Revision as of 14:39, 8 October 2002 editUriyan (talk | contribs)1,634 edits Replies to Elian and Ed← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:59, 21 October 2024 edit undoYovt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,953 editsmNo edit summary | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header}} | |||
This page needs a bit of work, since it explains the motivation without explaining the justification. For example, "occupied Palestinian territories": the lands are occupied under a international legal standard, correct? Israel doesn't claim the territories as part of the country, but what? What is the legal status of the territories? | |||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
---- | |||
{{Not a forum}} | |||
Darn good questions, mate, but dash it all, I haven't the foggiest notion. The deuce of it is that for a land to be "occupied" it's supposed to belong to someone else, but those dratted Arabs refused the West Bank and so on when it was offered to them on a silver platter. It seems a bit of a sticky wicket. Could be an attempt to put the cart before the horse by asserting that the territories ''belong to the Palestinian people'' and that Israel thus should "return" what it "took from them" -- after all, they _are_ Palestinian territories, aren't they? | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Top}} | |||
}} | |||
{{press | |||
| author=Haviv Rettig Gur | |||
| title=Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Misplaced Pages | |||
| org=] | |||
| url=https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Israeli-Palestinian-conflict-rages-on-Misplaced Pages | |||
| date=16 May 2010}} | |||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | |||
{{Old moves|list= | |||
That's why I defined ''Palestinian territories'' as "lands sought by ... nationalists" rather than "lands taken from X". Really, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are no-man's-lands until either: | |||
* {{no redirect|Palestinian territories}} -> {{no redirect|Occupied areas of Palestine}}, '''Moved''', 12 April 2006, "No discussion" | |||
*some country, like Israel annexes them (and enough other countries recognize this act -- fat chance!), or | |||
* {{no redirect|Occupied areas of Palestine}} -> {{no redirect|Palestinian territories}}, '''Moved''', 14 April 2006, "No discussion" | |||
*a credible government emerges in some or all of the territories. | |||
* '''Move-protected''', 14 May 2008 | |||
|title1=Palestinian territories | |||
|title2=Occupied areas of Palestine | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 8 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Occupied Palestinian territories/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2|units=months |search=yes|index=/Archive index}} | |||
== Article title == | |||
But there's the precedent of ] to reckon with. It's one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the Far East, but it hasn't gotten the recognition it wanted (like Rodney Dangerfield, "I don't get no respect") -- even though it has a constitution, elections, a thriving economy, allies, a modern army, etc. | |||
Today's by the ICJ uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", as does the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. I see that the article says that this term has been used, for many years, by other international bodies and national governments and that the UN used it till 2012, when Palestine was admitted as a non-member observer state, under the name "State of Palestine". Should we change the article title to either "Palestinian territory" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? ] (]) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
See: ], ], ] | |||
---- | |||
:''It is not surprising that at the United Nations, the U.S. has opposed the phraseology of "occupied Palestinian territories." In March 1994, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."'' | |||
:This article title is an antique, a hangover from the days of yore, difficult to get rid of because so many RS still use the term, even now. | |||
Has anything changed since 1994? --] | |||
:The "territories" have long been legally considered as one territory and that was reiterated at the ICJ today. | |||
---- | |||
:And we now have the ICJ opinion that the occupation is itself illegal (apart from all the other illegal things). | |||
The following sentence is vague: | |||
:If it was down to me, I'd put ] :/ ] (]) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:''Since the early 1990s, Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on these territories.'' | |||
::We could solve the RS issue through a redirect. ] (]) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Which "]s" did Israel negotiate with? Leaders of the ]? Other Arabs living in Palestine? --] | |||
::I would absolutely support a move to Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is overwhelmingly used in legal sources—which is what the article is about. (] · ]) ''']''' 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::So would I. ] (]) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::How can we progress a change of title? ] (]) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::It's a good question. Stepping back for a moment, let's look at the ICJ opinion (there are sufficient RS covering it so we we can speak to it directly here). A couple of things in there, first the legal position that Gaza and the West bank (incl EJ) are a single territorial unit (equivalent to the territory claimed by the SoP). The current title implies separateness but this only true in a strict geographical sense and a narrative promoted by Israel/US (see CIA "fact"book for example). | |||
:::::Secondly it was determined as a matter of law that the entire territory is occupied even if the Gaza occupation is of the functional variety. | |||
:::::Thirdly the ICJ uses, just like most authoritative sourcing does, the name Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as determining as a matter of law, that said territory is illegally occupied. | |||
:::::So, to reiterate, in my view, the current title is an historical anachronism and should be changed. ] (]) 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::It's definitely potentially merited. shows the proper noun phrase (in both singular and plural) holding up well against the generalism. ] (]) 16:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::As per above, because this phrase was used for so long (such that some RS style guides mention it), there is an inertia factor at work, that's why the ngrams hold up for Pt. ] (]) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also, I ran out of space in the Ngrams search bar, but some "Palestinian territories" hits are also for "occupied Palestinian territories" (sentence case) – which, if , implies that "Palestinian territories" actually falls well below OPT(s), both individually in the singular and certainly collectively. ] (]) 16:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::(Ahem, and that's before we even count the Misplaced Pages mirrors.) ] (]) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::So how do we move this along? It's nearly 25 years since the UN and ISO adopted the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (in October 1999). I know that we want to avoid Recentism, but 25 years should be long enough. I know that the UN and ISO have since moved on to "State of Palestine" but that describes the political entity as opposed to the geographical area. ] (]) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If you want to define it in purely geographical terms, there is nothing wrong with the current title. But given the scope that is clearly not the intention. ] (]) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::True. I'll rephrase that as " but that describes the proposed political entity as opposed to the existing mess." ] (]) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Well, the thing to do is put up an RM -> Occupied Palestinian territory No? (it's aka oPt as well so that would work or we can consider OPT as a "name" in which case capitalize everything. ] (]) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I would argue that it ''is'' a name. Indeed, ISO 3166-1 Newsletter No. V-2 of 1999-10-01 (cited source ) states in row 2 "Official name Occupied Palestinian Territory". | |||
:::::::::::In cited source , the EU also treats it as a name , eg in "European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory". | |||
:::::::::::As I expect that you are far more familiar with the RM process than I am, would you be willing to do it? ] (]) 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Requested move 5 August 2024 == | |||
---- | |||
The following doesn't make sense to me: | |||
:The Palestinian territories' borders were originally determined by the 1948 cease-fire agreements; | |||
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
If "Palestinian territories" means "lands sought by nationalists to form a new state", then I don't see how the 1948 agreements would relate to nationalists' aims. | |||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
The result of the move request was: '''Moved to ]'''. We're in a bit of a ] situation here. There is strong - unanimous in fact - consensus that a move is advisable, but no clear consensus on exactly where to move. The main points of debate are (a) whether to capitalise the whole thing as a proper name, and (b) whether to use singular or plural for ''territory''. Everyone agrees that the word ''Occupied'' should be prepended, however, so in closing this I'm taking the path of least change and simply adding that word on to the front of the existing title. As there isn't a definite consensus for the specific title, editors are welcome to start a fresh RM in the future to explore a different variant if anyone feels strongly about that. — ] (]) 10:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Or was is this supposed to mean that the 1948 cease-fire agreements designated territories to form a Palestinian state? | |||
---- | |||
] → {{no redirect|Occupied Palestinian Territory}} – This terminology has become standard across all official sources, the United Nations, itself and in its resolutions, and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2024, the EU and in many secondary sources. The ICJ concluded that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial unit: Although still used in sources, and should remain as an aka, the existing title is currently an anachronism. Note that the OPT is also equivalent geographically to the area claimed by the State of Palestine. ] (]) 10:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (]) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
:: The 1948 agreements were strictly provisional, they didn't have any political rationale. | |||
* '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 20:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
This is all very unclear (to me, at least). | |||
{{hat|Blocked sock. ] ] 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
The boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian territories were originally determined by a partition plan of the United Nations 1947, in which the foundation and the borders of two separate states Israel and a Palestinian were decided. As a consequence of the war 1948 the plan was only partially implemented. Instead the cease-fire agreements following the war constituted the de facto boundaries. | |||
* <s> '''Move to ]''' (plural), that is what some international governments list it as on official websites like travel safety advice, e.g. </s> ] (]) 14:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Strongly support''' for adding '''"Occupied"'''. <s> No strong opinion on details, but a slight preference for ''"occupied Palestinian territory"'' (singular territory with a lowercase "t") as used by ] and ]. </s> ] (]) 12:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC) '''+ support''' for singular "Territory" with a capital T (updated based on conversation below). ] (]) 07:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Hi @], like the ICJ, the ICRC "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The UN and ISO used that name until 2012, when Palestine was admitted to the UN as a non-member observer state. ] (]) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: The 1947 plan (Resolution 181) was never implemented, any connection between it and the final status is purely incidental. The borders of West Bank and Gaza have never been defined anywhere but a cease-fire agreement. --] | |||
*::I've now discovered that the UN and some or all of its agencies still use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" when referring to the relevant portion of the Earth's surface, even though they switched in 2012 to "State of Palestine" when referring to the political entity. See, for example, and . ] (]) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::And . ] (]) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::@] conclusion first, I agree with you: '''singular Territory with a capital T.''' | |||
*:::* I found uses that too, and I would expect them to skew more towards Israel / USA than the others? So it seems to be used very widely. | |||
*:::* Australia uses plural (but also say they support a "two state solution" while only recognizing one state). | |||
*:::* The WHO were using lowercase in 2020, but lowercase seems less common. | |||
*:::* I checked MSF etc. because they are very dedicated to neutrality, but MSF simply call it Palestine https://www.msf.org/palestine | |||
*:::One reservation I had was that capital T looks like a formal name for a place. The ] or ], both look like they legitimately belong to a more powerful nation, whereas "]" looked (to me) like what is happening to part (or all) of the land that rightly belongs to a country called Palestine. But after reading the ] page, the situation doesn't seem that different. I already knew the history around ], I just underestimated the level legal recognition for it. ] (]) 07:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:<small>'''Relisting comment''': Seeking more participation ] 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] 16:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::Uri, don't you agree that parts of the plan were implemented, namely the establishment of the state of Israel, as the plan states? Second: the cease-fire agreement led to a <b>de facto</b> definition of the borders, but not a legal definition. --] | |||
*'''Move to ]''': It's much, much better. ]] 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:But is different from the name ("Occupied Palestinian Territory") adopted by the UN, ISO and the ICJ. ] (]) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: No, the establishment of Israel was not an implementation of the plan, which was rejected by the majority of the population (Arabs). In this paragraph, I want to present one Israeli position that states that the borders of West Bank and Gaza are temporary and provisional in nature, hence the Palestinians should not abuse during negotiations the de-facto existence of the borders to jeopardize Israeli security. --] | |||
If someone could put this in better english and move it in the article? It's still not wholly correct - you could also argue that "originally" the boundaries were determined by the agreement of the british with sherif Hussein (1915) or the Sykes-Picot agreement (1916), or anything else, but since the partition plan marks the foundation of the state Israel it makes most sense. --] | |||
---- | |||
Moved to Talk, since these changes seem to add nothing but unsourced POV to the article: | |||
:::@]: I support both, but ] is better in my opinion. ]] 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The Palestinian territories' borders were originally determined by the 1948 cease-fire agreements; however for more than 50 years they have been the focus of political negotiations (see, for instance, ]). Some critics claim that the strict adherence to their makeshift shape would do much more harm than good in the long run. | |||
{{hat|Blocked sock. ] ] 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
:::@], I picked plural because the plural is used by the and governments. But Australia's page includes, "Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. We are committed to a two-state solution…" and I have nothing polite to say about that contradiction, so they might not be good to copy? ] (]) 12:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The ] and ] both say "occupied Palestinian territory", singular "territory" but only Palestine has a capital "P". | |||
:::* Singular lowercase "occupied Palestinian territory" is the established term used by ], e.g. in | |||
:::* The ] {{tq|''"What does the law say about the responsibilities of the Occupying Power in the occupied Palestinian territory?"''}} on (and in the footnotes of that) {{tq|''"The official name of the Delegation is "ICRC's Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories". The "occupied territories" comprise the ], including ], the ], the ] and the ]. The ] sometimes uses the term "]" to refer to the ], including ], and/or ] specifically. This use is based on the standardization of the term, adopted by the ] after the recognition of the right to ] of the Palestinian people."''}} | |||
:::* The proper noun in what @] links is the name of the legal opinion, but the way that legal document uses capitals has me very confused, {{tq|"…as an <u>occupying Power</u>, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory…"}} and {{tq|"…in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are contrary to international law, <u>the Court</u> indicates…"}} and {{tq|"By virtue of its status as an occupying <u>Power</u>, a <u>State</u> assumes a set of powers and duties…"}} e.g. why "'''O'''" in "'''O'''ccupied Territory" but "'''o'''" in "'''o'''ccupying Power"? whereas the ICRC say "'''O'''ccupying Power" and "'''o'''ccupied Palestinian '''t'''erritory"? | |||
:::Currently, singular lowercase "territory" like the ] and ] use seems best to me? but if the ICJ ruling somehow added a capital T that is now used elsewhere, then I do not object to us using that here. ] (]) 03:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Hi @], see the ICRC's "" of 2024-07-19. | |||
::::The UN has consistently used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" since October 1999 to describe the territory, as opposed to the legal entity. That's coming up to 25 years. I consider the position of the UN, with its 193 member states, to be authoritative. ] (]) 12:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2022, which requested that the ICJ renders an advisory opinion regarding the occupation, repeatedly uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". | |||
::::Note also the title of the ICJ's ] of July '''2004''', "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". ] (]) 12:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Amended to remove an excess word 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) | |||
:::The important bit is adding the word "occupied". We should also be pointing out that it applies to the Gaza Strip – including from 2007 to September 2023 – on any pages where that is relevant, possibly the page ] should move as well? ] (]) 03:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
* '''Support''' per nomination. ] (]) 18:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{ec}} I have no issue with adding occupied to the title, but I '''oppose capitalizing the letter T in territories'''. That seems out of line with which lowercases the letter t. Remember that Misplaced Pages titles use sentence case and {{tq|only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Misplaced Pages}} (]). The fact that , , , , , and capitalize it as "occupied Palestinian territory" suggests there is no substantial majority. As for plural or singular, ngrams usage suggests that the singular is more common now (), so I support that as well. ~ ] (] • ]) 19:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Without the excess capitalization, I support''' – News typically has "occupied Palestinian territory" (or territories). It's not a name. The fact that the UN caps it does not make it a proper name. ] (]) 23:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Relist comment''' - Based strictly on the above there is consensus to move. However, there has been a bit of discussion around capitalisation and pluralisation that could be better explored. I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears, though obviously I could be wrong about that. ] (]) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:{{Re|FOARP}} {{tq|I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears}} Why? ] (]) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Because every single I-P related move discussion I've seen lately has been so. It would be a pleasant surprise if this one is not so. ] (]) 19:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' per nom but would prefer ]. This would be consistent with ], ], ], ], ] | |||
:] (]) 18:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' Term is widely used in the media and in government sources. It is an improvement on the current title. Would also support "Israeli-occupied" similar to ] but that seems to have less general usage. ] (]) 14:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 14:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Strong support''' per nom. ] (]) 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support''' per nom, would also support Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory (based on Kowal2701's comment, singular form per the ICJ) - ] (]) 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion=== | |||
:Since the early 1990s, Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians concerning the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on these territories. Following the ], Israel has implemented an autonomous Palestinian entity - including Palestinian civil administration in the smaller towns and security presence in the bigger cities on the ] and ] (see below for the current status). | |||
Below, I've pasted in some of my earlier contributions which are now included in collapsed regions of this Talk page.] (]) 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (Tidied up the indentation of my text below 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)) | |||
:The implication of the term "Palestinian territories" is that these lands are rightfully "]" and that the presence of ] or military forces in them is a violation of international law. Israel, on the other hand, claims that these territories are not currently claimed by any other state and Israel has the right to control them, at least temporarily. In other words, Israel's stance is that while Palestinians do have the right for self-determination (as confirmed by the ]), it does not mean they should automatically receive these territories or other. These concepts adamantly disputed by ] (see, for example, ) and occasionally by other countries. | |||
:... like the ICJ, the ICRC "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The UN and ISO used that name until 2012, when Palestine was admitted to the UN as a non-member observer state. ] (]) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Israel's position, at least in the declarative plane, is not accepted by most countries and international bodies. The ], and the ] have been declared "occupied territories" (with Israel as the occupying power) Palestinian Arabs and the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK , the EU, the United Nations and (usually) the USA (, ), and the ]. | |||
*:I've now discovered that the UN and some or all of its agencies still use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" when referring to the relevant portion of the Earth's surface, even though they switched in 2012 to "State of Palestine" when referring to the political entity. See, for example, and . ] (]) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::And . ] (]) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:... see the ICRC's "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The law of occupation must be respected" of 2024-07-19. | |||
:The UN has consistently used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" since October 1999 to describe the territory, as opposed to the legal entity. That's coming up to 25 years. I consider the position of the UN, with its 193 member states, to be authoritative. ] (]) ] | |||
:Resolution A/RES/77/247 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2022, which requested that the ICJ renders an advisory opinion regarding the occupation, repeatedly uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". | |||
:Note also the title of the ICJ's ] of July '''2004''', "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". ] (]) ] (Amended to remove an excess word 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) | |||
In response to the relisting comment about singular/plural and capitalization, I give "Not only does the ICJ declare the Israeli occupation "unlawful," but it also considers "the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit," regardless of the different statuses that Israel has imposed on it since 1967. The reversal of perspective implied by the use of the singular, rather than the usual plural, by the highest body of international law is particularly significant for Gaza." and and an interesting discussion in 2023 "On 8 August 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, noted in Parliament that 'Australia is proposing to adopt or will be adopting or returning to the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories"'." (also includes a brief review of what "peer nations" are doing wrt terminology, their example for the EU is correct except that the EU does usually capitalize). Maybe editors have other examples we could look at? ] (]) 22:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:The international community did not declare any change in their percieved status of the territories as a of the creation of the ] between 1993 and 2000. Although an 1999 U.N. document (see the link above) implied that the the chances for a change in that status was slim, most observers agreed that the Palestinian territories' classification as occupied was losing substanciality, and would be withdrawn after the signing of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (see also ]). | |||
:As you mention, and as noted in para 2 of the article's lead, the EU normally uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory".<ref>{{cite web |date=4 November 2016 |title=European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory |url=https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/isdb_results/factsheets/country/details_occupied-palestinian-territory_en.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528064232/https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/isdb_results/factsheets/country/details_occupied-palestinian-territory_en.pdf |archive-date=2019-05-28 |url-status=live |access-date=29 November 2016 |publisher=European Commission / Directorate-General for Trade}}</ref> ] (]) 22:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Israel claims the situatuation was absurd, considering the fact that the vast majority of the Palestinians after 1997 did not have to see a single Israeli soldier or official. However, following the events of the ], most of those areas are now once again under effective Israeli military control, so the discussion along those lines is largely moot as of now (autumn 2002). | |||
{{Reflist-talk}} | |||
:: Uh Jacob, the POVs are actually marked out quite well, and you didn't really bother to explain yourself. Could you please do that, or frankly, I see no reason why I shouldn't paste the parts back in (with the clarifications Elian asked for). --] | |||
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024 == | |||
:::Uri, please do me a favor and post your intended changes in the talk page first, this time. I think that will be faster in this case than moving each other's edits in and out of the article. --] | |||
{{edit extended protected|ans=yes}} | |||
:::I join Ed's request. --] | |||
Please update "135 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." to "145 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." as the number has since increased. ] (]) 04:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@]: I am matching the number found at ] and ], which is the page that the aforementioned source links to, meaning that we have a clear and blatant discrepancy that needs to be updated. However, if it's necessary to give a source with the explicit number of "145", here's one: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/06/armenia-recognizes-palestinian-state-israel-furious-summons-ambassador. ] (]) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Done (<nowiki>{{Numrec|Pal}}</nowiki> and it should autoupdate.) ] (]) 15:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::"Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians": better: Israel and the ... have negotiated.... second: you can't negotiate with a people. By whom were the negotiation carried out on the Palestinian side? This must be stated in the article. and, Uri, please send me a mail, so we can discuss about what are "occupied territories". --] | |||
== Ngrams == | |||
::: I'm writing the email at these very moments :-). Israel has negotiated with the PLO, acting as a representative of the Palestinian people. As to the edit, Jacob has all but removed my changes. I can begin work on ], with your approval. --] | |||
. ] (]) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I must say I am delighted that some of us Wikipedians have been able to work together on our mutual goal of creating a balanced and neutral encyclopedia article. Since Uri, Elian and Jacob know a great deal about the subject and I know next to nothing, I will probably not contribute much ''information'' to this process. I hope more to "grease the gears" so we can work together as a "well-oiled machine" (sorry for the technical metaphor, but I am, after all, an engineer by profession). --] | |||
:I'm pretty sure the cap version is most common but it can wait for a while. ] (]) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Well I am very thankful for your moderation so far, your rational thinking has often provided the breath of clear air I felt I needed. And concerning the information, I think you've already become something of an expert in the process of moderating (and an unbiased one, too :-) --] |
Latest revision as of 13:59, 21 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupied Palestinian territories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Skip to table of contents |
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 is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
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:
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.
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Archives | ||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Article title
Today's Advisory Opinion by the ICJ uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory", as does the ICJ's 2004 Advisory Opinion. I see that the article says that this term has been used, for many years, by other international bodies and national governments and that the UN used it till 2012, when Palestine was admitted as a non-member observer state, under the name "State of Palestine". Should we change the article title to either "Palestinian territory" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This article title is an antique, a hangover from the days of yore, difficult to get rid of because so many RS still use the term, even now.
- The "territories" have long been legally considered as one territory and that was reiterated at the ICJ today.
- And we now have the ICJ opinion that the occupation is itself illegal (apart from all the other illegal things).
- If it was down to me, I'd put Illegally occupied Palestinian territory :/ Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- We could solve the RS issue through a redirect. Misha Wolf (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would absolutely support a move to Occupied Palestinian Territory, it is overwhelmingly used in legal sources—which is what the article is about. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- So would I. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- How can we progress a change of title? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good question. Stepping back for a moment, let's look at the ICJ opinion (there are sufficient RS covering it so we we can speak to it directly here). A couple of things in there, first the legal position that Gaza and the West bank (incl EJ) are a single territorial unit (equivalent to the territory claimed by the SoP). The current title implies separateness but this only true in a strict geographical sense and a narrative promoted by Israel/US (see CIA "fact"book for example).
- Secondly it was determined as a matter of law that the entire territory is occupied even if the Gaza occupation is of the functional variety.
- Thirdly the ICJ uses, just like most authoritative sourcing does, the name Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as determining as a matter of law, that said territory is illegally occupied.
- So, to reiterate, in my view, the current title is an historical anachronism and should be changed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- How can we progress a change of title? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's definitely potentially merited. Ngrams shows the proper noun phrase (in both singular and plural) holding up well against the generalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- As per above, because this phrase was used for so long (such that some RS style guides mention it), there is an inertia factor at work, that's why the ngrams hold up for Pt. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I ran out of space in the Ngrams search bar, but some "Palestinian territories" hits are also for "occupied Palestinian territories" (sentence case) – which, if run separately, implies that "Palestinian territories" actually falls well below OPT(s), both individually in the singular and certainly collectively. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Ahem, and that's before we even count the Misplaced Pages mirrors.) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- So how do we move this along? It's nearly 25 years since the UN and ISO adopted the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (in October 1999). I know that we want to avoid Recentism, but 25 years should be long enough. I know that the UN and ISO have since moved on to "State of Palestine" but that describes the political entity as opposed to the geographical area. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to define it in purely geographical terms, there is nothing wrong with the current title. But given the scope that is clearly not the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- True. I'll rephrase that as " but that describes the proposed political entity as opposed to the existing mess." Misha Wolf (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the thing to do is put up an RM -> Occupied Palestinian territory No? (it's aka oPt as well so that would work or we can consider OPT as a "name" in which case capitalize everything. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that it is a name. Indeed, ISO 3166-1 Newsletter No. V-2 of 1999-10-01 (cited source ) states in row 2 "Official name Occupied Palestinian Territory".
- In cited source , the EU also treats it as a name , eg in "European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory".
- As I expect that you are far more familiar with the RM process than I am, would you be willing to do it? Misha Wolf (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the thing to do is put up an RM -> Occupied Palestinian territory No? (it's aka oPt as well so that would work or we can consider OPT as a "name" in which case capitalize everything. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- True. I'll rephrase that as " but that describes the proposed political entity as opposed to the existing mess." Misha Wolf (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to define it in purely geographical terms, there is nothing wrong with the current title. But given the scope that is clearly not the intention. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- So how do we move this along? It's nearly 25 years since the UN and ISO adopted the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (in October 1999). I know that we want to avoid Recentism, but 25 years should be long enough. I know that the UN and ISO have since moved on to "State of Palestine" but that describes the political entity as opposed to the geographical area. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Ahem, and that's before we even count the Misplaced Pages mirrors.) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I ran out of space in the Ngrams search bar, but some "Palestinian territories" hits are also for "occupied Palestinian territories" (sentence case) – which, if run separately, implies that "Palestinian territories" actually falls well below OPT(s), both individually in the singular and certainly collectively. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- As per above, because this phrase was used for so long (such that some RS style guides mention it), there is an inertia factor at work, that's why the ngrams hold up for Pt. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- So would I. Misha Wolf (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 5 August 2024
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupied Palestinian territories. We're in a bit of a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS situation here. There is strong - unanimous in fact - consensus that a move is advisable, but no clear consensus on exactly where to move. The main points of debate are (a) whether to capitalise the whole thing as a proper name, and (b) whether to use singular or plural for territory. Everyone agrees that the word Occupied should be prepended, however, so in closing this I'm taking the path of least change and simply adding that word on to the front of the existing title. As there isn't a definite consensus for the specific title, editors are welcome to start a fresh RM in the future to explore a different variant if anyone feels strongly about that. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Palestinian territories → Occupied Palestinian Territory – This terminology has become standard across all official sources, the United Nations, itself and in its resolutions, and at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in 2004 and reaffirmed in 2024, the EU and in many secondary sources. The ICJ concluded that the West Bank and Gaza are a single territorial unit: However, the Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial unit. Although still used in sources, and should remain as an aka, the existing title is currently an anachronism. Note that the OPT is also equivalent geographically to the area claimed by the State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Misha Wolf (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Relisting comment: Seeking more participation Frost 16:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Palestine has been notified of this discussion. Frost 16:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Occupied Palestinian Territories: It's much, much better. Waqar💬 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- But is different from the name ("Occupied Palestinian Territory") adopted by the UN, ISO and the ICJ. Misha Wolf (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Misha Wolf: I support both, but Occupied Palestinian Territories is better in my opinion. Waqar💬 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 08:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Support per nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have no issue with adding occupied to the title, but I oppose capitalizing the letter T in territories. That seems out of line with a significant portion of mainstream usage which lowercases the letter t. Remember that Misplaced Pages titles use sentence case and
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Misplaced Pages
(MOS:CAPS). The fact that the Red Cross, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, PBS, the WHO, and even different parts of the UN capitalize it as "occupied Palestinian territory" suggests there is no substantial majority. As for plural or singular, ngrams usage suggests that the singular is more common now (and substantial reasoning behind it), so I support that as well. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC) - Without the excess capitalization, I support – News typically has "occupied Palestinian territory" (or territories). It's not a name. The fact that the UN caps it does not make it a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Relist comment - Based strictly on the above there is consensus to move. However, there has been a bit of discussion around capitalisation and pluralisation that could be better explored. I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears, though obviously I could be wrong about that. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @FOARP:
I also strongly suspect that once this move is carried out it will be more controversial than it presently appears
Why? Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- Because every single I-P related move discussion I've seen lately has been so. It would be a pleasant surprise if this one is not so. FOARP (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @FOARP:
- Support per nom but would prefer Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. This would be consistent with Allied-occupied Germany, German-occupied Europe, Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Israeli-occupied territories
- Support Term is widely used in the media and in government sources. It is an improvement on the current title. Would also support "Israeli-occupied" similar to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine but that seems to have less general usage. AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom. Lewisguile (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, would also support Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory (based on Kowal2701's comment, singular form per the ICJ) - Ïvana (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Below, I've pasted in some of my earlier contributions which are now included in collapsed regions of this Talk page.Misha Wolf (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (Tidied up the indentation of my text below 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC))
- ... like the ICJ, the ICRC uses "Occupied Palestinian Territory". The UN and ISO used that name until 2012, when Palestine was admitted to the UN as a non-member observer state. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've now discovered that the UN and some or all of its agencies still use the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" when referring to the relevant portion of the Earth's surface, even though they switched in 2012 to "State of Palestine" when referring to the political entity. See, for example, here and here. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... see the ICRC's "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The law of occupation must be respected" of 2024-07-19.
- The UN has consistently used the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" since October 1999 to describe the territory, as opposed to the legal entity. That's coming up to 25 years. I consider the position of the UN, with its 193 member states, to be authoritative. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Resolution A/RES/77/247 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2022, which requested that the ICJ renders an advisory opinion regarding the occupation, repeatedly uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory".
- Note also the title of the ICJ's advisory opinion of July 2004, "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory". Misha Wolf (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Amended to remove an excess word 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC))
In response to the relisting comment about singular/plural and capitalization, I give (20 August 2024) Le Monde "Not only does the ICJ declare the Israeli occupation "unlawful," but it also considers "the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit," regardless of the different statuses that Israel has imposed on it since 1967. The reversal of perspective implied by the use of the singular, rather than the usual plural, by the highest body of international law is particularly significant for Gaza." and (2024) Oxfam America and an interesting discussion in 2023 of the Australian parliament "On 8 August 2023, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, noted in Parliament that 'Australia is proposing to adopt or will be adopting or returning to the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories"'." (also includes a brief review of what "peer nations" are doing wrt terminology, their example for the EU is correct except that the EU does usually capitalize). Maybe editors have other examples we could look at? Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- As you mention, and as noted in para 2 of the article's lead, the EU normally uses the term "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Misha Wolf (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- "European Union, Trade in goods with Occupied Palestinian Territory" (PDF). European Commission / Directorate-General for Trade. 4 November 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-05-28. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update "135 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." to "145 UN Member Nations have recognized the State of Palestine." as the number has since increased. AG202 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MadGuy7023: I am matching the number found at State of Palestine and International recognition of the State of Palestine, which is the page that the aforementioned source links to, meaning that we have a clear and blatant discrepancy that needs to be updated. However, if it's necessary to give a source with the explicit number of "145", here's one: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/06/armenia-recognizes-palestinian-state-israel-furious-summons-ambassador. AG202 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Done ({{Numrec|Pal}} and it should autoupdate.) Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Ngrams
Shows a clear preference for the singular over the plural. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the cap version is most common but it can wait for a while. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class Asia articles
- Top-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- C-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press