Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Unsourced claim that Iran is the only state that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine

יניב הורון, MusenInvincible, would either of you care to provide reliable sources that say Iran is the only state that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine? If not, the garbage in the footnote is going to be removed again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. Your rudeness and WP:incivility to other editors' contributions is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Here are the sources: --יניב הורון (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

First of all, I'm calm. Second of all, not one of those sources says that Iran is the only state that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I didn't pay attention to that.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no objection to adding a footnote with a list of states that recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Palestine, but MusenInvincible seems eager to assert that Iran is the only such state. Such an assertion requires reliable secondary sources, and we have none. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your (Malik Shabazz) objection that none of the news informed that "Iran is the only nation" to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Palestine. But let's be proportional, you included the objection in Iran article while this is State of Palestine article. So you should've written your objection In Talk:Iran, not here (Talk:State of Palestine).

Also If there is another nation that recognize Jerusalem as capital of Palestine, Can you show me 'which nation' it is? Because, until today, Iran is the first and only nation (no other) in the world that officially recognized Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, some other Latine America and Arab League countries. Numerous other ones have calle to a recognition of Jerusalem as Palestine's capital since Trump's declaration. But that's not the point. The whole majority and the Security Council have stated that East-Jerusalem is a Palestinian territory, occupied by Israel. And before Trump's declaration, the huge majority (close to unanimity consensus) was to state that Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel nor Palestine and that the future status had to be part the I-P conflict resolution. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, I raised the issue here because another editor challenged my edit here. If Iran were the first state, or the only state, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, don't you think some media account would mention that? Why is it that none of the diverse sources cited bother to mention this important "fact"? Probably because it isn't a fact at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Pluto2012, would you give me some mainstream news references proving that the government of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela (with other Latine America) and Arab League countries "officially" declared or passed a bill recognizing Jerusalem as Palestinian capital? Because, as far as I know, the other countries only 'called for' recognition or gave an informal statement from state-leader that is not equal with a solemn official declaration from a parliament or government itself. — MusenInvincible (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

[3]

For South America I haven't found which ones but I know there are some of them. I found this at the time I was looking for which countries rocognized Palestine as a State. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, whatever you've written in this talk page is not appropriate at all! Since I did not write that Iran is the only nation who recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, because you forgot to mention word "officially" before 'recognized Jerusalem...' Until recent days, the fact I heard is that the only nation who passed a bill of Jerusalem as Palestinian capital into law is Iran, while the other nations only issued oral statement, which is not binding at all!

Pluto2012, I have said to you to provide "mainstream" news sources, and I obviously cannot accept your first two references as the mainstream online news organization (such as The Guardian, CNN, BBC, or Al-Jazeera (for Middle East)).
For first reference, that "Saudi stresses Jerusalem as eternal capital..." is a claim without any formal position before the law. Let's compare the spoken statement (Saudi and Venezuela recognition) with official written law of declaration (United States with Jerusalem Embassy Act and Iran with passing bill of recognition of Jerusalem (source) Which one is stronger and more binding? the oral statement or the legalized bill into a written law?
For your third source, I might accept the New York Times as the mainstream online media reporting that Arab countries recognized Jerusalem as Palestine's. However, you might not notice that the recognition tend to be a controversy, since some people may regard the recognition as joint-action of declaration by the Muslim nations to Palestine authority to Jerusalem, while some others may view the recognition is declared by an institution (OIC), not Muslim (Arab) countries. (See the discussion East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine)

Whatever state leaders stated is just spoken words and not equal with official written law... — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at the Status of Jerusalem article. The most central countries that recognize Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine are Russia and China. Very few countries pass laws recognizing other countries, and much less their capital cities, however this does not mean they do not recognize. Recognition means treating something as a fact. --Dailycare (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"De jure sovereign state"?

This wording is a bit strange. Aren't all sovereign states de jure, simply by virtue of being a state (a political entity)? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SoP exists de jure *only*, without being a de-facto sovereign state. "International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states". SoP does not have defined territory or a unified government. “WarKosign” 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have a defined territory and for most of its history its territory was even less defined than now. You also incorrectly changed "one government" to "unified government", but in any case it is OR to apply supposed legal definitions by ourselves. Zero^talk 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

By the same token, WasrKoSign Israel by the definition you provide would not be a Sovereign state, since it lacks one of the key criteria, 'defined territory'.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, some of Israel's terrritory is well defined, and many nations have claims to additional territory, e.g. Norway and others in Territorial claims in Antarctica. The current wording in SoP is irregular for this paper entity.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We all iknow that, but the definition cited not 'some' but 'defined territory', and in English, 'defined territory' excludes 'some' bits. Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See the definition I quoted above. It does not say that 'all' the territory has to be defined. If a country has 'some' defined territory, it's sufficient to say that it has defined territory. SoP on the other hand has 'no' defined territory at all, it only has vaguely claimed territory.

I wrote "unified government" because SoP has two separate governments. It was their own intention to unite, it is indeed not a prerequisite. They can be replaced by a single government in any other way to satisfy the one government requirement. “WarKosign” 19:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The SofP claims everything outside the 1967 boundaries. It is not precise but it is precise enough. But in any case it is not true that international law provides an explicit definition of "state". The professional literature on the question contains many opinions. Zero^talk 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Name

Why is the name of the article is "State of Palestine" and not "Palestine" as all other nations? SharabSalam (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Because the term Palestine has several possible meanings and State of Palestine is not necessarily the primary one. “WarKosign” 21:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

polictal article

The title of this article is wrong palestine can't be considered as a state as long as the security Council of u.n hasn't voted it. another fake news in this article claiming that 4.6 million Tourists have visited in west bank is totally bullshit. How come 4.6 million tourists been to west bank while The official highest number of visitors for all times to Israel via Ben Gurion Airport in 2017 was 3.5 million tourists as you know israel is controlling all border passes and checkpoints in west bank. Another twisted claims is that the population of palestinans is about 4.8 millons its absolutely wrong the P.A counts the Arabs in east Jerusalem which is not in their territory.israel also counts them. P.A also counts those who left west bank for living in other place including the palestinan refugees of 1948 they even counts people who have passed away. This article is made up by propagandists for Palestinan authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.23.41 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"partially recognised"

Why is it listed as 'partially' recognised? Its not really correct or necessary. And Why do you need to mention its status you don't do that with any country and besides, every one knows its a recognised state under occupation thats not fully independence and recognised by everyone

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

See International recognition of the State of Palestine. It is very correct to call it partially recognized because 30% of UN countries do not recognize it, and it includes vast majority of the more influential countries. It is necessary to mention because recognition is an important goal of the PLO.

Israel's control (a.k.a "occupation") of the territories now claimed by SoP began before it was declared, so the state was never occupied. Everyone knows that this is a partially recognized state claiming lands that are considered to be occupied by Israel, just as the lead of the article says. “WarKosign” 08:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

The proclaimed capital of the SoP is "Jerusalem" - not East Jerusalem. Several edits have been made in the last months claiming the latter. This is incorrect and I will fix it shortly. ImTheIP (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: West Jerusalem is not claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Please self-revert your edit. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@13zmz13: Can you find something more authoritative than the Palestine Basic Law from 2002? If so, I'd gladly revert. ImTheIP (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Change the number of U.N. members that recognize State of Palestine from 136 to 137 (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine) Jacksonsdean (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done SITH (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

change:"The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967" to "The entirety of territory claimed by Palestinian national Authority has been occupied by Israel from Jordan as a result of self-defense at Six-Day War in 1967" 87.70.15.24 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Change "On 10 January 2015, the first Palestinian embassy in a western European country is open in Stockholm, Sweden." to "On 10 January 2015, the first Palestinian embassy in a western European country is opened in Stockholm, Sweden."

I think this is just a minor grammar fix. I may be wrong, it could be that "open" instead of "opened" is correct, but I feel like "opened" sounds right in this case. Matthew V. (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done You are correct, opened is the correct term here. NiciVampireHeart 17:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"De jure sovereign state"

The lede's first section claims that Palestine is a "de jure sovereign state", but the article it links to states that The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de facto and "de jure" control of Israel. Even more confusing is the fact that Kosovo is listed as a "disputed territory" while it's recognized by roughly the same number of states as Palestine is. 13zmz13 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That's because Kosovo is not the same thing as Palestine. They're two totally different things. --Jayron32 18:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign should be removed. De jure for that matter too. States are states when they are de jure states (meaning recognized by other states). Sovereignty however requires actually exercising control over the territory. Palestine is a state that is held entirely under Israeli occupation, meaning it exercises no sovereignty over its territory. nableezy - 19:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think "disputed and partially self-governing territory with limited recognition as a state" would fit better seeing as the Gaza Strip is described as self-governing (effective control by Hamas) in that article's lede. The West Bank also has differing levels of autonomy. 13zmz13 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Recognition of 136 out of 193 UN members isn't limited. It is true that today the State of Palestine only exists on paper. Which means it exists. We can ponder the philosophical question of what it means for an abstract concept such as a "State" to "exist" forever. It is a very interesting question. Regardless 70.5% of all UN states have decided that yes, it does exist therefore we write that it does. ImTheIP (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple noes. There isnt any dispute as to whether or not Palestine is a state, it's a state because other states treat it as a state, the end. nableezy - 04:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

70.5% of UN states, but not US, Canada, Australia or most of European Union - states that actually matter. Describing SoP as "territory" is wrong. Territory is exactly what SoP doesn't have. It has some recognition and some form of government, but it has partial control over some of the territory it claims. A state that exists (mostly) on paper is a de-jure state. “WarKosign” 07:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

lol states that actually matter. Besides being completely devoid of meaning, and entirely your creation, does not matter even a little bit. You are very literally making things up. There is no such thing as a de jure state (and there is no dash in de jure, one would expect somebody using the term to know this already). Statehood is a legal topic, saying de jure there literally is redundant and useless. nableezy - 16:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Recognition is quite clearly limited. Furthermore, whether the "State of Palestine" is indeed a state (without ever having full actual sovereign control (some control following 1994 in Area A)) is far from clear - in fact, expert sources often claim it is not - "More importantly, a proclamation of independence, even with limited recognition subsequently, does not suffice to create a state.While statehood is no longer exclusively a factual matter, it is still dependent primarily on fulfilment of factual requisites, namely effective governmental control over a population in a specified territory". in Ronen, Yaël. "ICC jurisdiction over acts committed in the Gaza Strip: Article 12 (3) of the ICC Statute and non-state entities." Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.1 (2010): 3-27.. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "Palestine is a state that is held entirely under Israeli occupation" is factually incorrect. When did Israel occupy SoP, exactly? So called occupation occurred in 1967, 11 years before SoP was declared in 1988. Please don't perpetuate lies. SoP claims territory that is considered to be occupied, but it was never occupied. “WarKosign” 08:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You really need to calm down with the mind-bendingly dumb accusations. You make these statements as though being belligerent makes you correct. All the while playing, poorly, a game of tenses. I said the State of Palestine is held entirely under Israeli occupation. The territory widely recognized as within its borders is held under Israeli occupation. You can pretend that because it was not a state when Israel occupied the territory that means it cant be occupied, but that is an asinine belief to hold. I wont stop you from holding it of course, mostly because I dont think your understanding of this topic matters, but also because I have sources and you dont. “Palestine”, “State of Palestine”, “occupied Palestinian territory”: In this report the terms “Palestine”, the “State of Palestine” and “occupied Palestinian Territory” have been used interchangeably depending on context. Specifically the term “occupied Palestinian territory” refers as a whole to the geographical area of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The terms “Government of Palestine”, “Palestinian government”, “Palestinian Authority” have been used interchangeably. Consequent to the adoption of resolution 67/19 by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 2012, Palestine was accorded the status of nonmember observer State in the United Nations. As a result, Palestine can generally be referred to as a State or Country, and its authorities can generally be identified as the Government of Palestine. nableezy - 16:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So even this disclaimer in the report acknowledges that SoP and PT are two different concepts that they mixed up in the report, but the reader can nonetheless disambiguate depending on context. The territory is considered being under occupation, the de-jure states claims them. They are not one and the same. You can keep repeating the lie that the state is under occupation, and saying that you have mysterious sources won't make it any less of fiction. I won't stoop to your level of name-calling, but an intelligent person can't honestly claim that a state was occupied 11 years before it was declared. “WarKosign” 18:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, that source says nothing of the sort. It says that “Palestine”, the “State of Palestine” and “occupied Palestinian Territory” are interchangeable. The territory is, to the UN, the same as the state. The government is the same as the PNA. In a comment about repeating lies it is rather amusing that you seemingly purposely distort what the source says. Your wholly unsourced opinion here is of zero consequence. And dishonestly misrepresenting my position, again in a comment about lies, is I suppose your modus operandi, but Ill leave this for the intelligent people in the room. Nobody said that Israel occupied the State of Palestine in 1967. What I am saying is that Israel occupies the territory of the state of Palestine today. Please stop purposely misrepresenting my argument. And, as your comment remains devoid of any sources, please stop engaging in WP:OR. nableezy - 19:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"De jure soverign state" makes no sense. At best it's a tautological truism; all sovereign states are de jure sovereign states by virtue of being a sovereigng state. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

State of Palestine has no sovereignty over the territory that it claims. I agree that the current phrasing is awkward, "de jure sovereign state" is a compromise that the least number of editors object to. The meaning that the lead is supposed to convey is that on paper ("de jure") SoP is a sovereign state, while in real life it's not quite there. If you suggest to remove the word "sovereign" from the lead - I support it. “WarKosign” 04:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The intention of the phrase (which I don't have time to argue one way or another) is given in Sovereignty#De_jure_and_de_facto. The distinction is quite common in legal writing and does not correspond to what either of you appear to think. Zero^talk 03:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The wording definitely needs to be revised. The State of Palestine does not meet the conditions for a state as they exist in customary international public law as codified in the Montevideo convention (effective control, a determined population, a determined set of borders and the capacity to enter into bilateral relations with other states). To describe the State of Palestine as legally sovereign (the meaning of de jure sovereign) is to misuse both the terms de jure and sovereign. The wording needs to be rephrased to remove the POV pushing and accurately describe the legal situation of the State of Palestine. Île flottante (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you have this wrong. It meets the definition of a state, it does not however meet the definition for sovereignty, its territory being held entirely under Israeli occupation. It is a de jure and de facto for that matter state. A state being something that other states recognize as a state. nableezy - 20:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Because of the occupation, the “State” does not exercise sovereignty over the population and the territory and therefore the three cumulative (or four depending on one’s perspective) conditions for being a state are not met. Palestine is a state in name alone, and not in any legal capacity. Île flottante (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thats just factually wrong. A state need not exercise sovereignty to be a state. See for example the Montevideo Convention, which laid out the requirements as having a population, a government, a defined territory and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It also implies that recognition by other states, while not the only requirement, factors into whether or not something is a state. None of that requires sovereignty, or even effective control. The fact that the State of Palestine has entered into international agreements with both other states and with multilateral organizations betrays the notion that it is not a state in any legal capacity. Palestine is a state, full stop. It is a state that exercises no sovereignty over its territory, so it is not a sovereign nation. nableezy - 18:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don’t have a legal education so I’ll try to explain this simply. First of all the Montevideo convention is not directly applicable (you’ll see that I referred to it earlier), because none of the parties have ratified the treaty. When the convention refers to government, that government is understood in international public law as being an exclusive/monopoly of the exercice of state power, i.e. sovereignty. The PA does not exercice a monopoly of state power over its territory or over its population. The fourth condition, as I mentioned earlier, is debated in legal doctrine and is not traditionally considered one of the conditions. The PA, in my opinion, is at least a subject of international law (like the Holy See, etc.), but unfortunately not yet the government of a state. Île flottante (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Im going to ignore the condescension here because I have sources and you have personal opinions. See for example here:

By the standard actually followed in the international community, Palestine would seem to meet the criteria for statehood, even considering the powers exercised by Israel as belligerent occupant.

Does John B. Quigley have a legal education? Do you? Scratch that last question, you are a random person on the internet and for all I know you could be anything from a monkey to Albert Einstein reincarnated. What you are, or I am, does not matter, what matters is the sources. Your opinion on the matter simply does not count here. Bring more sources and less condescension next time and maybe you might have a valid point here. nableezy - 14:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2019

the section clarifying palestines status has no relevance; its status is pretty obvious, and this should be mentioned in the article content itself as opposed to in the country profile. In addition, there is a separate article that covers the legal status of palestine, as is there one covering that of the holy see and the legitimacy of israel, so i request that this section on status clarification be removed. In addition, it is objectively and factually incorrect to label it as "partially recognized" as over 70% of nations recognize it as compared to the far more trivial number of those who take the opposite position, which is less than 30%, so allow me to put out there that is more accurate to say it is partially unrecognized rather than partially recognized if mentioned at all. thank you and pleas carefully consider my request.

Lo meiin (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Not actually an edit request. Although there are multiple suggestions, they are not phrased in the desired change x to y, add/remove x format. El_C 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion, given my extensive research on state recognition, is that Palestine possesses enough international recognition not to be given an outdated label "partially recognized" as since the early 2010s, it has been recognized by the majority of states across most continents and the United Nations. For this reason, I am specifically requesting that the status heading on the right hand country column be deleted entirely, as is the case in wiki pages covering other recognized nations of the world. Furthermore, My second request is to discuss palestines legal status within the article itself instead. Please, once again, consider my requests.

Lo meiin (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. You need to gain consensus for such major changes. It is not something to be changed by fiat. Please feel free to launch one or more Requests for Comment about these proposals. El_C 23:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction

These two sentences contradict each other (can not be true at the same time), as the Gaza Strip is not occupied by Israel:

"... claiming the West Bank ... and Gaza Strip"

and

"The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967."

--Mortense (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See Blockade of the Gaza Strip. Currently, outside of military operations there is no Israeli presence inside Gaza, but most international organizations still consider it occupied since Israel and Egypt maintain a blockade.

Also see Battle of Gaza (2007). Some consider Gaza occupied by Hamas. “WarKosign” 11:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaza City?

Should we really refer to Gaza City as Palestine's largest city, due to the fact it is controlled by Hamas. It seems kind of like referring to the largest city in North Korea as Seoul, because even though all of South Korea's territory is claimed by the North, the DPRK has zero political authority in the South. Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Palestine" refers to the West Bank and Gaza as a single entity.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on status description

The consensus is against removing the status description in Palestine's country profile.

Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

“Should the status description in Palestine’s country profile be removed or not?”

Lo meiin (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• No. Removing the status would imply that SoP is a "regular" universally recognized state. This is clearly not the case, with a whole article dedicated to describing the complex situation. “WarKosign” 20:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign

First, you clearly have no political knowledge and probably failed your geography class

Two, as you said, this is already explained in the said article and is already included in the general info within this article, so there is no need to describe its status

Thank you and no offense intended Lo meiin (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So you seek a Request for Comments and, when an editor adds a comment with which you disagree, you respond by berating him (and then add the passive-aggressive "no offense" line)? You really need to understand that Wikipedia is a community of NPOV editors, not a Facebook page for you to post biased opinions and insults.

Regarding the question that you presented, I agree with the prior editor's view that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state and should not be described incorrectly as if its sovereignty were generally recognized. Permit me to elaborate (and to give a short-answer in the prescribed manner):

No. While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.

The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No There is a point raised here of high importance. We are trying to describe a very complex situation. We are an encyclopedia trying to describe a very complex situation. There's no unique argument here for this removal. There's no specific guideline to suggest the removal would be appropriate being discussed. @WarKosign: offers a very neutral explanation above. It is neither for Israel or Palestine. It's an argument in line with wikipedias own policy on neutrality but what he gets is a "No offense, but you failed politics and geography class." Instead of giving some justification to promote this change, the original poster is attacking someone. This is a long litigated, thoroughly debated "status description" that has a consensus. While the consensus can certainly be changed, I'm not seeing anything here in this RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying "no offense" does not automatically negate your insult.Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

there is already two whole articles on israel's and palestines' recognition and this article itself already goes into detail about that in the foreign relation section, and the same is true about the state of israels page, so it is a completely unnecessary heading that could, in the most extreme case, be construed as POV. therefore, there is no need to state the "status".

Lo meiin (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem linking the applicable wikipedia policies that justify your position.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• No and I note that the starter of this RFC is prohibited from editing in this area, and while we give leeway from editing talk-pages, that is usually not given for AFD, or RFC's. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:48, 13 September 2019 (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.

"The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied by Israel since ..."

Am I misreading the following sentence, or is it incorrect? "The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967." Israel is not occupying the Gaza Strip, a territory claimed by the Palestinian Authority. So the sentence is not accurate, right? Apologies if I'm misinterpreting it. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Israel is considered to be occupying the Gaza Strip by much of the international community due to Israel continuing to exercise effective military control over the territory. See for example here. nableezy - 18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see — I wasn't aware the Strip was still considered to be under effective occupation by some observers. Thanks for the reply and link! GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Palestinian territories into State of Palestine. The claimed territory of the State of Palestine is the same territory described as the Palestinian territories.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No. These are two distinct entities, a land that is claimed by and parts of which are under partial control of SoP, and a state that exists mostly as a virtual entity lacking actual control over most the land that it claims. If some day State of Palestine has complete control over all the territory that it claims (which involves gaining full control over some land and possibly giving up the claim on lands that it does not control), then we can say that they are one and the same and merge the articles. “WarKosign” 18:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

this 2016 UN document, "United Nations Country Team Occupied Palestinian Territory" includes the following definition at page 9:

“Palestine”, “State of Palestine”, “occupied Palestinian territory”: In this report the terms “Palestine”, the “State of Palestine” and “occupied Palestinian Territory” have been used interchangeably depending on context. Specifically the term “occupied Palestinian territory” refers as a whole to the geographical area of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This comment actually shows that although the authors of the report did confuse the terms for those two different entities, they are aware that they are not one and the same. Even if UN was to pass an official resolution that they are one and the same - it would not make it a fact. “WarKosign” 06:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the situation, I have not said (nor have the UN) that the PT and the SoP are the same thing (nor is any other state "equal" to its territory because a state is more than just its territory), I said that the territory described in the PT is the same territory claimed by SoP, which is true. PT is just land, a piece of geography and the SoP claims it, no confusion at all. To put it another way, there is no article called preState (some state) representing the land claimed by (some state), is there? It is true that Israel disputes the claim over EJer but this claim is not internationally recognized and there is no-one else claiming the PT other than the SoP and its claim has been internationally recognized, even if Israel disputes that.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Israel disputes SoP's claim on the land. Its position is that it is possible that a Palestinian state will eventually be established on some part of the disputed territories (Areas A are a good starting point), while some of the disputed territory will be part of Israel (Maale Adumim or Ariel (city) are good examples of territory that Israel has no intention of giving up). See also Annexation of the Jordan Valley. Some territorial exchanges are a possibility. Most of the countries hold the position that the eventual territorial settlement is to be decided by the sides via negotiations. Nobody knows how it will end, and changing the article to present SoP position as a fact is very POV and mustn't be done. “WarKosign” 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In any case, there is quite a bit of confusion about the same thing within the existing SoP article that I will anyway fix, merge or no merge).Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, they are not quite the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google gets it :) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-04/google-recognises-palestine-on-homepage/4669516 "Internet giant Google has recognised the Palestinians' upgraded UN status, placing the name "Palestine" on its search engine instead of "Palestinian Territories," the US company said.."

I am not google, so what they do has no influence over me.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WP is sources not opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

And google is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I provided an RS for what google did, I did not provide google as an rs.(you obviously didn't follow the link.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, which we could use for a line of text such as "Google now is placing the name "Palestine" on its search engine instead of "Palestinian Territories,". But I am not sure that is what we are debating, as that has no impact on a move suggestion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I merely said that according to an RS, Google thinks that its OK to replace PT with P (this also happens to be my opinion...and that of the UN and sundry other sources I have to hand). So while you are of course entitled to your personal opinion, in WP terms it would be better if there was an RS saying "they are not quite the same thing" and then the argument would be between different RS and not between you and I.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the burden on proof is on you. You suggest to make the merge, you need to demonstrate that according to vast majority of reliable sources State of Palestine are Palestinian Territories are the same thing. Saying that Google (or any other irrelevant entity) considers them the same is irrelevant. A few sources would make it WP:FRINGE opinion. A lot of good sources would make it POV. The merge is effectively saying in wikipedia voice that they are the same thing. It's quite an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and for that you'd need to show that vast majority of reliable sources consider them to be the same thing. “WarKosign” 15:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I specifically said they are not the same thing so that's a non argument. What I am saying is that all the material that is in PT can easily be located quite properly and correctly in SoP (ie that the page PT is simply superfluous). I am going to start putting relevant material in the page anyway, properly sourced and you can argue about how I edit on each occasion if that suits you, its just simpler to merge and redirect, that's all).Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you advising me not to edit a page?Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not when you clearly do not have consensus no. Trying to merge by the back door is not going to fool anyone. If you go ahead with this idea I am going to predict a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• National Anthem of Palestine (Vocal).ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The file is labeled "Vocal". There are no voices on the recording. It is instrumental. RPSM (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Recognition of statehood

The lead notes that the United Nations recognizes Palestinian statehood. To omit the fact that most major UN nations, i.e. United States, Germany, France, U.K., dispute statehood, is to present an unbalanced depiction in the lead. SharabSal'am has suggested that it is "POV" to note this in the lead. This is very curious because it so flatly fails to acknowledge basic tenets of WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you should let the editors at Israel know, they fail to mention the countries that do not recognize them in the lead there. Your skewed conception of NPOV I have already encountered at Trump peace plan. These countries do not "dispute" statehood, they simply have not as yet extended recognition, a different thing. (this is exactly the same confusion you exhibited at the other article, a UN member cannot dispute UN recognition of a state, all they can do is refuse to recognize it themselves).Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I suggest you make your arguments about content. There is no comparison, and a "dispute" is the correct characterization here. A majority of UN member states recognize Palestinian states, but a majority of major-member state (US, Germany, France, UK) do not recognize said statehood. Recognition Israel's statehood is not in significant dispute among reliable sources. Recognition Palestinian statehood is in dispute according to reliable sources. To only note one side of the recognition debate and omit these notable exceptions in the lead is a violation of NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No...it isn't. Your idea of what constitutes NPOV is at variance with mine.Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You should explain what your view is, then. You are not entitled to challenge content and attack other editors, and then refuse to explain yourself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the onus is on you to get consensus for added content that is challenged. Your edits were reverted (not by me, but I agree with the reversion).Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Now I see that you have readded unsourced POV material not contained in the article body and I have removed it. You have been effectively reverted by two editors and have no consensus to add this material.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Nothing I've added is unsourced. Wikipedia leads do not require in-line citations. The lead requires mention of non-recognizing member states, which include almost all major member states, to comply with NPOV. This much is obvious. Stop edit-warring and calling content "POV" when you clearly don't understand what that policy means. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that material in the lead be contained in the article body and that the material in the article body be sourced. Apart from that, two editors have reverted the material you are attempting to add on grounds of POV and the onus is on you to gain consensus for the addition.Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are correct that the non-recognition by France, UK, US, Israel, Germany, etc., is not explicitly mentioned in the body. This is obviously needs to be remedied. Here is a reliable source (Washington Post) clearly supporting the information. It is absurd to suggest that this information is "POV" and I would suggest you and Sharab'Salam avoid making those types of charges. Your disliking mention of factual, relevant information is not a valid objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just so it's clear what we're talking about, we have a number of major-UN member states who do not recognize the "State of Palestine." On the subject of international recognition of Palestine, there is no question that this information is relevant. @Selfstudier:, I do not understand your objection. Demanding "consensus" and objecting to material without articulating a valid reason is WP:STONEWALLING and disruptive. We are required to abide WP:NPOV, and that means including all relevant and prominent views. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The position is already perfectly clear without your additional statements on the topic. I suggest you start an RFC in order to gain consensus for your proposed addition.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, You have not raised a valid objection for your removal. BRD is not a process for you to abuse to keep article content out and push a POV in an article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You have placed the following on my talk page:

"You are repeatedly removing sourced and relevant information from the above article, namely, the fact that recognition is disputed between the UN and major-member states. You have suggested that such information is "POV." You also suggested it was unsourced, which is untrue. Please explain the policy basis you believe warrants removal of this material, as your comments on the article talk page do not make that clear."

Please keep any discussion on this page and kindly refrain from making false accusations on my talk page or I will report you for harassment.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Question to both of you. What do sources say? Applying WP:NPOV to a I/P article is nearly impossible in some cases and this is one of them. Where NPOV cannot be applied, apply WP:RS. Personally I think that the fact there is no Palestinian state de-facto is being neglected and the article implies there is and was a state and that it has a government and population while in reality it exists only in documents and Palestinians will never call what they have a "State of Palestine" because they are occupied and have no state. But what I think doesn't matter more than what sources say. So does the sources say that it does imply recognition of statehood?--188.64.206.134 (talk) (Bolter21) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

188.64.206.134 It's noted above that the sources describe different camps. The United Nations and other entities recognize Palestinian statehood. The United States, France, Germany, UK, among other major UN-member states do not. I also disagree that NPOV is "impossible." It's really very easy. Follow what the sources describe. Selfstudier is opposing inclusion of relevant sourced material, for two reasons that I can glean on this talk page: 1) It's "POV." Apparently this is a catch-all for something that a user finds biased or unappealing, but it is a fact that the nations I mentioned above do not recognize Palestinian statehood. It is also significant. The countries involved are major players on the national stage, clearly, and reliable sources have treated the non-recognition with according signifnace. The other reason is that it is "unsourced." In-line citations are not necessary for the lead, but the material is unequivocally confirmed by reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the lead specifies right at the outset (fully sourced) "de jure" and links out to a legal discussion of de jure/de facto. There are in addition links out to main articles International recognition of the State of Palestine and Legal status of the State of Palestine as well as others relevant. There is more than enough information on the subject for any interested reader and no need whatsoever for belaboring it (unsourced, twice) in the lead when it is not and never has been in the body. It also says in the lead now (fully sourced, factually and neutrally, nothing more is needed--on either side of the issue) "Palestinian statehood is recognized by 138 UN members and since 2012 has a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations". (It actually said The State of Palestine and was just altered completely unnecessarily to read "Palestinian statehood" instead, not an improvement.).Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, As an aside, note that article talk pages are not the appropriate place for you to respond to messages on your user talk page. Palestine is only recognized as a de jure state by entities recognizing statehood. The U.S. and other nations (some noted above) do not recognize said statehood. To suggest that a single view is definitive on the matter is biased. There is no "correct answer," and the proper way to frame the issue is to represent it as in dispute and note the different camps. The presence of spin-off articles does not resolve the problem I identified, either. You are removing information from the lead regarding the states that do not recognize statehood, which are significant. This fails to achieve the balance that NPOV requires. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That isnt how recognition works. A state recognizes a state, the end. Not de jure or de facto or de minimus or de whatever. A state is different than a country, a state itself is a de jure concept. nableezy - 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The "de jure" part was agreed upon in a consensus after almost a year of discussions. The meaning is that Palestine as a state exists only in documents and as delegates in international bodies. The state itself, with a government, borders, population and sovereignty does not exist, courtesy of the Israeli army. It was declared in 1988 when the entire territory was under Israeli rule. Sometimes the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine are mixed into one thing, but this is wrong. The facts we can all agree about is that Palestine is a UN observer and 138 countries fully recognize it. This does not change the reality expressed by the Palestinians that they are a stateless people under foreign occupation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Palestine is currently a UN observer state (it was a UN observer previously). The de jure/de facto distinction is not really complicated, its common sense really, Israel was recognized de facto but not de jure by the US at it's founding and one can look at the German occupation of France/Vichy arrangements as another example). The territorial issue is a complex legal matter. What can be said is that the territory claimed is clear cut (this needs to be the case for state recognition) and supported by many UN resolutions and it is on this basis that the UN recognizes Palestine as a state while it remains a matter for individual countries to decide whether they wish to do so (and the decision tends to be political rather than legal).Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

De jure means "at law." Obviously, linking to documents from the UN, an entity that recognizes statehood, will support a "de jure" characterization if we take them at face value and do not consider alternatives. The whole substance of the dispute is that this recognition is not universal. The 138 collectively is significant. Sources have treated with equal weight the non-recognition of countries incl. the US, France, Germany, UK, etc., which do not recognize de jure statehood. The declarations in this article effectively take sides by not acknowledging opposing views of equal weight and appear to violate NPOV in doing so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The whole discussion above reads like an orgy of WP:OR. To bring it back to actual Wikipedia policies, can I point out that it is flawed from the outset as it relies on a non-existent category, "major member states". In the absence of a UN-sourced classification of these supposed "major members states", the discussion is void. So no, we will not add this unsourced POV qualifier to the lead. Jeppiz (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Nothing about the above suggestion contains any OR or "POV." The information is well-sourced and relevant. Let me remind you a) the non-recognition of Palestinian statehood by the countries I mentioned above is sourced, b) the "categorization" or terminology "major member" you took issue with on on this talk page is not used in the article, nor part of any proposal. These are countries whose positions reliable sources have treated as significant. WP:DUE. WP:OR refers to content in the article mainspace, not discussions over content with reference to sources. The addition under discussion here is whether or not, in a paragraph summarizing international recognition, the fact that these major countries, as treated in reliable sources, do not recognize it. This is not a difficult issue if we follow WP:NPOV. I suggest you: not call a discussion "void," not suggest that sourced information is POV, and conform your subheadings to WP:TPG and assume good faith. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You now have an RS that says "blah" (instead of no source at all) and you think that justifies a lead entry? Give it a rest.Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 You claim there is a category called "major members" of the UN. Kindly provide the source for that claim. In the absence of such a source, this discussion is going nowhere. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Kindly refrain from commenting on sources you apparently haven't read or properly understood. Jeppiz, I never asserted the existence of some formal category, so a) don't misrepresent my comments b) and, by the way,nor is it relevant because no such text is proposed in the article, only the names of the countries. Certain countries have an outsize role on the international stage. I described a subset of nations who are members of the UN and significant on the international stage. Note that France, the UK, and the United States are permanent members of the UN. Of course, the UN is not the only indicator of a nation's outsize role in the international stage.

Here is a short-hand list of prominent countries that have not recognized Palestine as a state.

• Israel
• United States
• the United Kingdom [4]
• Germany [5]
• France [6]
• Switzerland [7]
• Canada [8]

Also noted: [9]

• Italy
• Japan
• Australia
• New Zealand

None are currently noted in the lead. Presenting only information about states that recognize and omitting from the lead the above that don't creates an obvious unbalance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Prominent countries", "outsize role" "subset". Editor POV. To reiterate, your proposal has no support. The ever increasing walls of text are not going to help your cause. 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Your comment is unsigned. "Subset" is a descriptor, not an opinion. And the prominence of the above-mentioned countries is a widely held opinion among reliable sources, not mine. However, if you're interested in debating that, along with perhaps whether or not the world is flat, you are free to find another venue to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I signed it, no need to repeat it, I trust.Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

“State of” Palestine

Would it not be more accurate to name the article “Palestine (State)”? I understand the confusion because “Palestine” can also refer to a region or to the British Mandate (or perhaps even to Syria Palestina, the Roman province), but wouldn’t renaming the article “Palestine (State)” avoid seeming to take a side in the contentious debate regarding the status of Palestine? In my humble opinion it seems to me to represent Wikipedia’s neutrality best as well. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

How is one name more neutral than the other? “WarKosign” 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The "State of Palestine" is a state the Palestinians try to establish, but as a state with the four criteria it doesn't exist yet. Therefore we have Palestine (region), Palestinian Territories, Palestinian Authority and State of Palestine. Changing the last to "Palestine (state)" is not more neutral and is less accurate. When Palestine will be established we could discusa this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Bolter, please inform the 138 states that recognized the State of Palestine as existing that they made a mistake (as well as the UN and more than 50 international organizations including UNCTAD and UNESCO). And as for Montevideo, there is no universal agreement about those nor did Montevideo consider the case of occupation so you ought to stop making stuff up about what is necessary for statehood. The only thing you can say about it is that this or that state chooses to grant or not to grant diplomatic recognition. Official state names are set by ISO and the official state name for Palestine is State of Palestine (one can as well use Palestine where it is clear that what is being referred to is the State of Palestine, ordinarily it is obvious from the context).Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Whatever. It was a mistake to raise this topic again, we both agree it should be State of Palestine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Please add this to the introduction of the page. All other country pages on Wikipedia have relevant history as to the people living there. Some of the information on the page of Palestine (region) should be merged on the page of State of Palestine. I have written down important and factual information with strong sources that should be mentioned on this page, they are below. These are the historical facts that should be mentioned on the introduction of the page. Failure to include these facts shows a bias stance by viewing Palestine as a conflict and not as a legitimate state with history. As I mentioned previously, all countries and states on Wikipedia recognized have history written down, it is only fair to have history written here as well in the introduction. I suggest adding the following: The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small area of land on the southern coast. The name was then revived by the Romans in the 2nd century CE in “Syria Palaestina”. This designated the southern portion of the province of Syria, and made its way then into Arabic, where it has been used to describe the region since the early Islamic era. The Mesolithic Period (Middle Stone Age) is best represented by a culture called Natufian, known from excavations at ʿAin Mallāha and Jericho. Evidence of the early phases of the Early Bronze Age comes mainly from Megiddo, Jericho, Tall al-Farʿah, Tel Bet Sheʾan, Khirbat al-Karak, and Ai . All these sites are in northern or central Palestine, and it was there that the Early Bronze Age towns seem to have developed. he Middle Bronze Age introduced the Canaanite culture as found by the Israelites on their entry into Palestine. The Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–c. 1550 BCE) provides the background for the beginning of the story of the Hebrew Bible. There was no sharp break between the Middle and Late Bronze Age in Palestine. Among the invaders from the Aegean basin were the Philistines, who were to conquer much of the region of Palestine within a century and a half after their settlement in the southern coastal plain. Meanwhile, three other peoples were settling east of the Jordan River: the Edomites in the south, the Moabites east of the Dead Sea, and the Ammonites on the edge of the Syrian Desert east of Gilead. Considered by the Israelites as fellow Hebrews, these peoples had begun to settle down before the Israelite invasion, and they remained polytheists until the end of the Hebrew Bible period. In 132 the emperor Hadrian decided to build a Roman colony, Aelia Capitolina, on the site of Jerusalem. The successful unification of the Arabian peninsula starting in 622 under Islam by Abu Bakr resulted in the integration of Palestine under under Muslim rule in 636. The only site of Jerusalem was the first qibla for Muslim and is one of the holiest places in Islam. Under Ummayyad rule, the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (685–705) erected the Dome of the Rock in 691 on the site of the Temple of Solomon. The caliph’s son al-Walīd I (705–715) then rebuilt the  Al-Aqṣa Mosque.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this edit. Thetruthseeker50 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about State of Palestine, not State of Israel, so the first fact you want to add is irrelevant.

The article is about the current de-jure state, not the whole Palestine (region), so the cherry-picked history of the region does not belong here. “WarKosign” 19:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For the comment above, you are right about the first fact. For the second, I don't agree. I am simply saying to add this under the State of Palestine as history of the people who have lived there for years.

No, this describes the history of the land where modern Israel is located and which modern State of Palestine claims. See History of the Palestinians, it begins in the 1830s, so all the ancient history does not belong here. A link to the history of the land - sure. “WarKosign” 07:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Since modern scholars can't agree on the history of the Palestinians, it is best to treat the history of the region as the history of the region and not part of a collective, national history of either the Israelis or the Palestinians.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

Please change "Total 6,020 km2" to "Total 26,990 km2"

Please change "Within an area of 6,020" to "Within an area of 26,990 km2"

The real area of State of Palestine (Historical Palestine) is 26,990 km2 NOT 6,020 km2

Please check: https://www.nationalia.info/profile/60/palestine it clearly says Gaza and "Israel" area is 26,990 km2 (Palestine historically)

Note: excuse my lack of experience in Wikipedia

Shqear (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Also, please provide reliable sources for your requested change. All edits to this topic area are required to be verifiable. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The source you cited clearly declares that Palestine is "Stateless" Letterman~enwiki (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of East Jerusalem

~ImTheIP Israel applied its law, jurisdiction and administration to newly demarcated East Jerusalem immediately after the 1967 Six Day War Monosig (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and what do you wish us to say?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Hyperlink "Mandatory Palestine" in the second paragraph of the lead. ak47wong (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Hey i looked at the palestine page and i noticed that they say that Palestine is recognized by the united nations and i request to change that because its false information, Palestine was never recognized by The United Nations. 84.229.66.143 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by the UN (it is sourced in the article "The change in status was described as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine"), that is not the same as saying it has received diplomatic recognition. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Change "Muhfaza" to "Muhafazah" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuhafazahItalic text Unicameral nado (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Darren-M talk 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

Hat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:198:3325:78C3:F078:6944:E93B (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Countries

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union dissolved before song was presented ¿Why this 3 countries were presented? EdUwUardo (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

EdUwUardo Berkhan Selama Varti Sarapetaru Hindumu Yakko EdUwUardo (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Where on the page is it?Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

The first sentence of the third paragraph in the lead section has awkward wording. Currently, it says, "On 15 November 1988, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in Algiers proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine." It should instead say, "On 15 November 1988 in Algiers, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine." Momo824 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

I think this sentence is inaccurate and best stricken: 'This article uses the terms "Palestine", "State of Palestine", "occupied Palestinian territory" (oPt or OPT) interchangeably depending on context." It was clear to me reading information in article above that a distinction between the terms was made, and using the terms interchangeably is not helpful, something one would hope editors and their editing policy would be careful about not doing. 107.77.208.130 (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This would seem to be your personal opinion whereas the sentence is sourced to a UN report. Can you show specific examples where a distinction was improperly made? That, if it exists, is what needs fixing, if anything.Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Update National Anthem

Admin, can you please update the anthem on the page, or please give me access to updating it. Thanks.. Johann Von Eckert (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

direct link

shouldn't en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine lead directly here? it would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 246700Sarhan (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Palestine at present requires disambiguation, its a bit silly since it is a common name for SoP but some editors have strong opinions about these things. By all means use Palestine in an edit just don't link it or you end up at the dab page, use whichever of the links on the dab page is closest to what you want.Selfstudier (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Any hyperpoliticized terms like “occupied” should be removed or replaced with “disputed.” Referring to parts of the West Bank as “occupied” is not in line with international legal standards and it therefore inaccurate. Leews832 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ImTheIP (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

Could someone revert this unexplained removal? Ramallah is indeed the administrative capital in the West Bank.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the same name as I think Israel’s capital. Can I get any answers to this question pls?

1. StayAtHome2020 EdUwUardo (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What question?Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer is yes. “WarKosign” 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine both claim ownership of Jerusalem. Do some further reading into it and don't trust any one source. Penumbra01 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Government?

Why doesn't this article mention that Palestine has not held any elections in the past several years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16AdityaG09 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of info not in the article that ought to be. There is a link out to Next Palestinian general election, have a read of that and then suggest something for this page? Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Egypt and Jordan occupied entirety of land of Palestine?

Hello there, The lede para mentions that “The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied since 1948, first by Egypt and Jordan...”

Although this is quite wrong. Egypt never occupied Jerusalem or the West Bank, and likewise, Jordan never occupied the Gaza Strip. So the claim that the entire territory claimed by Palestine was once occupied by Egypt is wrong (it only occupied Gaza Strip), and so is the claim referencing Jordan (it only occupied West Bank and Jerusalem ..never the Gaza Strip). Hopefully this can be changed immediately by deleting such a claim about Jordan and Egypt. Another matter, that runs along the same lines as the main issue, is that the term “occupation” for Egypt and Jordan is entirely different by a sky and ground margin compared to the same term applied to Israel’s actions. Egypt and Jordan were there in such areas without Palestinian opposition (nor is it claimed by them that the two engaged in occupation) and also did not settle its citizens in the territories their armies were in. They were there as part of a military campaign against Israel. This In my opinion gives a very wrong impression about the entire matter in general; it makes one to wrongly believe that the occupation engaged in by Jordan and Egypt was once done in the same manner and for similar reasons as the occupation by Israel.

I hope that such material can be reviewed and dealt with. It gives one the wrong impression in every aspect described. A deletion simply due to inaccurate information is something I put propose as I can’t fathom trying to amend such any other way in the lede para. The proper amend can be listed in the history. ThanksWatanWatan2020 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I clarified it, the links out to Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Jordanian annexation of the West Bank do make it completely clear what happened. The main point being made here is that the territory claimed by State of Palestine has always been controlled by a third party. The given source puts it this way "The 1948 war ended with Israeli forces controlling approximately 78 percent of historical Palestine. The remaining 22 percent fell under the administration of Egypt and Jordan."Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

ShukaIQ (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You do have to tell us what you want to do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Change Feyadeen to Fedayeen under national anthem. 2600:1700:10A0:F220:7511:8D99:2103:AC57 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Done Jeppiz (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (2)

Removing "Football in the United States" from sport section. Irrelevant information for the Palestinian page. BigGussy (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats just saying when the article says football it also means soccer in the US. nableezy - 23:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Vote for a consensus

Shall the wikipedia pages use "State of Palestine" or "Palestine" instead of some pages using "Palestinian" authority which implies autocracy, very limited recognition, and reminds of the expression "Islamic State"?

I think it lacks heavily of neutrality. I am not statuing on whether it should be recognised or not...however it seems very anglo-world/western to use this expression. Even more since it's an english wikipedia (thought most users are not from anglo world) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#/media/File:Palestine_recognition_only.svg

Most coountires seem to recognise it. And well the article calls itself it, state of palestine. And well UN recognition is also in it, in which all the countries are in. Anyway authority sounds different from "state" espeically in that context. State is also rather neutral.

• For
• (Joujyuze)

• Against

State of Palestine, Palestinian Authority and Palestine are different things in Wikipedia. The last one can be used if the context is clear but if it is wikilinked, then you get taken to a disambiguation page. So each time, you need to decide what it is you are referring to, there is not a simple usage for every case.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Is there a clear line for when which name should be used. I see State of Palestine used in all the sub-articles of Palestine. User:DontWannaDoThis^≠ 06:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No there isn't, it just has developed the way it has, all the sub articles used to read "Palestinian territories" until observer state recognition at the UN and then slowly they were all changed. Also there are no 'Palestine' categories. So it is just case by case usage, I will write Palestine by itself if that seems the sensible thing to do and many people do the same but wikilink it assuming there is a specific page when there is only a DAB page. It's all a bit silly but that's the IP conflict for you.Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Map

Edit request: change the map to this so it reflects the de facto situation. -- 185.130.139.39 (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the article covers the de jure state, then any map should reflect claimed territory. The map proposed is a map of territory theoretically under Palestinian control (PA + Hamas) so not what's needed here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A point of discussion

I'd like to recommend editing the following passage in the fourth paragraph of the lead thusly -

The State of Palestine is recognized by 138 of the 193 UN members (Israel is recognized by 164)

Defining, in the lead, one state by comparison to another state seems WP:POINTY and aberrant; i.e. (South Korea has a population of 51,709,098 (Japan's population is 125,410,000)). Further, this comparison is not mentioned in the body of the article making its appearance in the lead unreferenced and out of style. (To clarify, this is not an edit request, this is a point of discussion.) Chetsford (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pointless as well as pointy. A recognition here or there makes little difference in these two cases. Both States appear in the List of states with limited recognition.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I'm making this edit. Someone yell at me if you disagree! Chetsford (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)