Wikipedia

Talk:State of Palestine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.228.185.2 (talk) at 03:29, 19 October 2023 (→‎Occupied Palestine?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 11 months ago by 71.228.185.2 in topic Occupied Palestine?
Learn more about this page

Template:Vital article

NPOV: State as Absolute Fact

Latest comment: 1 year ago67 comments8 people in discussion
Blocked sockpuppet account

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

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

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

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

Well you could try going through the talk page archives to see what has been argued before. I for one see no new arguments if your statement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please direct me to the responses in the previous discussions. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here is the first one (of many) [[1]], you can search for the rest yourself. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree the article’s title should remain State of Palestine. That was the subject of the first discussion. Which discussions address my points above? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If one accepts the article title, that would appear to render unsourced argumentation moot. What in the article requires to be changed and based on what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was about to say that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The vast majority of the international community recognises it but a significant minority doesn’t. Titles go by the majority. What else would you call it? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You do know that statement has just undermined any claim to wp:npov? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, it didn’t. See WP:COMMONNAME. The State of Palestine is the common name for the dispirited entity in question. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
See WP:PROPORTION if the majority of nations say it exists, it exists, no matter what a minority say, we do not engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is not a false balance. Many countries, especially most Western countries, reject the State of Palestine’s existence. This is a significant minority, which is the whole reason for NPOV’s existence. See this article from the BBC as an example[1]. The majority position is attributed as such and the minority position is stated. Rejection of the State of Palestine is not fringe, like flat Earth, freeman on the land, or climate change denial. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Another example: the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al-Jazeera writes in the lead of one of its articles: “By continuing its settlement policy, Israel is eliminating the possibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state.”[2]. If even Al Jazeera rejects the current existence of the State of Palestine, how can Wikipedia claim it as absolute fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not AJ, it is "Walid Abdel Hay" who appears to be some sort of student. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
He is a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies. That Centre for Studies is part of the Al Jazeera Media Network. Therefore, it is safe to say that the studies promoted by the Centre reflect the Network’s POV. If you are skeptical, I challenge you to find a study promoted by the Centre with a pro-Israel POV. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
In case you don't find that satisfying, here is something straight from Al Jazeera's news division: "The international community, along with the Palestinians, considers settlement construction illegal and an obstacle to peace. More than 700,000 Israelis live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem – territories captured by Israel in 1967 and sought by the Palestinians for a future state."[3] If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? RomanHannibal (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera rejects the concept that there is a current Palestinian state, how can Wikipedia write it as fact? Not sure why this needs to be repeated, in any case, AJ is not saying what is being alleged, it is not disputed that SoP claims the OPT for a state and that Israel claims to have sovereignty over East Jerusalem for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Virtually everyone agrees that the SoP (currently represented by the Palestinian Authority (PA) officially claims the West Bank the and Gaza Strip. This is not what I disputed.

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

There is no reasonable way to explain the full quote if you insist AJ affirms that a current Palestinian state. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sovereignty is in part disputed by Israel so what AJ is saying is correct until a future resolution. The State and the claim to territory exist nevertheless. Try reading some scholarly sources and consult the various Legal status of... articles such as Legal status of the State of Palestine. I do not intend to debate the meaning of a press article any further. And since, at the moment the only editor disputing the consensus is yourself, I don't intend to debate that any further either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sovereignty is not determined from the de jure situation (that’s the subject of Legal status of the State of Palestine). Sovereignty is determined from the de facto situation. De jure asks ‘should X’? De facto asks ‘does X’? RomanHannibal (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here[4]. This source explains the difference very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14630174.amp
  2. ^ https://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2012/05/201251394125380663.html
  3. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/26/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-illegal-settlement-homes
  4. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/de-facto
Apart from the fact that I am not asking for an explanation of the difference, Britannica is a tertiary source (ie no better than WP). Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
De jure and de facto are legal terms. Virtually nobody disagrees with the definitions Britannica gives. I just used Britannica because it explains the terms very well. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Britannica is also reliable, unlike Wikipedia. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't need an explanation of de facto and de jure either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
With that out of the way, let me now restate my argument. Is the SoP de facto sovereign (i.e. sovereign in practice)? The answer is pretty clear: no. Is the SoP de jure sovereign? (i.e. Should the SoP be sovereign?). Most countries and sources say yes, but a significant minority of both say no. Therefore, my version accurately reflects NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The recent RFC debated all these points already. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Back to the precedent argument, which is flawed per WP:CCC. Using previous discussions, please summarise the rationale behind the current version. If you cannot, the current version has no satisfactory rationale and should be changed in favour of my version, which I have extensively demonstrated to conform to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The previous RFC stands until there is a new consensus. I see no evidence of such at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Consensus is based on the strength of the rationale for a specific version, not the majority. Either you defend the current version, or you concede. Stop fillibustering. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
What's a "dispirited entity"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I meant disputed entity. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
For context, I believe this discussion started at Talk:Jordan#West_Bank_or_Palestinian_West_Bank? and specifically how the western neighbors of Jordan should be described in the intro. Erp (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

I believe my current argument is still alive and well right now. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Still waiting for input on article changes with sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I made my proposed changes. Per WP:LEAD, statements made in the lead need not be sourced if they are sourced in the body, which they are. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Reverted per recent RFC that you were already made aware of earlier. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
For some reason only part of the RFC is showing up, the rest of it is in Archive 17 Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lack of previous consensus is not an eternal prohibition against change. Let’s try to establish a consensus here. You dared me to be bold, I was bold, you reverted and now we’re discussing. Let’s focus on the substance, not the bureaucratic formalities RomanHannibal (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
We already have a consensus. The RFC specifically asked "Should the first sentence of the lead include the phrase de jure.." and the conclusion was not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
No consensus, the result of the previous discussion, carries lest weight than a consensus. And even consensus can change. So let’s argue the substance and not appeal to the weak precedent. RomanHannibal (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
An RFC is not a weak precedent and the RFC close needs to be properly read. Having adduced no consensus, it asks what to do when there is no consensus and concludes that WP:VERIFIABILITY is the key policy and by virtue of which, the verbiage "de jure" must go ..I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Consensus is a precedent which can change. No consensus is weaker than consensus, therefore I called it a weak precedent. It is deducable from sources that the SoP has no de facto sovereignty; therefore, it is a de jure state according to countries and sources that recognise it. Therefore, your verifiability argument fails. The actual reason why the current version stayed was because WP:NOCONSENSUS dictates that without a consensus, the previous version typically remains. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
And there is still con consensus. Do any of these sources use the term "de jure"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The sources above don’t recognise the SoP, so no. However, most countries and sources recognise the SoP. It is a fact that the SoP currently has no de facto sovereignty, so de jure can be derived. Additionally, it is explicitly stated in some sources. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then by all means seek a new consensus (and it's not my verifiability argument, it's that of the RFC closer and the previous version did include de jure). Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

I agree. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I decided to go to WP:DRN instead. Hopefully we get a third-party mediator to resolve our dispute. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Selfstudier, @Slatersteven and @Erp, I invite you to state your side of the dispute in the DRN. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

This convo has degenerated into classic WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. This needs to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are accusing me of the exact behaviours of which you are guilty. Stop it. The facts are on my side. The law is on my side. You are pounding the table but I won’t back down. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

As the mother once said watching a cadet parade, 'Everyone is out of step but my Johnnie'.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Did you read the thread? @Selfstudier‘s whole argument is that due to precedent, the existing version can’t change. But consensus can change and is not determined solely by a majority. Selfstudier couldn’t even defend the current version. Instead, he falsely accused me of incivility. That’s what prompted me to write that response. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have, per wp:v we say what wp:rs say. Even you admit it is recognized by most nations as a state, so it can be argued (as I have already) this might violate wp:fringe or wp:falseblance. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Before responding, I would like to congratulate you (@Slatersteven) on accepting the challenge. Thank you. (@Selfstudier, this proves the challenge was reasonable. Now please accept it or else you have effectively conceded this dispute.)
Now for the response. Many reliable sources, including sources 1 and 3 (one from BBC then one from Al Jazeera) do not claim the existence of the State of Palestine as an absolute fact. The staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera implicitly rejects the concept of a current Palestinian state (see source 3). These articles constitute verifications from reliable sources and prove there is a significant minority that doesn’t recognise the State of Palestine. Therefore, your objections based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE are unsubstantiated. Rather, I am arguing for the implementation of my version in order to avoid rejecting the significant minority view per WP:NOV.
@Onceinawhile, the UN is not a divine body which overrules all other sources. There are many reliable sources (including the BBC and the staunchly pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera) which don’t recognise the State of Palestine, which constitute a significant minority. The whole point of WP:NPOV is to prevent the rejections of significant minority views. RomanHannibal (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
For your convenience, here are the sources.
Source 1 (BBC): www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14630174.amp
Source 3 (Al Jazeera): www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/26/israel-approves-plans-for-thousands-of-illegal-settlement-homes RomanHannibal (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
None of these sources say what you claim they do. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes they do.
From source 3: “Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Middle East war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state.” The phrase “a future independent state” implies there is no current Palestinian state.
Fron Source 1: “Efforts to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the River Jordan and Gaza on the Mediterranean coast have been frustrated by the continuing conflict with Israel.” In simpler terms, all past attempts to create a Palestinian state failed. This implies there is no current Palestinian state.
Pro tip: read the sources before making a claim about them. CTRL+F is a valuable tool here. RomanHannibal (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

This is, frankly, silly. Statehood generally implies recognition, but that is not the ultimate arbiter. There are states with limited recognition, among which Israel (with 28 countries refusing to recognize it) and Palestine (with 54 countries not recognizing it). Even in the EU countries that withhold formal recognition, bipartisan parliamentary majorities have consistently urged their respective governments to recognize Palestine since 2014, France and Italy included. I.e. there is a political majority recognizing that it is a state, but the lack of a formal government passage reflecting that consensus. We all know the reason why this European anomaly persists, the US and Israel exercise a veto power which, however, cannot overthrow the consensus of 193 UN member states from recognizing that Palestine is a state. So we must persist with the farce: Palestine for the US, Germany and Israel must obtain Israel's consent before they accord it their recognition, and this notwithstanding the fact that it is the declared policy of Israel's longest-running PM that a Palestinian state will never exist, as long as he is the negotiator. We go with the UN consensus, just as we recognize Israel is a state despite the dissonant refusal of 28 countries to accord it their recognition. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Checkuser note: The OP is a now blocked sockpuppet. I’ll leave it to regular editors here as to if they feel anything is worth continuing to discuss. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Should be moved to Palestine

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

In principle, I would agree but because Palestine.
Same thing at ISO, you have https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:PS and https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:IN, The "short name" for the Republic of India is India but for State of Palestine, the short name is Palestine, State of :/ Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see now... Well, nevermind then.   13:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Terrorism

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Factually incomplete map

Latest comment: 1 year ago28 comments6 people in discussion

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

I disagree. The map is about claims not control, SOP claims certain territory and a part of that territory is claimed by Israel (East Jerusalem). That Israel occupies the claimed territory is covered in the second sentence of the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article should give a clear understanding of the current state of things from the beginning. Every other article on any nation shows both claimed and actual territories controlled by said nation, why should Palestine and Israel be exceptional? The only other exception I could think of is Ukraine, with the reason of the ongoing war, but in the case of Israel/Palestine there is a long spanning conflict and the current state of things had been relevant since 2005. CapLiber (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
They do? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
On the articles about the nations with disputed regions or border disputes, they do. CapLiber (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Odd as I can think of any number that do not, for example, Spain, or the UK or Ireland, or Sweeden or Finland or, but the list goes on., Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Probably because they either have no disputes or have only minor ones, not that they do not control 100% of their claimed border, which is the case for Palestine in the West Bank. CapLiber (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Every one I listed have a dispute with one of the other in my list, and you said "Every other article on any nation shows both claimed and actual territories controlled by said nation", it is clear that is not true, and you are now changing the goal posts. So with that, I can't do anything but oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
There is a fundamental difference. While Ireland dreams of controlling Northern Ireland, Spain dreams of controlling Gibraltar, Sweden dreams of controlling the Aland Islands, and Morocco dreams of controlling Spain's African enclaves, they accept that they don't and maintain strong diplomatic relations with the country that does. Only fringe nationalist movements disagree. Therefore, the claimed territories should be omitted from the map of the country or territory.
In the case of Israel-Palestine, the opposite is true. It is fringe within Palestinian politics to accept Israeli control and push for strong diplomatic relations with Israel. Therefore, there should be a prominent differences between controlled and claimed territories in the map of the State of Palestine. Closetside (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree here. The dispute is central to Palestinian politics, even to the very existence of the State of Palestine. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
A comparable example would be Taiwan, where arguably the claim to the mainland is slightly less integral to the nature of all the state's politics than Palestine's claim to the West Bank, and that article has a detailed map. Though it also offers a map of the actual administered area; maybe having both could be an option on this article too? AntiDionysius (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Per the second sentence of the lead, the entire West Bank (including East Jerusalem)/Gaza is occupied territory in international law and the occupied territory is equal in area to the territory claimed. I have added the sentence "All claimed territory is occupied by Israel" to the map, nothing more is needed to match up with the article/explain the situation for readers. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Selfstudier I don't think anyone is arguing that the article currently doesn't explain the situation. The idea (to me, anyway) is both to provide an visualisation of what the article describes, and/or to make the map more informative for someone who really is just glancing at it without reading much/at all AntiDionysius (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
One can reasonably assume that even a casual reader will read the caption. What else would one need to know? For the suggested map per the diff here, all the A, B and C (Oslo) has nothing to do with SoP, that and the pop up labels would only confuse such a casual reader, in addition to not being NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
What's the NPOV problem? AntiDionysius (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The attempt to explain via a map, topics that have entire articles devoted to them. The need is to keep it simple and wikilinked. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't strike me as an NPOV problem really; just a question of how we want to present information. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ireland doesn't claim NI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maps should be detailed. Many readers just look at the map while barely reading the article, even the lead. Closetside (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK so what about the land taken by Israel in 1948, is that not still claimed by Palestine, so should it not also be included? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If it turns out that the Palestinian claim to the whole Mandate Palestine territory is indeed relevant, then I'd suggest adding another map with the entirity of Palesitne's claims, like the article on Taiwan shows ROC's claims for pre 1949-borders separately from the actual controlled territory. CapLiber (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
So two maps instead of one, by the way, the pre-1948 borders are not "the whole of Palestine", but thanks for pointing out the HAMAS claim (to the whole of Palestine) so what we now have is (in effect) 4 separate claims, and it is not for us to determine which ones are valid (that is a violation of wp:npov). This level of complexity can't be done by maps in the info box. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I meant if the PNA pursues the pre-1948 borders (minus Transjordan), then this claim should be aknowledged in the infobox, if it is only claimed by HAMAS then it is irrelevant. HAMAS does not represent the State of Palestine in international institutions and doesn't execute authority on most of its de facto territory. CapLiber (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
It still claims it, and you have identified another issue, the PA claims some of the territories the Palestians control, and Hamas also claims it. So we have a three-way control issue. So again we go back to this is too complex an issue for an info box map. I disagree it's not irrelevant what Hamas claims, they are a party to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
They are not the State of Palestine, which is the topic of the article. Regarding the HAMAS issue, a caption noting they are in control in the Gaza Strip is simple and informative enough. CapLiber (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is an interesting question; the claim and control situation here in somewhat unique and doesn't fit into the usual map conventions. Israel doesn't formally claim the territory outside of East Jerusalem, yet Palestinian control (ie. effective sovereignty) is not firm even in the Gaza Strip. The current map does seem slightly misleading in the context of the map set. The proposed map may be a useful way to give a bit more insight into the unique situation. Alternatively, if the argument above goes that the entire territory is occupied holds, then perhaps it should all be in the usual lighter shade of green for claimed territory under outside control rather than the standard dark green. CMD (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Technically, all of Jerusalem is a Corpus separatum and the claim of neither is recognized although some countries recognize one or another. Would we try to explain the entirety of Status of Jerusalem by way of a map, I think not. I don't object to the shading suggestion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
My comment didn't address recognition, that's another issue which I doubt can be conveyed through a locator map. Control/claim only is useful in that respect, it just doesn't quite work as well here as it usually does. CMD (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mexico recognized Palestine

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

This is a strange one; the announcement seems solely to have come from the Palestinian side, but Mexico also doesn't seem to have repudiated it since June. It's sourced in a few places, but mostly fairly explicitly pro-Palestine and/or left wing publications. Unsure what to think AntiDionysius (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
This was already discussed, see archives. We need a clearcut statement from the Mexican side, until then, nothing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough AntiDionysius (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ramapoball (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Change the flag because the flag is wrong and I’m PalestinianReply
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Statehood

Latest comment: 11 months ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

See here. Consensus is that Palestine is a state. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The current entity sometimes called Palestine is simply not a State by any internationally agreed convention, and its status (as well as the status of the associated territories) is a subject of great contention. From the juridical perspective of the United States & Europe-- who happen to count quite a bit more than others in terms not least of power--, whatever it is, it is not a State. Labeling the entity as "Palestine" much less a state is not neutral, rather advocates a point of view and political position/aspiration. As well, it leads to a variety of confusions, including that this imagined entity is historically or otherwise equivalent to other historical, cultural or political entities such as Mandate Palestine.
See the two reference materials below. KenThomas (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I saw them when they were posted, if I recall they were also considered in the discussion I linked above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As far as I understand, there was an RfC about whether or not to include the qualifier de jure and as there was no consensus, the qualifier was removed. The word "state" itself was not the focal point of the discussion, but still the closing comment claimed consensus about this. I cannot find such a consensus when reading the discussion. I think we agree that a community consensus should be built upon an academic consensus. But where is the consensus, any consensus, about the status of Palestine? –St.nerol (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Legal status of the State of Palestine is linked in the article, in case you missed it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let me suggest two possible solutions:

  1. Simply remove "a state" from the lead sentence. The article would begin Palestine, officially the State of Palestine, is located in the Southern Levant region of West Asia. The purpose of statehood is clear from the official name, but wikivoice does not judge whether or not this purpose has been fulfilled.
  2. Change "state" to a broader term, like "political entity". The Wikipedia page redirects to "polity", which overlaps with "state" but without implying that some particular set of conditions have been met.

– St.nerol (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

No solution is needed because there isn't a problem. There is an established consensus which you are welcome to try and change. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You have not demonstrated any consensus on the matter, neither on Wikipedia nor in academia. What we have is a an unsourced claim which several reliable sources say is either false or disputed. How could we let that be? –St.nerol (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Read the well cited https://iccforum.com/media/background/gaza/2009-05-19_Quigley_Memo_on_Palestine_Declaration.pdf written before the UN upgrade to observer state at the UN and the subsequent detailed review of the question as part of the decision to allow an ICC investigation, overruling US, Israel and some others arguing that that the ICC does not possess territorial jurisdiction because Palestine cannot be considered a state. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Sabel, Robbie (2022). "Is Palestine a state?". International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Robinson, Glenn E. (2016). "Whither Palestine? Weak State, Failed State, or No State at All?". Fragile Politics. Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Mackinnon, Amy. "Palestinians Live in a State of Despair". Foreign Policy.

2 Governments 1 State?

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

RfC on statehood

Latest comment: 11 months ago11 comments8 people in discussion
WP:SNOW close. Unanimous opposition. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead sentence say that the State of Palestine is "a state"? –St.nerol (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Agreed. Let's not assume motives, but the RfC does seem poor. Also, RfCs are typically tools after a discussion. I don't see that discussion. A speedy close to this RfC would not seem uncalled for as it clearly isn't going anywhere. Jeppiz (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment The WP:RFCBEFORE consists of the RFC proposer asserting, after a short discussion, that Palestine is not a state despite being pointed to an established consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Ther has been a ton of discussion over this, and it always comes down to, yes it is a state. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)1-3294Reply
  • Comment (invited by the bot) The title is (necessarily) vague, including on contested areas/terms/facts. (Which definition of "state"? A single defined piece of geography as is typical for a state/country? Or varies depending on the definition? According to who / who claims what?) IMO the text of the article should start informing the reader of the particulars rather than launching from / doubling down on one of the many possible meanings of the title or repeating the vague (implied) statement from the title. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes - please see this prior RFC where there was widespread agreement on "state". There has been no relevant discussion about that since then, making the opening of this RFC bizarre. There has been no argument presented as to why the current wording is incorrect or inaccurate, and no argument given by the initiator of the RFC. Absent all those things this should just be closed with a request to raise disputes on the talk page in the normal fashion before repeating a recently run RFC (or close enough). nableezy - 15:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize for not starting the RfC in a proper way; it's clear that I should have asked a more experienced editor. As for my intentions, they could hopefully be clarified by reading the short preceding discussion. Contrary to @Selfstudier, I have made no assertion about the statehood of Palestine. I have pointed to a lack of consensus in the reliable sources. –St.nerol (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Typo

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

has been blockaded Israel --> has been blockaded by Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:4E03:CD00:D9F2:E8F2:B:E9E3 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done, thanks. CMD (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Inconsistency between Palestine and Taiwan

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is Palestine, an observer to the United Nations (UN) recognized by 138 other UN member states, referred to as a "partially recognized state with a "status" parameter on its infobox over its recognition, while Taiwan, which has no representation to the UN and is recognized by 12 other UN member states, is referred to as a "country" with no "status" parameter present on its infobox over its recognition? Why the inconsistency? 175.198.165.9 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because they are not the same place. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Acronyms

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A number of acronyms are used without a previous reference. Specifically PLO and PNA in the third paragraph. It would help greatly to have them link to their articles. Xitit (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed Left guide (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Recent reverts against consensus

Latest comment: 11 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The last RFC is here, it says

"The community agrees that Palestine is a state. There is substantial and well-argued support that says we should add certain qualifiers such as "sovereign" or "de jure" in front of the word "state", but this falls short of an actual consensus to add these words. There is also no consensus to remove the disputed words. So the question is what to do without a consensus....... I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases and I will do that with my next edit."

There are other discussions still on this talk page (two of them) and multiple others in the archives, there is no consensus to qualify the word state.

Bringing out of date or a limited number of sources are no justification for editing against consensus, a new RFC will be required to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, it's covered by the older RfC, as well as the recent one above. DFlhb (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This "consensus" seems to go against WP:BURDEN, since there is no source provided which says that SoP is, without qualification, a state. –St.nerol (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121201 even says its sovereign, "The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate".
Fyi, this recognition was a crucial part of unlocking the Palestinian claims at the ICC, where Israel, the US etc objected to that as well, overruled. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Political decisions tend to be political, so a news source about countries recognizing Palestine is not exactly what I think is needed. Is there something more academic, which argues actual, actualized statehood? –St.nerol (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
what I think is needed is not the issue, there is a consensus that Palestine is a state. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Occupied Palestine?

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

“The state claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.”

There are no Israelis occupying either of these areas. Israel vacated Gaza and handed it over to the PA in 2005. Hamas subsequently took control, suspended elections in Gaza 17 years ago, and destroyed the groundwater with malfunctioning wastewater treatment making them dependent on Israel. An Aljazeera reference? Really???

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/gaza-strip-controls-s-know-rcna119405 24.113.96.238 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The international community considers Gaza as occupied due to the extent of Israeli control over it. Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Selfstudier That's redefining the verb occupy. You can say the territory is blockaded by Israel and Egypt, but not that it's occupied by anyone, in my opinion. 71.228.185.2 (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@24.113.96.238 I agree. Seems fair to delete the end of that sentence (", though the entirety of that territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967") since the next sentence reports the Israeli settlements in the West Bank anyway. One can argue that the Gaza strip is not really independent in the full meaning of the word, but not that it is "occupied" by Israel. 71.228.185.2 (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine&oldid=1180831889"