Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

population_refugees = 7,428,260 - dubious tag

Greyshark09 recently added a dubious tag with the following explanation "i wonder how can we count 1948 refugees and descendants for a country born in 1988/2012". First the year 2012 is irrelevant here, the country was born in 1988. But the question is whether to count the 1948 refugees. The State of Palestine is declared as a state of the Palestinian people and those include also the 1948 refugees. That's why the "right of return" is one of the serious problems in the PLO-Israel negotiations. I suggest we remove the dubious tag. Japinderum (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is retrohistory.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain why the dubious tag is needed? Japinderum (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PNA rebranding itself as State of Palestine

In this NYT article:

Abbas has enjoyed a boost in his status since he led the Palestinians' successful bid to upgrade their status at the United Nations to a non-member observer state. On Friday, he signed a presidential decree officially changing the name of the Palestinian Authority to the "State of Palestine." All Palestinian stamps, signs and official letterhead will henceforth be changed to bear the new name, according to the official Palestinian news agency Wafa.

Not sure if this means the distinction between the Fatah-run institutions of the PNA and the State Palestine are now being dropped or if there are notionally two separate institutions still, but it's probably worth integrating into this article somehow. --Jfruh (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For WP purposes, this is far more significant then the UN vote. Related discussion at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Abbas_changes_PNA_name_to_State_of_Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For the general discussion of that issue I think we should use the talk page Emmette linked. As for how to mention this in the article here I suggest adding a sentence in the "Palestinian Authority" section. Japinderum (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Brazil, Costa Rica et al have begun using the name "State of Palestine". --E4024 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's not news, similar sources (they copy from each other) are already utilized in the article. Also, the cited states "Brazil, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras" have recognized SoP already in the previous few years. What will be interesting is news about somebody out of that list utilizing the SoP name. Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The independence of israel was accepted in the well documanted UN vote in 48'

The majority of nations agreed to estamblish a jewish state,and the information about it is missing somewhere in the article. "The resolution called for the withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by 1 August 1948, and establishment of the new independent states by 1 October 1948. The Partition Plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by the Arab leaders. The Arab League threatened to take military measures to prevent the partition of Palestine and to ensure the national rights of the Palestinian Arab population"

Where's the vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that aspect is more directly relevant to the Israel article? --Dailycare (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

This coat of arms is used by the Palestinian Authority, while a different golden eagle is used for official state documents. See this discussion. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see that discussion and the links there. PNA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PNA Ministry of Interior. That golden version is clearly used by the PNA. The grayish version shown in the articles infobox is also used by the PNA. Do you have a source, preferably an English source, for the distention between the golden and grayish versions that your are asserting, or for that matter a source that the state even uses the golden version. The grayish CoA has been shown in the infobox sense 2010. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"State of Palestine" or just "Palestine"?

Following the UN vote, should the article still be entitled "State of Palestine" or should it now be renamed simply "Palestine"? The article on Sweden, for example, is simply called "Sweden" and that or Norway is simply called "Norway" and so on. (I know there are other article named Palestine, but that is no reason to keep this one as 'State of Palestine' a simple redirect would suffice). For my own part, I think this article should be renamed. Sianska79 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sianska79. I understand that with this we will need to move the current article on Palestine to Palestine (geographical region) but it's small price to pay to keep things to the same wikistandards.--Sal73x (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Sianska79 and Sal73x, the article has to be renamed simply "Palestine". The Palestine article should be renamed "Palestine_(geography)"Gabriel arisi (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It's possible that the present article Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region); the lead should almost certainly say "Palestine" rather than "State of Palestine"; but the article at Palestine should be a disambiguation page. See the discussion at Talk:Palestine#Requested move for the first and third clauses. I'll fix the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

With Palestine admitted to the UN and recognized by the majority of UN members, this proposal makes more and more sense. Palestine is generally recognized as a contemporary country, the fact that there are disagreements on boundaries doesn't make it a non-entity. Likewise, there are quite a few countries that don't recognize the State of Israel but that doesn't stop us from having an Israel article. --Soman (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is about the fourth section on this topic with barely a WP:RS in sight. Someone please list a bunch with various opinions and start an RfC. In a systematic encyclopedic fashion, not POV pushing wise. CarolMooreDC 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is an already larger move discussion/vote at Talk:Palestine#Requested_move --109.186.17.8 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that there are people who desire to keep "Palestine" separate from "the state of Palestine" in order to help deligitimize Palestinians as a people with a long history, with roots in that land. There seems to be an exaggerated focus on the arguement that the STATE of Palestine was "created" (ie appeared out of nowhere) in 1988, and therefore it is not the "Palestine" that most people refer to in antiquity. I dont think such an arguement would fly if applied to Israel, for example, even though Israel actually didn't exist for centuries except as Eretz Yisrael in folklore. I am new to Wikipedia as an editor so I decided to stand back a bit and observe, but I am currently working on genocide and ethnic cleansing as a project and this is my opinion.

Personally I think there should only be one article named Palestine, under which there is a subsection titled The Mordern State of Palestine or the like. A separate article can be called Historical Palestine, or Palestine (disambiguation) to address other stuff.Patwinkle (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a recentism issue. UNGA changes observer from PLO to the State of Palestine and some people jump to make big changes to multiple articles. They don't care about difference between PNA and the State of Palestine. They don't care about Hamas and Israel. They don't care about WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing else than the UNGA observer resolution has happened recently - and that's not a reason to change the article names.

"deligitimize Palestinians" - I don't agree that having article about the "State of Palestine" is derogatory in any way. Neither that having "Palestine" to describe the whole Palestine (region) (that includes more territories than those claimed, but not controlled, by the State of Palestine).

Palestine of antiquity is of course different from the present state declared in 1988. There is a big section about that history. This is so for most of the states - they are relatively recent creations - and their peoples and territories have diverse histories.

The problem with your proposal for "single Palestine" article is that it lumps together unrelated topics and that's confusing and also too long for a single article. Actually, lumping everything together will DILLUTE the "Palestinian cause" and will make the "State of Palestine" a little more than a footnote. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see the point you are making now. Thanks. Patwinkle (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Revert

In a recent revert[1] to the "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" section. Sourced material, that have been added over a couple of days have been removed. Does anyone object to its reinstatement?(why)--Mor2 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object as you can see in the several sections above. Japinderum (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained before[2] your initial objections has nothing todo with this content removal and I have no idea where you gone since. So unless you can explain why you are blocking this, in a simple and to the point manner like 'Night w' did, I honestly don't care--Mor2 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like "Japinderum" is arguing that the phrasing you use portrays the Montevideo Convention as the defining criteria of statehood while ignoring others. The Montevideo criteria has no legal standing in international law, it was just an attempt at codifying one of two widely used theories. None of this has anything to do with Palestine. All that needs to be mentioned is that the UN membership is only available to sovereign states and that a debate exists as to whether Palestine is a sovereign state. Nightw 07:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not my phrasing, its the initial variant copy/pasted from Member states of the United Nations. I have no problem with making adjustments to that sentence. I too think that the 'Montevideo Convention' part is unnecessary and that the various views on statehood better expressed in the sovereign states article. The issue here is that operative word is "adjustment" something that he/you/anyone can do with a simple edit summary, not a section wide revert. --Mor2 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mor2, see not my initial, but my latest objections - all of them are related to parts of the changes you boldly implemented. So, please, as I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 - describe here your proposal of what you want to change and why, do a sandbox if you want and let's discuss whatever your proposal is. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain the need for this edit [3] --Mor2 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is me restoring the status quo. You've already seen my objections above (12:44, 22 December 2012, third paragraph, "The other hypothesis you included..."). Basically, you want to replace a relevant quote of the Jessup source (one among many other relevant quotes as you can see here) with an irrelevant one. The one we have a hundred sources showing it's irrelevant (SoP diplomatic relations column). Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When you say "status quo" I translate it to "I have nothing to say". Considering that at least two people don't see a problem with this, so please explain the need for this edit. To avoid you reverting everyting on grounds of "status qou" and continue constructively, will start from the start, please explain why

1) The first sentence about the 'UN charter' and third about 'Israel's application' are relevant.

2) The sentence "We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership" shouldn't CE into: "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" is not an essential requisite of United Nations membership

3) Why sentence "[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State." with a simple few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN

4) and lastly the relevance of the last section, which can be summed up into "the UN term "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law. --Mor2 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of that I already explained above, but see again:

1. The sentence about UN charter protection of its member states from foreign force is relevant, because right now all of SoP territory is under foreign occupation (according to the UN among many others). There is no sentence about Israel's application - there is only a note about where the quote is taken from - the hearings about that application. So it's not some general out-of-context quote, but quote discussing statehood criteria in a hearing about UN membership application.
2. It can be exchanged for the one you mention or even removed altogether, because it's there only as an example for the next sentence, the relevant one. The sentence you mention as "better/condensed" is from a different paragraph, that's why the status quo uses the longer one instead, for continuity.
3. Because your text is not a quote and because the quote is specific (do not possess..[specific property]..) while yours brings instead one more concept that needs further defining - "sovereignty" (in addition to the concept the section is about - "statehood").
4. that's THE sentence the whole quote is there for. It shows that UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories. If you want to go deeper you can see more quotes about the criteria themselves in the above talk sections.

I point out status quo to you, because you engage in bold undiscussed edits, which is fine, but even when I refer to WP:BRD you push them repeatedly without consensus in an edit-war-like fashion. If you want to change the status-quo, please seek consensus first by explaining what changes you want to do and why. Japinderum (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1) a. How the protection that UN charter afforded to members is relevant to the application to membership? b. Unless you are suggesting that his quote is meaningless outside of the hearing procession, I think we can agree to remove the third sentence.

2) There is no contiguity as both quotes are paragraphs apart, so we can agree to remove it? (p.s. I never thought the better/condensed part relevant, only that it the only thing stated clearly in the quote).

3) We are going to introduce the concept of sovereignty in either case(according to many legal WP:RS). So what the problem with using the better/condensed to the point variant.(also provided with sources)

4) No, you said that "UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories" while the quote says that 'UN term "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.' Which is what I told you before, that you are violating WP:SYN trying to imply something that is not stated in the quote. The quote doesn't explain what the criteria is or give us info on what the classic definitions maybe, as such it was removed.

My edits were simple, making small changes which I already explained here, you already know that because I even highlighted them with difs for you. I am not at fault that you do WP:VOODOO blocking addition of sourced info, because you can't make your case about this unrelated paragraph.--Mor2 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1. a. You can't protect something that currently don't exist (territory free of foreign intervention) and at the same time having it is one the statehood criteria. b. this sentence is the context/introduction to the quote - there's no reason to remove it unless the whole quote is removed.
2. we can remove it depending on what's the overall setup of the edit's other changes.
3. at the point above you suggest removing the quoted example for that same thing, so I don't see a point in adding it in a different form (especially not quoted, I don't know what other sources you have in mind).
4. What I say is explanation on the talk page - for the article I propose using the quote from the source. So, no SYN here. Also, for SYN you need more than one source - here we speak only about the Jessup one. As for what the source means with "classic textbook international law criteria" you can see the quotes from the same source, above.

Your changes are inconsistent and some of them irrelevant, as I explained above. You haven't responded. Also, your changes are not small, but wreak havoc on the whole subsection. It's better if you don't show me diffs or ask me "why do you revert this and that", but explain what you want to change and why. Even better if you create a sandbox as I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 - copy the status quo there, start making small edits with edit-summaries, then I'll join editing and we will discuss it here. Japinderum (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1. a. Good so you agree is not statehood criteria for UN membership that we discuss in this section, but one of many things in the UN charter afforded to UN members and thus its relevance only if you want to imply something... b. I don't mind a little introduction, will get back here when we will see what we are left with.
2. good we agree, at last I am a believer.
3. I see many good reason to add/improve it with several none primary sources.
4. Again this STOP DOING WP:OR WP:SYN, I don't care what other quotes says, THIS quote DOESN'T says that, which is why IT was removed! If you want to re-add it with something that clarifying it, please do WITH WP:RS and simple edits and summaries, instead of blocking other work!

I don't think you understand what I mean by several small constructive changes, here is my small change [4] you can easily go over the list and see exactly what I did and how it adds up. If necessary you can change/discuss whatever portion you need. While this [5] is big change, I don't need to try to figure out why you did what you did and then try to edit out the changes I don't like, which is why I asked you to re-add those in small changes with explanations.--Mor2 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1. OK, let's get to those when we have a draft to work over
2. as above
3. I don't see any reason to add "Dependencies and colonies that don't handle their own foreign affairs can nevertheless join the UN" (that's irrelevant for SoP) unless that's an example about "UN statehood membership criteria are different from textbook criteria" (that's relevant for SoP)
4. The quote says "the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." - that's the relevant part of the quote. I didn't say we should change it to include the other quotes, but only suggested that in case you want "classic criteria" to be described (using other quotes from the same source, no OR/SYN).
5. It's not me that want to re-add something, it's you who want to do some changes. About your small bold changes - I explained to you multiple times - I attempted a compromise in doing some adjustments over your changes, you pushed again for your version and then I and other editors restored the status quo from before your changes. I also explained in detail on the talk page why I did those adjustments and what I disagree with in your changes. The paragraph you read now I have written several times already and as you know it continues with: please do a sandbox where we can edit over each other's changes without breaking live article rules. Please explain what changes you do and why on the talk page, so that we can discuss those. Accomplishing those two things will help us reach a common solution. Japinderum (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So we agree about 1.a and 2 - good.

3)again I have no idea what you are talking about! What "Dependencies and colonies that don't handle their own foreign affairs can nevertheless join the UN" ?! we spoke about changing: "[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State." with a simple "few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN" and providing secondary sources, instead of this primary one.

4) Who cares if its "relevant part of the quote" when its not relevant to the topic at hand, Which is why it was removed! My question wasn't how you can make it relevant, but why you keep re-inserting this whole paragraph, block changes, make me explain this again and again, rather than actually add something constructive that will make this specific section relevant?!--Mor2 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

1)2) as I said, depends on what the final result is.

3)That's what I talk about. Your "non-sovereign" UN 1940s members are dependencies and colonies that didn't conduct their own foreign affairs (see Jessup source if you want) - that's what their "non-sovereign"ess is. I explained to you multiple times - that's irrelevant for SoP (it is declared as independent state and it conducts its own foreign affairs with ~100 states for more than 20 years already). It's relevant only as an example for 4) and it seems you don't want 4) included.

4) That's a quote relevant for the topic. The topic is UN statehood criteria (and the quote explains about them that they are different from the classic statehood criteria) and how SoP fares according to those. Of course I agree with adding other sources (or quotes from the Jessup source, there are plenty there) describing the criteria and sources about whether SoP covers them.

Please make your proposal for what sources describing which criteria you want to add. No diffs, just a list:

• criteria1[source1], SoP complies (yes/no)[source2], sentence for the article
• criteria2[your opinion], SoP complies (yes/no)[source3], sentence for the article
• criteria3[source4], SoP complies (yes/no)[your opinion], sentence for the article
• criteria... (I assume you'll have a source either for the criteria or for SoP compliance or for both; in the ideal case all will come from a single source, e.g. the UNSC report, but it seems that's not public).

The Jessup source has plenty of quotes describing the criteria (for statehood: capacity for foreign affairs, government, people, control over territory; for UN membership: statehood, peace-loving, able to carry out Charter obligations, willing to carry out Charter obligations; related, but not codified: diplomatic recognition by and political opinion of the UN members). I extracted the quotes above. Of course that source from 1948 doesn't mention SoP, but for each of the criteria described in the source you can find other sources describing SoP in that regard. I don't suggest making that exercise in the article (so don't yell OR/SYN), but do it for yourself. I would be happy to see what your opinion is - which criteria SoP covers and which it doesn't. Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Its a waste of time... do you have any objections to Wikipedia:Third opinion ?--Mor2 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Making a proposal along with the sources to back it up is not a waste of time. After you present your proposal here, then of course we can invite others to join the discussion. Right now there's nothing to ask a third opinion about. Japinderum (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that as well. Because I am tired of you arguing with yourself on things we are not discussing and I am tried of explaining you why the quote is not relevant to the topic. You want to constructing something relevant from that source by combining several quotes make your suggestion(when I get there I'll just use any number of books on UN admission), but at this point its irrelevant and this a valid edit.--Mor2 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also tiered of explaining to you why the quote is relevant, but I do you that courtesy. I also explained to you that your edit replaces the relevant quote (UN criteria are different from classic criteria) with an irrelevant one (Dependencies were among the UN founders). So, no, it's not a valid edit - why do you think having UN members without a capacity to conduct their own foreign affairs is relevant to SoP who has that capacity and conducts diplomatic relations since its inception in 1988? Japinderum (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

It seem that Japinderum and me at an impasse, i'd like to receive a third opinion on the question, so we can get the the ball rolling again and build something rather than argue over and over on the something. The issue at hand is with the legal section, which deals with Statehood and UN Charter[6], where we are trying to establish what are the criteria for admission into the UN. In this edit[7] Japinderum re add this quote:

"the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.

Question: Considering that this quote doesn't state what is the UN definition for "State", nor what is the definition from "classic textbooks" the speaker refers to in the late 40s, nor what does he means by "may not be wholly identical". Is this quote as is, relevant to determining what are the criteria for admission?

I think it is not relevant, because everything that might seem relevant in it is WP:SYN. Instead of bringing the actual criteria from a book dealing with admission to the UN or one that deals with Palestinian admission. It use unrelated case of Israel, ignoring the circumstances and context of the speaker opinion and selectively picking several section from this primary source. All it does is try to imply that admission criteria are not relevant, that they can be waved out, playing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict saying they too didn't comply fully. While this just the position of the speaker, it refers to a case of unrelated country and refer to a fulfillment of a specific condition. It doesn't show other positions or show UN practice since we don't know if this position was accepted in resolution. --Mor2 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not "instead of bringing the actual criteria from a book". If you have such book, let's use it as a source. I asked you in the above section to provide such other sources, but you haven't so far. "Selectively picking...from this source" - I asked you above to pick other quotes from the source, but you haven't so far. Israel has nothing to do with that - the Jessup source is from the UNGA discussion of Israel UN membership application and the quote utilized is not about Israel, but about UN membership criteria in general (which obviously are part of that discussion).

Now, let's see your SYN/OR: "they too didn't comply fully" - does the source contain a statement that Israel doesn't fully comply or that's your opinion? Or you complain that the quote you question implies "Palestine doesn't fully comply" and "that's irrelevant"? It implies neither. It doesn't say anything about SoP compliance with UN admission criteria and doesn't say they are irrelevant. "imply that admission criteria are not relevant" - on the contrary, the quote states (and gives supporting example from the UN practice) that UN statehood criteria (one of the admission criteria) are different from "classic textbooks on international law" statehood criteria (which are described in detail elsewhere in the source). Different, not irrelevant.

So, instead of requesting to delete the only source in that section describing something about the UN membership criteria, I again (see 09:24, 7 January 2013) suggest you make a proposal here about what other sources (or parts of that source) describing those criteria and/or SoP compliance you want to add. Japinderum (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Again you lose focus, arguing irrelevant points. The only question that matter is if this quote is relevant, so your post boils down to your last statement i.e. that you think that the source "describing something about the UN membership criteria". Which is the core of the problem, we are using a primary source not directly related to the topic, which is vaguely describing "something", so it doesn't matter if you agree with me what it implies, only if you can show that it provide anything relevant without WP:SYN. Note that due to its vagueness you already made assertions that the quote says that "UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories" but its not, its what you think it implies, but not clearly stated in the quote. Furthermore, I can not provide actual sources that show what needed for admission(instead of source that implies what might not be needed), trim that one or do anything, because you keep stone walling, insisting that this quote(as whole, not just the discussed part) is relevant and reverting any change and thus we can't proceed.--Mor2 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't loose focus, I only pointed out conflicting statements in your previous comment.

Yes, that quote doesn't say much, but that's all we have in the status quo and you are still to make a proposal about what other quotes from that source and what other sources you want to add. What the quote says is relevant (as explained in above section - it's a primary source dealing with the topic of UN membership criteria during official discussion of a UN membership application) and you are still to propose anything that's more relevant. I'm not preventing you from proposing that, on the contrary - I asked you multiple times to use this talk page and to present your proposal (see 09:24, 7 January 2013).

Any "assertions" I've made are on the talk page in repeat explanations to you, not in the article. As for whether "classic textbook criteria" Jessup refers to in the quote are the same as "Declarative/Constitutive theories" - the criteria themselves (without calling them "Declarative/Constitutive") are described in detail elsewhere in the source, so again, please say which other quotes from the source you want to add.

So, I again ask you, please explain here what quotes or sources you want to add - "criteria1[source1 or your opinion], SoP complies (yes/no)[source2 or your opinion], sentence for the article" or do a sandbox with consecutive edits. Japinderum (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: Hello. I am User:Codename Lisa and I am responding to this third opinion request. If any of you are unfamiliar with what is (and what is not) a third opinion, please see WP:3O. Now, I looked at the contribution log for any circumstantial evidence and now I can say with certainty that the disputed sentence is not justified in Wikipedia. It employs three instances of weasel words that are not allow in Wikipedia: It does not give the classic definition of "state", it does not define what is a classic text book and "may not be wholly identical" does not specify to what extent they have differences and to what degree the speaker is certain about the presence of an alleged difference.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the source (the rest of it, not only what's quoted in the article). It describes in detail the classic definition of "state". Also, the point is not in the "extent of differences", but in the fact of existence of differences. Japinderum (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Mor2 and Lisa. A 60+ year old quote, that doesn't mention Palestine, doesn't actually give a definition of "state", doesn't explain the differences, and is filled with weasel words really doesn't add anything of value to the article. I'd also like to point out that Japinderum is currently arguing here the exact opposite point: that Palestine doesn't meet the declarative criteria for statehood as a direct result of there being a debate over whether they fulfill the the UN charter statehood requirements (see [8]). I'd much appreciate some input at our discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#arguably a contemporary example on this closely related issue. TDL (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013

50.1.65.208 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the first time I have seen an edit request from an IP to place a POV tag on a semi-protected page! Please explain exactly why and where you think this article is biased, and how you suggest remedying this. Otherwise, please excuse me for failing to take seriously such a request from an IP whose only other edits appear to be drive-by tagging. RolandR (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please start a discussion here on the talk page about the POV issues. Then, if needed, someone can tag the article. RudolfRed (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't see why you have to be rude. You can do your own research on the 1964 PLO charter, or you can ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.56.158 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

I thought it interesting to note the withdrawal of funding from UNESCO by the USA after Palestine achieved membership. Could add text at end of UNESCO section.

The United States cut its funding to UNESCO in protest of Palestine's successful membership.

P-Stackz (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As it stands, I see WP:NPOV issues. In a quick internet search of major news articles about this, this Reuters article is the only one using the word "protest". All other articles are referring to this as a required legal response based on US legislation. Also, I'm not sure this belongs in this article at all - it's more an issue of US-UN relations than of anything relating directly to Palestine. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Typo

"Largest city Jerusalem(proclaimed)[Gaza]](de facto)" From the infobox. Gaza needs another square bracket in front of it (I don't have clearance to fix this myself) 82.6.34.227 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusion in Background Section

The last paragraph in the section "background" introduces PNA, Area A, B and C without explaining what they are. I am a novice concerning the State of Palestine or the history of this region, so it didn't make any sense to me. I have put the parts that don't make sense to me in bold, below.

"As envisioned in the Oslo Accords, Israel allowed the PLO to establish interim administrative institutions in the Palestinian territories, which came in the form of the PNA. It was given civilian control in Area B and civilian and security control in Area A, and remained without involvement in Area C. In 2005, following the implementation of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, the PNA gained full control of the Gaza Strip with the exception of its borders, airspace, and territorial waters.[iii] Following the inter-Palestinian conflict in 2006, Hamas took over control of the Gaza Strip (it already had majority in the PLC), and Fatah took control of the West Bank (and the rest of the PNA institutions)[citation needed]. Currently the Gaza Strip is governed by Hamas, and the West Bank by Fatah."

Sumostorm (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated material in opening paragraphs

The first few paragraphs may need a bit of rework. The end of paragraph 2 talks about the 29 Nov 2012 vote in the UN to upgrade to non-member observer state. Then, in the first sentence of paragraph 4 that exact information is repeated again and then goes on to add a bit more detail. I think it would flow better if everything concerning that vote was in one place. Sumostorm (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Queen of England is a Queen...

> The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭin)[1][2] is a state that was proclaimed on 15 November 1988[3] by the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO's) National Council (PNC) in exile in Algiers which unilaterally adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence.

Putting the words "is a state" in this sentence is not helpful. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as it allows for wikilinking the article on state to enlighten those who are confused as to what the word means and therefore think it is pov to call this that. nableezy - 08:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Confused about what the word "state" means...

Why are you bringing up "pov"?

Try to approach this from a grammatical standpoint. As the title of this section shows, it is redundant to call it a state. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why am I bringing up "pov"? Because before you decided to try a different approach to achieving your goal of removing the term you claimed the inclusion of the term is "pov". As far as your most recent argument, state in the title is in reference to the long form name, it doesnt necessarily mean that the topic is a state (polity). So we include the term with a wikilink. And dont edit-war, you revert again without consensus Ill report it. Waiting two days to revert doesnt change that you dont have consensus for the change. nableezy - 06:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop with your posturing. The sentence is grammatically confusing. Additionally, the state declared in 1988 is different from the one recognized as an observer nation at the UN GA. It is pushing a point to say "The Queen of England is a human who..." because some people think she is a space-lizard. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is posturing. And no the states are not different, try not to make things up, it doesnt make you look any better. And nobody besides you has found the sentence grammatically confusing, though kudos for moving on to a new argument. The sentence is fine, and another revert made without consensus will quickly inform you that I was indeed not posturing. nableezy - 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't made your case, only attacked my motives. Why is it good to say "The State of Palestine is a state..."? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I have, it was in my first and second replies to you. If you cant be bothered to read it that aint my problem. nableezy - 14:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is that readers will misunderstand the word "state"? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna try to rework the sentence. Please feel free to help. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try to tighten up the lead sentence. I'm open for any debate or consensus building about how that should go, but for now I'll try a few swings. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Youve taken several swings, and there is nothing wrong with the lead sentence. Stop. nableezy - 13:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop trying to improve the article? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The authorities of Palestine are basically a government in exile since they lack control of the territories they claim. This is mentioned in the body numerous times, so it belongs in the lead. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't say? Well, that's news. Particularly as we just have been informed, by the U.S. Secretary of State, no less, that talks between Israel and the PA are to resume. May be you wait a bit, before you transfere the PA into exile? Not that it matters. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The Palestinian leadership is called the PA. That is because they are the PA. The "State of Palestine" is a semantical creation, not a reality. To say that it is, is to assert a desire (or POV) not a reality. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicago Style, please stop your disruptive, POV, anti-consensus, defamatory edits that you are currently practicing. I see you were blocked once for this, and were warned several time for the same. Your edit on Jerusalem was in clear violation of the decision made by Arbitration Committee. --AsceticRosé 10:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One more time Im going to AE. You are edit-warring against every other editor on this talk page, and no you only doing it once a week does not mean it isnt edit-warring. And you have gone through several reasons, all of them contrived, for the change. Youve first said it isnt an issue of "pov", that it was grammar, then that it is repetitive, and now, perhaps because it is difficult to track so many garbage arguments, you have gone back on your previous claim and say it is "pov". You remove that term one more time without consensus and I am going to AE. nableezy - 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we (also) have "State of Palestine (history)" and "State of Palestine", please?

Closing discussion with blocked IP editor from Norway. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can we (also) have "State of Palestine (history)" and "State of Palestine", please? I think it may be important how the Palestinians would like to write about their "Culture, Transports, Economy, Domestics, Politics and the rest" of the topics we see under other nations and to keep these articles to some shortness if this is desireable, we may split them into two as I write here in the beginning of this text. Should we do it? Should we include these usual topics? It can be exciting now to see how development almost takes place "live". Agree? Best wishes, 95.34.151.21 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You mean a separate history article? We'd probably want that at History of the State of Palestine (currently a redirect to History of Palestine (the region)). --BDD (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with this. Please remember the move of the appropriate sections, such as background and (newer) history too, from this article, so that the usual state/nation sections can appear as written above. Thank you for answering. 95.34.151.21 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Either way, can we have a Notice-poster showing up, right under "Institutions", url: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/State_of_Palestine#Institutions, advising people to visit the Palestinian National Authority for these issues above? Yes? 95.34.151.21 (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

New title

"This article is about the sovereign state proclaimed in 1988 that is an observer of the United Nations."

1. State of Palestine is not sovereign. It might be once additional steps are taken. 2. Since when 'State of Palestine' is an observer of the United Nations? iirc the PLO delegate is represented in the UN, which was later designated Palestine and now granted observer status.

--85.250.120.233 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1. You are right, I am removing sovereign.

2. No, the PLO declared the state of Palestine and it is that state, which has been recognized by 100+ other states as a state, that is an observer at the UN. That should be clear from the PLO statement on asking for recognition, which includes:

Recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border is a sovereign decision of each state. Already 128 countries, including 9 of the ten most populous countries in the world recognize Palestine. Combined, these countries’ populations represent 75% of the world population.

What was recognized by 128 countries is the state discussed in this article. nableezy - 14:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Nableezy.

We can not link to State (polity) because that is defined as "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory."

The Palestinian people do not hold a monopoly of force in the Palestinian territories. I understand the dilemma, but the State of Palestine is not a state in the Palestinian territories. It is represented as such in the General assembly, and is therefore a state. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That definition of a state derived from Max Weber and is described in the wikipedia article "monopoly on violence" where the word legitimatem which you've deleted in your reference to that definition, is in fact stressed (italicised). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A general piece of advice would be to stop editing the encyclopaedia based on your limited and biased understanding of the topics and only make changes that can be supported with WP:RELIABLE SOURCE that are directly related to the topic you want to edit. Dlv999 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Chicago Style,User:Dlv999 and Nableezy should not insist on claims that are incorrect. Palestine is not a sovereign state, despite the wishes of some editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.57.153 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent change of Palestine's status in the UN is described thus: "The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine"" (search article for source). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sovereign State" of Palestine

According to the definition of "sovereign state" given in Wikipedia- backed up by cold, hard evidence, "Palestine" does not qualify. This is 100% clear. Do not let your own politics get in the way of truth. It should not be referred to as such. lanlan_lanwan —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation for background/response). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the definition of "sovereign state" given in Wikipedia:

A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

"Palestine" certainly does not qualify, and for one to make the claim that it does, the burden of proof is on them. lanlan_lanwan

Please see User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and read WP:CIRCULAR. You can't use Wikipedia in this way as a source to support your argument. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the necessity to use the provocative word sovereign at the top of the article. Add at least the adverb de jure. Better remove it wholly. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But respectable RS like Reuters and The Telegraph did see the necessity of using it at the top of their articles. Why ? I have no idea and I don't care, but I strongly object to the methods that have been used to try to remove it. Rational evidence and policy based decision making through discussion must be enforced. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the opening sentence of the article to "The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭin) is a de jure sovereign state..." instead of it being just a sovereign state. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 22:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why no link to the excellent Wiki site Palestinian Political Violence?"

Hi. I was surprised to find no direct link between the pages "Palestine" and Palestinian Political Violence. Why is this? It seems extremely well-written and documented, as well as very relevant to this page, to say the least, and to ignore the fact that "Palestine" its self-labeled "Palestinians" and the various political factions, groups connected in many ways to active participation in political terrorism to achieve their aims of statehood seems...suspicious. At least it should be linked to in the "see also" section at the bottom? Just wondering. Thanks114.162.170.83 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If you expand the 'Articles relating to the State of Palestine' navbox at the bottom of the article you will see that it contains various navboxes. The 'Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people' contains links to all sorts of articles related to this one, including Palestinian Political Violence. Perhaps you were also wondering something like 'what about the thousands of Palestinian's killed or injured by Israel, that seems very relevant to this page, to say the least, and to ignore the fact that...' etc. There is a Palestinian casualties of war article but it isn't linked in the navbox. You could add that article to the navbox yourself. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign status of Palestine in hatnote

The hatnote in this article correctly says This article is about the sovereign state proclaimed in 1988… . It is not saying that State of Palestine became sovereign in 1988. Rather, it is talking about the present status, as Palestine presently got a sovereign status. Hope Chicago Style (without pants) will stop his undue edit-war. He should use talk-page instead of edit-warring. -AsceticRosé 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The qualifier "sovereign" is not needed. It is called the State of Palestine, not the soverign State of Palestine. It is a political point. Also, remember to use the minor "m" only if the edit is completely uncontroversial. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the legal literature and found no agreement on what "sovereign" actually means. In fact I found learned articles stating with many examples that there is no agreement on what "sovereign" means. However one commonality seems to be that "sovereign" is different from "able to exercise its sovereignty". One article in a law journal calls a place under occupation "under the sovereignty of one state and the administration of another". The argument that "sovereign" is wrong is not a good argument. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings on whether we need to say it even if it is valid. Zero^talk 01:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

De jure Vs De Facto

You use two sources to Justify the inclusion of Palestine De Jure Status as a State. 1 is a news article about a UN General Assembly resolution. 1 specifically states that they got De Facto recognition. The first source mentions neither De facto nor De jure status as a Sovereign state. The second one only mentions de facto recognition. Again these also use a UN Generally Assembly. It's a Nonbinding resolution. They change a word. Entity. They changed that to state. This neither adds not removes Sovereignty from to to Palestine. The General Assembly can not do that. Unless you have a source that's this status is their De Jure status then you need to use your sources and change it to de facto.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Noting in the lead that it is "De facto Sovereign state", based on two "breaking news" articles is completely uncalled for and misleading(***). Just as the later mention that "within the United Nations system, and implicitly recognizing PLO's sovereignty", to say implicitly when the UN resolution doesn't mention that word is misleading.

The article correctly notes that State of Palestine claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories and it should note that the UN resolution was seen by many as de facto recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty. Until such time that it finally gains sovereignty, that it.

(***) It should be noted that the article is about the "the state proclaimed in 1988" not PNA, by saying De facto Sovereign state, it means that proclaimed state is:

A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

However, the proclamation in 1988 doesn't have juridical entity or represented by a centralized government. The only thing that comes close is PNA which draws its legitimacy from Oslo accords, specifically recognized as administration not a state(even UN resolution which is thought to recognize its Sovereignty specifically states that its final status is pending negotiations), it do not have supreme independent authority over its area, nor full capacity enter into relations.--PLNR (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys reached a consensus, could someone go ahead an implement it? Shalom11111 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

State Today

The "State of Palestine" is controversial, contentious, disputed, etc., to such an extent, that I would like to propose we split it into as many and as small different articles as possible.

This, IMHO, is the only way to bring to the readers the different facets and aspects of the subject, with the least controversy.

88.114.128.29 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Just me.

Section Legal status

The section State of Palestine#Legal status looks more like a quasi-scientific essay written by a student than an encyclopedic article for the common reader. I propose to boltly delete this rubbish (except the last three subsections). If relevant, it is better to write a new section, starting from scratch, --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the legal status section is long, but I also think the legal-status aspect is a significant perspective into the subject of this article. Maybe a less radical shortening than the one you propose would work? For example, the text that doesn't directly discuss Palestine seems possible to delete, ditto some repetitive text. --Dailycare (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I wanted to avoid. Why spend much time to adapt this rubbish? Just start with a few new sentences. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the 64,000€ question really: why does anyone spend time editing Wikipedia? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your proposal for "new sentences" ?

I am personnaly open to discuss this but based on something concrete (and based on sources, of course).

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

The State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎ Dawlat Filasṭīn), is a disputed sovereign state in the Levant that is recognized as an observer state by the United Nations.[13][14] Its (somewhat) independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its government-in-exile in Algiers. It claims sovereignty over the Palestinian territories,[15] and has designated Jerusalem as its capital.[ii][3][4] Most of the areas claimed for the State of Palestine have been in control of Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, with the Palestinian Authority exercising socio-political administration since 1993 in limited areas.[7] In 2012, it was granted observer status by the United Nations (UN).[16]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a highly contentious subject matter and I am not inclined to change the lead without consensus and reliable sources to back it up. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical error, please fix!

The State of Palestine tourism is becoming popular in recent few years for its natural beauty and the historical background.Every year more than one million of international visitors are Tourism in the Palestinian territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.76.69 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article to "History of the State of Palestine"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. An RfC might be helpful to get a much broader consensus on how to scope our articles on the Palestinian territories/state and the history thereof. Until then, there clearly wasn't a consensus here. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

State of Palestine → History of the State of Palestine – No chance to merge with Palestinian territories (see discussion above). We need "History of the State of Palestine" anyway. Such an article will pretty much look like the current article.

The title State of Palestine should be a redirect to Palestinian territories. The next discussion will be if Palestinian territories should be renamed to State of Palestine. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Wickey-nl (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support in concept but not exactly as proposed: Agree that most of the content is better under a history article. But we need a State of Palestine article. Which in my opinion should start by being the Palestinian National Authority renamed . Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge the need of a State of Palestine article, but my approach is a practical one. First get rid of the current content under that title. The discussion about Palestinian National Authority, State of Palestine and Palestinian territories is quite complex. This is the first step. Palestinian National Authority will, and should, never be renamed to State of Palestine, because the PA is an impotent government with some authority over some territory and not a state, while the PLO represents the State of Palestine (and bears that name in the UN). Compare it with Israel: one article State of Israel and one Government of Israel. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK fair point re PNA, I agree it is complex.

On reflection I don't think moving articles like these is a good idea, as too difficult with too many links.

I think an easier plan is simply moving chunks of text to where they are most relevant.

I have made a proposal at Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal. If you agree this is a reasonable starting point, perhaps you could edit the proposal to show the optimal structure as you view it?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the pages that link to this article, I don see a problem. It remains the same subject, and links will eventually be adapted. Links in this article cannot be a problem.

Your proposal has two essential problems. 1. State of Palestine will be overloaded by the history sections (the reason why we need an article with the present -adapted- content); 2. Remaining two parallel articles. You cannot split the State of Palestine and its territory. The Territories are part of the State. By keeping both you do not solve the current problem. In your proposal, State of Palestine remains a history article, just what is the problem for many, many readers/editors, who see the Palestinian territories as the State of Palestine.

I have no intention to write a new article, rather give a solution. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rather oppose - I fear that if this move is accepted, the article State of Palestine may never appear. I also disagree with the idea of merging Palestinian authority in State of Palestine. I think the first one more refers to the notion of "government" and the second one to a notion of "state". Finally,I think there is an easy solution to satisfy everybody : remove from this article the material related to the History of the State and keep here only what is directly related to the State. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing the history part is actually consistent with my proposal, as that is nearly all. Your fear is baseless. There are two possibilities. Either Israel realises its one-state solution, a racist apartheid-state, by annexing the settlements and the Jordan Valley. In that case we can finish the history article. Or the Palestinian territories will be recognized as the State of Palestine by UN and Israel. Thus I prefer to keep State of Palestine as a redirect until things will be clear. I also support Palestinian territories as a redirect. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Every sovereign state has it's own articles. Maybe if you want, take a part of this article and move it to a new page called "History of the State of Palestine"? [Soffredo] 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a good topic (see both Talk:State of Palestine/Restructuring proposal and #Proposed merge with Palestinian territories above) and a reasonable article and should remain and be further developed where it is. See also discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Nom has indicated that they have no intention to build an expanded History of the State of Palestine, but that's the obvious solution to what this RM seeks to address and such an article is mentioned in the various restructuring proposals so I hope they may reconsider, or someone else may take it on. Note also that the article previously at that title is now at Proposals for a Palestinian state and you might find good material there and/or in its page history too. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.