Talk:Occupied Palestinian Territory

Merge to Palestinian territories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as Merge to Palestinian territories.Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Wow, this was an interesting debate with solid arguments on all sides. Prior to diving into it, I had no knowledge of the subject and pretty much kept it that way. I say that because I am about as neutral on this subject as you can get. I know it's a political issue, which means that it will be controversial, but honestly, I do not know or care about the specific politics involved. I say this as a prefix, because I know that any "admin decision" is going to be controversial. I did not take this review lightly. I read the stuff. Put it aside, re-read it. Looked at the links provided. Put it aside. And contemplated the arguments on both sides. My verdict was based upon the arguments presented here, what I saw doing a little research/verification on my own, and common sense. I do not expect it to be universally popular, but I do believe it fits with WP policies/guidelines and general usage outside of WP.

The notion that these two articles should be merged appears to have a solid level of support. The bone of contention that exists is, should these be merged as "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or just "Palestinian Territory"? 3 users gave reason for the use of OPT, while 6 favored PT. A slight majority in favor of PT, but numbers do not matter, it is strength of argument. The arguments here are interesting/compelling on both sides.

It is that issue that forced me to review every comment and every link on the page. It is irrefutable that "Occupied Palestinian Territory" is a widely used term. The fact that the UN seems to prefer the OPT term definitely gives credence to the inclusion of that term, the UN seems to have taken a stand to include "Occupied" when describing the region. There are some other organizations that also seem to have taken a stance in favor of OPT, but some of these are groups that would benefit from the inclusion of Occupied. For example, it is easier to raise funds for a charity if you are doing so for an "occupied area." (similarly, I was not blind to the fact that some sources have motives for excluding "Occupied.")

But many sources are not so deliberate/consistent. Heck, some of the sources provided evidence that the area is considered to be occupied, but not that the regions name is "OPT." For example, the link to the US Dept of State uses the term "Occupied Territories" but not once did it use "Occupied Palestinian Territories". In fact, with many of the sources, there does not appear to be a universal or editorial decision on which name to use---which indicates that the naming conventions are not universal even within the sources cited. E.g. you can't point to a newspaper/magazine and say, "See X supports one name over the other" because the newspaper/magazine might use both.

A search on Amazon showed that "Occupied Palestinian Territory" results in 468 books, while "Palestinian Territory" resulted in over 1500 (which would include the OPT.) Many of the "Palestinian Territories" books clearly indciate that the region is occupied, but did not label the region as "Occupied Palestinian Territories." When reviewing these sources, many of them again used terms to denote that the area is in fact Occupied, but that there is a wide range of naming differences and adjectives use to describe the area.

So I looked at GoogleNews. Palestinian Territories resulted in over 1600 hits, while Occupied Palestinian Territories resulted just in over 600. The fact that almost 2/3rds of the news sources (most of them reliable sources) use "Palestinian Territories" without the adjective "Occupied" has to carry some weight.

To me, it is clear that there is no universal consensus in the media or governments to use one term over the other---or even other similar terms. The inclusion of "Occupied" definitely carries a political undertoe, and while I think *I* would probably use it if I were to talk about the region, I do not believe it is the appropriate term for Wikipedia to use as the article name to describe the region. In order for WP to use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories", the use would have to have a near consensus or we would have to show that those who opposed it did so solely from a POV slant. That can't be done. Many sources use both "Palestinian Territories" and "Occupied Palestinian Territorities" interchageably---or use other descriptors to discribe the Palestinian territories.

Thus, IMO, based upon the weight of arguments presented here, WP polices/guidelines and my nominal research, this should be merged with Palestinian Territories.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I support merging this article into Palestinian territories. They deal with the exact same thing. okedem (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territory" has a specific definition with a legal dimension and territorial base that is much broader than the "Palestinian territories". The former refers to the legal status of all the territories occupied in 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza, whereas the latter refers only to those territories in Area A and part of Area B that are under Palestinian self-government. As noted by the BBC, PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES: "Strictly speaking, the phrase Palestinian Territories refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority. They are difficult to work out, because of the way the West Bank was divided into complex security zones under the Oslo Accords and because of changes on the ground since the outbreak of violence in September 2000. The phrase is not the most accurate shorthand for the Occupied Territories although President Bush referred to "Palestinian territories" in his 2005 State of the Union address." Tiamut^talk 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article Palestinian territories? It states: "The Palestinian territories are composed of two discontiguous regions: The West Bank ... The Gaza Strip" ... "Following the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, portions of the territories have been governed in varying degrees by the Palestinian Authority." (my bold).

That article discusses the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, which together compose the so-called "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The section "Name" in that article deals with the various names for the same place. Even a cursory glance at that article shows it deals with the entire territory, not just A and B. okedem (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article and I might remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I don't know which sources have been used to draft that content (if any), but I'd be very interested to see a source that defines the "Palestinian territories" as we do in our article. As you can see from the BBC source above, its not defined as such (at least by them, and they are an RS for Wiki purposes). Tiamut^talk 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the way the information is currently organized, feel free to suggest alternatives on Talk:Palestinian territories. Actually, it might be good, considering the multitude of articles about this. However, right now, Palestinian territories is clearly the main article, whereas this one is nothing but a stub. okedem (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, (and as the sources I cited demonstrate), these are two distinct (though related) topics. This article should in fact be entitled Occupied Palestinian Territories, which is the most common name for the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. "Palestinian territories" is much less comonly used and refers to something much more limited in scope. Tiamut^talk 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support There is no justification for having this article. DrorK (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given a number of reasons, rooted in what reliable sources have to say about these topics above, as to why these terms are not synonyms. If you fail to engage those arguments, you cannot claim there is no justification fo having this article. Ignoring what your fellow editors have to say, isn't the way Wikipedia works to build consensus. Tiamut^talk 11:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've brought a definition sheet from the BBC website, however the BBC itself is not consistent about these definition. Here [1] they use the term "Palestinian Territories" (without the "Occupied" prefix) for the whole territory of WB&Gaza. I found no evidence to the distinction you've made on the Guardian's website either [2]. The EU website uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" with respect to the PA governed territories as well [3], so your BBC-based distinction is not widely accepted, and usually ignored. DrorK (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, with all due respect, we do not use primary source documents to make conclusions about terminological usage. That leads to WP:OR. The document I provided you from the BBC provides an explicit terminological definition of "Palestinian territories" and contrasts it with "Occupied Palestinian territories". The links you have provided can be interpreted in a number of ways, and are not evidence that the BBC definition is wrong. Please provide a source that defines the "Palestinian territories" explicitly. The BBC one you provided, while it uses "Israel and Palestinian territories country profile" in the headline, doesn't use the term again in the body of the article and is therefore not evidence of anything. In fact, the section dealing with Palestine says simply "Palestinian facts". The Guardian link uses "Palestinian territories" as a headline for a series of articles grouped below, but does not define the term. And the EU link is about "Occupied Palestinian Territories", which do, according to every definition I've seen, include the areas under PA control (no contradiction there with the BBC definition as far as I can tell either). So please, no original research. Provide some real evidence in the form of secondary sources discussing the terms themselves. Thanks. 12:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not easily convinced and you are very keen about sources, so here's some more: the United Nations Human Rights' website uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" to refer to the WB&GS [4] and so do other UN-affiliated organizations. ISO 3166-1 uses the name "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" for the territory governed by the Palestinian Authority [5] (in contradiction to the BBC explanation that you cited above). Reporters Sans Frontières use the term "Palestinian Territories" to refer to the WB&Gaza [6], the website of the US Department of State refers to the WB&Gaza as the "Palestinian Territories" [7], so does the Australian Government's website [8] and Thomson Reuters also adopts this terminology [9]. So first of all, the use of "Palestinian Territories" in reference to the WB&Gaza is not an OR. Secondly, There is no real distinction between "Palestinian Territory(ies)" and "Occupied Palestinian Territory(ies)". And finally, since both terms are used interchangeably, we should stick to "Palestinian Territories" as it is more neutral. DrorK (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to look at these sources: the website of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office [10] (Palestinian Territories = WB&Gaza), you can also see GTZ-Worldwide website (a German NGO) [11], official German website [12], this report by the Dutch Government submitted to OECD [13]. I hope you're convinced now. DrorK (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's review your sources one by one, beginning with the last, first, since they got better as you went along:

1. The Dutch Government report is perhaps the most relevant, since it explcitly defines the term. In a footnote on page 7, it says, "In this text, the term 'Palestinian territories' is taken to mean the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan, irrespective of whether these areas are under Israeli or Palestinian control." I find this interesting as it seems to indicate that the BBC definition of "Palestinian territories" is both valid and in widespread enough use that the Dutch Government felt compelled to explain how their definition in that report deviated from it.
2. The official website of Germany seems to use the definition in the Dutch government report. While it is not explicit, by including the total area figures for both the West Bank and Gaza Strip under the heading "Palestinian territories", it seems to be saying that the term applies to the entire area.
3. The German NGO uses the term without defining its geographical scope.
4. The UK foreign office does as (#2) the official German site does. On this page, they give the full name of the area under discussion as "The Occupied Palestinian Territories", indicating that they are in fact using "Palestinian Territories" as shorthand for the OPT.
5. The Reuters link does as the official German website (#2).
6. The Australian Government does not define the term or provide a geographical scope (as was the case with #3)
7. The State Department is ambiguous. On the one hand, it includes maps of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under the heading "Palestinian Territories". On the other hand, there are shaded portions on the map around Palestinian population centers. There is no explanation for the shading. In light of the definition given by the BBC, it could be that the State Department is referring to only the shaded areas as the "Palestinian Territories". Without an explicit definition however, we are simply speculating.
8. The Reporters Sans Frontieres do not defineterm or its geographical scope, as in the case of #3.
9. The other sources you provided attest to the use of the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" as referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [14][15] Though you say this contradicts the BBC source, that's a strange statment given that the BBC does not use the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" [16], and its definition for "Palestinian Territories" is pretty darn clear.

In conclusion, there is no consensus between the sources as to whether or not Palestinian Territories can serve as shorthand for Occupied Palestinian Territories. Furthermore, it seems that "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is a phrase in much wider usage than "Palestinian territories". I'm not convinced merger is a good idea, but I would argue that if, as the UK foreign office suggests, "Palestinian territories" can be used as shorthand for "Occupied Palestinian Territories", it is the former that should be merged into the latter, rather than the other way around. Tiamut^talk 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I expect you to treat the issue seriously. Maps are also a way to describe a territory. If you haven't noticed, the sources include geographical maps, and they are intended to be used. They are not there just as a decoration. Now, the Dutch source does not include any disclaimer. It doesn't say "while most define it as x we define it as y". Indeed, the term "Palestinian Territories" is not fully defined, so some clarification is needed, but this has nothing to do with the distinction you are trying to make. Actually, you base you whole theory upon one remark on the BBC's website, which is not even fully followed by the BBC itself (as I showed above). When I bring you quite a few contradictory sources, you demand a verbal description rather than a map, and dismiss a reliable official source, just because the remark on the BBC suits you better. Let's make things straight: except a single remark on the BBC's website, there is no distinction between the terms "Palestinian Territory", "Palestinian Territories" or "Occupied Palestinian Territories". All of these terms refer alternatively to the WB&Gaza (in most cases) and to the territories under the limited control of the PA (in several cases). All sources but one show there is no distinction between the three terms. Actually, there is one significant source, namely ISO, that limit the term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" to the PA-territories alone, however this is contradictory to your theory that the term "Occupied" implies to the whole WB&Gaza territory, so even this source, which presents a somewhat exceptional definition, refutes your claims. I have a feeling that you really want the term "occupied" not because it adds valuable information, but because you want to make a political statement. I would like to remind you that WP does not make political statements. DrorK (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, it is very rude of you to begin your statement with "Tiamut, I expect you to treat the issue seriously," particularly when it took a significant amount of time for me review the sources you presented, one by one, and evaluate their usefulness (or lack thereof) in detail. I also don't appreciate you assuming that my position is based on a supposed desire to make a political statement. I've refrained from characterizing your motivations in this discussion, and would appreciate that you do the same.

My interest, Drork, is in ensuring that our articles are based on reliable sources and include verifiable information. I'd also like to see them named in accordance with our naming conventions. Given that "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is far more commonly used that "Palestinian territories", if one accepts the premise that they are synonyms, per our naming conventions they should be named as they are officially and/or most commonly. As I pointed out above, the UK foreign office, which is the only source that explicitly establishes that the two terms are synonyms, has indicated that the official full name for the "Palestinian territories" is the "Occupied Palestinian Territories". If we ignore the BBC definition and accept that these terms are synonyms without reservation, per our naming conventions, the article on this topic should be entitled Occupied Palestinian Territories. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

At least we now agree that the two terms have exactly the same meaning. However, I must point out that verifiability is not contradictory to common sense. It is nice of the UK Foreign Ministry to explain that the terms are synonymous, but in fact, no one except the BBC ever questioned that (perhaps the UK FM responded to the BBC?) Many countries and international organizations, including NGOs use the term "Palestinian Territories" without the "Occupied" prefix, and since WP always strives to use the most neutral terminology available, it is better to use "Palestinian Territories". DrorK (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misinterpreted my comment. My statement was purposefully conditional. You cannot simply ignore some sources because they don't agree with what you believe to be true. But if for some reason people decide that we should ignore the sources that indicate that the terms are different, and rely only on those that indicate that they are synonyms, we must acknowledge that the official name (and therefore the name we should use per WP:PLACE, particularly true when there is a dispute) is "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Tiamut^talk 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll explain it once more, even though I think you have already got the idea - there is no reason whatsoever to have an article called "Palestinian Territories" and another one called "Occupied Palestinian Territories". There is only one source claiming there is a difference between the two as opposed to tens of sources that indicate that these terms are interchangeable. So let's take this issue off the table. Now, we should decide which name we prefer. Both are extensively used (there is no internationally binding version here, the US uses officially "Palestinian Territories" and so do other countries and organizations as evident from the links above). In such case, we should seek the most neutral term and use it. Therefore, we should use "Palestinian Territories". That's all there is to it. DrorK (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where it says in WP:PLACE (the naming convention regarding the naming of places) that we should use "the most neutral term" for a place? Tiamut^talk 22:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you heard about a rule called NPOV? It is commonly mentioned in the context of Wikipedia. Let me cite from the relevant policy page: "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources." "Occupied" is a non-neutral term. There is no consensus about using it in the name we discuss - some use it, some don't. Hence it is better to avoid it. DrorK (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. "Occupied" is not "non-neutral" and "neutral" on Wikipedia means placing super-majority views ahead of minority ones. According to countless high-quality, the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are "occupied" and they together are commonly referred to as the "Occupied Palestinian Territories". Every UN agency refers to them in that way, most governments in the world refer to them in that way, and most scholarly sources use refers to them in that way. A tiny, fringe-sized minority instead says "no no no, they arent occupied they are disputed". Funny how this only is an issue for the territories that Israel occupied. Wikipedia apparently has no problems with Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt or Occupation of the West Bank by Jordan or Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Some of the very same users who are so opposed to using the word "occupied" in relation to the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory (and sometimes Egyptian and Lebanese territory) as the word is apparently "non-neutral" are perfectly willing to use it in those instances, in fact even voice support for using that term elsewhere and oppose it for the territories occupied by Israel. I wonder why that is. That said, a merge should take place, but the opposite of what you are suggesting. Palestinian territories should be merged here. nableezy - 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you're trying to tire me, I regret to say you are quite successful. We had an article called "Palestinian territories". You decided to fork it in an illegitimate way based on one inadequate definition on the BBC website. Now, that we both agree that your justification for forking was false, you argue that we should transfer the content of the well-established article into your newly initiated article based on the claim that "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is more neutral than "Palestinian Territories". You know what? First correct your wrong doing and ask to delete this article. Then, ask to change the name of "Palestinian territories" and we'll see if people agree with you. I doubt it, but you can try. Anyway, first correct your wrong-doing. DrorK (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to fork it? Please dont make stupid accusations. I have done no such thing and even if I had it would not be "wrong-doing". I see you have no response to my demonstrating the fallacious nature of your objection. nableezy - 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, please do not accuse other editors of "wrong-doing", particulary when you have not bothered to check the article history to see who made what edits when. It was this edit that tranformed this article from a redirect to its own standalone piece, presumably because, as the edit summary indicates, this is a notable term in widespread use and its meaning simply isn't covered adequately under the article on Palestinian territories. The BBC source I cite to you above as evidence of a difference in meaning behind the terms was never used as a rationale for this. I only brought it here because of the merger request that was made and my belief that because at least one reliable source indicates the term's have different definitions, we should be cautious in jumping and gung ho into a merger, particularly to a less common name. And Drork, when you don't even bother to spend the time looking things up and just jump to conclusions, it really does reflect rather poorly on you. Tiamut^talk 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it wasn't your wrong-doing. My I restore the redirect now? I agree I shouldn't have made accusation, this was probably an innocent error, by someone who read the definition on BBC and thought it was widespread. In fact, and as I showed you above, the BBC idea of distinguishing between the two terms was probably an innovation that didn't caught up. The BBC itself doesn't follow it, see here [17] - "Our work in the Palestinian Territories - The BBC World Service Trust is supporting the development of an active and effective media sector in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Note that they don't use the prefix "Occupied". Now, please do not try to reinvent the rules of Wikipedia. Whenever there are two terms frequently used, we are obligated to the NPOV rule, and "occupied" is not NPOV. The term "occupied Western Sahara" is also frequently used, and yet Wikipedia rightfully uses the term "Western Sahara". Also, no one suggested to fork the article "Western Sahara" into two, even though there is a small territory governed directly by the proclaimed Sahrawi Government as opposed to most of territory which is controlled by Morocco. DrorK (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh no. If you propose a merger of Palestinian territories into this article, I might support. But I still oppose a merger of this article into that one, given that this term has a more specific meaning and is the more official name of the two. Tiamut^talk 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong to assume that there are political motives behind your insistence? Just to keep me calm, can you assure no politics is involved in what you are doing? DrorK (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you? nableezy - 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the McCarthy Era? Do you want me to start questioning your motives too? After all, you opened another merger discussions, trying to merge State of Palestine into Proposals for a Palestinian state, even though the former is discussed in over a thousands books, while the latter is a barely encyclopedic topic.

I've explained to you the rationale behind my position above. I'll add further that given my reservations regarding these two concepts not being exact synonyms, and given that "Palestinian territories" is defined by at least one source as covering a much smaller land area than "the occupied Palestinian territories", it does not make sense to merge the former into the latter. That's putting aside the fact that the latter is an official name, while the former is is defined by one source as shorthand for it. So please, spare me the Inquisition and try, just try to assume good faith. Tiamut^talk 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One source is not enough, especially when the organization that supplied the definition doesn't follow it itself. With all due respect to your rationale, it doesn't hold water, and we are wasting our time arguing about it. The subject is closed. I will merger the articles if you cannot come up with more reasonable arguments. DrorK (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per DrorK.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Palestinian Territories are the place and occupied is the description to some extent. Spell out the difference in a single article instead of having two.Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"occupied" is part of the name used by the UN and its various agencies ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), HRW ([24]), AI ([25]), the EU ([26]), and many other international organizations and scholarly sources. nableezy - 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

May I point out that this claim of yours actually support the idea to merge the articles. Now you have to suggest a name change on the talk page of the older, more-established article, namely Talk:Palestinian territories. See if you can convince people there after the merger. DrorK (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true. An article could be written on the name itself, showing the efforts of the Israeli right wing, and on occasion the government, to remove the word "occupied", how the term is defined by the organizations that use it (the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip). nableezy - 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this the topic of the article? Is is going to be the topic of the article? Is this topic notable enough? Can't it just be added as a paragraph to Palestinian territory? Do you have reliable sources to base these claims? Anyway, you try to justify this forking over and over again, and come up with a new excuse when you see that your justifications don't hold water. DrorK (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have sources, yes it would be long enough, yes it would be notable enough. And I havent made any "excuses", please stop saying these silly things. nableezy - 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to tell you - go ahead, write the article, but I have two reservations: (1) you had quite a lot of time to do it in the past few months and you haven't, so maybe you don't have so much material as you claim. (2) Something tells me that this article is going to be an anti-Israeli political pamphlet, and not a real Wikipedian article... DrorK (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am so very sorry, I did not know you had imposed a deadline on when I must write an article. I'll make sure to keep a mental note of such deadlines in the future. This is me making that note. nableezy - 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have any intention to improve this article in the very near future, why are you insisting on leaving it in its current poor state? A poorly written article is often worse than not having an article at all. A person who advocates in favor of an article, but show no interest in improving it, as you've just did, makes me, and probably others, think his actions derive from the wrong motives. DrorK (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said I show no interest in improving it? My one contribution to this article, prior to you trying to force your pretend consensus, was to add a source, also known as "showing an interest in improving it". Perhaps there were other things I was working on, perhaps I was prohibited from working on them, perhaps I got fed up with some the nonsense that one has to deal with, including with some of the editors in this thread who "noticed" my contribution here and decided to join, that I did not feel any motivation to spend my time working on the article. There are a lot of reasons why this should be an article, and depending on the status of the Palestinian territories article some of those reasons may change. My personal preference is that both articles be merged here, with discussion on the nomenclature and the information in the other article here. But if it is, for whatever reasons, insisted that "Occupied" cannot be used as the title for the article about the territories itself, I maintain that a notable topic is the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The inclusion of the word occupied is done for a reason and there is a reason why Israel is so opposed to using that as the name, often using either "the Territories" or "the Disputed Territories". And this is a topic that would form an article. And unless you would like me to openly question or comment on your motives, I suggest you not question mine. nableezy - 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I don't particularly mind whether the title of the merged article is 'Occupied Palestinian territories', 'Palestinian territories' or something else, but I think it's fairly clear that these are different ways of referring to the same geopolitical entity and should be covered in the same article. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Occupied Palestinian territory is the term used by:

• ICTJ - [27]
• UNICEF - [28]
• CPJ - [29]
• EU - [30]
• Lancet - [31]
• WFP - [32]
• WHO - [33]
• OHCHR - [34]
• FAFO [35]
• Scholars [36]
• United States Department of State [37]
• Spiegel [38]
• UN [39]

It clearly exists as a valid term with a specific meaning. Unomi (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. "Spell out the difference in a single article instead of having two." 'Occupied' is just an adjective and as such should not be in the title. Really I think it should be Palestine (and disambiguate the current Palestine article to denote it as a geography; this article is obviously what people mean when they reference Palestine) but I think 'Palestinian territories' is a good short-term compromise. Currently there exists several articles on the subject:

• State of Palestine
• Palestine
• Occupied Palestinian Territory
• Palestinian territories
• Israeli-occupied territories

They should be reduced in line with other articles of the same category. Int21h (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be consensus for a merge. I think this discussion has been up for long enough. How should we go about merging them? Breein1007 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to let an administrators or equivilent take care of this. These articles are extremely sensitive, and boogymen are apparently all over Wikipedia spreading anti-<your country here> propaganda. Anyone care to make the request? I absolutely abhor the arbitration process and administrator interaction part of Wikipedia.... Int21h (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• 'Occupied' is POV: Israel officialy named these territories differently altogether. Moreover, the adjective 'Occupied' is incorrect, at the Gazza strip is not longer occupied. I suggest sticking to a more NPOV name, such as 'Palestinian Territory', and when they found their own state - rename it to 'Palestine' or which ever name they pick. Yonidebest Ω Talk 07:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are still occupied, unless another agreement has abrogated the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II) of 24 and 28 September 1995. From what I can tell, that agreement is an agreement of how things will be run in Palestine while they are occupied, and it is still in force. If you actually think differently please correct me. The agreement makes it clear who the ultimate authority is: the Israeli military. Int21h (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Page protected

In light of recent edit-warring, I've protected the page for three days. I encourage everybody to discuss the merger proposal rather than revert-war over it.

I note that all the editors who have commented on the merger proposal are among the group who regularly edit Israel/Palestine articles. You may wish to consider asking an uninvolved editor to determine whether a consensus exists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how much time and energy we are going to invest in this controversy. The article itself does not include any information which is not presented on Palestinian territories. The page Occupied Palestinian Territories redirects to Palestinian territories. This article starts with a POVized remark about Jerusalem, which is not in line with other en-wp articles about related issues. The next paragraph is also highly POVized, including accusations about Israel without discussing opposing views. The body of the article merely discusses the ICJ ruling about the West Bank Barrier, but we already have a special article about this issue, and this article doesn't add a different perspective. The claim that "Palestinian territories" refers only to the territories under PA governance, while "Occupied Palestinian Territory" refers to the WB&Gaza Strip was a justification for this forking. It was justified by a page on the BBC website. However, the BBC is the only source that suggests such distinction, and in fact it doesn't follow it in its articles and reports. I think we have enough reasoning here for merger. Why do we need to discuss it any further? Why do we need to bother more people about it? DrorK (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not a hugely important point, but I would like to set the record straight. While I'm sure it's a good faith (mis)characterization, and I do on occasion edit such articles (though they are a very small minority of the articles I edit), I think it a notable stretch for Malik Shabazz to include me in the group that he asserts "regularly edit Israel/Palestine articles". I think it's an even greater stretch for him to say, as he did elsewhere, that I am "among the editors who can usually be relied upon to voice an opinion on such subjects."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is, Wikipedia works by consensus. I don't care to involve myself in your content dispute. I encourage you to find an editor who isn't involved in the Israel/Palestine arena to help determine whether there's a consensus for a merger. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That means that you are going to prevent the merger for bureaucratic consideration. As an admin who decided to plunged into the issue and found out he cannot treat it on his own, why won't you look for another admin who can do this job? How am I supposed to find such qualified person? DrorK (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

These things take time. In the case of this article, given the gravity and politics of the subject, tend to be slow and well ... convoluted. I have seen issues like this linger for years, just to have some random person come in and be a "decider", the exec{utioner,ive} of a merge. (LOL it was me a few times. And I was rebuffed once or twice and left it at that.) Lingering the better part of a year, with little additional input on the matter, with a significant tilt towards a merge is usually enough for a unilateral unprivileged merge in my opinion. Int21h (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post article [40]

An interesting article that mentions this page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Very amusing. Obviously counter-revolutionary / reactionary / anti-Semitic / <your ambiguous accusation here> edits.... :) That article sounds like an essay for an English class. What the fuck is a "pro-Israel response" anyways? Is pro-Palestinian by definition anti-Israeli? Those kinda phrases are so ambiguous they can be thrown at almost anyone and stick. How the fuck can you be pro or against a country? Is it like voting? If you support both "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli" stuff, which are you, pro or against? My guess is your both at the same time, which is why the phrase ... transcends ... logic, and really destroyed the whole article. :( Int21h (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)