Talk:West Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon West Bank is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see West Bank at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.



A good report by UN. I will try to rewrite some of the text. A lot is out-of-date. Settleman (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edit[edit]

I would propose here to add in the opening paragraph the following addition (here highlighted only for easy reference): "The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit or Cisjordan[2][3] is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, so-called in that it lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories." Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. The lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Right now, the first section of the article, "Etymology," doesn't seem to have any corresponding content in the lede, so the inclusion of at least that much would seem reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So, if there are no further objections, I will make the addition tomorrow. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I dont think thats worded correctly, it is a political title that separated what Jordan claimed as its territory. It isnt simply a geographical name, and I dont think it is accurate to say it lies on the west bank of the river and I dont think the wording so-called is appropriate for an encyclopedia. nableezy - 21:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, even though the name today has "political significance," its name is a reflection of its location, geographically speaking: viz., the lands on the west-bank of the Jordan River. This is important, as it places the name in its first proper context, later to be associated with its "political context." The English words "so-called" are often used in encyclopedic language when defining meanings of words in their ordinary and less-convoluted language.Davidbena (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In the context of the Jordanian division of Cisjordan and Transjordan yes its name was a reflection of its location. Beyond that it isnt. I understand what the English words so-called mean, Im saying it isnt good writing in that context. nableezy - 05:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Other writers, more notably User:John Carter, thinks that "so-called" is appropriate language in this particular case. So, that makes you the lone dissenter. Still, to please you, I'll try to find a better word. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The article here, which seems to be from a fairly good reference source, says the name only came into common usage after the 1967 war. It might be better to roughly follow it. The Britannica article here doesn't seem to have any discussion of the term, although it is comparatively short. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, the Etymology section and History section can be merged. A new "early history" section of the history section might be able to describe the historical scope and name of the area, and indicate that the term WB became common only recently. If that were done, maybe the lede might be revised to have a section or paragraph describing the history and historical names of the region. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In English usage, West Bank is understood to be the geographic area occupied by Israel in 1967, and earlier by Jordan. It doesn't 'lie on the West Bank of the Jordan River' David, and that formulation would imply an even thinner 'West Bank' than the one we have, in connotatively restricting its dimension to the uninhabited area contiguous to the River. A third of the West Bank runs contiguous to the Dead Sea, not the Jordan, furthermore. I always think overrefinement of a definition, esp. in this area, just opens a can of worms. Of course, one can experiment with various modulations. So far, though open-minded, I can't see an improvement. I was told as a child 'don't touch a cow pat', because they don't stink if left untouched. (Of course I touched one, because one just had to learn how to scoop them up and use them as ammunition in our endless skirmishes. And covering an enemy in the other gangs with cow shit was more civil than shying a stone at them!, though that too was par for the course, and not subject to retaliatory threats of being shot dead, though of course we did also use air-rifles at times!) Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your statement that the "West Bank" doesn't lie on the west-bank of the Jordan River is blatantly incorrect. Everyone knows that the political entity known as the "West Bank" lies, geographically, on the west-bank of the Jordan River, and the words do not restrict or give limits to that domain. Therefore, the edit is indeed relevant as it explains the origins of the word.Davidbena (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh come now, David. My point is one of visual and topographgical accuracy. Not 'all of the West Bank runs along the western bank of the Jordan. The parts where I like to take a dip as others think of baptism do. But when I am looking West from the northern Dead Sea, floating on salt, I am not looking over the western bank of the Jordan River towards the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Everybody knows? I didnt know that, and I think I have done more reading than what would be considered normal on this topic. A river bank extends how far? Because the West Bank extends further than what I think most people would call the end of the west bank of the Jordan. nableezy - 17:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That is just an anomaly that comes with "etymological names," and is still relevant to its description, as far as the bulk of territories west of the Jordan River are concerned. If we wanted to be precise we could say "most of the West Bank's territory lying to west-bank of the Jordan River."Davidbena (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
That is anb example of what I tried to hint at about 'opening a can of worms' when you tinker, Shakespeare would have said, when you 'think too precisely on th'event,' to get precision where the general sense is quite obvious.Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No "can of worms" has been opened. It's as simple as "apple-pie," and, what's more important, it adds more clarity to the subject matter.Davidbena (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
David, reread the objections. You think I am playing a game? I'm extremely serious about language and points of usage, and your proposal is problematical for its referential imprecision.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Except it doesnt, it ignores the historical reason for the name and in its place says it simply lies on the bank of the river and that is why it is called what it is called. The story is not that simple, and using that simplified and inaccurate story is misleading. Im not opposed to including why it is called what it is called in the lead, just not there where it, in my view, disrupts the flow, and not in a way that is inaccurate. nableezy - 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, Nishidani, how would you phrase the question regarding the etymology of the phrase, and also, I guess, I would be curious about whether you think maybe revising the etymology section into the history section, maybe in reference to early pre-1947 usage of the term and pre-1947 terms for the area. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The term is generally thought to be used in its modern acceptance after Jordan announced it would or had 'annexed' it after 1949. The term itself was used, as one part of the dyad 'East Bank (=Transjordan)" - "West Bank" (West Bank) emblazoned on stamp issues by the Jordanian government about 1951 onwards. The 'West' here thus meant, the 'Western' part of the Kingdom of Jordan in that country's usage. You can find 'the western bank of the Jordan' in early travelers' accounts, and even in war books from WW1 (F. M. Cutlack, The Australian Flying Corps in the Western and Eastern Theatres of War 1914-1918, Angus & Robertson, 1923 p.108. But these are just geographic indications, and lack the integral territorial sense of the phrase we now use.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The name etymology is in the article and per WP:LEAD may be included. The origins of the name seems to be important enough to be included quite early in the lead. Settleman (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Im not arguing that, Im arguing where and how. Im saying what was added is inadequate to the point of being inaccurate, and it didnt belong there. nableezy - 19:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Hebrew wiki, prior to 48, Israel as a whole was called 'the West Bank' which was then reduced after 1948 to what we currently know as WB. This makes the proposal inaccurate and should be mentioned in the etymology part (based on RS). Settleman (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so let me ask all of our dissenters, "WHY is the 'West Bank' called the 'West-Bank,' and, let's say, not the 'East Bank,' or 'North Bank,' or 'South Bank.'????" I think that I've made my point. The reference here is to the country that lies on the west-bank of the Jordan River, and which, by nature, stretches also a little ways to the south of that geological place. This is important as far as etymology is concerned, and it does not take away from its new political connotation.Davidbena (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The country that lies on the West Bank of the Jordan river is Israel/Palestine, since both Israel and the residual Palestine that is the West Bank have their boundaries on the Jordan river. Look at a map.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Davidbena have a point in that it should be quite early in the lead but at the moment, even the text in the section isn't right and should be updated. Then, we should have this discussion again. Settleman (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I found several sources saying the term was coined by the Jordanians ((RS?), same, ynet). Hebrew wiki basically says it was used by the brits for the area between the jorddan and sea and relating the two is probably WP:OR. IMO, it should be integrated into the lead throught the jordanian part should be emphasized. I'll try and get the body right. Settleman (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Does the Hebrew wiki provide any examples of pre-1948 British use of "West Bank" as a name? My memory is not what it used to be (so far as I can recall) but I can't think of an example of that anywhere in the large amount of British documentation I have read. Of course the descriptive phrase "west bank of <something>" occurs but that is just English narrative and not a name being used; also in common English the "bank" of a river refers only to land quite close to the river and not everything in that direction. (OED: "The shelving or sloping margin of a river or stream; the ground bordering upon a river.") There are some (but quite few) uses of "Western Palestine" in the 1920-ish period. As far as I know, "West Bank" as the name of a region arose after the Jordanian annexation. Afaik (correct me if I'm wrong), Jordan in Arabic called it "West Jordan" and the part east of the river "East Jordan". There is a problem with writing "on the west bank of the Jordan River" as it violates the normal meaning of "bank", but that's an easy problem: just write "to the west of the Jordan River". Zerotalk 00:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there's confusion going on with the term 'Cisjordan'? Serving as an example contradicting what the Hebrew Wiki is claimed above to say, near the top of the Mandatory Palestine:Transjordan FAQ created by Oncenawhile, there's a quotation from a British Colonial Office note written just prior to the 1921 Cairo Conference in which the areas to the west and east of a line running down the Jordan River are referred to as Palestine and Trans-Jordan.     ←   ZScarpia   02:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: it gives an example for the whole land between river and Mediterranean being called West Bank but does not give an example. My research always showed it was first used by the Jordanians. I believe the difference is in hebrew the term cisjordan (עבר-הנהר) would refers to Jordan. With the sources we have, I think it would be best for now to attribute the name to the Jordanians. Settleman (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice math there in the opening paragraph[edit]

"It has an estimated population of 2,676,740 (July 2013).[6] More than 80%, about 2,800,000,[2] are Palestinians, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank" I guess that's what happens when you combine numbers from different sources TFighterPilot (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is what you get when you don't read correctly. It said 2,676,740 + about 300,000 Israeli settlers, and that was not counting East Jerusalem. So the sources are in agreement, since 2,676,740 is almost the same as 2,800,000 and 300,000 + East Jerusalem is almost the same as 500,000.
In any case, I replaced all the sources by information from only one source, to keep it simple. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lead Paragraph and the Need for Balance[edit]

It is hereby argued which paragraph gives the greater balance in a disputed issue; a lead paragraph that reads:

  • (a) The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit) or Cisjordan is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. In contrast, the State of Israel has officially declared the same territories "disputed territory," and that the people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there, being the cradle of Jewish civilization.[source] The West Bank shares boundaries (demarcated by the Jordanian-Israeli armistice of 1949) to the west, north, and south with the state of Israel, and to the east, across the Jordan River, with Jordan. The West Bank also contains a significant section of the western Dead Sea shore.

Or a lead paragraph that reads:

  • (b) The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit) or Cisjordan is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. The West Bank shares boundaries (demarcated by the Jordanian-Israeli armistice of 1949) to the west, north, and south with the state of Israel, and to the east, across the Jordan River, with Jordan. The West Bank also contains a significant section of the western Dead Sea shore.

Any opinions here, fellow editors? Of course, all statements will be backed-up by sources. In the case of Israeli claims, we have cited an Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs document, seen here, whereas in the second paragraph its citation will be deleted.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel's view on this is a bit more complex. The Israeli High Court has repeatedly said the West Bank, excepting East Jerusalem, is held under belligerent occupation and that Israel's authority for its various orders and regulations in the West Bank come from the law of occupation. Regardless of that, the main issue here is one of due weight. The view that the West Bank is anything other than Palestinian territory held under Israeli occupation is a minority view and it cannot be given the same weight as the super majority view. Your version does that. nableezy - 21:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
David. I reverted you more or less for the reasons given above. Politics documents are one thing: they express a state interest. Legal documents, both internal and international, have another order of reality - they express an international consensus, Israel accepting more or less in this regard the international determination. To state that one party's political view, when the world overwhelmingly accepts that it is occupied in legal terms, is way undue. In all these leads we by customary practice state the international view, and add that this is disputed by Israel, and this is what we have. Put in an expansion:

that the people of Israel have ancient ties to the territories, as well as a continuous centuries-old presence there, being the cradle of Jewish civilization.[source]

and you will set off a larger expansion of the fact that the Palestinian authority have ancient ties to their land, with a millennial old majoritarian presence there, etc. etc. Not to add that adjunctive phrasing for balance would be to insinuate that the indigenous majority did not have an ancient claim as well.(Personally, I expect if Greece were to filch that logic it would with equal force demand that Turkey cede all of its littoral from the Black Sea to the Bosphorus down to the Mediterranean border with Syria, because all of the cities there are rife with the archaeological bedrock of ancient Greek settlement, since at least 1,200 BCE. The only breakdown in the analogy that Zeus had rivals, while Yahweh's were buried in the interstices of the Tanakh:)

Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nableezy and User:Nishidani for your replies. I appreciate it. It is true that even amongst Israelis the subject is disputed, but even dissenting Israelis make-up the minority view amongst Israelis. The larger question involves world public opinion. The object of this edit is not to dispute the fact that the territories are disputed, when, in fact, they are. But to say in the lead that this contended issue known as the "West Bank" dispute has already been resolved and that it is now called the Palestinian State - in spite of what is known to the contrary that even the Palestinian Authority in these regions coordinates its activities with COGAT (the Israeli defense ministry unit which manages civilian affairs for Palestinians in the West Bank and liaises with Gaza) - does great disservice to this issue, besides being inaccurate. Our edit only seeks to obviate a distorted image of the "West Bank," and it is still in keeping with WP:Due weight, albeit, a disputed issue.Davidbena (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the editors above, that the issue does not need to be in the very first paragraph. It is mention at the end of the lead in the most appropriate place. Which is why I, just like Nishidani, reverted to the previous version, which is IMHO more balanced. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Debresser. But what will you say about the lead's use of the words Palestinian State? In reality, the State of Israel (whether occupier or not) decides what happens in the so-called West Bank territories. Isn't it pushing the issue just a little bit too much to call the West Bank a "Palestinian State," at the exclusion of its current administrators, and so as to prejudice a resolution of this dispute? This is why, in my humble opinion, we're still in need of changing this current edit, either by omitting "Palestinian State," or by adding the edit that I have suggested. Can we get an opinion from User:Zero0000 who is usually vociferous on these kinds of issues?Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not Zero, but my view is it should not say State of Palestine except that the state claims the territory. I am emphatically not a fan of the changes in a number of articles to supposedly upgrade in the Palestinian territories to in the State of Palestine. The state exists, that can't be disputed with the recognition it has gained, but it does not control any territory and it shouldn't have anything listed as being 'in' it. But it should say Palestinian territories, because that is unquestionably a super majority view. nableezy - 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Your view is a good view, User:Nableezy.Davidbena (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I always read with full force the and in PT and the State of Palestine as adjunctive in a disjunctive sense, i.e., the Palestinian territories are one thing - there is also the additional 'thing' called the State of Palestine, whether it be the autonomous entity in Area A which a bipartisan agreement underwrote complete Palestinian control of (not really autonomous: Israel went back on its agreements re Area A, and enters and exits at will, without prior permission) or the statutory reality recognized by most of the world except for the usual diehard big shots. In any case, as someone who has never favoured plunking round 'State of Palestine' all over articles, Nab and David are correct. Wait a day, David, but if there are no substantial objections from other editors, you can take out the 'State of Palestine'. Debresser's remark also is commonsensical. As a general principle, where a POV clash is at stake in a conflicted area of wiki, we should go for minimalist synthesis, a sentence in two parts, or a short line for both views, and leave it to the read to go down to the relevant subsections where the details can be thrashed out.Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Nishidani, I'll wait a day or two and suggest a better edit according to your directives.Davidbena (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(b) is fine, (a) would not be acceptable as it is for it states the fringe view of Israel without ever mentioning the mainstream view that the WB is occupied by Israel. I don't see a problem with the wording in regards to Palestine but if we must change it, it could be changed to "and widely recognized as being part of Palestine". Sepsis II (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with this diff: now we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to material, IMO. (For a start: large parts of the world blocs access to, IMO they should be avoided ), Huldra (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
We really shouldn't write about Israel's claims to the land while deleting all information about Palestine, the nation which most nations recognize the WB as actually belonging to, in the lead. Sepsis II (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the diff from the last stable version. Ill take out the mfa bit as disputed, but the state of Palestine bit is covered above. I am not aware of any state that says that Palestine the state has any territory. If there are sources that say otherwise then please bring them forward. nableezy - 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I´m ok with the present version, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
As am I. Especially since this is what we had for a long time, and what we have on most West Bank-related articles. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: could you please explain why you say the article should say that the West Bank is widely recognized as being part of Palestine? I havent seen any sources supporting that, whereas I have seen many that say it is occupied Palestinian territory. Those two things are not equivalent. nableezy - 03:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They most certainly are not equivalent which is why both should be presented. As I've stated, many nations recognize the WB as a part of Palestine and I want this recognition to continue to be mentioned in the lead. Sepsis II (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you've stated, but you haven't brought any sources. You're arguing against everybody else here, so there seems to be consensus for the removal of state of Palestine. As such I'm removing the hysteric overreaction of tagging the whole frickin article because 3 words you want aren't in the lead. If you want that in the lead bring some sources. Or is that request not civil? nableezy - 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You think its appropriate to tag an article because it doesnt say something for which there are no sources? When there is unanimous agreement on the talk page, with a range of views from Huldra, Nishidani, myself to Davidbena and Debresser? But you dont get what you want so the whole article gets tagged? Somebody else revert that foolishness please. nableezy - 15:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy, relax, I work 80 hours a week, I don't always have time to source basic info, but your behaviour so far does make it hard to imagine working with you again. The complete removal of any mention of the State of Palestine from the lead of one of the two areas sought to makeup the state is not acceptable for me. No one with any knowledge of the conflict could even think for a second that SoP does not claim the WB and that nations have recognized the state on 1967 borders, and numerous passed UN resolutions have also joined the SoP with the oPT such as A/RES/67/19; "1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;", "Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,". It just can't be argued that the WB and the SoP are so weakly related that they shouldn't be mentioned together. Sepsis II (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My behavior? Seriously? Im the one that ignored multiple days of talk page discussion, made a vague wave to some unnamed source and then proceeded to tag an entire article over one phrase in the lead? Yeah, Im the problem here.

To the point. Yes, the state of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories, but the state of Palestine exercises no control over that territory, and it remains under belligerent occupation of another state. The West Bank cannot reasonably be said to be in a state called Palestine. You wrote [n]o one with any knowledge of the conflict could even think for a second that SoP does not claim the WB. I know that, I wrote above the most that can be said is that it is claimed by Palestine. As far as the UN resolutions, they dont say anything about the WB currently being in the state. It says that the state has a right to the Palestinian territories, it says they support a state that has that territory. They do not say that the West Bank is in Palestine. If there are sources that flat out say that the WB and the rest of the Palestinian territories are in a state called Palestine then fine, we should say that. But we should not be changing every instance of in the [occupied] Palestinian territories to in Palestine as a number of users have done over the last couple of years. A state is a political entity, not a place, and until it actually controls its territory it isnt a country and places are not in it. nableezy - 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Sepsis. You are making a moral argument. Parity of moral rights between Israel and Palestine is obvious, even though most editors on one side don't care to admit it. Parity of facts is another discourse. You cannot use an argument of moral parity to overwhelm the factual reality. Israel is a universally recognized state with recognized legitimate borders, whereas Palestine is a state whose borders, institutions, autonomy is blocked by a superpower and its Middle Eastern colonial ally. No one can pin it down One may not like that (I think it despicable), but using a strategy of saying whatever is denied Palestine must, by mechanical parity, be denied Israel is rhetorical, and we keep it off the wiki record. In the forseeable future, statehood in the full sense will be denied Palestine, though its right to act as though it were a state is almost universally recognized, except for the usual megalomaniac strongarming suspects and a few islets in Micronesia.
Let's get back to a working compromise. The objections above were to the phrasing:

' is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine.

The consensus was to remove the last bit. So one can propose writing a sentence such as :

'the West Bank is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, forming the bulk of the Palestinian territories. Together with the Gaza Strip, it is designated by the Palestinian National Authority as the area claimed by the State of Palestine. (René Backmann, A Wall in Palestine, Macmillan, 2010 p.209) while contended by some political parties in Israel as the object of either partial or total annexation.(Ilan Peleg, Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: Legacy and Politics, Syracuse University Press, 1995 p.29;Hassan A. Barari, Israeli Politics and the Middle East Peace Process, 1988-2002, Routledge, 2004 pp.20-24;Helena Lindholm Schulz, The Reconstruction of Palestinian Nationalism: Between Revolution and Statehood:New Approaches to Conflict Analysis, Manchester University Press, 1999 pp.52ff.)Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Change as the area where they aspire to establish a future State of Palestine to as the area claimed by the State of Palestine or something to that effect. We dont need to say "future" for the state. nableezy - 17:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Quite correct, adjusted. There is no doubt whatsoever that a state of Palestine formally exists, it just has a virtual humpty-dumpty existence (mostly as a Quisling government).Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the addition of both Palestinian and Israeli claims to the first sentence, and propose to keep the consensus version. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We have a consensus that goes out of the first line. There is no consensus about just a proposal that an accurate statement regarding both the State of Palestine claim and that of Israel's dominant majority go into the lead, somewhere. Another matter altogether. This incidentally is what is behind David's original proposal, combined with Sepsis's proposal . The only difference is that the two are neutrally worded as to claims, and set forth the respective intentions.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Im fine with your text Nish. nableezy - 21:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


I dont think that should be in bold or even in the lead at all. If it is to be included then perhaps formerly known as, but it isnt currently known as Cisjordan, at least as far as I know. Thoughts on removing that? nableezy - 03:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As an alternative name, it should be precisely where it is. Even if the name is not in current spoken use, it is still found in numerous written sources as a term that used to be in active use less than a century ago. Debresser (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Alternative name for what? That is the former name for roughly the same area. The current name is West Bank. Nobody calls it Cisjordan now. Is one going to call Pakistan "British India" because a century ago it used to be part of it? Kingsindian   06:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I take back my opinion. Upon closer inspection, the territories referred to when saying Cisjordan are larger than the region currently referred to as the West Bank. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed Cisjordan as an alternate name. Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. Kingsindian   15:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It is used in many European languages for the West Bank since 1949/1950. See the French article, the Spanish article and the Italian article for example. So this meaning creeps into English a tiny bit, but not enough to mention in the lead imho. I don't think it was ever a common word in English for the West Bank. More commonly, it appears in works of right-wing writers as a name for everything between the Jordan River and the Sea; they can't use "Palestine" for that since "Palestine includes Jordan". Zerotalk 02:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)