Misplaced Pages

Talk:Palestinian Authority: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:53, 21 November 2012 editEmmette Hernandez Coleman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,272 edits Organization or Place?← Previous edit Revision as of 03:02, 21 November 2012 edit undoEmmette Hernandez Coleman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,272 edits Organization or Place?Next edit →
Line 295: Line 295:
::::::The consensus is that PNA is not a geographic location. It is however an autonomous geopolitical entity with specific territory - similar to ], Iraqi Kurdistan or Gibraltar. Palestinian Authority is the entity which would like to be upgraded to a status of state - quote "The United Nations General Assembly could be asked to admit the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state within weeks after officials in the West Bank conceded that their bid to win full statehood from the Security Council would have to be put on hold." . If it had no geopolitical context, the PNA could not admit to the UN.] (]) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) ::::::The consensus is that PNA is not a geographic location. It is however an autonomous geopolitical entity with specific territory - similar to ], Iraqi Kurdistan or Gibraltar. Palestinian Authority is the entity which would like to be upgraded to a status of state - quote "The United Nations General Assembly could be asked to admit the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state within weeks after officials in the West Bank conceded that their bid to win full statehood from the Security Council would have to be put on hold." . If it had no geopolitical context, the PNA could not admit to the UN.] (]) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::], ] and ] are indisputably geographic locations, or more specifically geopolitical locations. Everyone knows that Hong Kong is a place, no one would conceder Hong Kong to be an origination. I really don't think that when the people in this discussion said that the PNA was an organization, and not a place they meant that it was an "organization" like Hong Kong. Everyone would conceder those examples you listed to be places, not originations. ] (]) 02:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC) :::::::], ] and ] are indisputably geographic locations, or more specifically geopolitical locations. Everyone knows that Hong Kong is a place, no one would conceder Hong Kong to be an origination. I really don't think that when the people in this discussion said that the PNA was an organization, and not a place they meant that it was an "organization" like Hong Kong. Everyone would conceder those examples you listed to be places, not originations. ] (]) 02:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I asked the participants in this discussion to clarify what they meant by "Organization" so hopefully that will clear this up. ] (]) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''entity''' - neither a place nor organization. PNA is located on parts of geographic Palestine the same way Iraqi Kurdistan is located in part of geographic Kurdistan. No sources were so far brought that there is an entity called "Palestinian territories", no reliable source maps have "Palestinian territories" written on them. The maps and the international community say either West Bank and Gaza Strip or relate to PNA, which is located on parts of WB (and until 2007 also Gaza Strip). "Palestinian territories" is a geographic term, and not beyond that. Even the map of "Palestinian territories" in wikipedia says "Palestinian National Authority" to relate to PNA governed areas (in green color).] (]) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC) *'''entity''' - neither a place nor organization. PNA is located on parts of geographic Palestine the same way Iraqi Kurdistan is located in part of geographic Kurdistan. No sources were so far brought that there is an entity called "Palestinian territories", no reliable source maps have "Palestinian territories" written on them. The maps and the international community say either West Bank and Gaza Strip or relate to PNA, which is located on parts of WB (and until 2007 also Gaza Strip). "Palestinian territories" is a geographic term, and not beyond that. Even the map of "Palestinian territories" in wikipedia says "Palestinian National Authority" to relate to PNA governed areas (in green color).] (]) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)



Revision as of 03:02, 21 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinian Authority article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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 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.
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

WikiProject iconUnrecognized countries (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the Arbcom explanation of sanction on Palestine-Israel articles.
Globe icon.The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
In the newsA news item involving Palestinian Authority was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 April 2011.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

Legal status of the Palestinan National Authority

I have a question for you all, and I always try to look it up either at their site or Israeli sites or on encyclopedias like this one and STILL haven't found a satisfactory answer. Just what IS the legal status currently of the Palestinian National Authority? Is it a sovereign entity? I know it is not yet a state. I know that many states have diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine, but this is a subtle legal difference like distinguishing between the Vatican City State (a sovereign city-state) and the Holy See (a diplomatic subject with which nations have diplomatic relations). It is the Holy See that is a member of the UN, for example.

Is the PNA in actuality (legally speaking) and most ironically, a diplomatic subject of Israel? I know this might be a sacrilege to many, but since it is not a state yet, is it like an associated state of Israel? Such as the Cook Islands are an autonomous nation in relation to the Realm of New Zealand, but have some sovereign distinctions from New Zealand.

Is it a matter of depending on differing views. Because it is not sovereign, is it some kind of sui-generis entity? Are PNA passports issued? Are there PNA citizens, or are they still residents of the West Bank subject to Israel? And, if those areas under PNA control are not under Israeli occupation or control anymore, and they are not a state, what exactly ARE they?

As I recognize there might be differing views, a simple question might be. Just what is the Israeli position of the PNA status?

What is the Jordanian position of the PNA status?

What does the United Nations say about the issue?

Thanks everyone. --Larry G 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These are good questions. I will attempt to answer some of them. The Palestinian Authority was created by the Oslo Accords. It's original purpose was to govern the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during an interim period, until such time as a Palestinian state was created by a Final Status Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. However, no such agreement was ever reached. What that means is that the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians are stateless. They have no passports. Israel has effective control of all the territories, despite the presence of the PNA, hence they are still considered to be under military occupation. Sanguinalis 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
United Nations General Assembly resolution 43/177 (A/RES/43/177) decided that "effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation 'Palestine' should be used in place of the designation 'Palestine Liberation Organization' in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice"; so when the U.N. talks of "Palestine", they are in effect referring to the PLO. The Israeli Prime Minister stated "the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PL0 as the representative of the Palestinian people": See page 183 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 on the Construction of a Wall case (below). The PLO, in turn, created the Palestinian Authority: See pages 44-49 of the written statement submitted by Palestine, 29 January 2004, in the International Court of Justice Advisory Proceedings on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The United Nations Resolution 3236 of 22 November 1974 says "Having heard the statement of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people". Also of note is the General Assembly Resolution 3210, which "Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings." Also see Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations.
So it would seem as though the PLO is the source of authority, drawing its own authority claiming to be descended from the Arab Higher Committee, an organization of unknown origin yet somewhat recognized by the British and the UN, as well as multiple Arab states. The PLO is supposedly recognized by the U.N., Israel, the Arab League, and I'm sure others as I've pointed to above. I am still trying to digest the material above, and would appreciate input. Int21h (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to lead

Firstly, I would request, User:Asucena, that you review the wikipedia policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Adding statements without any reliable sources is a violation of the policy, and must be removed. Secondly, please remember, that per Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, your edits to this and affiliated articles will be carefully vetted, just as if an employee of the Israeli government were editing the Israel and relevant governmental articles, or a US congressional staffer was editing the article about his or her boss. Please remember, that while anyone may edit wikipedia, they must do so in accordance with wiki's policies and guidelines. I would suggest, in your case, that you have discussions about any changes to the article here on its talk page, since you are an employee of the PNA. This way, everything will hopefully remain above board and in compliance. Specifically about your edit, please bring a reliable source here on the talk page that backs up what you wish to say. Thank you. -- Avi 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really common knowledge that the PNA is the first truly independent government of the Palestinian people in many years I'm sure you know that. Secondly, I am (one of) Palestine's National Authority representatives here on Misplaced Pages and in my duties I am required to provide accurate information of our official standpoint - in this case that standpoint is "that we are the first truly independent government by Palestinians, for Palestine --Asucena 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"Common knowledge", however, is (in general) not useful on Misplaced Pages; the nature of the work here means that pretty much everything has to be demonstrated with reliable sources. It's pretty easy when something is, as you say, common knowledge; there will be many reliable sources asserting the same point, so just pick one and cite it. As far as your duty is concerned: it puts a much heavier burden on you than on other editors, because the presumption has to be that you are biased in favor of your employer. --jpgordon 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Area figures and maps

The PNA does not control the entire West Bank, neither nominally or de facto. Therefore, presenting the combined area figures for the West Bank and Gaza Strip as pertaining to the PNA is misleading. Also, presenting maps of the entire GS & WB as "maps of the PNA" is equally wrong.

Unless there is a well-justified objection, I'd like to remove the "area" (and "density") figures. As for the maps, I would like to replace them by a map indicating areas under PNA control (areas "A" and "B"), but since I haven't been able to find a good map for this, I might leave the current maps for now, with a proper comment. -- uriber 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PNA no longer in control of Gaza Strip

Since the Palestinian National Authority is no longer in control of the Gaza Strip, it is, in my opinion, no longer correct to state Gaza City (or Gaza) as the largest city in the Palestinian National Authority. It is the largest city of the Palestinian territories, but not of the PNA (since Hamas took control of Gaza strip on June 14, 2007). So shouldn't we declare Nablus as the largest city in the PNA controlled area? ColdCase 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should even look at the possibility to establish an own article for the Hamas government in Gaza Strip and leave this here as the article describing the government in Westbank, since it seems to be according to the PNA law. The Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip may not be according to the PNA law, but still there is no doupt Hamas has the control over Gaza Strip and the PNA having no control over the Gaza Strip. Therefore these are two governments which to not recognize each other, and according to the reality out there, it would need a new article for the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip as it is de facto the 'new' government out there. ColdCase 14:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See this cnn article in which Palestinian legislator Saeb Erakat, an Abbas ally, told CNN that the PNA is no longer in control of the Gaza strip. If you are of other opinion, please give your references here, thx. ColdCase 02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem as a "desired capital of an independent Palestine"

I'm removing the following from the infobox:

East Jerusalem is the desired capital of an independent Palestine.
31°46′N 35°15′E / 31.767°N 35.250°E / 31.767; 35.250

Whatever is desired as the capital of a future "independent Palestine" has little to do with what the actual capital of the Palestinian National Authority is. AFAIK, The PNA never even claimed Jerusalem as its own capital. Also, Misplaced Pages itself is not a valid reference. -- uriber 17:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Style -- make PNA the affirmative "subject" of the Overview

Greetings. I realize this is a controversial article with POV disputes. One way to deal with POV would be grammatical style. In some sections, esp Overview, the PNA is not the grammatical subject ("character") of the sentence. Instead, the sentences are about the PLO or diasporta and tell us what the PNA is not. In an article, rather than tell us what the subject of the article is not, it would be better to say what the subject affirmatively is or does. If the current -- grammatically negating -- style reflects some degree of POV, then the proposed encyclopedic style would be more neutral. In any case, it would be better writing style. For example:

The Palestinian diaspora, living outside the West Bank and Gaza, which constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people, are not allowed to vote in elections for PNA offices.

This sentence could be modified toward better NPOV as follows:

PNA offices are elected by voters in the West Bank and Gaza, not by the Palestinian diaspora, which constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people.

Or this would work as well:

While the Palestinian diaspora constitutes the majority of the Palestinian people, PNA offices are elected by voters in the West Bank and Gaza.

Note that these modifications do not change the informational content, yet aim to improve the neutral delivery. The lead of the Overview section is more tricky and I don't quite see a neutral reason for the emphasis on the PLO rather than the PNA. Here is the sentence:

The Palestinian Authority is distinct from the PLO, and it is the PLO, not the PNA, which enjoys international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people.

For an affirmative sentence about the PNA, I would suggest:

The Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with international support, while it is the PLO which enjoys international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people.

Again this modifications wouldn't change the informational content, yet it would make for a more neutral delivery. My one concern is how to affirmatively and neutrally describe the international "support" or whatever that the PNA itself enjoys. Notice how the current version sets up a contrast but does not give us the affirmative data. What do you think? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Embasies and missions

I followed a link here from Australia, which mentioned Australia has a conselate in the PNA. DOes the PNA maintain diplomatic missions and if so, where? Basejumper2 08:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Areas A, B and C

Could we get a picture showing the division of the territory between these areas? Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.218.11 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Proposed Solution

The Israeli government has made it very clear, through the erection of several "anti terrorist walls"(as they call it) that it is not interested in any way in establishing a country of unity with both arabs and israelis living in one country. These walls remind me very much of a similar situation in the partitioning of Berlin and the Berlin Wall. Any further attempts of establishing such a government would be senseless. In my opinion, Tsrael and Palestine should be split into two equal parts, with one common land border and with equal access to the Mediteranean and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem should become an independant city state, and so, all problems (theoretically) should be solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.150.47 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to propose solutions, here we just state facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.167.31 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawlessness section

Hi. You might consider a spin-out for this section. In any case, lawlessness is not a common term for this content. So a renaming of the section would be helpful: how about a combo with Civil disorder and crime? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

capital

jerusalem is not the palestinian xcapital its not theres it is israeli wether its proposed means nothing. i dont care if its planned to be the capital until it is the capital dont write jerusalem as the capital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.80.93 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be different POVs about what is the capital, but we can't just list "Jerusalem" as the capital in the infobox and not say anything about it in the article. We need to describe the whole situation in more detail, not just state that one city is the capital. I don't know if these are reliable sources or not but here are some quotes:
  • "Eastern Jerusalem is claimed as the capital city of the Palestinian territories but the seat of the Palestinian Authority is in Ramalla, and for day-to-day purposes this is the administrative capital." (AMEinfo)
  • "the Palestinians’ hope that they may eventually use East Jerusalem, which Israel controls, as their capital. The agreements that established the PNA in 1993 forbid placing the Palestinian capital in Jerusalem." (MSN encarta)
  • "Capital: Ramallah / Gaza City (de facto), East Jerusalem (claimed)" (flags of the world website)
  • "Ram Allah" listed as capital (Ministry of foreign affairs of the republic of Poland)
  • " The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).’ (Extract from The Palestinian Declaration of Independence)" (Palestine, the Land of Muslims, by Shelina Janmohamed, February 1999, p. 1)
  • "Under Netanyahu, Israel continues to control Jerusalem, but now with the bitter opposition of all Palestinian forces." (The tug of war over the status of Jerusalem: Leaders, strategies and outcomes; 1997)
  • "On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization National Council declared a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem." p. CRS6. "Palestinians maintain that east Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian state. Israel, which has claimed Jerusalem as its capitol since 1948, annexed east Jerusalem in 1967, and claims that Jerusalem’s status is not negotiable. No other country recognizes Israel’s annexation of east Jerusalem." p. CRS7. (Issue Brief for Congress, 2002)
I suggest in the body of the article, something like "Ramallah is the de facto capital, although Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control, as their capital city." In the infobox, I suggest either just "Ramallah" or "Ramallah (de facto)". I'm not sure which sources to use. All the sources listed above seem pretty much consistent with what I suggest saying. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In order to compromise (I'm getting sick of all those anonymous vandalisations) I have changed the entry to Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto). Maybe one should add Gaza City, but ....see Governance of the Gaza Strip.
I'm all for a brief section explaining the claims an counter-claims; but That's already dealt with here: East Jerusalem#Status and very extensively here: Positions on Jerusalem. Bleddynefans (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is just beacuse they claim Jerusalem to be their capital doesn't make it so. It's allready explained in the article that they claim it, but fact is that currently Ramallah is their capital de facto and de jure. So I'm now going to change it to Ramallah and if somebody wants to know what they claim to be their capital they can read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talkcontribs) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now i've changed it; RamallahJerusalem claimed as capital.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fipplet (talkcontribs) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit again, as it's already a compromise. Fipplet seems to be really hard on deleting any reference to Jerusalem. I've taken a look at Fipplet's edits; shows a lot about him. BTW: why are you Fipplet not signing your contributions??? Bleddynefans (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it's a compromise, Jerusalem isn't the capital. I didn't delete any reference to Jerusalem, Ive added the text "Jerusalem claimed as capital." as a footnote, besides in the article it's mentioned that they want Jerusalem as their capital. Ok, listen now. Just because they claim Jerusalem to be their capital doesn't make it so, cause then if Sweden claimed it to be their capital it would be Swedens capital too etc. The PNA doesn't have any sovreignity over Jerusalem and they don't control Jerusalem so what they claim to be their capital has very little to do with what actually is their capital.

About signing contributions: Im not that good at wikipedia im not sure how you sign but I would be happy if you told me.

Ok, I think I know what you're talking about is this correct? Fipplet (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start a rational argument foer once and have a look at Israel: "Jerusalem" is described as capital in the infobox. There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact....
The Jerusalem Law states that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel" and the city serves as the seat of the government, home to the President's residence, government offices, supreme court, and parliament. The United Nations and most countries do not accept the Jerusalem Law (see Kellerman 1993, p. 140 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKellerman1993 (help)) and maintain their embassies in other cities such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya (see the CIA Factbook and Map of Israel) The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state and the city's final status awaits future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (see "Negotiating Jerusalem", University of Maryland). See Positions on Jerusalem for more information.
So why these persistent objections for the PNA claim for (East) Jerusalem being stated in the infobox here? de facto or de jure control doesn't come into the argument at all. It's a claim we're talking about, and my edit clearly distinguished claim and de facto situation. For what it's worth I've taken part of the above reference and incorporated it here. Bleddynefans (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. We're talking about the PNA capital not Israels. The capital of Israel is a different discussion and it's far more complicated. Maybe it's my bad english but i don't understand this sentence: "There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact...."

In the infobox it says Capital But Jerusalem isn't the capital of PNA in any way. It should be mentioned that they claim Jerusalem but the article already mentions that and Ive added a footnote. That's enough. cause it says capital. And As Ive said before a claim doesn't make it their capital. Below the Capital we can write Claimed capital city which is not under Palestinian Authority or Sovreignity Jerusalem. Then all is right but that's unnecessary. This is an encyclopedia. You can look up the PNA capital or the PNA claimed capital but in that infobox it says Capital.

Hi. I just tagged this page with the usual caution that the article is subject to the ArbCom general sanctions for Israel - Palestine articles. For all parties: this means that collaborative editing is required -- please do not attempt to impose your view via editing, but rather proceed by reasoned discussion, attention to WP policies, and respect for consensus-building. Otherwise, discretionary sanctions may be imposed. I say this because it looks from the history that folks are trying to move forward by reverts and edit summaries, which are not as helpful as Talk page discussions. Thanks to all. HG | Talk 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages policy WP:NPOV we have to go by what the sources say. A Google Books search for ""Palestinian National Authority" capital" hardly turns up any mention of Ramallah at all, but turns up many mentions of Jerusalem being claimed or desired to be the capital. This suggests to me that Jerusalem should at least be mentioned in a footnote. I think it's OK to list "Ramallah" as the capital in the infobox, with a footnote which mentions Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as a claimed or desired capital, but I think it's better to list "Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)" in the infobox: it provides more complete information and in my opinion it shows better what the sources say. For most countries, that sort of detail isn't needed when listing the capital in the infobox, but in this case there's a lot of controversy so for NPOV it's good to present that controversy to the reader. I like the version with the long, informative footnote. I think it's better to put Ramallah first, i.e. "Ramallah (de facto), Jerusalem (claimed)". (Or possibly "East Jerusalem"; would it be getting too complicated to put "(East)" in parentheses before Jerusalem?)
I'll try to paraphrase this sentence that someone else (Bleddynefans?) wrote into simpler English, trying to keep the same meaning: "There is a reference Israel#cite_ref-capital_0-0 describing the claims and counterclaims, but the claim of Israel for Jerusalem being its capital is stated in the infobox—and in the infobox itself it's not qualified as a claim, it's a fact..." This seems to me to mean something like this: "There is a reference (link) which describes what each side claims. In the infobox on the Israel page, it doesn't show the claims of both sides. It only shows the claim by Israel: that is, it only shows Jerusalem as the capital. And when it says this in the infobox, it doesn't say "(claimed)" or anything else to soften (qualify) the statement: it just states that Jerusalem is the capital, as a fact."Coppertwig (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Ok, if you look at my edit you see that it says Ramallah and then a footnote where it says "Jerusalem claimed as capital" just as you said. But anyway Jerusalem isn't the capital and I hope everyone agree on that, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox that way. Cause if we write Jerusalem (claimed) next to Capital you say Jerusalem is the capital even though you write (Claimed) next to it. And it isn't, they don't have control or sovregnity over Jerusalem.

Maye im wrong but the PNA never claimed Jerusalem to be the capital of PNA. They only claim it to be the capital of a future palestinian state. And that has little to do with the capital of PNA. Therefore it shouldn't even be a footnote cause PNA isn't the Palestinian state. Sure we can write "PNA wants Jerusalem to be the capital of a future palestinian state" but that's have little to do with PNA's capital. You all must see the difference between PNA and a future palestinian state. PNA's capital is Ramallah. That's were their government is. A future palestinians state claimed capital is Jerusalem, capital of PNA is Ramallah not Jerusalem.

And the thing about Israel, I think that has little to do with the capital of PNA so I don't see why were talking about Israels capital. But to answer your question why it isn't the "claimed" capital of Israel. It's because Israel has complete control and sovreignity, de facto and de jure over the western part of Jerusalem and in the western part of Jerusalem they have thir government and court etc. And therefore the capital city of Israel is Jerusalem even though they only have sovreignity over the western parts. Cause west Jerusalem isn't a city. And I think the claimed capital city for a future palestinian state is Jerusalem for the same reason. there's no city called East Jerusalem even though they only lay claims to these parts.Fipplet (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the PNA regards Jerusalem as its capital, even if it is currently unable to exercise sovereignty there. The Palestine Basic Law, approved by the PLC in May 2002, states unambiguously "Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine".
Other sources recognising Jerusalem as the PNA capital, or noting that it is claimed as such:
  • World Statesmen.org: "Headquarters: Ramallah Seat of Legislature: Gaza City (declared capital: East Jerusalem)"
  • Palestine Trade Center: "The City of Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine."
  • Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign: "Jerusalem, the Palestinian capital, is shut off behind the Wall"
  • The Rough Guide to Jerusalem: "Arab East Jerusalem is where the PNA would really like to have its seat of government, and for most of the international community, the area retains its status as the unofficial capital of Palestine".
And there are many more. Our role in Misplaced Pages is not to adjudicate on the legitimacy or validity of these sources, but to note them. RolandR (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy as it stands now (as a compromise)

Disputed (Ramalah is de facto capital while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state).

but somebody actually deleted the entire footnote. I think there must be a few words of explanations; either as footnote or section in the main article. I've reinstated the full footnote, keeping the infobox itself unchanged from the last edit. Any objections? Bleddynefans (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this formulation. Ramallah is indeed the administrative centre, and could be described as the de facto capital; but Jerusalem is claimed as the current capital. Until Israeli restrictions forced the closure of various institutions and made access to the city difficult, it was indeed the de facto capital. And, as I note above, the Palestine Basic Law, proposed by the PNA and adopted by the PLC, defines Jerusalem as the capital as a fact, not as an aspiration. I think we should rephrase the description as Disputed (Ramalah is the administrative centre, while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital). RolandR (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the longer footnote, Bleddynefans: I was going to suggest that. RolandR, you make some good points, and thank you for providing some additional sources. Your suggested wording sounds OK to me, or how about this variation: '''Disputed'''. <small>(] is the administrative centre, while ] is claimed to be the capital of Palestine.</small> . ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Your wording would also be fine, CT. If we are all agreed, perhaps someone else could make the necessary edit -- I'm in danger of breaching 3EE on this! RolandR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've rephrased the infobox entry according to the consensus formed above, and added a reference to the Palestine Basic Law in the footnote. I deleted some superfluous bits (such as Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Herzliya and the Map of Israel link) from the reference. Bleddynefans (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that what is claimed to be the capital of Palestine has little to do with what the capital of PNA is. Therefore i think it is beter with Disputed (Ramalah is de facto capital while Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state). or RolandRs suggestion: (Ramalah is the adminstrative capital while Jerusalem is claimed as capital). RolandR (talk) ive rephrased it a bit. Fipplet (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work: I think we've found a version we can all accept. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations and many other nations do not acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, nor of Palestine (Axis of Logic). This city is still disputed. Considering the tensions that exist between the two governments, I believe it is fair that, if the "Israel" page is to list Jerusalem as its capital, then so too should the "Palestine" page. By allowing one page to display the "claimed capital" and not another is unequitable, especially considering the current ongoing conflict.

I have restored to the previous consensus (a debate i did not take part in) plese do not change again until agreement is reached on this page. There is a big difference between PNA and Israel. For a start Israel actually controls Jerusalem. Anyway get agreement before changing something thats been that way for months. And please in future sign your posts as shown on the edit page to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

I think the links to the MEMRI websites are not proper for wikipedia. it is well known that memri was started by the israeli secret service (mussad) and that MANY of the translations coming from memri are bad translated. meaning, the translations have a political agenda and the translation is not correctly done. 90.35.85.29 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the "Others" subsection many links are to websites that are disputed on reliability and bias, eg. Middle East Media Research Institute as mentioned above, some are Israeli or US lobby groups pressing their point of view. Some refer to specific newspaper/www article that is not quoted in the text at all, no referennces being drawn from them. Some links are semi-dead or the article is available as pay-per-view only.
Before I try to remove some of these, can others please have a look and give their opionions here! Maybe we should add provisos to these links like "Source Disputed"...Bleddynefans (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think too that there is too many links. Don t forget that the subject is Palestinian National Authority. I made the needed changes. --Helmoony (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox on this page be put on the Palestinian territories article instead? Isn't it a bit weird to state the population and area of a political party? Jprulestheworld (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a political party. Its an interim administrative body set up as a result of the Oslo Accords to oversee governance in Palestinian population centers in the Palestinian territories. It was assigned this task, intially intended to extend over a 5-year period, until final status negotiations with Israel could be concluded. However, because no settlement has been reached, its become instead more of a proxy police force for the Israeli authorities which works on containing resistance to the occupation on their behalf. Which is part of why Hamas has gained such popularity in the Gaza Strip. That perspective, however, is strangely not mentioned in our article and must go down on my massive to-do list. Tiamut 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the infobox move. Instead, I think this article should include and be incorporated into the Politics of Israel template, as it is an interim governmental/authoritative structure, not a country. In other words, the infobox, if desired, should be on the Palestinian territories article, and this should receive a government infobox. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 14:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved the template to Palestinian territories. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just Reverted these edits. The current infobox is the consensus for apparently(?) two years now. Before making such drastic changes to the consensus position, there should be more of a discussion, otherwise this will certainly start an editwar (which must be avoided!). Until there's a consensus to change, please desist from such drastic moves.Bleddynefans (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd love for more of a discussion, and would hate an edit war :^) I'm not quite sure how to get more participation, as I've never really dealt with much controversy. What do I need to do? I personally think two years without a disagreement on the talk page on a higher profile page (implied consensus) would be grounds for a move, though. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 18:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
After having left this topic open for several months and not eliciting any feedback, I have moved the infobox over to Palestinian territories. Other territories, such as Puerto Rico and Aceh, have the infoboxes, so I don't think this is radical at all. Please feel free to update the infobox as necessary to reflect the move. Also, at the same time I am removing it from Palestinian National Authority, as this is a governing political body of sorts, not the country/territory/region itself. As far as this needing consensus, I think it's unwise to prevent an edit just because there's no evidence of support; instead, if you feel so inclined to revert it, please give a functional reason for doing so. As an alternative to the infobox, I imagine one could be created for Palestine like the Politics of Bermuda article or something. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 16:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly object to this move. Your argument on consensus might be vaild, if ihis were not a article within the scope of the highly controversial and sensitive area of the Arab–Israeli conflict. There must be some sort of consensus on important aspects of an article like this., the removal of the infobox drastically changes the nature of the whole article. I find your arguments and the expamples you give wholly unconvincing and therefore I had to revert back to the status quo. Bleddynefans (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Where would I take this to get more feedback? I posed the question earlier but got no reply. No one else seems to have voiced objections, and there is no logic in leaving the infobox where it doesn't belong. I welcome any further discussion, but don't know where to turn. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

List of ministers

Ok, I couldn't find an updated list of the palestinian cabinet anywhere online, so here's one I've got from the PASSIA Diary 2010 edition (www.passia.org), and double checked to make sure it's updated. This was part of my work and I don't have the time to edit it in in a nice way, so it'd be nice if someone could do that. Well, here it goes:

  • Prime Minister - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of Agriculture - Ismail Daiq
  • Minister of Culture & Arts - Seham Barghouti
  • Minister of Detainees & Ex-Detainees Affairs - Issa Qaraqe'
  • Minister of Education & Higher Education - Lamis Al-Alami
  • Minster of Finance - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs - Dr. Riad Al-Malki
  • Minister of Health - Dr. Fathi Abu Moghli
  • Minister of Information - Dr. Salam Fayyad
  • Minister of the Interior - Saed Abu Ali
  • Minister of Justice - Dr. Ali Khashan
  • Minister of Labor - Dr. Ahmad Majdalani
  • Minister of Local Governement - Dr. Khaled Fahed Qawasmeh
  • Minister of National Economy - Dr. Hassan Abu Libdeh
  • Minister of Planning & Administrative Development - Dr. Ali Jarbawi
  • Minister of Public Works & Housing - Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh
  • Minister of Social Affairs - Majida Al-Masri
  • Minister of Telecommunication & Information Technology - Dr. Mashhour Abu Daka
  • Minister of Tourism & Antiquities - Dr. Khloud Daibes
  • Minister of Transportation - Dr. Sadi Al-Krunze
  • Minister of Waqf & Religious Affairs - Dr. Mahmoud Al-Habbash
  • Minister of Women's Affairs - Rabiha Diab
  • Minister of Youth & Sport - Dr. Salam Fayyad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.95.69.219 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy and demographics belong in State of Palestine

Why is an Economy and Demographics section in this article? The PNA does not have an economy, the PNA does have demographics as described. These are subjects relating to the State of Palestine/Palestinian territories, whether under PNA control or not. I empahasize these subjects are inclusive of areas not under PNA control, and really have little to do with the PNA. People are confusing government with nation. I think they should be moved to the State of Palestine article, which is the national article, de jure or not. (The PLO is the UN recognized representative of the Palestine people. The PNA, the government of a good part of Palestine, was created by and subordinate to the PLO. The State of Palestine was declared by the PLO.) Int21h (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the State of Palestine is not controlling any of these territories, it is currently a government-in-exile. SoP is recognized by many states, but it doesn't control any territory currently (it claims the Palestinian territories that according to the UN are occupied by Israel and where the PLO has established interim administration of some areas - A and B - the PNA).
Economy is obviously related to the PNA - it deals with trade laws, etc.
Demographics is also related to the PNA (albeit not so clearly) - the PNA is administration that has legislative jurisdiction over Areas A and B and thus over the population there.
Of course Palestinian territories (referring both to PNA Areas A/B and to the rest non-A/B territory) may also have some coverage of these issues. Alinor (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The economy is obviously related the consumption of beef as well. Still, its relation to the consumption of beef doesn't mean it belongs in the beef article. The same argument goes for the demographics. The PNA is a political entity, nay, a government, and as such has in common many of the properties of the "government of" articles. Someone needs to point to "government of" articles with economic and demographic sections, else I will take the initiative and move these, as I do not believe they are directly relevant to the article. I emphasize directly because, as we all know, this article is related to Kevin Bacon, but that does not mean very much. Int21h (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and removed the economy and demographics sections, as both have articles of their own and this is an article on the governmental authority of Palestinian territories. I also may remove the infobox, as mentioned above. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - president, prime minister

Currently the infobox contains strange name for president and only one for prime minister. Aren't these two in dispute between Hamas/Gaza and Fatah/West Bank? Alinor (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure on the details, but I believe the infobox should be removed in its entirety from this article, as I mentioned above. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citations in Article

Before I start, I will first acknowledge that I have not edited or created many new articles over the past few years.

Having said that, there are many occurrences of "citations needed" in this article which I think should be addressed or cleaned up. Considering this, should it be necessary to add the corresponding Misplaced Pages infobox into the relevant sections of this article? Allan kuan1992 (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew & English

Any source confirming these are official languages? Fipplet أهلا و سهلا 00:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think English might be official, but Hebrew, even though widely implemented is definately not an official language of the PA.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PNA or PA?

A recent edit changed all references from PNA to PA. I'm not familiar with the correct abbreviation, but it seems to be from the title of this article, as well as the intro paragraph, that the current organisation is Palestinian National Authority, and thus would be abbreviated as PNA? ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The name used by the PA/PNA itself always includes "National" in it, Israel on the other hand refuses the inclusion of the word "National", and would not go easy with it when it is printed on documents, thus although all signs and speaches would include the word "National", the identification cards published for the palestinians (by the palestinians) but controlled and constantly verified by israili for daily transactions of palestinians with the israili authorities (applying for movement permits, building permits, crossing a checkpoint ...etc) does not include the word national on it, the name without National is mentioned in oslo accords. this is on one hand, on the other hand, some palestinians also stick to not using National because of National being a synonym of patriotic in arabic, and some palestinians consider this falsification and subliminal message (clearly those who do so do not consider the PA respectable or patriotic or caring for the palestinian national rights). so the "official" name pushed by the PA would be PNA, in real life, you would find both forms, those who use PA use it for reasons that are practically (from a political perspective) on opposite poles. --Mayz (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization or Place?

It the Palestinian Authority an organization that governs a place (or in this case part of a place), like the Kurdistan Regional Government, or is it a full fledged place like Iraqi Kurdistan? If the Palestinian Authority is full fledged place, then the sentence "The Palestinian Authority is the administrative organization, established to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" is extremely misleading at best, simply incorrect at worst. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: "Place" in this context would probably mean "geopolitical entity". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Organization The article is pretty clear on this. It's essentially a government, although you could dispute that characterization since it doesn't govern an independent state. There's virtually no chance an independent Palestinian state would be called the Palestinian National Authority. In a similar discussion, a user expressed to me the opinion that the PNA was a place, arguing, "Of course PNA is a place - a geopolitical entity or officially an autonomous region. If you travel in the West Bank and enter Palestinian areas, the GPS writes - 'you entered the Palestinian Authority territory.'" But that phrase is telling—you enter PNA territory. You don't enter the PNA any more than anyone would enter the Cameron ministry by traveling to the UK. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I almost forgot to mention, some people expressed an opinion about this on Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Rename, so I invited them to this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization. It's a governing body of sorts that regulates and secures certain areas (almost like a regional police force). ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 04:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization, the article on the area should be oPt/Palestine. The terminology, especially in Categories, on wikipedia is neologism, it pretends that PNA is a country of its own. --Soman (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
PNA is not a country, but an autonomy within the geographic area of Palestine. The same way Iraqi Kurdistan is not a country, but an autonomy within the geographic area of Kurdistan.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - i don't understand how can you vote for something which is both untrue. PNA is neither an organization nor a place. Palestinian Authority is synonymous with the Palestinian Autonomy mutually recognized as such by Israelis and Palestinians as well as the world community (, ,,), and autonomy to remind is a geopolitical entity. You can vote as long as you wish that white is black or black is white, but all this unsourced voting is useless.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I dont think that is quite accurate. The PNA is a provisional government, or at least it was designed to be so. It is not synonmous with the Palestinian territories, or with supposed Palestinian autonomy. In Area B the PNA only has partial autonomy, in Area C none. The PNA exercises no authority or autonomy in Gaza at all, yet that territory is "autonomously" ruled by Palestinians. The PNA is a provisional government. It is not a place, and the word organization doesnt quite have much meaning here. nableezy - 19:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Look, when we talk about 'organization' in this case we are not talking about an association or a union, rather a political entity. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just going by Greyshark's sources, Nableezy's assessment looks about right. All but one of those sources calls the place/geopolitical entity some variation of "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" not "Palestinian National Authority", amd the Polish source's map seams to imply that the whole WB&GS is the PNA, so in that context it's clearly using "PNA" extremely loosely . If those sources wanted to call the place/geopolitical entity PNA rather then "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" they could have. Based on Greysharck sources, it looks like the PNA is the government of the Palestinian Autonomous Areas, mot the Palestinian Autonomous Areas themselves. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I drew that conclusion because the maps call the area some variation of "Palestinian Autonomous Areas" not "Palestinian National Authority". A map of Hong Kong would say "Hong Kong". A map of Iraqi Kurdistan would say "Iraqi Kurdistan", a map of Italy would say "Italy". Concerning that everyone else here, and the article itself disagrees with you, if anyone's arguing that white is black it's you. These aren't maps, but here are some sources that User:Nableezy found that demonstrate that "Palestinian territories" means West Bank and Gaza Strip: this, or this, or this.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
According to the sources i have brought i hold the position that PNA is a geopolitical entity (this is not exactly a "place" as you defined). Considering the past misunderstandings between us, this is however a huge leap forward to bridging the gap.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
In this regard, i propose the vote should be changed to whether PNA is a "government" (political organization) or an "autonomy" (geopolitical entity). In case you understand what i mean you are welcome to change the vote accordingly (i don't want to interrupt your proposal myself).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The definition of geopolitical entity is "A geographical area which is associated with some sort of political structure", so by definition a geopolitical entity is a place. I think the issue here is weather the PNA is a "place", like Iraqi Kurdistan: something you can visit live in or visit, or weather it's an origination that governs a place (or in the PNA's case part of a place) like the Kurdistan Regional Government: you can't live in or visit the KRG anymore then you can live in or visit the US Government, it's not a place. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that changing the vote to from "place" to "autonomy" would be allot less clear and would focus the discussion on the merits of the particular the word "autonomy", rather then what the PNA is. I added a note that place in this context would probably mean geopolitical entity, does this address your concerns? Even before adding this note I think meaning of the word "place" in this context was clear, especially considering that I gave an example. This seams like a minor semantics issue; unless there's something I'm missing the only problem with "place" is that I could have clarified it a bit by using the more specific word with a link to it's definition. I don't think anybody thought I was saying that that the PNA might be a grocery store or gas station. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization and entity, but not a place. Whether it's a "geopolitical" entity depends on the definition of that term. PNA is an interim self-government administration (thus may be called also organization, authority, government, etc.) - an entity that has been granted (by Israel, trough a treaty signed by Israel, PLO, USA and Russia) some level of autonomy in some parts of the physical region Palestine, more precisely in some areas of the Palestinian territories (for all of those Israel remains the controlling state in the international law sense). Other related "entities" are the PLO ("The PA was created by, is ultimately accountable to, and has historically been associated with, the PLO") and the State of Palestine (state government without control over any territory, created by the PLO - their goal is this state to assume control over the Palestinian territories). Of the three Palestinian entities only the PNA performs some limited (by Israel) administrative functions over physical territory, that's why it's sometimes utilized by people in phrases that commonly refer to states (because in the general case the name of a state is the same with that of its territory and is utilized as reference to its governing authority). Regarding phrases - I think there's no problem utilizing "entering PNA territory" (shorthand for "entering territory, where the PNA is granted some limited autonomy rights by the state currently controlling that territory, Israel"), but utilizing "entering PNA" is going too far in shortening. Also, I think it's a bigger problem when people utilize in lists, flags or sentences the wrong term (and wikilinked article) - "Palestine", "Palestinian territories", PNA, PLO, "State of Palestine" - those are kind of related, but neither synonyms nor interchangeable. The correct term should be utilized depending on the respective context. Japinderum (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The definition of geopolitical entity is "A geographical area which is associated with some sort of political structure", so by definition a geopolitical entity is type of place. Iraqi Kurdistan, Israel, Iraq, the United States, and Hong Kong are all places and geopolitical entities. The governments of Iraqi Kurdistan, Israel, etc however are not geopolitical entities or places, they are the governments of geopolitical entities. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Your definition is correct, but it must be noted that in case of autonomies the definition as "place" is much more vague than in case of states. Iraqi Kurdistan for example is just like PNA many times related by editors as a "government" or simply an organization (see Syrian_refugees#Reactions), rather than a geopolitical entity (while the government is of course the KRG).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's referring to the Kurdistan Regional Government, not Iraqi Kurdistan itself, as a government. The Kurdistan Regional Government is a government, not a place or a geopolitical entity. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a permanent link to the page your talking about. I'll go ahead and change it to say "Iraqi Kurdistan" to match the other geopolitical entities on that list which say things like "Turkey" not "Government of Turkey". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, see another more problematic example for an autonomy - the Coat of arms of Kurdistan Regional Government article, which should be of course named Coat of arms of Iraqi Kurdistan, consistent with the Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority. I think we should rename it, but that is just another example of similar problems to Iraqi Kurdistan.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't look problematic. The CoA itself has the text "Kurdistan Regional Government" not "Iraqi Kurdistan". Presumably, for some reason, the KRG designated it the CoA of the KRG instead designating it the CoA of Iraqi Kurdistan.
Also I doubt anyone would call Iraqi Kurdistan, Israel, or Italy an origination or government. Now Italy (for example) is a geopolitical entity, so in certain contexts, the word "Italy" would refer to the Italian government rather then Italy itself, but i doubt anyone would call Italy a government or an "origination that governs". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Italy might a bad example because it's a sovereign stare, not an autonomous region, so read Italy as "Hong Kong". Hong Kong is an autonomous region within China. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, very interestingly - i noticed that the PNA is more and more using terminology of a state (the State of Palestine). If you look at the Palestinian Prime Minister website - it says "Palestine National Authority" (not Palestinian National Authority), and the Coat of Arms insignia of the entity is that of the state, not that of the authority. The PNA is clearly undertaking the role of a state, even though not recognized as such by the UN. The definition boundaries between the State of Palestine, the PNA and other terms is hence very thin, and we are required for a careful examination of sources to define those in wikipedia.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Palestinian National Authority COA.svg
CoA Palestinian Authority
File:Palestine COA (alternative).svg
CoA State of Palestine
It is not proper that you continue with aggressive moves per you POV, while the discussion is still ongoing and there is no consensus. I hence assume that our previous understandings are obsolete.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Conciseness seems to be overwhelming that the PNA is a origination organization, and not a place like Hong Kong or Iraqi Kurdistan. You're the only person who thinks otherwise. My "POV" is the same as the "POV" of everyone else here and "POV" of this article. Why did you add "entity" to the title of this section and cross out "place"? You broke links to this section, and the issue is weather the PNA is a place (geopolitical entity) like Hong Kong or Iraqi Kurdistan, not weather it's an entity like the PLO. I changed it back. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If you mean consensus is that it is an origination, I disagree. An origination is a place of origin. I believe consensus is calling it a legal group or organization, in some sense similar in general classification to the PLO, not a physical place, geopolitical or otherwise. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 20:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That "origination" was supposed to be "organization". Your assessment of the consensus looks about right. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that PNA is not a geographic location. It is however an autonomous geopolitical entity with specific territory - similar to Hong Kong, Iraqi Kurdistan or Gibraltar. Palestinian Authority is the entity which would like to be upgraded to a status of state - quote "The United Nations General Assembly could be asked to admit the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state within weeks after officials in the West Bank conceded that their bid to win full statehood from the Security Council would have to be put on hold." . If it had no geopolitical context, the PNA could not admit to the UN.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hong Kong, Iraqi Kurdistan and Gibraltar are indisputably geographic locations, or more specifically geopolitical locations. Everyone knows that Hong Kong is a place, no one would conceder Hong Kong to be an origination. I really don't think that when the people in this discussion said that the PNA was an organization, and not a place they meant that it was an "organization" like Hong Kong. Everyone would conceder those examples you listed to be places, not originations. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I asked the participants in this discussion to clarify what they meant by "Organization" so hopefully that will clear this up. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • entity - neither a place nor organization. PNA is located on parts of geographic Palestine the same way Iraqi Kurdistan is located in part of geographic Kurdistan. No sources were so far brought that there is an entity called "Palestinian territories", no reliable source maps have "Palestinian territories" written on them. The maps and the international community say either West Bank and Gaza Strip or relate to PNA, which is located on parts of WB (and until 2007 also Gaza Strip). "Palestinian territories" is a geographic term, and not beyond that. Even the map of "Palestinian territories" in wikipedia says "Palestinian National Authority" to relate to PNA governed areas (in green color).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is is neutral to present the Fatah regime as the legitimate Palestinian Authority?

Is is neutral to present the Fatah regime in the West Bank as the legitimate Palestinian Authority? Doesn't the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip also conceder itself the legitimate Palestinian Authority? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be not neutral, but all the sources relate to Fatah ruled entity as the legitimate PNA, while i saw practically no sources relating to Hamas-ruled Gaza as PNA (usually related as Hamas-ruled Gaza, or simply the Gaza Strip).Greyshark09 (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"Neutral" in this context means WP:NPOV. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Difficult issue. It's not neutral, but like Greyshark said, we're relying on sources that call Salam Fayyad's govt. the "PA" and Ismail Haniyeh's govt. the "Hamas-ruled govt." However, reliable sources do acknowledge that Hamas won parliamentary elections in 2006 (and until this day Abbas and Fayyad run a govt. without parliamentary oversight) and Abbas' presidential mandate has expired and thus Speaker Aziz Duwaik is legally the interim president until the next elections. In effect, the West Bank has been run by presidential decree since Hamas seized the Strip in 2007, with Abbas appointing the PM. All of this should be reflected in the article in detail. As for what to call the Hamas-dominated govt. in Gaza, I think it should be called "Palestinian Authority (Gaza Strip)," but the sources I've come across don't back this neutral wording. I'm interested to here any suggestions on how to present the governments on Misplaced Pages. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?

The previous discussion above, initiated by Emmette (PA - an organization or a place?), was completely out of context in regard to my position, but he refused to change its misleading title during the discussion. Possibly it was due to his misunderstanding of the meaning "geopolitical entity" (he claimed it is same as "place"). I herewith ask editors' input on voting whether the Palestinian National Authority is an organization (government, like Kurdistan Regional Government) or a geopolitical entity (an autonomy - ,, like Iraqi Kurdistan). I would like to note that this context discussion is related to the issue whether the maps say "Palestinian Authority" (sources - , , , see also map to the right) or "Palestinian territories", whether there is a President of the Palestinian National Authority or "President of the Palestinian territories", and whether PNA related (see according to Amnesty) human rights article should be Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority or "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" (see Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Requested_move). You are welcome to share your opinion whether the PNA is simply a government (Emmette's claim) or a geopolitical entity (my claim).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli controlled and Palestinian Authority areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (2007)
  • Comment - i would like to not that prior to the existence of PNA, the PLO was an organization claiming also to be government in exile. With the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority - the government took a geopolitical scope, becoming an autonomous entity.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


  • The geographic extent of the Palestinian territories is not currently fully defined, and the phrase "President of the Palestinian territories" is meaningless. However, the article on human rights should be either "Human rights under the Palestinian National Authority" if it covers only the areas where the Authority exercises some degree of rule, or "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" if it covers all of the West Bank and Gaza... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
@Anon, in 2006, the article "Human rights in the PNA" was created to include issues in PA areas, while human rights issues in areas under Israeli control (occupation) were decided to be put into "Human rights in Israel article" under a separate section. See the discussion Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Untitled.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't manipulate my quotes, my full quote is "Of course PNA is a place - a geopolitical entity or officially an autonomous region." The word "Place" is a very troubled definition to anything, i don't really understand why you stick to it (in your understanding it is a geographic region i assume).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No manipulation intended. The reason I stuck to it is that everyone knows that Hong Kong and Italy are places, far fewer know that that the word for that type of place is "geopolitical entity", so "place" just seams much more easily understandable then "geopolitical entity". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization, a political body representing Palestinians, from what I seem to find online. The map you've linked tends to agree with that: certain parts are under Israeli control, while others are under PNA control. In order for it to be under control of the PNA while also being part of the geographic Israel/Palestine, it must be a group of sorts. I'm not too familiar with the argument, and I see polarized opinions on here both ways (the English translation tends to support it being an organization, but that doesn't matter).
    • This article on BBC that profiles the PT states: "The Palestinian National Authority functions as an agency of the PLO, which represents Palestinians at international bodies." and "These accords established a Palestinian National Authority as an interim body to run parts of the West Bank and Gaza (but not eastern Jerusalem)"
    • A government site for the UK lists the OPT as a "country" of sorts, with a president...grain of salt, but this at least implies to me that it is considered the predecessor of the eventual state of Palestine (with PNA as its intercessor). That being said, there are several sources
    • The National Post to the PA as a rival to Hamas, treating it as a governmental organization.
    • The Red Cross calls it the autonomous Palestinian territories
I can't seem to find any sources that call it a geopolitical entity. They all seem to refer to a political group, but I didn't find any RS calling it an autonomy in itself. The feeling I'm getting is that "The Palestinian territories (excluding some areas) are a semi-autonomous region governed and policed by the Palestinian Authority". As such, the PT is similar to what HK is now, still subject to Israel as HK is subject to China, but it operates to a large degree autonomously under the direction of the PA, much like the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
See media - "Hamas is considering declaring the Gaza Strip a separate entity from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, the London-based al-Hayat newspaper said." , UN website - "... The two sides agreed on a framework for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the Middle East Peace Process with the aim of, among other things, "to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip..." , academic review "The PA is left on the fringe of international law because statehood is a necessary precondition to participation in international law for territorialy based entities." (meaning PA is a territorial entity, but not a state) .Greyshark09 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The UN page says that it's an elected council that "consists of" a group of people. The Otago source mentions PA as having authority and jurisdiction over certain areas several times. The UPI source does mention an entity, but also mentions opposition by two groups, "the former Egyptian regime and the Palestinian Authority". Perhaps I'm not sure what how you're defining "geopolitical entity". ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Organization - I don't think anyone from any ideological perspective would disagree that the Palestinian Authority is an organization and not a place. --GHcool (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody says it is a place (territory) like Galilee, Palestine, Levant or Mesopotamia. The question is whether PNA is a geopolitical entity - an autonomy having control over some territories with self-governing system, or simply "PNA" and "Palestinian government" is the same.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody said, or would say that's it's a place like the Levant or Galilee. The question is whether it's a place like Hong Kong, Italy, or Iraqi Kurdistan. Hong Kong, Italy, and Iraqi Kurdistan are not organizations, they're places. GHcool's point stands. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Emmette, I believe you've made it clear in previous discussions that you disagree with Greyshark09. Rather than obsess about what he did/didn't say (which, looking over the past discussions, is borderline aggression), let's try to focus on what the sources say. Greyshark09, I'll take a look at the sources when I get a longer moment, thanks. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
My point was that there's no reason to believe GHcool was using the word "place" to mean "something like the Levant or Galilee", so GHcool's point stands.
I'm surprised I have to clarify, but I will. The PNA is an organization just as the Executive Council of Hong Kong is an organization. It is not a place in the sense that Hong Kong is a place. --GHcool (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization The PNA is a provisional govt. with limited autonomy over parts of the Palestinian territories. It's the skeleton of sorts for a supposed future state of Palestine. It is not a geopolitical entity in itself. I agree with Araignee's phrasing: "The Palestinian territories (excluding some areas) are a semi-autonomous region governed and policed by the Palestinian Authority." An article about human rights under the PNA (including the Hamas-run PNA) should be separate from a an article on human rights under Israeli military occupation. The latter could either be a separate article, or perhaps a separate section in the article about human rights in Israel. Depends on how lengthy the subject matter is. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organization and Entity - see my comment in the previous discussion. I find the current question quite strange, because both answers are correct. I think it's better to ask what specific results/changes editors foresee following the one or another answer. The question mentions the following:
    1. Whether the maps say "Palestinian Authority" or "Palestinian territories" - depending on the context both are possible: if the map depicts Area A and B where Israel allows the PNA to operate, then PNA is OK; if the map is more of a political than territorial (e.g. binary color map showing membership in some international organization) - then PNA is also OK (if it's a member) even for the whole WB/Gaza (e.g. for such map the Israel/Palestine and Area A/B/C details are not needed); if the map depicts something about physical geography or showing "all territories occupied by Israel", etc. - then "Palestinian territories" is more suitable. But this should be decided on a case by case basis.
    2. Whether there is a "President of the Palestinian National Authority" or "President of the Palestinian territories" - that's quite simple. There are three Palestinian top leaders (four/five, if we count Hamas-itself and Hamas-PNA) - PNA President, President of the State of Palestine, PLO Chairman. Again - depending on context the correct post/title should be used. And, of course, there is simply no such thing/title/post/person "President of the Palestinian territories" - somebody (even a RS) may utilize this as synonym for one of the real titles, but that only brings confusion about who it really refers to.
    3. Whether human rights article should be "Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority" or "Human rights in the Palestinian territories" - both articles are possible or they can be combined in a single article (for example if "Human rights in/of/by PNA areas/institutions" is a section inside "Human rights in the Palestinian territories"). Generally there are two relevant human rights "tracks" - one is the relationship between controlling power (Israel) and the population in the whole Palestinian territories (areas A/B/C), the other is the relationship between the PNA institutions and the populations in areas they operate (areas A/B). Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You correctly put the issues, and i would like to mention that the question is whether PNA is only an organization (without territorial meaning) or a geopolitical entity (a political organization with territorial control). Indeed the Palestinian territories is a separate article than PNA and they differ in both territorial and political meanings. Palestinian territories is however not an entity, but simply a geographic term, which by the way can relate to slightly different areas (that is the question of interpretation). PNA on the other hand have clear borders, and even though an autonomy it can be related as a separate geopolitical entity. PNA hence has a defined territory (areas A and B), PNA issues IDs to its citizens (Palestinian citizens have PNA IDs), has a government , economy , limited military and infrastructures .Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The Government of Hong Kong is also a political organization with territorial control. The definition of "geopolitical entity" is "A geographical area which is associated with some sort of political structure" not "A political structure which is associated with some sort of geographical area". Hong Kong is a geopolitical entity, the Government of Hong Kong is not. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
to put it in your terms - oPt is a disputed geographic term, not associated with "some sort of political structure" (it is currently divided between Palestinian Authority, Hamas Authority and Israeli occupied and annexed parts). PNA on the other hand is a political structure associated with Oslo Accords areas A and B, also called on many maps as "Palestinian Authority area".Greyshark09 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
So in other words the PNA is a political structure like the Government of Hong Kong, not a geographical area like Hong Kong? (also the oPt is a political territory). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Palestinian Authority is a geopolitical entity, which has a government. It is clearly stated in the following sources as "Palestinian Authority's government" or "government of the Palestinian Authority" , , , , UN source , US congress document .Greyshark09 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Per the OECD article you listed, the PA's documents define the PA as a government (top of page 8): "Palestinian Authority vision to provide a better life for our citizens by being a Government that...". Per the CFR article, "the PLO is the official foreign representative body of Palestinians, while the PA is the domestic governing body. The PA is recognized as a transitional government". The others seem to be rather ambiguous in definition. ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 01:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood - all the sources i brought include the citation "government of the Palestinian Authority" or "Palestinian Authority's government". It is simple to conclude that if Palestinian Authority has a government, then it is an entity and not just government.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that those references specifically define them as governments, though? ~Araignee (talkcontribs) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Geopolitical entities, such as Hong Kong and Italy, are are physical locations not "political organizations with territorial control". No one would conceder Hong Kong or Italy to be organizations. The governments of Hong Kong and Italy on the other hand are "political organizations with territorial control". Either the PNA, like Hong Kong, is a physical location with a government and is a geopolitical entity; or the PNA, like the government of HK, is a mere "political organization with territorial control". and not itself a physical location or geopolitical entity.
Put another way either the PNA, like the government of HK, is a political structure associated with a geographical area, and is not a geopolitical entity; or the PNA, like Hong Kong, is a geographical area associated with a political structure, and is a geopolitical entity. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I addition to Greyshark's sources that call the PNA a government, says the PNA "was meant to be a provisional government of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank". Based on all this I wold say that the first sentence in this article is correct. The PNA is a government like the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Government of Hong Kong, not a geopolitical entity like Hong Kong or Iraqi Kurdistan. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And of course relevant discussions over implementations of terms Pt/PNA (initiated by user Emmette) are also held at Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948, Human rights in the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian territories.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Also rename procedure of Elections in the Palestinian National Authority -> Elections of the Palestinian National Authority (initiated by user Emmette).Greyshark09 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Authority - this is the best word to use, at least in the opening sentence, per the dictionary: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • That dictionary says that the PNA is an "authority formed in 1994 to govern the Palestinian Administered Territories". This would seam to imply it is a government (or "authority") like the Government of Hong Kong and not a physical location/geopolitical entity like Hong Kong, and that the physical location that it governs is the "Palestinian Administered Territories". Some other links found by Greyshark (, ,) seamed to call the physical location some variation of "Palestinian Autonomous Areas". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The source by FutureTrillionaire says the following:
{n} Palestinian National Authority (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the authority formed in 1994 to govern the Palestinian Administered Territories: it controls policy on health, education, social welfare, direct taxation, tourism, and culture and manages elections to the Palestinian Council (Abbreviation PNA).
{Noun} Palestinian National Authority - combines the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under a political unit with limited autonomy and a police force; created in 1993 by an agreement between Israel and the PLO. (Palestine Authority, Palestine National Authority; political entity, political unit - a unit with political responsibilities).
I would say that it is the contrary to your interpretation - it says "political entity" which "combines Gaza Strip and the West Bank" (this is not precise and not updated, but certainly geographic).Greyshark09 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I missed that second definition, but those are two different definitions for two different concepts. One is a government or (authority formed to govern), another is a physical location (geopolitical entity). It seams like that physical location is also known at the "Palestinian Administered Territories", "Palestinian Autonomous Areas", and Palestinian Autonomy. As pointed out by Araignee the other sources you found explicitly call the PNA a government. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Government - Is there such a word as inxiled? It would be a Government in Inxile or a Government of Occupied Territory to be more specific. It's pretty simple and I don't see why there is such a disagreement. Beam 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. "Positions on Jerusalem". Misplaced Pages. Retrieved July 13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Categories: