Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:03, 3 October 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupied Palestinian territories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupied Palestinian territories at the Reference desk.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Haviv Rettig Gur (16 May 2010). "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Misplaced Pages". The Jerusalem Post.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Unrecognized countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

use of "international community"

Please state who makes which claims about terms such as "occupied", rather than simply asserting that the "international community" claims this. There is no way to gauge what the "international community" believes because countries do not speak with one voice and there is no world government to speak for them. Also, please be careful using citations that refer to the "Occupied Territories" as proof that a particular organization has a particular view. An organization like the EU is very big; if some press releases (perhaps only a few, cherry-picked) say "Occupied Terroritories" and some (perhaps a lot more) say "West Bank", does that "prove" that the EU has a particular view as a whole, or simply that whoever wrote the cherry-picked press release uses this term? Furthermore, if an EU press release says "Occupied" in reference to Gaza pre-2005, that is NOT in any way relevant to the situation post-2005.

In short: Because this issue is so controversial, please hew closely to the undisputed facts. A claim that the EU has a particular view should be sourced to an EU statement asserting such a view, not simply a passing reference. A couple references by random NGO's is hardly evidence of the "international community"; I'm sure plenty of other NGO's have opposite views. Benwing (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is okay to use the words international community when over 90% of nations and a vast number of organizations all agree upon something. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not we should say "the international community" or not depends on wether reliable sources says so or not. It turns out that that is indeed the case. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

highly out-of-date and disputed section deleted

I deleted the following:

Israel's position has not been accepted by most countries and international bodies, and the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip are referred to as occupied territories (with Israel as the occupying power) by most international legal and political bodies, the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK, including the EU, the United States,(, ), both the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Israeli Supreme Court (see Israeli West Bank barrier).

The reason is that nearly all the links refer to pre-2005 (i.e. when Israel exited Gaza), and most are dead. As a result they are highly unlikely to be relevant today. I seriously doubt very many US government officials will claim that Gaza is occupied by Israel. The sole reference is to a CNN article with a claim to "some US government web sites" without identifying which ones. See my comment above about distinguishing official policy with occasional references. Benwing (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe the situation has changed please provide references which prove the older references to be incorrect. Until then, the sourced information, which seems entirely correct to my knowledge, should stay. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Occupied Palestinian Territory" is standard terminology. I this has changed in the last 7 years, then please find a source for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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".

Misplaced Pages 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 . 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)

@Greyshark :Palestinian Territories is the name used to refer to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by International media organizations , , in academic literature , by the UN, , EU , individual Governments such as the UK and US, international human rights organizations , , the International Court of Justice , and the International committee of the Red Cross 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)

1. United Nations International Meeting on the Convening of the Conference on Measures to Enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, UN website, Cairo, 14 and 15 June 1999.
2. Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Commons, Westminster. "House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 10 May 2002 (pt 11)". Parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk. Retrieved 2010-06-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. "Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention: Declaration - Switzerland text/Non-UN document (5 December 2001)". Unispal.un.org. Retrieved 2010-06-30.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Unassessed Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles