Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories

Palestine is a state

Palestine officially declared statehood in the 80's. Only hostile countries refer to them as territories and not a state. This needs to be changed. 24.207.129.95 (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article on Palestine or the State of Palestine. This is an article about the geographical region, which is claimed by different parties to be subject to different groups. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

referencing of the legal claims of the israeli goverment

Hi,

I would like that who ever support the term "occupied" for those territories, will answer the legal claims of the Israeli goverment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo otherwise, it shouldn't be names as "occupied" but "controversial".

Wikipedia shouldn't decide by political intrests, but only a true justice. Exx8 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox of the Palestinian Authority should not be used here as copy-paste - this is just confusing. This article is about geography and history of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, not the geopolitical entitities, currently existing there (PNA and Hamas Administration). "Palestinian territories" don't have President and government and a representative in the UN - this is the Palestinian Authority. In addition, oPt term had been largely in use before 1993, when the PA was established.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is one way of looking at it. There are others. Your description of the article is inconsistent with the actual article content as far as I can see. You were already reverted once. You are required to get consensus for the change. I have restored the infobox because there is no evidence of you having done that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The long standing agreement was that only a partial infobox can be present here - it existed so for more than a year, let's assume WP:GF and restore the original form before the change few days ago into a "state" infobox with a flag and insignia [1]. It is pointless and confusing that Pt, State of Palestine and PNA all have the same infobox - this is simply a misuse of wikipedia. The PNA is presented in the UN, they have a government, demographics, economy etc. Unless you keep only the geographical and demographic issues in the infobox of Pt, the infobox should be removed, since today Pt includes two entities (PNA and Gaza Strip), with different governments and economies. Most of the sources don't use the term Pt any more, but rather PNA (or West Bank) and Hamas Administration (Gaza Strip).Greyshark09 (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How does the flag and CoA turn this into a "state" infobox? The Flag it the undisputed flag for the PT, it's use isn't specifically government. You could make a case the the CoA is specifically government tough, but in my opinion, this would be taking be taking the "state" thing too rigidly. The reason the infobox is about both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is because the article is about both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the reason the three articles have similar infoboxes is because the articles cover similar topics. There's nothing pointless or confusing about that. Also, where's this long standing agreement? It sounds like a good idea, but I found almost nothing about the infobox in the archives. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion from December 2011 [2]. From December the infobox was agreed to hold no government fields (including flags etc.), because there is no single government for Palestinian territories (it is divided between PNA, Hamas and Israeli-occupied areas).Greyshark09 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued below. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Greyshark :Palestinian Territories is the name used to refer to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by International media organizations [3], [4], in academic literature [5], by the UN[6], [7], EU [8], individual Governments such as the UK[9] and US[10], international human rights organizations [11], [12], the International Court of Justice [13], and the International committee of the Red Cross [14] among others.

What is your evidence that this is a term "largely in use before 1993" and your statement that "Most of the sources don't use the term Pt any more, but rather PNA (or West Bank) and Hamas Administration (Gaza Strip)"? Dlv999 (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's go to the google books and see the use of terms "Pt" and "PNA" in 2000s, 1990s and before:

Results dated from 1984-1993 (before creation of the PNA):

Pt - [15] 9980 results

PA - [16] 10800 results

Conclusion - before the creation of the Palestinian Authority in 1993/4 the terms were used at about the same rate, with PA term largely used from early 1990s (when the PA became a possibility, following the Madrid Accords).

Results dated from 1994-present (following the creation of PNA):

Pt - [17] 96,500 results

PA - [18] 211,000 results

Conclusion - from 1994, there is a preference to use the term PA over Pt.

Is this clear enough?Greyshark09 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The most you can conclude from that data is that there is a preference to use the term Pt to talk about Pt and a preference to use the term PA to talk about PA, and you can't even really reliably draw that conclusion because it's based on the premise that in each case they are talking about the same thing and making a binary choice based on a "preference". Given that Pt != PA that assumption is dubious. Either way, contextless google hits isn't a valid way to make decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User @Emmette Hernandez Coleman, i herewith assume WP:GF and kindly ask you to return the infobox to its original structure prior your edit a few days ago [19], in accordance with editors' consensus from December 2011 [20].If a new consensus is reached then you would be able to change the infobox contents.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, this is nonsense. I'm not denying that the PA will be discussed by RS. The point is that it is not used to describe the same thing as the Palestinian Territories. Comparing google hits for two terms that describe different things makes no sense at all. Dlv999 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Palestinian territories don't have a flag and an anthem, those are belonging to the PNA, which executes limited authority over parts of the West Bank (part of the Pt), and is recognized by the UN as observer entity. Are you denying the existance of PNA?Greyshark09 (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear, the PA exists, but is not the same thing as the Palestinian Territories, they are two separate concepts and should not be conflated. The topic of this article is the Palestinian Territories. You are plain wrong in asserting that the Flag belongs to the Palestinian Authority. The Flag predates the Authority by some 30 years. the Flag's primary association is with the Palestinian people - not the PA - which is merely an administrative organization created to temporarily govern the Palestinian territories prior to the formation of a Palestinian State. Dlv999 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are also wrong, the flag of the PNA is the second flag of the Arab Revolt, so it is not 30 years older than the PNA but much more. Originally (from early 20th century), the Palestinian Arab nationalists were using the first flag of the Arab revolt - see Palestinian flag, Flag of the Arab Revolt, Kingdom of Hejaz. The second flag was adopted by the PLO in 1964 as a result of political alliances in the Arab world (see also Arab Federation and Ba'ath party), and transferred to the PA as PLO transformed itself from government-in-exile into an existing autonomy in 1993.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, and archive 6 of the talk page, the consensus was to remove the gov fields, not the flag/CoA, or the infobox. As far as I can tell, the only person who wants to remove the flag/CoA, or the whole infobox is Greyshark09. I agree with Dlv999, this is the Palestinian Flag, not specifically the PA flag. From Palestinian flag: "The Palestinian flag [...] is used to represent the Palestinian people (since 1964), and the Palestinian Authority", not "The Palestinian flag [...] is used to represent the Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all CoA is clearly a PNA insignia. Except that you can see that there was no flag in the infobox from December last year. End of story. Currently, indeed i'm in minority opinion here, but the "majority" is consisting only of 3 editors so far, which is effectively low to imply a consensus. Let's wait for more opinions, and i have already asked for an editor from last years discussion to reply on this thread. Maybe it would help to publish it on the Wikiproject Palestine if anyone is interested.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the PNA CoA, this is the Palestinian CoA. The Flag is indisputably the flag of the Palestinian people, nation, and that nations land, not just the PNA. Greyshark09, if you really want me to I could list this on Wikiproject Palestine, but I don't see much point in doing so. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Listed on Wikiproject Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Coleman, are you joking? you bring the CoA of the State of Palestine and claim that it belongs to the so called "Palestinian territories" entity??? WP:SYNTH???Greyshark09 (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Palestine.svg clearly says on its page that it's the "Coat of arms of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that Palestinian territories and the unrecognized State of Palestine is one and same??? Fine, then lets merge them, no need for two articles with same history, politics, flags and CoA and statistics.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the same, the State of Palestine article is about the largely unrecognized state that claims the PT. Note that the PT article would probably be named "Palestine", but that name is used for the article about the geographic Israel/Palestine region. It's rather like to PT vs PNA. It's why they have similar infoboxes and similar or the same Flag/CoA. To adapt Dlv999's statement, all three exist, but are not the same thing, they are three separate concepts and should not be conflated. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, except PNA and Hamas administration, all are virtual concepts, which cannot have "demographics", "economy" and "foreign relations", not speaking of government and flag. Never heard of the president of the Palestinian territories or the president of West Bank or Gaza Strip and the president of the State of Palestine (sometimes Abbas is presented as the President of Palestine, but that is when PNA is taking the role of the State of Palestine [21]). Palestinian territories and State of Palestine should have articles, but cannot have country infoboxes, because they are not countries or autonomous regions in reality. There is a "Ministry of Palestinian economy" in the PNA [22], there is no "Ministry of Palestinian economy in the Palestinian territories". Also, last year it was the PNA who approached the UN to get recognition as a full state, and currently plans to ask for a non-member state recognition [23]; never heard of a representative of the "Palestinian territories" approaching UN to get recognition as a state. Palestinian territories is something pre-1993 era, when the PNA was created. Today parts of former oPt are governed by PNA (40% of the WB), Hamas administration (Gaza) and the rest still occupied by Israel (60% of the WB, which is known as the "Judea and Samaria area" and "East Jerusalem").Greyshark09 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gryshark, the PA is an administrative organization originally set up in 1993 to provisionally administer the Palestinian Territories prior to the foundation of a Palestinian State. See e.g. the NYT [24] for a fairly standard description "The Palestinian Authority was created by the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was meant to be a provisional government of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank, which would eventually be replaced by a sovereign Palestinian state after a final settlement was reached with Israel." Now obviously the situation is a little more complicated because a settlement has not been reached and Hamas has been in control in Gaza since 2007. But this does not alter the fundamentals: The PA is an administrative body created to administer the Palestinian Territories - it is not itself a geopolitical entity. As an administrative body it has a "Ministry of National Economy", whose remit includes (if you look at your own link [25]) the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As an administrative body it does not itself have an economy. (Correct me if I am wrong on this but) looking at your edits across a number of articles it appears you seem to be trying to define the PA as a geopolitical entity that is the 40% or so of the West Bank that is currently under PA control. I have not seen any sources to support this position. Dlv999 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Palestine and Israel have flags, CoA's, economies, foreign relations, etc. Some countries don't recognize Palestine or Israel, but that doesn't mean they don't have flags, economies, etc. You've never heard of X from/of the Palestinian territories, because it's usually called X from/of Palestine. My understanding is that we call this article "Palestinian territories" instead of "Palestine" because the Palestine article is about the Israel/Palestine region, not because Palestine isn't a country. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

All the things which "Palestine" has are in fact Palestinian National Authority - Ministries, government, passports, foreign relations (embassies of Palestine are in fact PNA embassies, not Pt embassies). I'm not speaking on Palestine (region), but the State of Palestine article - please look at it before continuing this conversation.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Government of Palestine is a compacted topic, hence why we have all these PLO/PNA/SOP articles instead of having a government of Palestine article, like we do for Government of the United States, but my point stands. Palestine has a Flag/CoA, an economy, etc, just as the United States and Israel do. Just like the flag/CoA of America is the same as the flag/CoA of the American government, the flag/CoA of Palestine is the same (or almost the same) as the the Flag/CoA of the SOP/PNA/etc. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Government of Palestine is not the same as Government of the United States, because United States is a UN-member state, and Palestine is not. The only thing close to its is PNA, which is an observer in the UN, so technically Government of Palestine is Government of the Palestinian National Authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Just to note, you mention the Palestinian bid at the UN. The UN bid was asking for full membership based on pre-June 1967 borders AKA the Palestinian Territories. Source: [26] "Palestinian territories is something pre-1993 era" - This statement has already been refuted, please do not bring it up again unless you are going to address the multitude of high quality sources that I have cited above that currently use the term. Dlv999 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv, apparently, you forgot the article State of Palestine, which is claiming the entire Pt, but de-facto is not recognized as state yet (in the UN i mean), and on the ground is represented by the PNA. You base yourself too much on jouranilist sources rather than academics and government official positions. You cannot compare "State of Palestine" and "State of Israel", because the first is not existent except for the PNA. The PNA is claiming to be the State of Palestine in many occasions and in its internal documents. We are going nowhere, apparently we have a completely polarized point of view on the situation in this area of the world.

I'm not basing my case solely on journalistic sources, please see my comment at 9:03 [27]. Perhaps our views are polarized, but if we only present views as they appear in RS (and not our own) and do not stray from what the RS says we should be able to collaborate. Dlv999 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read your own sources - EU [28] says "The EU has been working with the Palestinian Authority to build up the institutions of a future democratic, independent and viable Palestinian State"; UN [29] says "In the West Bank, an emergency Palestinian Authority Government (PA) enjoys international recognition and pledges of support,while in the Gaza Strip the international community and the United Nations do not recognize the legitimacy of Hamas’ June 2007 military takeover." Please read your sources before you put them.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv, I'm speaking only of WP:RS, but i also would like you to see the whole picture per WP:COMMONNAME. Let's try this simplified - The President of PNA (geopolitical entity) came to the UN last year and asked that the UN will recognize PNA rights over Pt (geographic area) and the PNA (current geopolitical entity) will become promoted to be the State of Palestine (currently not existent). In case UN does so and promotes PNA status from autonomy to statehood, then parts of Palestinian territories (their status now being disputed), which are not under actual control of the State of Palestine will be defined as Palestinian state territories occupied by Israel (a.k.a Judea and Samaria area) and Hamas (Gaza administration). And please don't base yourself too much on journalist reviews - this is improper. And if speaking of BBC - see this map [30]. Here are some sources treating PNA as an entity:

"Palestinian crisis set to deepen without more aid: World Bank... The World Bank said in a report released ahead of a meeting on Palestinian aid in Brussels next week that the Palestinian Authority has received..." TheDailyStar

"Palestinian Authority to push for UN non-member state status 'within weeks'" Telegraph.

In any case, if so many people don't see PNA as an entity, i guess its Palestinian cause is lost - occupied forever.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

---

I don't think there's a real problem with including the flag in the infobox, since that's been a general broad "movement" symbol for more than 40 years. However, including a coat of arms is a different question, since each such emblem is associated with one specific political grouping, and not with the "Palestinian territories" in general... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian territories is not a nationalist movement, see Palestinian nationalism for this.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories" vs "Palestinian Authority"

Note: This section was originally located at User talk:Greyshark09

You seam to be making a habit of changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority". The terms are not the same. The Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority is an entity that governs parts of the Palestinian territories, it is not the WB/GS itself (tough in certain contexts "Palestinian Authority" can mean Areas A and B of the West Bank). If somethings referring to the West Bank and Gaza, rather then the entity, please leave the phrase "Palestinian territories" be. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Definitions of Palestine was not one of them, that section was only about the parts of the PT under PNA and Hamas Admistration. Thanks for catching that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of that article, I like what you've done with it. It's an article about definitions, and there is a difference between the geographic and geo-political definitions. Good to have some history of the word too. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page "Hello Emmette, regarding your remarks on preference of Pt term over PNA term regarding the geopolitical entity, i think you are unaware to the different and disputed meanings of Pt term.

First of all - oPt is a very political term, which is not acceptable on Israel and several UN security council members. In addition, it is also historically inaccurate, because Israel captured and occupied the Jordanian WB (not Palestinian) and Egyptian GS (not Palestinian), and only later the PLO asked to define those as oPt by the Arab League. The term Pt and oPt is not officially implemented by the UN itself and most states, which rather use the terms WB and GS (see [31]). UN actually doesn't write anything on the map of disputed areas WB and GS [32].

Secondly, the Pt term today is widely implemented not to the entire WB and GS, but specifically to the areas under PNA control (40% of WB) and Hamas Administration control (all Gaza Strip except part of its territorial waters).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25‎ October 2012 (UTC)" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't my preference, this is how Wikipedia uses the phrases.

From "Palestinian territories": "The Palestinian territories [...] comprise the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. Since 1993, following the Oslo Accords, parts of the territories politically came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority" From "Palestinian National Authority": The Palestinian Authority [...] is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The article about the WB&GS is called "Palestinian territories", and throughout Wikipedia we usually call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories" (or simply "Palestine" if the context would specify that we're the WB&GS, and not the historic geographic region) not "Palestinian Authority". If you think we shouldn't use the phase "Palestinian territories" to refer to the WB&GS, I recommended you propose that the "Palestinian territories" article be moved. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, I don't expect to change your mind on this issue as we have had several discussions and have been unable to find any common ground. One thing I would say is that from the recent discussions I have been involved with, it appears that your position is not supported by any kind of consensus in the community. Take for example your recent rename proposal at Economy of the Palestinian territories which was universally rejected. Or the recent discussion which supported the move of Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Political status of the Palestinian territories. You are perfectly entitled to argue what you think is the right way to move the encyclopedia forward, but I think it would be useful in this case to acknowledge that your position is not broadly supported, that the issue is controversial, and that as a consequence you should not go about making these sort of changes without prior discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And Talk:Mandatory Palestine#Today Part of. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Greyshark's PT to PA changes should be reverted. Like I said, they go against the normal usage of the terms on Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Grayshark has made these changes on so many pages that I think the only thing to do here is to edit Wikipedia as usual and when you see an inappropriate PA to change it to PT. Greayshark, from now on please do not impose your personal preference to not use the phrase "Palestinian territories" on Wikipedia without consensus. Wikipedia normally uses the phrase "Palestinian territories" to refer to the WB&GS. As shown in this discussion and the related discussions that Dlv999 and I have linked to, it is you, not the community that wants to change every instance of "Palestinian territories" to "Palestinian Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm inviting people who were involved in similar discussions regarding Greyshark's PT to PA changes. I've only invited people who oppose them so far. It's not that I'm wp:Canvassing, it's just that I haven't found anyone who supports Grayshark's changes to invite. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, you have continued your PT to PA changes scene being asked to stop ([33] [34] argubly [35]).I don't think their appropriate, User:Dlv999 dosen't, It looks like User:Shrike doesn't, and it looks like User:Sean.hoyland doesn't. Please stop. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, a how about this? Scene you really don't want Wikipedia to call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories", I'll propose the Palestinian territories page be moved, and if this page is moved you can probably change all instances of "Palestinian territories" throughout Wikipedia to whatever the new title of this page is. If it's not moved, that means Wikipedia continues to call the WB&GS "Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Palestinian territories → ? – To address Greayshark's concerns about calling the WB&GS "Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)