposing POVs exist throughout wikipedia. The solution is not to have parallel articles. The solution is to have an explanatory paragraph in the lead. The title of the merged article should be decided per wikipedia policy at WP:TITLE. I will start a discussion below. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Title for a merged PT and SoP article[edit]

Should consensus decide that a merger of the "Territory" article with the "State" article is warranted, we will need to agree on a name for the combined article. A paragraph in the lead will then explain the alternative viewpoints. Please provide a view for the combined title (either "State of Palestine" or "Palestinian territories") below, with explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, since they are two different entities - physical piece of land and a legal/political entity. If it is decided to merge them, the merged article should be called "Palestinian Territories" as the older and better known entity of the two. Inside this article we can have a section about the declaration of the state made in Algiers in 1988 claiming the land and about partial recognition this declaration received since 2012. WarKosign 08:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "Palestinian Territories" is not a geographic term but an unofficial term without formally defined borders. It began to be used widely post 1967, but has never been formally accepted. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I oppose: Accuarding to UNOCHA the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 1. The CIA factbook have a detailed definition to the West Bank as all the areas out of the green line are the West Bank 2 while there is no dispute about where is the Gaza Strip 3. There should be an article for the Palestinian Territories about the areas occupied by Israel and semi-administrated by the PNA and the self proclaimed Hamas government in the Gaza Strip --Bolter21 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Without even opening your link I can tell you that you have misrepresented it. Various UN related organizations use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". And the rest of your comment is WP:SYNTH. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian Territories is a term used by stupid facist zionists who doesn't want to say occupied. Palestinian Territories and oPt is the same name. There can't be a merge between the oPt (call them whatever you want) and the State of Palsetine since those are two different things. --Bolter21 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually i had a dimmed idea you represent the Zionists yourself. Apparently i was wrong (lucky for your soul, saved from the eternal fire or WikiHell).GreyShark (dibra) 21:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What is eternal fire or WikiHell? Some exotic unknown place? --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as mentioned before - Palestinian territories stands (more or less) for the Palestinian National Authority. ISO referred to PNA as oPt during 1999-2013, while Palestine was represented by PLO at the UN (as organization); In 2013, all three concepts changed into SoP - the Palestinian entity became "non-member observer state" in the UN named "State of Palestine", which is sufficiently different than the organization status of PLO; the ISO changed oPt into SoP in parallel to that decision. Palestinian organizations are also utilizing this since.GreyShark (dibra) 21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Greyshark09:, I agree with that. So why do you oppose the change? Surely it's the logical outcome of the facts you just described? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I claim that oPt=PNA; you claim that oPt=SoP. This is radically different.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. Two questions (1) how do you reconcile your judgement that PT≠SoP with the ISO, which made exactly that change?, and (2) isn't PNA specifically defined by Oslo to cover only A and B? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Formal move but not a significant one since most media continue to use the orignial name. SoP is misleading, a better and much more reasonable change would be to merge oPt article with Israeli-occupied territories --Bolter21 14:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense, first of all, the usage of oPt has decreased since 2013; secondly, oPt is refers to an "Administrative division" in Google (referring to PNA), while SoP refers to the state (UN non-member state since 2013); third, oPt referred only to the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli-occupied territories is a term for all areas conquered by the Zionists in the June War (WB, GH, GS, SP).GreyShark (dibra) 20:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And for the second question, the Aslo agreements draw first lines of Israeli withdrawal and were later changed by Wye River Memorandum, Hebron Protocol and Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. The PNA was supposed to exist only for 5 years anyway. --Bolter21 14:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
my answers: (1) ISO made the change from oPt to SoP -> meaning that oPt became SoP; similar to Southern Sudan Autonomous Region (2005–11) (not listed in ISO) becoming the state of South Sudan (listed in ISO as state). (2) PNA control - area A: citizens+security+civil matters, area B: citizens+civil matters, area C: citizens (civil matters under Israeli Civil Administration in coordination with PNA). Hence PNA had presence in areas A+B+C in a varying manner, but this is sematics - the same is with SoP.GreyShark (dibra) 20:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support Although the proposal is chanceless, I support, because the Palestinians deserve an article from their view, like the Israeli's have. I observe that SoP, OPT and PA are confused. The OPT are part of the SoP anyway, whether occupied and disputed or not. The PA is not a territory at all, only the government of a tiny part of the OPT. As I have argued here, the PA still exists beside the OPT. Israeli claims can be discussed in the article anyway. --Qualitatis (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of all states on earth recognize the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders. Only a neglectable percentage of the world population supports the ISraeli occupation and even the majority of the population of the three dozen states that shamefully do not recognize Palestine does not support their respective government in that opinion. So, it is long overdue to merge OPT into SoP to meet the common sense and political reality. Not merge is POV and a political choice of Wikipedia to adopt the Zionist narrative. --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The Israeli point of view is that East Jerusalem is part of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital, Golan Heights is part of Israel and Palestine is a nation lead by ex-Terrorists (PLO). Now, is this reflected in Wikipedia? No. Palestinians might deserve many things, that's not Wikipedia's concern. The claim that "oPt" is part of the "SoP" is rejected by 58 members of the UN. --Bolter21 18:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
A typical map, reading "Palestinian Authority"
This is a your private POV interpretation, very distant from sources. PNA was not just a government - it was an autonomous region (geo-politic entity with population, area, government, parliament, security, etc.), established under the Oslo accords. How can you say it is not an area if many maps read "PNA"?GreyShark (dibra) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)GreyShark (dibra) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok maybe the last one is not "Israel's POV" but the rest, Jerusalem and Golan Heights, are things that are the Israeli POV since they are lawed. --Bolter21 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You persist in your skewed view. I doubt if I can make you wiser, but study the Oslo Accords or consult people who are able to understand them. You added a map that shows the area that is supposed to be governed by the PA, and it does not cover the OPT, so? --Qualitatis (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You can say that PNA was/is an area - but this area is only a part of PT, so the two are not identical. In the map you can clearly see substantial areas in the west bank that are part of PT but were never under PNA authority.WarKosign 08:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This map is wrong, I can't even say what is it based on. The current map in Palestinian Authority is the map that describes PNA today (Since no changes were made since withdrawal after Second Intifada and withdrawals from Gaza]] --Bolter21 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
A typical map, reading "Occupied Palestinian Territories"
@Bolter21: "Wrong" and "right" can say someone, who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules. There is no wrong and right, there are only reliable sources. And the sources show almost identical maps of PNA and oPt - meaning those two are the same.GreyShark (dibra) 17:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Qualitatis: There are maps which show oPt/PNA as whole WB+GB [14] (including Israeli annexed parts); there are maps which show oPt/PNA as areas A+B+C [15] (excluding Israeli annexed EJ and GE); There are maps which show oPt/PNA as areas A+B only [16]. Your theory doesn't explain this.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL. Legends of maps are really not RS. --Qualitatis (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

State Sponsor of Terror[edit]

Is Palestine a state sponsor of terror? SHould that be added? (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Give a source that SoP sponser terror. --Bolter21 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
We need sources for every claim, and for such a claim they need to be pretty good. WarKosign 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There is one acusation that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO (i.e State of Palestine since 2013) sponsered terrorist attacks against American civilians between 2002-2004 (During the Second Intifada). Such acusations can be on all attacks in those years since some of those attacks were done by PLO's various millitary wings. But that was during the Second Intifada which was over for over 10 years + I don't think this is enough evidence to acually claim that SoP is sponsering terrorism, which can be contradicted with the fact SoP work with Israel in order to capture Hamas personal in the West Bank. Yet, accuarding to Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, 89% of Palestinians support rocket attacks (Which are considered terror) against Israel. Still I don't think this is enough to acually write something about it. --Bolter21 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP"[edit]

See Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Enough with this fictional "2013 transformation of the PA to SoP"

--Bolter21 11:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine link[edit]

please change "Palestine#Etymology" to "Palestine (region)#Etymology"

Yes check.svg Done - as it linked to a DaB page not an article - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2015[edit]

Please add Mawtini as the de-facto anthem, majority of Palestinians consider Mawtini to be their anthem more than Fidai. Mawtini was written by the Palestinian nationalist and poet Ibrahim Tuqan in the 1930s. It was the national anthem for Palestinians since then and then the PLO came along with their anthem Fidai. DrNein (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl and Palestine[edit]

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency". Theodor Herzl, founder of Zionism, from his book "The Jewish State", 1896.--MichaelURSA (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)