Talk:Human rights in the State of Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hello all. If this article is to be called this, then presumably the article on human rights in Israel should discuss Israel's human rights record in the territories, right? Alternately, we could move this to Human rights in the Palestinian Territories, and discuss the records of both Israel and the PA in the West Bank and Gaza. What I would not like to see is a set-up where there is no place to discuss Israel's record in the territories. What do people think would be the best way to accomplish this? john k 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the Human rights in Israel article discusses Israeli actions in the territories, so I would have this article deal exclusively with Palestinian actions, in both Israel and the territories. Anyone else? -- Avi 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with this is that it makes the titles somewhat inaccurate, which would, in particular, make it easy for people to disrupt the compromise by noting that the contents don't fit the title. In particular, I fear that we will have this article, entirely about Palestinian activities, and that Humus will continue to remove any information about Israeli actions in the territories from the other article. I'd be happy to have a Human rights in the Palestinian territories article which discusses both Palestinian and Israeli human rights records in the territories, so long as there is a section in the article on Human rights in Israel summarizing that article and linking to it. I think this would, over all, probably be a better solution. (Either that or just a single article on Israel and the Territories, to cover everything). john k 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the latter, but when I started adding palestinian actions, Oiboy and Saras got perturbed. I believe that they want an article exclusively on Israel, for reasons I am afraid are obvious. -- Avi 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I think the Israel article should cover Israel proper. There is a lot to say about human rights there. As far as the territories go, mixing in pre and post oslo human rights might get messy, confusing, and long. I'd say that there would need to be an organization which clearly distinguished if they were to be mixed. The Israel article could "also see" the other article, summarize and link etc. What I don't want to happen is people rushing in and deleting and reverting well referenced well sourced stuff here because they don't agree with it. Elizmr 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Australian human rights discusses the white Australia policy and the mistreatment of the Aborigines. As long as material is presented as historical, it shouldn't be a serious problem. I certainly agree with the last statement, and I agree that the real key here is to organize things clearly and well. I'm not sure the current arrangement does a very good job of this. In particular, the current titles seem to make it so that discussion of the State of Israel's human rights record in the Terrotories doesn't fit properly into either article. I think that everyone (including us here, but also Oiboy and Sarastro, and Humus, and whoever else is participating in this stuff), need to come to some kind of understanding about how articles on these subjects are to be organized, and what the proper subject matter of each is. Specifically, we have the following possible sets of issues:
  1. Israel's human rights record in Israel proper
  2. Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories
  3. (potentially) Israel's human rights record in other territories it formerly occupied, such as the Suez and southern Lebanon
  4. (potentially) Issues relating to human rights in the occupied territories before the Oslo agreements.
  5. the human rights record of the Palestinian Authority in areas under its control.
  6. human rights violations committed by Palestinian groups in Israel
  7. human rights issues related to Palestinian actions in those parts of the territories not under PA authority.

Is that it? What would be the best way to organize these sets of issues, given that our current standard seems to be that all such articles have to be at "Human rights in". There's a couple of options:

  1. a single article, Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Teritories, or alternately Human rights in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, although this would seem to either exclude the Golan, or possibly to accept the Israeli POV that Golan is, sort of, part of Israel. In this instance we'd need to be careful to have a clear organization of the article, which could become quite large.
  2. Human rights in Israel and Human rights in the Palestinian Territories, or, alternately, Human rights in the Occupied Territories, since we might want to include Goland, and, possibly, a historical discussion of Suez, in the same article. in this case, the division would be geographical, with issues relating to Israel itself in the former, and issues relating to the Occupied Territories in the latter.
  3. Finally we could abandon the usual format and have titles like Human rights record of the State of Israel and Human rights record of the Palestinian National Authority. In some ways, this would be a sensible way of doing things, in that it would be really clear what material belongs in which article. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage of not conforming to our usual way of titling things.

What do people think? john k 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick problem with the last idea is that it will prevent us from using the {{Asia in topic}} template. PNA is already a redirect, but at least it begins with "Human rights in" -- Avi 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling reluctance to make it all one article.
Re: The Australia example: I find it bizarre. Australia included the aboriginal areas from the start, I think, and the treatment of them evolved over time. Israel is a distinct state with its own human rights record within its borders which did not initially or ever formally include the territories. And the palestinians aren't aboriginal people that the Israelis colonized and treated like savages.
I don't like the idea of treating Israel-PA as one entity beause this underplays the fact that Israel is a distinct and existing (for now, anyway) state.
Let's handle the territories separately. I don't really think the term "occupied territories" is all that appropriate post Oslo when the PA has control over and responsibility for some of the PNA areas. In this context, it is too easy to blame Israel for all of the problems there.
My first choice would be to have three articles:

1)Human rights in Israel (Israel proper) 2)Human rights in the PNA (this article, post Oslo): could add some stuff about the influences of Israeli control/occupation to this article 3)Human right in the Palestinian territories under Israeli Occupation (pre-Oslo)--this could be a separate article or a section of the israel article Elizmr 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr, my point with the Australia issue was merely that the article discusses the history of Australian human rights issues, including issues which aren't serious issues any more - the White Australia policy is dead, and aborigines are treated much better now. Similarly, pre-Oslo issues could be discussed. I was not meaning to compare Australian treatment of the aborigines to Israeli treatment of Palestinians (although certainly it is arguable, and has been argued, quite vehemently, that the Palestinians were colonized by the Israelis). Beyond this, the PNA is not the same thing as the Palestinian Territories or Occupied Territories. Much of the land of the West Bank is still under Israeli control, and so was much of Gaza before last year. It has never left Israeli control, and the PNA has never had any jurisdiction. Does it makes sense to talk about the settlements in an article on human rights in the PNA? Once again, I am concerned that the main issue that human rights groups tend to talk about with respect to the region - which is current Israeli human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories, under your scheme pretty blatanly has now obvious place it can call home. We need to have an article title which clearly accommodates this topic, which is surely a valid one for an article. And I agree with Avi's criticism of the last point. I think at this point I'd prefer Human rights in Israel and Human rights in the Palestinian Territories, although this leaves out the Golan... john k 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to divide it in the way that Amnesty does - Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories and Human rights in the Palestinian Authority (I think this latter is more commonly used than "Palestinian National Authority"). Note that in this organization, Hamas, etc. terrorist attacks in Israel are considered in the Israel/Occupied Territories section, not the Palestinian Authority section. john k 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JK--I'm really not following you. The PNA does certainly have jurisdiction in urban areas, and in gaza. There has been post oslo opportunity to create something in those areas. The gaza withdrawl expanded this opportunity. There has been a huge amount of foreign aid given. Is there a problem with an article on the human rights record of these administrations? I'm not sure why not. Elizmr 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No, of course there isn't a problem with an article that covers its human rights record (I'm not convinced we need an article only about it). The point is that we need to have an article which explicitly covers Israel's human rights record in the Territories. My point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about civil rights in the territories in general in an article titled "Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority" - there are large parts of the territories that are not part of the PNA. Another issue is that the PNA does not have anything close to full sovereignty in the areas under its control. The Israelis continue to interfere in various ways. The division you propose suggests an equal level of sovereignty for Israel and the PNA, which is not correct. Of course the human rights record of the PNA should be discussed somewhere, I'm just concerned that Israel's record in the territories (which most certainly did not end at Oslo) have a clear place to discuss it. john k 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like it would be confusing to mix Israel and the territories into this article because of the limited control the PNA has over only certain areas. Maybe we could have a sep article on the territories. That would be quite reasonable. the two articles could be linked with top notes, as was previously done with this article and the Israel one. Elizmr 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not encyclopedic as is[edit]

Before I start to edit it in the next few days (time permitting), I need some clarification from involved editors regarding this "screw the Palestinians" style article (no disrespect meant, I'm just really upset about the far-fetched embellishments here for reasons that should be plainly obvious):

1- Is this article discussing human rights in areas under Palestinian authority control? If so, why isn't this the title? The current title makes no sense, as it uses the word in, implying either a geographic area or an enclosure of some sort, neither of which would describe the Palestinian National Authority which is a name for a political governmental body.

2- Alternatively, is this article about the human rights record of the Palestinian National Authority? Again, why isn't this the title? And if this is the true meaning, why is the article riddled with examples of individual incidents, most of which happen every day in any other country, by individuals who are not part of the Palestinian National Authority?

3- Is this article discussing the general condition of human rights in the Palestinian territories? If so, how come there is not a single reference from Btselem, the leading Israeli human rights group, only one obscure reference from the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, and nothing from the UN Human Rights Watch?

4- For the record, towns are not "controlled" by Hamas, that's like saying New York City is "controlled by the Republicans" because Bloomberg is a Republican. Why this type of demeaning language?

I would appreciate responses so I can determine in what direction to fix this highly misinforming regurgitation of right-wing propaganda material. Basically, clarification on whether this article is meant to be #1, #2, or #3 above would be highly appreciated, as the title right now makes no sense grammatically or contextually. It's like saying "Human Rights in the Government of Israel". Thanks Ramallite (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramalite, I very much welcome your help, knowledge, and imput on this article. Please give the editors who have written this the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. As the editor who wrote a lot of this stuff, I take exception with your portrayl of stuff here as a "highly misinforming regurg of right-wing propaganda material" and consider it a bit of an attack albiet not at all a personal one. No one can deny that the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories is very complex. We need transparency on the concerning aspects on all ends if we are going to provide a resource that can best inform. In order to best portray the totality of the truth, Wikipedia should show the various aspects of the whole situation, including those which are uncomfortable for Israel, Israeli's, Jews, etc and also those which are uncomfortable for Hamas, Fatah, others in past and present Palestinian leadership, and even for the Palestinian people. Material should not be dismissed as "right wing" or "left wing" propaganda. As it stands now, the article on Human Rights in Israel (which was unfortunately started as a vehicle to attack Israel) contains Israel's human rights record in the territories and many refs from the sources listed above. This might not be ideal, although it may be less confusing. Also, as you point out, some of the language here might not be neutral, but that certainly was not the intent. (altho on the point you raise having been in New York during part of the term of the mayor before bloomberg, I could say that many of us did feel that the city was controlled by the republicians at that time). I would like to partner with you and any other Palestinian on this article in a collaborative way without edit wars and in a climate of mutual respect, but I would just ask that we allow the article to be three dimensional. Elizmr 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I still don't know which of #1, #2, or #3 above is this article meant to be about. Is it about human rights in areas controlled by the PNA (which would involve Israel)? Human rights of the PNA pseudo-government itself (which would not necessarily involve Israel), or the human rights situation in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip (most of which is outside the PNA jurisdiction)? Could you please direct me? More later, thanks! Ramallite (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also - why is there a whole section very recently written about Arafat? In case people didn't know, he died 2 years ago, and almost everything has changed since then. Ramallite (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think that the goal is the human rights record of the PNA administrations and the palestinian contributions to the human rights situation in the areas controlled by the PNA, and the title should certainly appropriately reflect the content. Please let's change the title of the article if it is not appropriate. We could add text into the language to clarfiy and also qualify some of the text along these lines. I tried to create a top section detailing what the status of the PA was and what structures to support human rights are officially in place but that certainly needs expansion. The various subject headings were pulled from perusal of some human rights orgs sites to reflect general categories of human rights but some may be ethnocentric. There is no reason we couldn't add Israel's contribution to the human right's situation in this article and take it out of the other article, but I would strongly suggest that we get the other side of things done before combining articles since it will be cleaner that way.
Of course I am sure editors here are aware that Arafat is dead. It is undeniable, however, that he was a major player in the shaping of how the PA approached these various human rights issues, contributed to conditions as they developed in the west bank and gaza, the relationship with Israel, etc. The stuff about him in the article is not irrelevant. We could certainly make it clear that he is dead in the article if you feel it gives the impression that he is alive.
Will look forward to your edits and collaboration. I will not be on line over the next few days; it is the Jewish New Year tonight at sundown and we observe here until Sunday at sundown. I'll look in a few times this afternoon. Elizmr 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I probably won't get to it very soon because it will require a lot of reading and sifting through material from notable and verifiable sources. In the meantime, Shana Tova! Ramallite (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the greeting and will look forward to your work on the article. Elizmr 19:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PA history[edit]

I removed this recent edit since there was no PA in 1945. Care to clarify? Women have had full suffrage in the PA since 1945. [2]Elizmr 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights[edit]

Should be mentioned. - Francis Tyers · 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very much agree. please go ahead. Elizmr 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

backhanded removal of sourced material[edit]

It would be better when identifying a dead link to try to find the source, or let an orig author know about a dead link, rather than REMOVING the link and tagging the paragraph citation needed and then going ahead and deleting it entirely as unsourced. This implies that the stuff was never refed, which just isn't true. Here are the problematic diffs: [3]. [4]. Elizmr 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the removed material: Senator Connie Mack made the following remarks on the floor of the US Senate after a visit to the Middle East in 1999, "[I met] an energetic man, in his early 40s [who had] converted to Christianity in 1993. He clearly loved God, and he loved to tell people about his conversion....In 1997, the Palestinian Authority asked him to come to the police station for questioning. When he arrived, he was immediately arrested and detained on charges of selling land to Jews. He denied this charge, since he was very poor and owned no land. He was beaten. He was hung from the ceiling by his hands for many hours...After two weeks, he was transferred to a larger prison where he was held for eight months without trial. He was released in February 1998, after his family borrowed thousands of dollars to pay off the local authorities. And even though he is free, they are keeping his father in prison. They believe it is for his son's beliefs. He feels his father is being held hostage to prevent him from talking with people about his faith" [1]Elizmr 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing somthing to dead links is just as good as not sourcing something at all.
Anyways, can you provide me some source that verifies that the material you posted is indeed what Mack has said. Anyone can say "Remarks from the Senate Floor, Senator Connie Mack, U.S. Senate -- March 3, 1999".Bless sins 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is the senator notable enough to have his statements in the article?? For example in the article Human rights in Israel it would probably be inappropriate to include allegations made my some Arab leader etc.Bless sins 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Will do (I used the date because the congressional record is electronically available by date, but I'll improve the cite to go to the cong record directly). And, yeah, I think that an eyewitness account of a US senator and testimony of the floor of the US senate is notable enough to include. Why not? I don't get it. Elizmr 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the only thing. For example if a prominent Arab politician made some comment regarding human rights in Israel, then should we also include that in the Human rights in Israel article?? there woudl be great opposition for that. Bless sins 17:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put in a link to the congressional record. I am not sure of the most correct format for congressional record cites, so maybe someone can help fix it, but the link works. Finally, the original link in the article was not always dead. Please AFG. Elizmr 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizmr,

You have to decide if:

  1. This is a compilation of every specific incident that happened, or an encyclopedic entry.
  2. If this is abuses that occur in Palestinian territory, or abuses that are perpetrated by the Palestinian Authority].
  3. If you believe this article should add every new news story that appears on the news, like a daily blog, or is a general encyclopedic article.

I haven't touched this article because I don't know where to start. Every single community in the word has some sort of abuse. Why you are singling out the Palestinians and pointing out one or two incidents here and there is very disconcerting to me. Ramallite (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the reaction would be if I added the opinions of a politician, say Ahmadinejad, to the article Human rights in Israel.Bless sins 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Ramallite: as I said above many months ago I welcome your in-good-faith collaboration but not your attacks. This is an article about Human Rights in the PA. Some of the detailed abuses are "in" and some are "by". The introduction can clearly state this, and either one of us can certainly change this if it does not. There are articles in Wikipedia about Human Rights in many places. I am not singling the Palestians out for anything by writing an article about human rights in/by the PA! Frankly, I find your above statement that I am doing this more than disconcerting but I know you are a good editor and I am going to assume good faith. I do feel the article is lacking in evidence of efforts to protect/guard, etc human rights in the PA by the PA or by palestinians not connected with the PA. Has there been an effort to protect religious minorities like jews and christians, efforts to protect women agasint honor killings, efforts to protect freedom of the press when the press speaks against the government, etc? Do you have some cites on that stuff? They are very much needed. If the article is overlong and less about large themes than specific indidents, then it can be fixed. We can do this together. But please assume good faith and realize that the good as well as the bad about various topics deserves to be aired in Wikipedia. Elizmr 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Bless Sins: If Ahmandiejad went to Israel and observed conditions there directly and then spoke about it in the Iranian equivalent of Congress then why not put it in the appropriate Wikipedia article? I wouldn't have a problem with that. If you tried to do something like that and someone had a problem with it let me know, I'd back you up 100% on the inclusion. Elizmr 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not you, but other editors. Infact persons like Yasser Arafat, Desmond Tutu, far more notable than the senator have already made allegations* of Israeli aparthied and injustice. There is no way that this is going to go in the article Human rights in Israel w/o an edit war.
I think the best solution is to ask around, like wp admins, whether comments/allegations* made by notable but non-scholarly persons should be included in the article or not.
  • Remember the comments of the senator, and Arafat etc. are nothing more than allegations as they are not verified. Bless sins 18:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I offended you, I'm sorry. The problem is that if it's by the PA, then anything in this article that was not the responsibility of the PA does not belong (which is most things). If it's in Palestinian territories, then the bulk of this page would be Israel's abuses which are much more documented than Palestinians. That's what I'm confused about. Which is it? If it's both these things, then Btselem, etc will have to be introduced extensively. Ramallite (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Christians are over-represented in Palestinian official affairs in relation to their numbers. The press attacks the government all the time, just read AL-Quds or Al-Ayyam] our two largest newspapers. Ramallite (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


more replies: Ram: Please note: I am not contesting the inclusion of anything as long as it is not redundant. The Human Rights in Israel article has a very extensive section on Israeli actions in the territories (constituted over half of that article the last time I looked) and the lead of this article very very explicitly refers readers to that article. Do you think that that stuff should be moved to this article? Thanks for the links (altho I don't read arabic so can't really benefit from them). Please add info to the article, OK? Bless Sins: I continue to support the inclusion of Mack's statements as notable, relevant and from a RS. Important distinction: Mack's statements in the article are clearly presented as something Mack said, ie not as a "fact". HOWEVER, the actual statements Mack made are a matter of record and it is not alleged that he made them. (I am sorry if you've had problems on other pages. I have edited on Human Rights in Israel previously altho not in a long time and think that the issues are fairly well presented on that page. Is there something specific you want me to look at there?) Elizmr 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a contextless anecdote told by a foreign politician in a foreign parliament, without any indication of what weight may have been attached to it in that country's decision-making process or any other indication of its veracity or overall significance, is worth a paragraph in an encyclopaedia article about human rights in the PNA. Palmiro | Talk 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can find more detailed and academic sources, but a summarised passage of an independent lawmaker's impression seems reasonable. TewfikTalk 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. In any case the link provided opens a page related to "OCEAN SHIPPING REFORM". Pls. provide a source that is actually on the topic, or the quote will again be removed for not citing sources. The senator makes a vague mention of persecution based on faith goin on, but that seems to be it. Anyways, he also makes statements like "I heard examples of persecution and hatred being taught throughout Palestinian society by their leaders." and "It is clear to me that many in the Palestinian leadership today see the peace process toward the goal of

eliminating the State of Israel. He seems to be a very biased person, taking an extremely anti-Palestinian position. WP:RS#Extremist_sources states that "... they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities". Per WP policy, this should be removed. Bless sins 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

help wanted[edit]

Palmiro and Ramalite, could you suggest some english language sources on the human rights policies/protections of the PA for the PA people that could be added to the article? I would very much value your help on this. Just to let you know my metholology to date, to build the article, I tried to use categories of human rights issues discussed by the UN and find what I could in each of these areas on the Web. As I wrote above, I stayed away from the Israeli contribution to any human rights issues since they were covered in another article (and the Human Rights in Israel article started solely as a discussion of Israel's record in the PT), but tried to be very explicit that they could be found in the Israel article. Elizmr 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The Palestinian National Authority is a government (of some kind), not a place. So it makes no sense to talk about "Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority". The sentence "It also outlines some Human Rights conditions experienced in the Palestian territories, apart from those associated with Israeli actions." has a rather odd POV exception.

I propose this be moved to Human rights in the Palestinian territories and discuss that, human rights as experienced in the Palestinian territories, regardless of whether Israel is or the PNA is responsible.

Meanwhile Human rights in Israel would be restricted to Israel proper, rather than Israel's responsibility for the Palestinian territories. Material from there would simply be moved here. —Ashley Y 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea.--Urthogie 17:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ashley. Human Rights in the Palestinian National Authority sounds like an article on employee rights and benefits. --G-Dett 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in the London City Council[edit]

The chosen name of the article is strange and confusing. It may be intended to limit the article only to Palestinian abuses, while accommodating the pernicious claim that there's no such thing as the "Palestinian territories", "Israeli-occupied territories", "West Bank and Gaza", etc.

Aside from the issue of possible POV forking, I would suggest a move to "Human rights and the Palestinian National Authority". And I would suggest that the article be combed through to replace "In the PA, x y z", either with "In the Palestinian territories, x y z" or "The PA does x y z". Eleland 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important new source- Human Rights Watch report[edit]

Some people are discussing starting a page:Palestinian National Authority's human rights record in the Palestinian territories, in conjunction with another page Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian territories. Here is a solid new source: "Internal Fight - Palestinian Abuses in Gaza and the West Bank", a new report from Human Rights Watch]?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Association - Repression of teacher's union strikes in the 90's[edit]

Something about this should be in such an article. Several unionists were imprisoned and tortured in PA prisons for attempting to unionize. I can't at the moment locate my sources, though I know that the Democracy and Workers' Rights Center followed the matter. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom House"[edit]

The so-called "Freedom House" got contacts with the World Anti-Communist Movement, and they are talking much about that ideology, and that will say that they are not very neutral! They classify Palestine as WORSE THAN IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA, and is the only one that do. I want to say that if you should take in things like that, you must NOT look up those that are classifying it worst, and that are classifying their "enemy" as best. LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT NEUTRALITY! NEUTRALITY! --188.113.91.110 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. And 66 % of their (mis)information is from the United States' government! I think we shall take the estimates from The Economist Intelligence Unit's "Democracy Index". I signed in now just to do this. I don't understand why no-one have removed it before now. 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by A young communist (talk • contribs)

Rename[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. Because there's been a few changes to the proposed title to the RM it's hard to tell who supported which title and if they still support now that the proposed title has been changed. That said, even if the proposed title had been static throughout, I still don't think there would have been a consensus to move. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority → Human rights under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas governments – The lead would also be updated accordingly. Right now, the lead says that the PA controls Gaza as well, which is simply not true. This article was created prior to 2007, so I believe the title and lead should be changed accordingly.

There are some cases regarding Hamas in this article as well. I don't think there's enough material for a split between PA and Hamas, but in the future if there is, it can be split.

--Jethro B 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed title seems awkward because you have an organization seen as continuous with a place "in Palestinian National Authority" combined with a political party "Hamas". Any reason why we can't substitute "Gaza Strip" for "Hamas"? Shrigley (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sort of agree, but since the title was "Palestinian National Authority," which essentially is the governing body of Area A/some of Area B in the West Bank, rather than writing "Palestinian territories" or "West Bank," since that would also include areas Israel controls, and a previous discussion ruled against this, and we have another article for that, I decided to use the term Hamas. But looking on your suggestion, that does seem acceptable, so I'll rename the proposal as such. --Jethro B 20:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a move to Human rights in the Palestinian territories, to match the Palestinian territories parent article. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it'd be applicable. I was reading some previous discussions here, that name has been avoided because this article deals only with Palestinian control over the areas, not with the areas in the territories that Israel has control over. The name would thus imply that it includes areas Israel controls. That may be fine if we're merging the articles, but I'm simply looking for a rename. --Jethro B 23:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name change suggested by BDD would involve changing the scope of the article to include areas of the Palestinian Territories directly under Israeli military/civil control. Is there any good reason for not covering the Human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories as a whole in one article? Dlv999 (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems like this expansion in scope would be a good thing. It shouldn't be too difficult to occasionally make statements beginning with "In Israeli-administered areas" or have a whole section on it. Alternatively, we could move to Human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As noted below, the PNA isn't a place, so I do think we need to remove it or embrace it, as suggested by Ucucha. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As some other people have said, "human rights in the PNA" is an awkward construction, since the PNA is a governing authority, not a geographic entity. Would "Human rights under the Palestinian National Authority" be an acceptable alternative, perhaps with Hamas added to the title? Ucucha (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds better, fixed. Thanks. --Jethro B 22:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The latest amendment seems like a reasonable way to address the issues raised in discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but change "Hamas" to "the Hamas government". Also in article titles it would be better to say "under the Palestinian National Authority" instead of the normal "In the Palestinian National Authority". Slightly more arcerate that way because the PNA is an organization , not a place. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the title per what you said. Is this ok now? Does anyone here have objections? --Jethro B 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Responding to Coleman's request for input. Honestly, I think we need a broader discussion regarding the current Palestinian political situation concerning the separate administrations in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian-controlled areas in the West Bank. I oppose the suggested name because with respect to NPOV, we have to consider the fact that the Hamas-dominated govt. in the Gaza Strip also considers itself the legitimate Palestinian Authority just as the Fatah-dominated govt. in the WB considers itself the PA. Hamas won the 2006 parliamentary elections and one of their own, Haniyeh, headed the PA government until the hostilities of '07. In their view, even Abu Mazen is no longer the legal Palestinian president. Rather, because his term has expired, one of their own, the WB-based Aziz Duwaik, is legally the interim president until elections are held again. I would suggest renaming the article to "Human rights in the Palestinian territories." The Israeli human rights record in the territories could also be included in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say that because the topics are different enough to warrant separate treatment, because the current article is too large, or for another reason? I like that you're thinking geographically, but I also think matching the parent article Palestinian territories is desirable. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course PNA is a place - a geopolitical entity or officially an autonomous region. If you travel in the West Bank and enter Palestinian areas, the GPS writes - "you entered the Palestinian Authority territory" (see [5]).Greyshark09 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

First paragraph[edit]

The first para days this Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority refers to the human rights record of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. Since Israel's implementation of its unilateral disengagement plan in 2005 and the evacuation of all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian National Authority maintains full internal control of this territory. But this is contradicted by the first paragraph of the linked article on tha PNA which says The Palestinian Authority (PA; Arabic: السلطة الوطنية الفلسطينية‎ As-Sulṭah Al-Waṭaniyyah Al-Filasṭīniyyah) is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, following the Oslo Accords. Since its establishment in 1994, it has named itself Palestinian National Authority. Since 2006 elections and especially the Gaza conflict between Fatah and Hamas, its authority extends in the West Bank alone.

There is a contradiction as to whether the PNA has authority in Gaza, and thus responsibility for human rights. Which version is correct? 31.53.1.232 (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in noting this contradiction. Please see the discussion above, where I proposed changing the title. Based on the results of the request, the lead will be changed to reflect the facts as well as the new (or same) title. --Jethro B 23:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should split Human rights in the Gaza Strip to fix this problem. Amnesty for example relate to human rights issue in the Gaza Strip as "Hamas-controlled Gaza strip" [6], while treating Palestinian Authority separately [7].Greyshark09 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move. Looks like we have rough consensus that this is a better title, though issues of the article's scope and its relationship with other articles will have to be discussed separately. Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority → Human rights in the Palestinian territories – With the previous RM closed as no consensus, I thought it would be a good idea to see if we could build consensus for another idea. This move would bring the category in line with Palestinian territories. The expansion in scope it applies would allow us to discuss the subject more holistically, including the records of the Israeli government as well as the PNA and Hamas. I discussed the subject a bit more in the previous RM, but the idea has been around since the top of this talk page. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - why fixing something not broken? The article is about human rights in the areas under PNA jurisdiction, not the Pt. I think we should split Human rights in the Gaza Strip to fix this problem. Amnesty for example relate to human rights issue in the Gaza Strip as "Hamas-controlled Gaza strip" [8], while treating Palestinian Authority separately [9].Greyshark09 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is a crucial argument, but google books give priority to "Human rights in the Palestinian Authority" [10] (27,200 hits) over "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" [11] (17,500 hits).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Google hits stat is a random measure. In reality for those queries Google has only 42 pages for Palestinian territories and 62 pages for Palestinian Authority. In this case, though, most books having one would have the other. You can't talk about the one without the other, so the entire phrasing ("human rights in the Palestinian Territories") is important in the search, not the phrases separated ("human rights" + "Palestinian Territories"). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article isn't about about human rights in the areas under PNA jurisdiction, if it were it would include Israel's human rights recored. It's about the human right record of the PNA government. Also the clam that the PNA is a place rather then a government has been rejected at related discussion I mencened. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was supposed to be "it would include Israel's human rights recored in the areas under PNA jurisdiction". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sense there seams to not be much participation in this requested move, I'll inform the people who participated in the previous RM about this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent - I don't think it's that big of a deal either way. I'd suggest instead Human rights under the Palestinian National Authority as a better title. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To include Israel's human rights record in the territories. As far as human rights volitions go the people in the territories don't just have the PNA to worry about, they have the Israeli government too. Like BDD said in the last RM, "labeling this article by government rather than [political] geography is a step backward". Just don't use this an an excuse to glorify the PNA and demonize Israel, be neutral. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support considering the fact that there is an area of shared Israeli/PNA jurisdiction, having an article on "in PNA" becomes weird. The oPt is the geographic area that makes sense to have in the title of the article. --Soman (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- From the previous discussion no one seems happy with the current situation. As it stands the title is nonsensical and does not accurately describe the contents of the article. I think the proposed change will solve the problems that have been highlighted in this and the previous discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be either "Human rights under the Palestinian National Authority" (not "in") if it covers only the areas where the Authority exercises some degree of rule, or "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" if it covers all of the West Bank and Gaza. It depends on what the scope of the article is... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of this article is poorly written. See WP:REFERS. If the scope of this article is defined, as it is in the first sentence, as the Human rights record of the Palestinian Authority, then call it that. Don't call it something else and then define the article with another term. DrKiernan (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Human rights record of the Palestinian Authority" would be my second choice for a title (after "Human rights in the Palestinian territories"). It would definitely be better than the current title. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article is meant to be about human rights within the relevant region/s, regardless of agency, then I'd say "Human rights in the Palestinian territories". If, though, it's about human rights as supposedly implemented or disregarded by a particular agency (the PNA) or for which that agency is taken to be responsible, then I'd say "Human rights record of the Palestinian National Authority". Apologies if I've misunderstood. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eather rename this to "Human rights record of the Palestinian Authority" and rename Human rights in Israel to ""Human rights record of Israel", or rename this to Human rights in the Palestinian territories and expand the scope to include include Israel's human rights record in the territories, and narrow Human rights in Israel to only cover Human rights in Israel, and not the territories.
Also I've changed Human rights in the Palestinian territories from a redirect to this page into a presto-diaambig page slimmer to Geography of the Palestinian territories, so there's not the same need to expand this articles scope as there was before. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I don't like the "Human rights record of" construct is because just about every article in Category:Human rights by country is formatted as "Human rights in Foo." Not everyone gets as hung up about consistency as I do, but I just don't see a good reason for differing. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind and un-striked my original support vote. There's not as much need for the move but I still think it's a good idea. "Human rights record of" is still my second choose tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - main discussion on this issue (concepts PNA/Pt) is ongoing at Talk:Palestinian National Authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the people who haven't supported the move have stated that the title should depend on the scope of this article, but the whole purpose of this RM is to expanded the scope, so does anyone actually object to expanding the scope of this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would two separate articles "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" and "Human rights record of the Palestinian National Authority" sort this out, or just open Pandora's Box further? CsDix (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Additional discussion[edit]

  • Comment - the article was moved despite the fact it had no consensus. There is no need to be a ginious to count:
Opposing - Greyshark09, DrKiernan
Neutral - Emmette (changed from support), AnonMoos, Araignee, CsDix (suggestion interpreted as neutral)
Support - Dlv999, Soman
The illegal move by user:Cuchullain is herewith reverted.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark, your unilateral reversal of my closure and move potentially mangled the edit history of this page and the associated Human rights in the Palestinian territories (disambiguation) (and my close was not "illegal"). You should not have reversed my decision without discussing it with me first, and please don't do it again.
To explain the original close, by my interpretation, there was a rough consensus in the above discussion that the proposed title was preferable; this was explicitly agreed to by Bdd, Dlv999, Soman, and Emmette Hernandez Coleman. Other editors weighed in, and some were ambivalent, but the only actual opposition was from you. As I say, questions of scope need to be discussed further, but RM isn't the place for that. Once again, there are other avenues to take if you disagree with my close, but please do not move the article again. Thanks, Cúchullain t/c 02:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recalculation should add also BDD and readd Emmette (who perhaps double reverted his opinion?), which makes it 4 supporting and 2 opposing. However, you probably are not aware that most of the supporting users have been allegedly canvassed by user Emmette, who attempted a large scale change over wikipedia from "Palestinian National Authority" to "Palestinian territories" involving much the same users to support him (main discussion is here Talk:Palestinian National Authority. The investigation on Emmette's alleged canvassing has not been concluded - see here [12].Greyshark09 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said that "[T]here seams to not be much participation in this requested move, I'll inform the people who participated in the previous RM about this one" and that's what I did. Both BDD and I supported the move. The only opposition was from Greyshark. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were three supports, plus the nominator for four, and only one oppose (Greyshark's). Greyshark, your interpretation of the consensus is heavily skewed toward the result you wanted. I have no comment about any other articles, but in this RM it appears that Emmette notified everyone who participated in the previous discussion regardless of their expressed opinions, and in neutral terms. That's not canvassing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really see no improvement in either the match between the article content and the article title, or the first sentence. For example, "the Palestinian National Authority maintains full internal control of this territory" is simply not the case since the Israeli military and Israeli settlements retain considerable internal control over a good proportion of the Palestinian territories. DrKiernan (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the RM was to in part to expand the scope. I'm confused by the closer's statement that "issues of the article's scope [...] will have to be discussed separately." because if it's title "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" then it's scope is human rights in the Palestinian territories. Not just the PNA human rights recored, or the Hamas government's human rights recored, or Israel's human rights recored in the territories, but simply "Human rights in the Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The specifics of what's included is outside the purview of an RM, which really just settles the article title. The new title may help bring it into focus, but the editors will have to hammer out the details separately.Cúchullain t/c 14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of a larger sentence: "Since Israel's [...] evacuation of all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian National Authority maintains full internal control of this territory." so by "this territory" it means the Gaza Strip. I updated the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I misread it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is essentially whether this article should be concentrating on human rights under Palestinian self-rule (limited or not, under PNA or perhaps now under the State of Palestine), or should describe human rights under Israeli rule in West Bank area C of the Oslo accords. Another issue is what to do with human rights in Gaza Strip - with current name, the article would include all three topics (area C, areas A,B aka State of Palestine, Gaza Strip under Hamas) and overlap the article on human rights of Israel which describes also the issue of human rights in areas under Israeli civil / military rule.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we need to split in accordance with Amnesty articles on "Human rights in the Gaza Strip" to address the human rights record under Hamas government per [13], "Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority" [14] and maybe soon add "Human rights in the State of Palestine" to address the new developments after status upgrade of the Palestinian Authority to observer state (CNN The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday endorsed an upgraded U.N. status for the Palestinian Authority).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Palestinian territories: The Palestinian territories or occupied Palestinian territories (OPT or oPt) are areas [...] comprising the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. to quote Nableezy "The [occupied] Palestinian territories (and the UNSC repeatedly has referred to the oPt, and multiple UN agencies refer to the oPt, see for example OCHA oPt) are the West Bank (in its entirety), including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. The area under control of the PNA is not that. The claim that the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control is completely unsupported and easily refuted. See for example this, or this, or this. The UN uses the term all the time, the idea that it doesnt is pure fiction. So does most of the world, and so do an overwhelming number of sources."
From Palestinian National Authority: "The Palestinian Authority is the administrative organization, established to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip, following the Oslo Accords."
About the titles pages about the West Band and Gaza are usually located at "Palestinian territories" titles (e.g. Economy of the Palestinian territories and Demographics of the Palestinian territories [[Racism in the Palestinian territories Scouting and Guiding in the Palestinian territories) unless (and this is a big unless) they are about that administrative organization (e.g. Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority President of the Palestinian National Authority Palestinian Authority passport) Politics of the Palestinian National Authority seems like a gray zone that could fall under under either title. Also the Talk:Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories#Rename RM was universally rejected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For multiple times i would remind you that wikipedia is not a source. Secondly, except this article, which was exceptionally moved after your canvassing and weird interpretation of an administrator, the following renames/polls got no consensus for you POV so far:
Governance of Palestine from 1948->History of the Palestinian territories
Palestinian territories->?
Elections in the Palestinian National Authority->Elections of the Palestinian National Authority
PNA - entity or organization?
And finally to remind that Amnesty relate to human rights in "Palestinian Authority" [16], and not human rights in "Palestinian territories". This rename completely changes the meaning of this article from human rights under PNA to human rights under Israel, as if PNA "didn't exist", if so - i guess another article "Human rights under Palestinian Authority" and "Human rights under the State of Palestine" to be created in addition.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Palestinian National Authority can be included in a travel guide [17], then it is not just an "organization" without territory. If Bir Zeit University describe the issue of human rights in the Palestinian Authority [18], we cannot say that it is "Palestinian territories" - there is a certain difference between those subjects. This article is about human rights in/under Palestinian Authority, the issue of areas under Israeli control is covered in "Human rights in Israel" article, and hence the redirect from "Human rights record of Israel in the Palestiinan territories] is here [19]. This has been decided 5 years ago, and your proposal just changed it.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Palestinian Authority is an "organizations with territorial control", that seamed to be the conciseness at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority. I'll respond further on that talk page. Also your travel guides area figures are for the West Bank and Gaza strip, not just Areas A and B. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you probably mean consensus (not conciseness); second "organization with territorial control" is exactly the definition of geopolitical entity, which you so much oppose to utilize.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‎Status of homosexuality[edit]

@Averysoda: as I explained in my edit summary, even if the source wasn't already poor, it's WP:CIRCULAR: it cites this information to a source which cites it to the Weekly Standard, so we have no way of knowing where this claim really originates and if it's reliable. Sodahead likewise is obviously unreliable. It doesn't matter how "important" you consider this information when, to all appearances, it is literally, objectively false. If homosexuality is illegal in Gaza, why doesn't the New Republic article on the subject of the punishment of gay Palestinians, or why don't any other reliable sources on this topic, say so? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a few minutes I was able to find three other sources. I'm adding them to the article. Try to fix problems instead of destroying everything just because it doesn't fit your political agenda.--Averysoda (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've literally just added a source which explicitly states that homosexuality is not illegal. By all means, add more info, just don't add stuff from unreliable sources that is literally false just because you feel it's "so important." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What??? Where does it say that homosexuality is legal in the Palestinian territories?--Averysoda (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian law doesn't criminalise homosexuality" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show the whole picture, my friend. It says: "While Palestinian law doesn't criminalise homosexuality, it is socially taboo to be openly gay. Saif believes that the PA surveillance on him resulted from his first relationship, with a “well-known” homosexual. “I’ve heard stories,” he said, “of guys being called at random and told to come into police stations, with threats their families would be told about their sexuality if they didn't show up.” Surprisingly, the PA declined to comment on the claims."
Nevertheless, the current text describes anti-gay persecution, it doesn't say homosexuality is legal or illegal, so I don't understand your complaint.--Averysoda (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current text, which is a result of my editing, is fine. Do not add your text back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in the Palestinian territories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2016[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: Moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Human rights in the Palestinian territories → Human rights in the State of Palestine – The Palestinian Authority (oPt) has been long renamed to State of Palestine in all UN institutions and at the International Standards ISO system back in 2013; Palestinian Administration in Ramallah under President Abbas also refers to itself as State of Palestine. Recommend a rename in line with other rename procedures on this topic: Palestine topics, Talk:Outline_of_the_State_of_Palestine#Requested_move_7_May_2015. GreyShark (dibra) 07:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reference 15 DEAD, paragraph should be removed[edit]

I do not have permission to do so. Can anyone removes this? "In September 2001, Yasser Arafat's Tanzim kidnapped a Palestinian cameraman who shot film showing Palestinian citizens and police in Ramallah celebrating on 9/11/2001 following the attacks on US targets, and threatened to kill the cameraman if the item the film was shown on air.[15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.163.239 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference numbered 19 (as of GMT09:35 on 2020-02-12) has no relation to this paragraph. I checked online and found no referential support for it. Please remove it as it does not seem factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.3.190 (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human rights in the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019[edit]

This article is about human rights abuses in the State of Palestine by Palestinians- so, why does the only graphic show Israeli soldiers? Please replace it with a more appropriate picture, only involving Palestinians. Sdmorris (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to find an image to replace it with. The IDF image is next to a paragraph involving the IDF and so seems relevant. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality[edit]

There appears to be a level of undue weight towards specific cases of human rights issues with a complete lack of nuance. Some sentences, such as "Honor killings are a problem in the PA", "Gay Palestinians are often arrested and tortured", and "In November 2006, 50 veiled Palestinian women responded to a Hamas radio appeal to act as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen hiding in a Gaza mosque" include editorializing and loaded language. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of association[edit]

First sentence:[edit]

"In 2000 the Palestinian the first Palestinian Labor Law."

Anyone know what was supposed to be here instead of this mangled sentence? Luxdsg (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2024[edit]

change "Death hreats were made against Minister Nabil Shaath" to "Death threats were made against Minister Nabil Shaath". 151.74.229.151 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skitash (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine&oldid=1211688113"