Jump to content

Talk:Palestine

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

Second sentence

[edit]

Instead of “Recognized by a majority of UN members”, could you please change it to “Recognized by over three quarters (75%) of UN members”? 168.197.140.105 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that is not natural language. specific stats are available in info-box. 75% is well over majority ( > 50% ) Cinaroot (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that "majority" does sound like it's hovering around 50%-60%, compared to a "large majority" or similar phrasing. AG202 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid percentages, "majority", "vast majority", "large majority" etc. Just use the same wording as the linked article — recognized as a sovereign state by 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations — or a slightly abbreviated version. How about recognized as a sovereign state by 147 of the 193 UN membersGhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to what you proposed. If no one objects in reasonable amount of time - we can close this conversation Cinaroot (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would also extract that statement as a distinct sentence (perhaps even as paragraph 2), rather than using it to a passive clause to introduce a sentence about the geography — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Moved to last para. Cinaroot (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back for the moment; the issue is not that it requires additional context to be understood. Remsense ‥  00:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
who said - it requires additional context to be understood. Like GhostInTheMachine said - first para is about geography and that sentence is odd man in that para. Cinaroot (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to somewhere more appropriate with relevant context implied as much to me. The first paragraph is generally a bit of a microcosm of the lead (in turn of the article), laying out a definition and the broadest strokes of further concepts. I think it would be odd to refrain from mention of international status in the first para, but I get if this seems like overanalysis. Remsense ‥  00:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay mentioning it in lede - only because its of interest to reader's ( because of the gaza war) But it is not standard practice in articles. Cinaroot (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need changing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "State of Palestine" is used by some entities to refer to the Palestinian territories; however, as of today, there is no fully sovereign and internationally recognized state by that name. The Palestinian territories consist primarily of the West Bank (partially administered by the Palestinian Authority and largely under Israeli control) and the Gaza Strip (currently controlled by Hamas). Palestine was granted non-member observer state status at the United Nations in 2012 but is not a full UN member state. It does not meet the full criteria for statehood under international law, including having defined borders, effective government control over its territory, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states independently. Jerusalem is claimed by Palestinians as their capital, but it is fully under Israeli sovereignty, and there is no Palestinian governmental control over the city. Therefore, while "Palestine" exists as a political and symbolic entity for many, it is not a sovereign state under international law. 31.154.96.164 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC) (WP:ECR)[reply]

What has this to do with the second sentence? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment should be removed since it doesn't seem to request an edit change, is off-topic, and violates the active arbitration remedies that should be more enforced. AG202 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone just correct it from “Recognized by a majority of UN members” to “Recognized by over three quarters of UN members”? 168.197.140.105 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC) (WP:ECR)[reply]
Its not incorrect, as 3/4's is "a majority". Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in that case, the same sentence could then by in the article about Israel. Or about the United States, and so on. Unless of course we are biased against Palestine… 2804:214:8193:33D3:3832:14A0:111E:84B8 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC) (WP:ECR)[reply]
Majority : "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total" [1] Cinaroot (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate map

[edit]

The map currently in use (File:State of Palestine (orthographic projection).svg) is inaccurate. It only shows East Jerusalem as "Territory annexed by Israel", which is wrong. The map shows nothing from the Palestinian enclaves and a more accurate map should be File:Palestinian controlled areas (zones A and B, C hatched) in Israel and in its region.svg or File:Palestinian controlled areas (zones A and B, C hatched) in its region.svg 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:State of Palestine Lands and Claims.png should work too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we must change it, I would support only File:State of Palestine Lands and Claims.png. AG202 (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only East Jerusalem was formally annexed by Israel, even though it is not recognized by the vast majority of the world. Area C is different. Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
de jure != de facto. We should use a map that shows the actual lands controlled, per WP:VERIFY 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the map you used. Just your explanation. Bogazicili (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 31 May 2025 - new section human rights situation

[edit]

Description of suggested change: The page is missing a Human rights situation section. It is already widely described how human rights are restricted by Israel, but not how they are also disregarded by the Palestinian authorities themselves. However, according to several independent organizations, human rights (like freedom of speech, religion, gender equality and LGBTQI rights) are severely restricted by both Hamas and Fatah. This should be mentioned, as it is in other country articles as well. TheGlobetrotter (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGlobetrotter, I wholeheartedly agree! Find good sources, write a text, ping me (simply copy my username) and if it all checks out, I'll add that text for you. Lova Falk (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to provide sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is redundant. We already have an article on Human rights in Palestine, and the Palestinian authorities have been described as an authoritarian regime by The Economist Democracy Index. In 2024, Palestine was ranked as the 112th most democratic state in the index, a bit more liberal than the likes of Rwanda, Jordan, and Ethiopia. Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clue, @Dimadick:! Unfortunately, this article is currently not linked in the main page. Maybe, someone could add that (possibly, with just one summarizing sentence)? TheGlobetrotter (talk)
Done. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Gaza coloring in map

[edit]

The map at the top of this article should have Gaza in light green since the caption says dark green is only for areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Spoonberry (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it does show those areas in dark green. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes but I just said they should be in light green^ Spoonberry (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not "they" plural, i just mean the Gaza strip should be changed to light green (Hamas/Israel-controlled). The West Bank coloring seems accurate to Area C (light green - Israel-controlled) vs Area A,B (dark green - mostly PA control). Spoonberry (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbateans

[edit]

In the infobox is written, that Sabbateans are Islamic schismatics, but Sabbateans were originally a Jewish messianic movement, not an Islamic schismatic group. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe teh were. But the RS seems to say they are now Muslim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more complicated than that, if you look at Sabbateans and Dönmeh. They were and are crypto-Jews; calling them Islamic schismatics needs a heck of a lot more explanation. The Dönmeh sure have an interesting history. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this is the infobox, that is not the place for complex issues. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move request and RfC

[edit]

There is a move request and a related related RfC at the Besor Stream article that could do with more input. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2025

[edit]

Put in title as an unrecognized country but recognized by 132 UN members Saltbaespeakingenglish (talk) 03:34, 6 June 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) 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]