Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Unrecognized countries C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.

Template:Pbneutral

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

"State of Palestine" also can be used to refer to the state of Palestine declared by the Palestine National Charter adopted in 1964 which became the proposal for a "Single Democratic State" and which was the position of the PLO until 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Geez, what am I thinking? Actually carrying out this merge would be a nightmare even if we could all agree on it. But here's what I'm thinking: these articles describe the same subject. That's a perfectly good reason for merging. Look, I don't really have a dog in this fight. If anything, I'm more sympathetic to Israel. But the objective reality is that there is a Palestinian state, with a surprisingly high level of recognition. In practice, it gets messy, but we don't have separate articles on Abkhazia and Republic of Abkhazia. Besides, it's still up to the body of the article to explain the status of the government. Having separate articles on the geographic area and the government that claims it just doesn't make good sense. There are four options before us here, as I see it. Let me know what you think. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Merge both articles under the title State of Palestine.
2. Merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories.
3. Merge both articles under a different title (indicate your preference).
4. Don't merge the articles.

• I vote to merge both articles under the title Palestinian territories. Good luck. --GHcool (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Super duper strong oppose. The articles do not describe the same subject, one describes, or should describe, the state declared in 1988 and has since been recognized by over 100 other states and the other describes the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine that has been held under Israeli occupation since the 1967 War. Until the State of Palestine actually exercises sovereignty over the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel then the two subjects are separate, and combining them in to one article is simply unworkable. nableezy - 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Both articles cover different topics as explained by Nableezy. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose since the subject-matter is different. Land of Israel and Israel are similarly separate articles, even if wikipedia articles aren't sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Point number one is fine. Both, if merged, should be merged to State of Palestine. Palestine is a non-observer state at the UN too. Faizan 09:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 1, and also merge with Palestinian National Authority (which has officially changed ita name to State of Palestine), with subarticles created to avoid losing detail. Nableezy has a point, but since the State of Palestine claims the Palestinian territories we are massively overcomplicating things for readers by keeping these topics separate. The one thing we can all agree on is that we want to help readers understand, and the current state of these articles is super duper unclear (to borrow Nableezy's term). To deal with Nableezy's point we should make very clear in the first paragraph that the state does not actually control most of the territory it claims. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "subarticles" you mean sections, that's an interesting point. The Palestinian territories article doesn't have a government and politics section, and it really should. The section could divided it into sub-sections for Palestine's "governments" (see my post bellow) which explain their roles (for example that the PLO handles the foreign relations). The problem with your approach (if I understand it correctly) is that a merge with both this and the PNA article would cause the government and politics section to overwhelm the rest of the article, even with a major reorganization of the merged page.

Here's another idea that might address the concern you've raised, it's more of a very rough draft of an idea tough. Perhaps this article's info on the political/legal status and recognition of Palestine (most of this article) could be moved to Palestinian territories and/or Political status of the Palestinian territories. This article could then focus on the State's government, and it's institutions (somewhat similar to Palestinian National Authority). Possibly then it could be renamed "Government of the State of Palestine" with "State of Palestine" redirecting to "Palestinian territories". Basically, a halfway point between merging this article, and keeping it separate. I'd imagine that allot of the opposers would oppose this idea tough, especially the part about renaming and redirecting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Oppose Normally I would agree with BDD's argument. For example I don't think we should have a Republic of Abkhazia article, or three separate Kosovo articles (Kosovo Republic of Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

Palestine however, is an highly unusual case, it's not as simple as "the geographic area and the government that claims it". Unlike other countries which consist of a single "government" (for lack of a better term), Republic of Abkhazia for Abkhazia, Republic of Kosovo for Kosovo etc., Palestine has three. The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and the Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO). The PNA and SOP (and to a partial extent the PLO) have have separate governments, separate heads of government (PNA President SOP President/PLO Chairman), and separate legislatures (PNA Palestinian Legislative Council, SOP/PLO Palestinian National Council), and separate institutions. PLO ensures smooth interaction and synchronous actions of the two. All three should have their own articles.

They have different roles, for example the PLO handles the foreign relations, and the PNA does most of the internal governing within Palestine such as law enforcement. If it helps, you could think of the PLO, PNA, and SOP as the three separate breaches of the Palestinian government.

I which Japinderum weren't an a wilibreack, he's far more kownigable about this then I am, and I don't think I doing a good job of explaining this. I used (and adapted) some of his words in my post. I'll invite hem here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum my above post, to quote User:Soman "To be clear, the State of Palestine [...] and the Palestinian National Authority are not the same. The PNA is an organ for local self-governance, but not a state. It is subordinate to the PLO, and founded several years after the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote to merge both articles under the title [[State of Palestine], Palestine is a UN Observer state like the Vatican so why don't u use this name?? is it because most of it's land is occupied? Gaza is Free and Palestine is not the only state with occupied territories. 3bdulelah (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza Strip is still under Israeli occupation. See Israeli-occupied territories#Gaza Strip. It's not the State of Palestine that controls Gaza, it's the Palestinian Authority. More specifically the Hamas government in Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That statement might be confusing so here something from the Governance of the Gaza Strip that should clarify it: "Hamas party won the Palestinian legislative elections [...] establishing a Palestinian national unity government with Fatah, which effectively collapsed when Hamas and Fatah engaged in a violent conflict. [...] Both administrations – the Fatah government in Ramallah and the Hamas government in Gaza– regard themselves as the sole legitimate government of the Palestinian National Authority." The point is that it's the it's the Authority's Hamas government, not the State, that controls Gaza. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are a few problems merging this under the title "State of Palestine"

First of all WP:COMMONNAME. "Palestinian territories" (including the variant "Palestinian territory") has 74 times more Google results then "State of Palestine". "Palestinian territories" OR "Palestinian territory" -wikipedia has 74,200,000 results, vs "State of Palestine" -wikipedia mere 1,020,000 results.

It is my understanding that over the past few mounts some sources have swished to using the term "State of Palestine" instead of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", many (if not most) have not, for example: The Guardian [1], BBC News [www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14630174‎], United Nations Human Rights Council [2], Huffington Post [3], the British Council [www.britishcouncil.org/ps.htm], Carter Center [4], Amnesty International [5], the Germian goverment's GIZ [6], the Brookings Institution [7], the British goverment's UK Trade & Investment [8], the UN's World Health Organization [9], Médecins Sans Frontières [10], Doctors Without Borders [www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=60], The Washington Times [11], The UN's UN News Centre [12], Bahrain News Agency [13], Prensa Latina [14], Kuwait News Agency [15], Gulf News [16], the Chicago Tribune [17]; well that's a much bigger collection of sources then I meant to gather, but I think you get the idea.

As I pointed out above, the The State of Palestine (SOP), Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and Palestine Liberation Origination (PLO), are not the same thing. While "State of Palestine" can be used as a synonym of "Palestinian territories" or "Occupied Palestinian territories", it would be confusing to use "State of Palestine" as our main term for Palestine (which would encompass the SOP, PNA, and PLO), especially in a context where we would want to talk about the State of Palestine specifiably. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in response to EHC's post of 16:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC), "single top level summary article": I like your thinking. Below is the table of contents of how the articles are currently organised.

Palestinian territories	State of Palestine	Palestinian National Authority
1 Name 2 Boundaries 3 Future Palestinian state 4 East Jerusalem 5 Gaza Strip 6 Political status 7 Legal status 8 Demographics 8.1 Exodus 8.2 Language 9 Administrative divisions 9.1 Areas 9.2 Governorates 10 History	1 Etymology 2 Background 2.1 The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence (1915–1916) 2.2 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1920–1948) 2.2.1 The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee (1945) 2.3 1947-1948 War in Palestine 2.3.1 Partition of Palestine (1948) 2.3.2 Arab–Israeli War (1948) 2.4 After the war 2.4.1 All-Palestine government 2.5 The Six-Day War (1967) 2.6 Rift between Jordan and Palestinian leadership (1970) 2.7 Rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (1974) 3 History 3.1 Declaration of Independence (1988) 3.2 Palestinian Authority (1994) 3.2.1 Split of the Fatah and Hamas 3.2.2 2013 change of name 3.3 Palestine in the United Nations 3.3.1 2011 United Nations membership application 3.3.2 2011 UNESCO membership 3.3.3 2012 United Nations observer state status 4 Institutions 5 International recognition and foreign relations 5.1 EU's position 6 Legal status 6.1 Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter 6.2 Declaration and Act of State Doctrine 6.3 Consequences of the occupation 6.4 Decisions of international and national tribunals 6.5 State succession 6.6 Opinions of officials and legal scholars	1 Overview 2 History 2.1 Establishment 2.2 Second Intifada 2.3 Hamas–Fatah conflict 2.4 2007–present 3 Geography 4 Politics and internal structure 4.1 Officials 4.2 Political parties and elections 5 Law 5.1 Human rights 6 Crime and law enforcement 6.1 Violence against civilians 6.2 Violence against officials (2001–2004) 6.3 Palestinian measures to keep law and order 7 Administrative divisions 7.1 West Bank governorates 7.2 Gaza Strip governorates 8 Foreign relations 8.1 Palestinian Authority passport 9 Economy and budget 9.1 Corruption 10 International aid 10.1 Foreign aid and budget deficit 10.2 Economic sanctions following January 2006 legislative elections 10.3 Use of European Union assistance 10.4 US foreign aid packages 10.5 Payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons 10.6 James G. Lindsay 11 Demographics 12 Communications 13 Transportation

A quick look through this illustrates how much overlap there is here. We need to simplify this if a reader is going to have any chance of navigating it all successfully.

Importantly though, to make this easy to understand, I think we need one of these articles to become a single "top level" summary article, so that a reader new to the subject can read just one article with summaries of all the key points and understand the modern political situation of Palestine. Once that is done, we can have create clearer scopes for each of these articles, so that they remain focused on their respective areas, providing more detail to support the summary in the top level article.

So question 1 is, which name should be the "single top level summary article"? DEFINITELY CHANGE TO OPTION 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.233.179 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "top level summary article". If you mean for Palestine in general, not politics specifically, but just in general, it should be "Palestinian territories" per my second 12:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) post, and it already is. If you mean political/legal status, is it a state, is it occupied, that kind of thing, Political status of the Palestinian territories. If you mean internal politics, elections and appointments, powers of the PLO, SOP, AND PNA, that kind of thing the Politics of the Palestinian territories. As I pointed out the Palestinian Authority And the State of Palestine are two separate entities, so one should not be the main article for the other.

Part of my point in my response to your previous post what that this article focuses allot on the legal status of the Palestinian territories, when in my tentative opinion, after thinking about what you've said, that should be something for the Political status of the Palestinian territories and Palestinian territories articles. This article (under whatever name would be appropriate) should focus on the State's government (not the Authorty's government, the State's), similarly to the Palestinian National Authority article. Sense the Authority does most of the axueal internal governing within Palestine, and (if my understanding is correct) has many more institutions then the Authority, the Authority article would be longer then this one under the scope I propose. I'm of the Opposers, but I think my position is a middle ground between the Opposers and the Supporters. I think my position is closer to your's and BDD's then it is to the other Opposers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should probably be merged with Palestine as well, with all articles redirecting to "Palestine"; this will eliminate confusion. However, that may be too complicated a merge to carry out, as these three articles cover somewhat different things. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to summarise all topics under "Palestine"

This is another can of worms I've tried to avoid, but what about Palestine itself? I think the SoP/PTs is the primary topic for that term, and the current article should be at a title like Palestine (region). Does it make any sense for that to be the top level article? I know, I know, not that this issue needed further complication... --BDD (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be moved to Palestine, Palestine moved to Palestine (region), and the other two articles remain separate. The PNA has nothing, or close to nothing, to do with the establishment, history, or present status of the State. The territories could conceivably be in this article (the PNA article should really be a sub-article to that one), but both are big enough to deal with separately, and I see no overlap necessary between the two. nableezy - 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that too, although I wouldn't be so binary re the PNA or any other topic which has some overlap as the reality is a little more nuanced. A top-level "Palestine" article about the State of Palestine should provide readers with an entry level summary of every relevant / adjacent topic.

It's worth noting that this idea has been proposed before, but ran out of steam because there was no agreement re what the article would actually look like, and others viewed it as politically motivated. It would be a shame if that happened again. I think the success of the proposed move will depend wholly on the ability to show to the community that the article will achieve the goal of being a truly helpful introduction to what is a complex subject, which would be of real value for readers. That will need hard work, coordination and structured debate from all of us here.

If this makes sense to people, before we try to get broader community support for this, can i suggest we try to agree amongst ourselves exactly what the contents of this "Palestine" article would be? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand well Nableezy's proposal, I agree :

State of Palestine should be moved to Palestine

Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region)

Anyway, I also agree that this deserves a discussion.

We should find good clues (not to say evidences) that the word "Palestine" refers more today to the "State" than to the "region" in the minds of the majority of people.

That's not obvious. For Israelis and Palestinians, of course but in the Christian world, I have some doubt... And in any case, our mind doesn't matter, we need evidences...

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. From yesterday's Haaretz:

[Google statement to the Knesset committee]: “I wish to stress that as part of this process, we merely try to reflect the state of international naming standards. We have no interest in being the arbiter of political disputes. I want to make it absolutely clear that in making these decisions we are in no way taking a political stance.”

Hale read out Google’s official position, under which the selection of geopolitical names is based on decisions by organizations such as the United Nations, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the International Organization for Standardization.[18]

In summary, google's analysis, which they were prepared to defend in front of a Knesset committee, is that the name "Palestine" is preferred over "Palestinian territories"

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merger of these articles. 72.211.220.246 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger. I agree with Nableezy here. Palestine (in its various meanings) is a sui generis situation, far more complicated than Abkhazia or other partially-recognized or disputed cases. The only vaguely comparable case I can think of is with China although even then it isn't really similar. It's hard enough even for people familiar with the situation to sort out what the different Palestinian organizations are; what the difference between Areas A/B/C are; where the Green Line lies vis-a-vis where people of differing nationalities/ethnicities are currently living and where the separation barrier runs; what the status of Jerusalem is; etc. Nearly every related term ("capital", "settler", "occupation", "state", "Jerusalem", "Palestine", "Palestinians", "refugee", "international community", etc.) is subject to often highly charged disputes. On top of this it's highly doubtful, if/when a peace agreement is worked out and an actually sovereign State of Palestine comes into existence, that its boundaries will correspond to the current Green Line that marks the formal definition of the Palestinian Territories. Merging these articles would make it all the harder to keep all the different concepts straight. (Contrast e.g. Abkhazia, which is a de-facto sovereign state run by a single entity whose boundaries closely correspond both to the region of Abkhazia and the area inhabited by Abkhazians.)
• OTOH I don't have any problem with renaming the articles, e.g. as proposed by Nableezy (although I don't feel strongly about this -- again this is a unique situation, and e.g. arguments could easily be made as well that the article "Palestine" should refer to the Palestinian Territories). Benwing (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, this page should be moved to Palestine and that article to Palestine (region). If Palestine is not a country, it should not be under the name "State of" anything, and if Palestine is a country, it should be moved to Palestine to be consistent with articles of other countries. State of Israel redirects to Israel, People's Republic of China redirects to China, etc. Whichever way you look at it, this article should be moved to Palestine. As for the merge, I'm not sure on whether to merge Palestine and Palestinian territories, but Palestinian National Authority should not be merged. Many other governments, both national and sub-national, have their own article separate from what they govern, this is no different, and wouldn't necessarily be an endorsement to any solution, since sub-national governments sometimes have their own article too.Smartyllama (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about the sovereign state proclaimed in 1988 that is an observer of the United Nations."

1. State of Palestine is not sovereign. It might be once additional steps are taken. 2. Since when 'State of Palestine' is an observer of the United Nations? iirc the PLO delegate is represented in the UN, which was later designated Palestine and now granted observer status.

--85.250.120.233 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are right, I am removing sovereign.

2. No, the PLO declared the state of Palestine and it is that state, which has been recognized by 100+ other states as a state, that is an observer at the UN. That should be clear from the PLO statement on asking for recognition, which includes:

Recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border is a sovereign decision of each state. Already 128 countries, including 9 of the ten most populous countries in the world recognize Palestine. Combined, these countries’ populations represent 75% of the world population.

What was recognized by 128 countries is the state discussed in this article. nableezy - 14:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Nableezy.

We can not link to State (polity) because that is defined as "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory."

The Palestinian people do not hold a monopoly of force in the Palestinian territories. I understand the dilemma, but the State of Palestine is not a state in the Palestinian territories. It is represented as such in the General assembly, and is therefore a state. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of a state derived from Max Weber and is described in the wikipedia article "monopoly on violence" where the word legitimatem which you've deleted in your reference to that definition, is in fact stressed (italicised). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A general piece of advice would be to stop editing the encyclopaedia based on your limited and biased understanding of the topics and only make changes that can be supported with WP:RELIABLE SOURCE that are directly related to the topic you want to edit. Dlv999 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Chicago Style,User:Dlv999 and Nableezy should not insist on claims that are incorrect. Palestine is not a sovereign state, despite the wishes of some editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.57.153 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent change of Palestine's status in the UN is described thus: "The change in status was described by The Independent as "de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine"" (search article for source). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of "sovereign state" given in Wikipedia- backed up by cold, hard evidence, "Palestine" does not qualify. This is 100% clear. Do not let your own politics get in the way of truth. It should not be referred to as such. lanlan_lanwan —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation for background/response). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of "sovereign state" given in Wikipedia:

A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.

"Palestine" certainly does not qualify, and for one to make the claim that it does, the burden of proof is on them. lanlan_lanwan

Please see User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and read WP:CIRCULAR. You can't use Wikipedia in this way as a source to support your argument. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see the necessity to use the provocative word sovereign at the top of the article. Add at least the adverb de jure. Better remove it wholly. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But respectable RS like Reuters and The Telegraph did see the necessity of using it at the top of their articles. Why ? I have no idea and I don't care, but I strongly object to the methods that have been used to try to remove it. Rational evidence and policy based decision making through discussion must be enforced. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the opening sentence of the article to "The State of Palestine (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭin) is a de jure sovereign state..." instead of it being just a sovereign state. Thoughts? [Soffredo] 22:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was surprised to find no direct link between the pages "Palestine" and Palestinian Political Violence. Why is this? It seems extremely well-written and documented, as well as very relevant to this page, to say the least, and to ignore the fact that "Palestine" its self-labeled "Palestinians" and the various political factions, groups connected in many ways to active participation in political terrorism to achieve their aims of statehood seems...suspicious. At least it should be linked to in the "see also" section at the bottom? Just wondering. Thanks114.162.170.83 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand the 'Articles relating to the State of Palestine' navbox at the bottom of the article you will see that it contains various navboxes. The 'Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian people' contains links to all sorts of articles related to this one, including Palestinian Political Violence. Perhaps you were also wondering something like 'what about the thousands of Palestinian's killed or injured by Israel, that seems very relevant to this page, to say the least, and to ignore the fact that...' etc. There is a Palestinian casualties of war article but it isn't linked in the navbox. You could add that article to the navbox yourself. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote in this article correctly says This article is about the sovereign state proclaimed in 1988… . It is not saying that State of Palestine became sovereign in 1988. Rather, it is talking about the present status, as Palestine presently got a sovereign status. Hope Chicago Style (without pants) will stop his undue edit-war. He should use talk-page instead of edit-warring. -AsceticRosé 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifier "sovereign" is not needed. It is called the State of Palestine, not the soverign State of Palestine. It is a political point. Also, remember to use the minor "m" only if the edit is completely uncontroversial. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]