Jump to content

Talk:Palestine

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

Article renames

[edit]

If this article is to be renamed just "Palestine" can we start the process of renaming according articles from "State of Palestine" to "Palestine" too thanks Ecpiandy (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woahh, this article has been moved from State of Palestine to simply Palestine. Anyone that supports the Israeli occupation probably got mad at their houses somewhere. M2Cruiser (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2025

[edit]

Please edit the grammar here in the intro "Israel has constructed large settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, where currently more than 670,000 Israeli settlers, which are illegal under international law."

to something like "Israel has constructed large settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, which currently house more than 670,000 Israeli settlers, and which are illegal under international law." HungryBison (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a grammar issue. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"where currently more than 670,000 Israeli settlers" what? Where they live? Where they play trombone? The sentence is not grammatically correct -- that is all I am asking to fix. HungryBison (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, but that is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to fix a mistake where I saw one. :D Thanks for checking it. HungryBison (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you added content. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is not grammatically correct as written. There is an implied verb
where currently more than 670,000 Israeli settlers reside
where currently more than 670,000 Israeli settlers live
where currently more than 670,000 Israeli settlers exist
I chose that the settlements "house" the settlers in my suggestion because I thought that was broad and neutral, but feel free to use whichever verb choice you like. HungryBison (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sorry to ask for another change, but I think you have a typo in your fix, where you wrote the same part of the sentence twice.
"Israel has constructed large settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, which currently house more than 670,000 Israeli settlers, and which are illegal under international law, which are illegal under international law." HungryBison (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged HungryBison (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you paraphrase it into "Israel has constructed large settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, in which by 2024 more than 670,000 Israeli settlers reside, and illegal under international law."? M2Cruiser (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it potentially breaks the rule of parallelism. M2Cruiser (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

[edit]

Palestine is a country in middle East and Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. you guys are giving wrong information about it Palestine is a country, Palestine is a country Hhexxen21 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2025

[edit]

Change country to territory or state because Palestine is not a recognized country. It is a bad and incorrect thing to say with the current war going on. Poserwa (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The present wording is the result of deliberate consensus analyzing reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 07:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead - NPOV

[edit]
RESOLVED
moved out of opening statement in line with other wiki. mentioned palestine recognition in second sentence. WP: SILENCE

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.

Other entities with limited recognition, such as Israel and Taiwan, are not described with phrases like ‘recognized by X out of 193 UN member states’ in their opening statements. This is a blatant violation of NPOV. The bias against Palestine and Gaza is evident, yet editors here seem to ignore it @Adflatuss @Sean.hoyland Palestine should we written like every other country. Or should i dare you to go and change Israel to say recognized by x counties in UN. The fact palestine has limited recognition is in infobox and body. thats enough. No need to dimish its existence in lead Astropulse (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted. That means you open a discussion. It doesn't mean you revert the revert and open a discussion. You should self-revert. What happens in other articles has no bearing on this article. The lead is a summary of the article body. This article has entire sections dedicated to the issue of recognition ('Status and recognition' and 'International recognition'). Palestine is neither Israel nor Taiwan, it is Palestine. And the lead summarizes the contents of this article. I do not find your bias argument persuasive, but it is beside the point. The topic area is full of entitled people who don't follow the rules. Don't be one of those people. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and both israel and taiwan has similar section. and so whats special about Palestine? simple editorial bias. im just standing up for whats right. its not entitlement. ill revert just to follow the rule. Astropulse (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
u want to proof. so go ahead and try doing the same to Israel article. Trump will probably sanction wikipedia Astropulse (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it is just a question about what WP:LEAD says and what the article body says. It's about compressing the contents of the article into 4 paragraphs without losing the most significant information. It's not about what is fair or right or what happens in other articles. Many things are special about Palestine. It is under foreign occupation. It is unable to exercise effective control over its territory due foreign military forces. Much of its land has been colonized by non-citizens from the occupying state. Its efforts to become a UN member have been vetoed by a security council member. But if you want to compare this article to other articles, consider Western Sahara. I also don't agree that stating a significant fact about Palestine's recognition by a large number of UN members diminishes anything. It's just a fact. It's true that it is already in the infobox, so a redundancy argument has some validity, but so are several other significant features of Palestine that also appear in the lead. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is in a factually "worse" position that "just" limited recognition like Israel and Taiwan, it has extremely limited de-facto sovereignty. Even if 193 out of 193 UN members will officially recognize the State of Palestine in 5 minutes time the fact is that it just doesn't the minimal self-control to be described as a truly sovereign state. DGtal (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another difference is that it is not allowed to have a national army to defend its people and land. But all of these things are beside the point. We can simplify it down to a 'how to summarize the article' question. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are from Israel, I ask that you refrain from participating in this discussion due to potential bias. While everyone has some degree of bias, it may be more pronounced for you discussing Palestine. Astropulse (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a question of Palestine’s recognition (by UN) a crucial factor to its definition as country in opening statement ( not in lead, i have no problem mentioning it later on ). maintain consistency with other wiki's is also a factor, if not it could suggest a double standard. Because of the prominence of placement of the contested text, especially to the detriment of other defining aspects, im argue its UNDUE. Because its recognized my majority of the UN - there is no need to detail the specifics of how many countries recognize it. Lede should only have significant info as per WP:LEAD - and details can be in body or infobox.
My proposal is to remove it from the opening statement OR move it later on in the lead. Astropulse (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to say, because they are the the same. Tawain was a member of the UN, and Israel is a member of the UN. Neither of those statements applies to Palestine. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it's ok to look at other Wikipedia articles for hints, we do not necessarily have to follow them. We follow the sources. For this article, it'd be sources about Palestine.
Recognition of Palestine is mentioned in a WP:Tertiary source A Guide to Countries of the World (4 ed.), in Palestine entry:

In 2012, the UN agreed to grant Palestine ‘non-member observer status’ (having rejected full membership the year before), and by 2015, over 130 countries had recognized the ‘State of Palestine’, including the Vatican. In 2015 Palestine became a member of UNESCO.

I think it's definitely DUE in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 18 February 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: In the first sentence, "recognized by majority of UN member states" should be corrected. It should either say, "recognized by a majority of UN member states", or it should indicate the number of UN member states that have recognized Palestine.

Diff:

−
recognized by majority of UN member states
+
recognized by a majority of UN member states

2600:4040:20AC:2900:A024:F1B5:3624:A2B1 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Please add a link on "Palestine Liberation Organization" and "Palestinian Authority" in the note "e". Thank you, Legonin (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

formating

[edit]

Can someone close these correctly? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 7 March 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Please add a link to Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority in the note f.

Diff:

−
Note that the name ''[[Palestine (region)|Palestine]]'' can commonly be interpreted as the entire territory of the former [[Mandatory Palestine|British Mandate]], which today also incorporates Israel. The name is also officially used as the short-form reference to the State of Palestine, and this should be distinguished from other homonymous uses for the term including the Palestinian Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the subjects of other [[History of the State of Palestine|proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian state]].
+
Note that the name ''[[Palestine (region)|Palestine]]'' can commonly be interpreted as the entire territory of the former [[Mandatory Palestine|British Mandate]], which today also incorporates Israel. The name is also officially used as the short-form reference to the State of Palestine, and this should be distinguished from other homonymous uses for the term including the [[Palestinian Authority]], the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]], and the subjects of other [[History of the State of Palestine|proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian state]].

Legonin (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

real or not real state?

[edit]
WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Palestine" has no territory over which is exercises sovereignty, which is the most basic requirement of statehood. All of Judaea and Samaria (the West Bank) is controlled directly or indirectly by Israel, and Gaza is currently being fought over by Israel and Hamas. It is a puzzle how the "friends of Palestine" can on the one hand assert that Palestine is a sovereign state, while on the other hand denouncing the Israeli occupation of that state's territory.

The main argument against recognition is that it would reward the Palestinian leadership for their decades of rejectionism and refusal to negotiate seriously with Israel to secure a real, as opposed to fake, Palestinian state. If the Palestinian leadership had been willing to give up their fantasy of destroying Israel and driving the Jews into the sea, there would have been a real Palestinian state decades ago - and a much bigger one than any they are likely to secure in the future. Rewarding Palestinian rejectionism with recognition of their fantasy state would send exactly the wrong message. 180.150.37.138 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page archive for every answer to this point. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an edit request. An edit request looks like WP:EDITXY. And for future reference, editors have seen this kind of advocacy hundreds, if not thousands of times before. It has no value here. It's fine for social media where anyone can write anything, but Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. Wikipedia content and edit requests should not reflect the susceptibility of its contributors to social engineering, narratives, the stories people are told to make them adopt specific positions and behave in certain ways that serve external party's interests. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Israel
"Israel has justified its civilian settlements by claiming that a temporary use of land and buildings for various purposes appears permissible under a plea of military necessity and that the settlements fulfilled security needs."
Temporary is the key word here under the statement made by Israel to support the establishment of settlements. So, the settlements aren't supposed to be there permanently. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to israle. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was pointing out that the question shouldn't be whether or not Palestine is a real state, but when the Israelis are planning to leave those areas they are temporarily inhabiting. It's been a bit hasn't it? 75.142.254.3 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to Khartoum Resolution and etc. It is also likely that if the PLO hadn't resorted to terrorism, the Israeli then-Labour government would have withdrawn from most of the WB and Gaza (except Jerusalem). Also, the Sinai was 90% of the 1967 occupied land (which, oddly, isn't mentioned too much - IMO this is because it would likely discredit claims of 'Israeli intransigence' over 'land for peace'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.37.138 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're speaking plainly, Israel thinks they have a religious claim to the land. They don't. And they'll discover that in time. I think that this fact may become more clear with the fact that Netanyahu is on 3 trials for corruption and such, and he's still their prime minister. And he tried to gut their judicial system. And he shuttered a news agency (Al Jazeera) in Israel. And he got ultra orthodox citizens eligible for draft (very definitively conscientious objectors). And the Hannibal directive against his own citizens. And three of their own citizens were gunned down by their own troops while surrendering with a white flag. And the timing of October 7th being so close to his trials makes it strange in that perhaps the reason the attack happened the way it did was because it was let through (the same government that managed to do the pagers attack...). The IDF are excellent at disinformation. I've seen one of their representatives in action. It was impressive. But disinformation won't make an authoritarian regime any more palatable I think. How do you think those court cases will go down if Netanyahu is convicted. You think he'll just accept prison time? Or maybe he'll be above the law?
Israel is being propped up by the United States (militarily and reputationally), otherwise the various judgements would be enforced.
But, simply, the justification noted by Israel is temporary. Houses being built on temporary land is a bit strange. Leads to the conclusion that it wasn't temporary, just an excuse, which perhaps some of the aforementioned courts came to see it as such. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Bissio, Robert Remo, ed. (1995). The World: A Third World Guide 1995–96. Montevideo: Instituto del Tercer Mundo. p. 443. ISBN 978-0-85598-291-1.
  2. ^ a b Baroud, Ramzy (2004). Kogan Page (ed.). Middle East Review (27th ed.). London: Kogan Page. p. 161. ISBN 978-0-7494-4066-4.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GA43177 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine&oldid=1279651314"