Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian Authority/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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 Wikipedia. --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 - [1],[2], like Iraqi Kurdistan). I would like to note that this context discussion is related to the issue whether the maps say "Palestinian Authority" (sources - [3], [4], [5], 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 [6] 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 (talk • contribs) 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." [7], 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..." [8], 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) [9].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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 [10], economy [11], limited military and infrastructures [12].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" [13], [14], [15], [16], UN source [17], US congress document [18].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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
If the references explicitly state that the PNA is a Government (or governing body) it is simple to conclude that it the PNA is a government. Your PDF (p.27) explicitly Defines the PNA as a "governmental authority". That the PNA is a government is well sourced.
The PNA is clearly not a government with a government so those explicit statements take prescience over what's probably just clumsy wording, and besides some of these links say "Palestinian Authority government" (or PNA goverment) not "Palestinian Authority's government".
Can you present any RS that states that the PNA is an autonomous region consisting of Oslo Accord Areas A and B? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:07, 25 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, [19] 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)
Here's another one. "The Palestinian Authority is the limited self-rule government for the West Bank and Gaza" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Another academic work, describing Palestinian Authority as an entity: Palestinian Authority - General data; from media: CBS Country Fast Facts - Palestinian Authority.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what your definition of "entity" is. The article you link mentions giving control of certain responsibilities to the PA, making it a group of sorts. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
[20] "The Palestinian Authority is the government of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Organisation and a (still) undefined geographical Entity. See eg Palestinian Authority passport or Shlomo Hasson, Avi Ben-Bassat, Future Borders Between Israel and the Palestinian Authority: Principles, Scenarios and Recommendations; Shasha Center for Strategic Studies, 2011. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about what your position is. Is an organization that governs a physical location like the Government of Hong Kong and the Kurdistan Regional Government or a geopolitical entity, i.e. a physical location like Iraqi Kurdistan and Hong Kong. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi. These are both. Most of time it is referred as an organisation but it is also used to refer to the territory. The first point doens't need many comments. The second one is less obvious but proven by the passport and the title of the book. The reason of this is that there is still no official palestinian state but that there is an official palestinian authority ruling this so a good solution for people who try to explain and describe the situation is to refer to the territority in using the words 'Palestinian authority', ie territorires where the Palestinians have authority which can be nothing but their state... Again, as a proof of this use, we have eg the passport and the book's title. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
As for the passport BDD said above that said above "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 [21].'" 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."
As for the book, "Borders Between Israel and the Palestinian Authority" sounds like a simplified way of saying Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords. Area C is not part of Israel (or at least isn't conceded so by RS), it's occupied by Israel, so the book would seam to be using the word "Israel" loosely. It could just be using the phrase "Palestinian Authority" loosely. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:28, 23 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)
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)
The impression I get is that the praise "Palestinian Authority" can be used very loosely to refer to the Palestinian territories or Areas A and B of the Palestinian territories, but using it that way is like saying "irregardless". Judging by all the sources found and this one it seams pretty clear to me that the PNA is a government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Taking a better look at that second destination it says "combines the Gaza Strip and the West Bank". It doesn't say anything about excluding Area C, which the PNA has no jurisdiction over. That would seem to indicate that the second definition is roughly synonymous with Palestinian territories (except the term wouldn't be applicable before 1993). That would seam to be how the Polish Site was using the pharise. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised that the geographic definition doesn't exclude Area C, but that's what the dictionary and the Polish seem to say source say, so I'll accept that. That same dictionary's definition of Palestinian Administered Territories is
the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in Israel: these areas were granted autonomous status under the control of the Palestinian National Authority following the 1993 peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization Also called Palestinian Autonomous Areas.
So that dictionary uses "Palestinian Administered Territories" when Wikipedia would use "Palestinian Territories". This article seams pretty clear that it's refers to the first definition: the Government ("or authority formed [...] to govern"). The second definition: "Gaza Strip and the West Bank" is covered on the Palestinian Territories article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:25, 24 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)

Organization - It is an organization, but a peculiar type of organization with properties shared by governments (and hence criminal organizations as well) in that they kill people, claim to be sovereign(s) or represent the sovereign(s) (or at least created by/subordinate to those that do, the PLO), take money from people by force and by threat of force (taxes, although this is partially through Israeli coercion), etc. The place is Palestine, the State of, the Territories of, the Occupied Territories of, etc. A related organization is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Unlike the PLO, the occupying power (Israel) of Palestine did not first recognize the PNA/PA as a criminal organization before it recognized them as a government. (I think most governments are recognized as criminal organizations before soveregnty is recognized, ie. the American Revolution as a bunch of traitors to the King and thugs going around taring and feathering people.) Int21h (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Organisation/Government, when having to choose between that and geopolitical entity, which is an odd question. The authority is definitely a government, and it has control over some territory, as governments tend to do. It's definitely much closer in usage to the Kurdistan Regional Government than Iraqi Kurdistan. CMD (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
More importantly, though, why does this matter? As mentioned in one of the many comments on a related article, what does this fine-grained definition change? Greyshark, what specific phrase do you object to? Likewise, Emmette Hernandez Coleman, what do you disagree with within the article regarding this. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
It matters because Greyshark has been changing the praise "Palestinian Territories" to "Palestinian Authority" throughout Wikipedia (e.g. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]), based on his view that the PNA is an autonomous region like Hong Kong or Iraqi Kurdistan, and not a government like the Kurdistan regional Government or government of Hong Kong), and his objections to the praise "Palestinian Territory. This article contradicts Greyshark's opinion by saying that the PNA "administrative organization [...] to govern" so the purpose of this discussion is so see if that statement that the PNA is a government is correct or of the PNA is really an autonomous region. I added those two references that confirmed the article's statement. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So basically the question is is the PNA an autonomous region (e.g. Hong Kong, Iraqi Kurdistan) or a government (e.g. Government of Hong Kong, Kurdistan Regional Government). If it's an autonomous region then the lead sentence (and those two refs) are incorrect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Change the lead

Nearly all of the sources that explicitly define the PNA [31][32][33] call it a "government" not an "organization that governs" or something like that. The NYtimes is the most specific by calling the PNA a "provisional government".

Should we change the lead to say "The Palestinian Authority is the provisional government, established to administer parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" to match the sources? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to cheat the system - there is no consensus for your POV. Anyway the PA is now the past, now it is the State of Palestine.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"The Palestinian Authority was created by the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It was meant to be a provisional government of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank" The source is clear. There is no consensus for your POV that the PNA is an autonomous region consisting of Areas A and B of the Palestinian Territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the current lead. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 November 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 (talk • contribs) 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 ([34], [35],[36],[37]), 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 [38] - 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)
CoA Palestinian Authority
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 (talk • contribs) 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." [39]. 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)
Iraqi Kurdistan is not a geographic location, but an autonomous region of Iraq. It is roughly corresponding to Southern Kurdistan, but not more than the PNA corresponds to West Bank. The borders of Iraqi Kurdistan are not defined and are a matter of dispute with Iraqi central government (see Kurdish-Iraqi conflict#Aftermath.Greyshark09 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You might want to read about Political geography. Physical geography and Cultural geography aren't the only types of geography. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:37, 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)
As I said elsewhere - the question is flawed and there isn't a "general answer" - instead whatever changes in the articles are sought for should be asked about and decided on depending on specifics and context. The question asks whether the PNA is an organization or a "full fledged place" (strange adjectives for "place") and then goes full circle in adding a clarification "place really means organization - a geopolitical entity".
Physical places are Palestine (the physical region), Area A, Area B, Area C of West Bank and Gaza Strip, WB and GS themselves, Israel (the territory of it). Exact borders of each of those are not 100% agreeable to everybody.
Entities (geopolitical?) are PNA, PLO, Israel (the state), State of Palestine. Some of these entities are composed of various institutions (called "organization" in this discussion?) - Government of Israel, PNA Cabinet, PLO Executive Committee, Palestinian National Council, Palestinian Legislative Council, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 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)
  • My instinct is to say organization (well, a government). The place would be the State of Palestine. CsDix (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

PNA upgraded to Statehood

For the first time, Palestine is recognized. It now urges us to make PNA into "former country" (infobox).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

While the State of Palestine was somewhat recognized as such by the UN, the PNA was never a country, as clearly mentioned in the overly verbose talk above. As such, there is no need to change it to a current or former country. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's use a number of WP:RS to figure this out, please. CarolMooreDC 05:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, infobox "former country" has also been applied to Mandatory Palestine and All-Palestine Government, though both of them were not recognized countries and in case of "All-Palestine", were even having an exiled government.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The country infobox would apply to articles that are referred to as countries, recognized or not (e.g. Principality of Sealand, State of Palestine). The country template belongs on State of Palestine, which is where it is currently. As we've discussed above, and given many sources, PNA acts as a government/organization over parts of some land, but is not in itself a country. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Infobox country}} is for countries, territories and geopolitical organizations, according to it's documentation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected, you're both right. The country template would be fine, but former country would not. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The UN resolution merely upgraded Palestine from non-state observer entity to non-member observer state. It didn't disband the PNA and there's no reason to believe that the PNA would suddenly decide to disband or stop administering Areas A and B because of the resolution. The PNA is about as in the past as the West Bank is. The Former country infobox wouldn't work here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I largely disagree with both of you (same as before), but regarding the "former country" we indeed should wait some time and see whether indeed PNA facilities officially become State of Palestine facilities or not (i.e. ministries, passport, insignia, media designation etc.).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It seams highly unlikely that the PNA would disband because of that that that mere change of status in the UN, and I don't think you will find any more conciseness for your view that the PNA is something of the past then you did for your view that the West Bank is is something of the past. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the State of Palestine (a.k.a. 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. The UN General Assembly vote in itself changes nothing regarding the PNA. However there are talks that the State of Palestine might start issuing new passports, which would be different than those issued by PNA (the PNA passports are determined by the Oslo Accords). --Soman (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The PNA is one of the arms of the PLO, which itself is an organization. If [the state of] Palestine were to begin issuing passports, it's the government that issues it, like the PNA, which acts as a government, currently does. At least in the US, PNA-issued passports are not proof of citizenship of a state, but instead are simply travel papers, and they are still subject to the rules and regulations Israel has imposed. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear. It is true that "The UN General Assembly vote in itself changes nothing regarding the PNA", but just the same it change nothing regarding the 'State of Palestine'. Not to be confused in the U.N. and all of its organization 'Palestine' is the name for the PLO delegate, chosen since 1988. The UN vote only upgraded the PLO delegate status(which it held since 1974) within the UN system.--Mor2 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

PNA upgraded to Statehood (continuing)

@Greyshark09, you must have copy pasted that opinion of yours on every talk page you could find, because I am pretty sure I seen you struck out on two other occasions.--Mor2 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a general dispute between myself and Emmette, so you can find his remarks on even more pages than mine. Enjoy the survey, just keep the discussions civil.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Please take care when reediting content. I was replaying to the 'PNA upgraded to Statehood' section you started following the UN vote(where you ignore facts), but now my comment appear under another section.--Mor2 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary edit point

In response to this to adapt something QuartierLatin1968 said:

Perhaps, if you're a visual learner, an illustrative table might help:

Territory controlled Governments/Organizations with territorial control Areas included within territory
Wales Welsh Assembly Government area of the thirteen traditional counties of Monmouthshire, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire, Caernarvonshire, and Anglesey
Southern Sudan,
'New Sudan' 		Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) the territory of the former provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile
Bavaria Bavarian State Government (Bayerische Staatsregierung) the area of the kingdom of Bavaria, less the Rheinpfalz
Iraqi Kurdistan,
'Kurdistan' 		Kurdistan Regional Government Iraq north of the Green Line, including all of the governorates of Suleymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk (de jure and de facto) and sections of Ninawa, Ta'mim, and Diyala (de facto)
Palestinian territories (partial control) Palestinian National Authority West Bank and Gaza Strip

The point being that territories and organizations with territorial control aren't the same. They're not always even called by the same name. You attempt to categorize the PNA as a territory was twice reverted. Also your travel guides area figures are for the West Bank and Gaza strip, not just Areas A and B, slimmer to hoe the Polish Site map of the "Palestinian Authority" includes all of the west bank and Gaza strip. Agan that the PNA is a government, or if you prefer an "organization with territorial control" is well sourced. The territory is has partial control over is the Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - yes this table is a good idea, let me give my version:
Entity Government/Organization in control Areas included within territory
Wales Welsh Assembly Government area of the thirteen traditional counties of Monmouthshire, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire, Cardiganshire, Brecknockshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire, Caernarvonshire, and Anglesey
Southern Sudan,
'New Sudan' 		Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) the territory of the former provinces of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile
Bavaria Bavarian State Government (Bayerische Staatsregierung) the area of the kingdom of Bavaria, less the Rheinpfalz
Iraqi Kurdistan,
'Southern Kurdistan' 		Kurdistan Regional Government Iraq north of the Green Line, including all of the governorates of Suleymaniya, Erbil, and Dohuk (1992-present) and sections of Ninawa, Ta'mim, and Diyala (2003-present)
Palestinian National Authority (1993-2012/present unclear) Palestinian government of June 2007 Areas A,B of West Bank de jure; area A of Gaza Strip (1993-2005); whole Gaza Strip (2005-2007)
State of Palestine (1988/2012-present unclear) Palestinian government of June 2007 / new government? Areas A,B of West Bank (claim the area in the name of PLO instead of Palestinian Authority) de facto; Whole West Bank and Gaza Strip de jure.

I have to emphasize that it is not clear whether the Palestinian Authority is disbanded by the PLO in favor of the State of Palestine; this is to be clear within several weeks/months. To date only Palestinian Ministry of Health renamed to be "Health Ministry of the State of Palestine".Greyshark09 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that Wales Iraqi Kurdistan and Italy (for example) are not administrative organizations or "organizations with territorial control" or governments, they are territories, places, physical locations. The PNA is a government [40] [41] [42] or if you prefer an "organization with territorial control".
As for your "Palestinian government of" examples, take a look at the Government article. I think your confusing the concept of an administration, which is sometimes called a government, with the larger government it is a part of. For example the United Kingdom coalition government (2010–present) and the Government of the United Kingdom are two different things. There isn't any known RS that says that the PNA is an autonomous region consisting of Areas A and B, but there is plenty that says it is a government. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You have a short memory for reliable sources, let me remind you:
  • "Palestinian autonomy areas map" by BBC [43].
  • Quote "The manuals reflect the careful co-operative work undertaken by the Government of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian academic community", from OECD documents [44].
  • Quote "In August 2009, the 13th Government of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) announced and published its program" in UN documents [45].
I cannot believe you keep repeating same arguments all over again that "there are no sources", while there are plenty. Actually your position is much less relied on reliable sources, but rather on quoting wikipedia text and other users' opinions (even without any WP:RS).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree PNA is neither a territory, places nor physical locations. PNA is government, that have been given various administrative authority over various areas, but over all not capable of acting independently of Israel. (which is why the Palestinian territories are still called occupied).--Mor2 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"The Palestinian Authority was [...] meant to be a provisional government of the occupied territories in Gaza and the West Bank" [46], "The Palestinian Authority is the limited self-rule government for the West Bank and Gaza" [47], "The Palestinian Authority is the government of Palestine" [48], ""These accords established a Palestinian National Authority as an interim body to run parts of the West Bank and Gaza" [49], "Palestinian Authority vision to provide a better life for our citizens by being a Government that..." [50] (top of page 8), "[T]he PA is the domestic governing body [of Palestine]. The PA is recognized as a transitional government" [51],
RS is seems pretty clear on this. Those quotes you cite are pretty ambiguous in definition. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it proves the opposite - look at the title of the article "The Case of E-Government in the Palestinian Authority" [52]. Pretty clear that it is talking about government in the Palestinian Authority, or you missed the title??Greyshark09 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The title is ambiguous in that case. One could say "The case of E-Government in the Hamas", too, and that would be valid. If you read the OECD article, and as I said earlier on this page, the PA explicitly defines themselves as a government (quoted from PA documentation): "the document was part of the Palestinian Authority vision 'to provide a better life for our citizens by being a Government that...'". If you want it in context, here's the original document that the PA put out in 2005, where they explicitly compare themselves to other governments ("Globally, governments that have successfully met their e-Government strategic goals") and differentiate between Palestine and PA ("Palestine e-Government Strategy", "Promote a business-friendly Palestine"). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Your source doesn't say anything about the nature of Palestinian National Authority except it has an e-Government plan, and since it doesn't disprove my point, what was the point of bringing it? Any sources to support Emmette's view?Greyshark09 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe more sources will help you make it clear?
"challenges of governance and institution-building in the Palestinian National Authority." PJTT [53]
"Minister of Planning in the Palestinian National Authority visits the University..." Najah University [54]
"AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF ROAD SAFETY IN THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY. US-Aid [55] (apparently there are roads in the PNA)
I can bring dozens more RS (or hundreds if needed).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I was simply using referring to your source. I've seen plenty of RS for both sides (this talk page is full of them from several people). In the end, it's a matter of what consensus is, because RS are saying both ways. From several straw polls, I get the feeling that people find PA to be an organization/government, despite your dissenting opinion. I agree there is plenty going for both sides, but consensus says it is an organization, not a country. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Your comment somehow entered into the below thread, so i moved it assuming WP:GF. Thanks for clarifications, but there seems to be no clear consensus here - there is a slight advantage so far for Emmette's view, but it is not a clear majority to claim "consensus"; he tried to rename a plenty of pages into "Palestinian territories" from "PNA", but so far only one procedure out of almost a dozen was approved as "majority", and even that one was possibly a flawed closure.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"Almost a dozen, It think your exaggerating. this one that was moved from a PNA title, this one that was also moved from a PNA title (and it was BDD's proposal not mine), this one that wasn't moved primarily because of the confusion over what the scope is, let alone what the title should be and because 'in the PNA' con be synonymous with "of the PNA", this one (Greyshark's proposal) that wasn't moved to a PNA title, or the long standing lead of this article that calls the PNA an "administrative organization established to govern", (The Hong Kong Iraqi Kurdistan and Italy articles do not describe their topics as administrative organizations). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
With the possible expiation of the travel guide and partial exception of the dictionary, I see no sources that explicitly define the PNA as a territory (let alone an autonomous region consisting of Areas A and B), just some that could be interpreted to imply that it is. Nearly all the explicit definitions clearly define it as a government (or some variation such as "governing authority"). Sources such as the Polish one (see it's map), and the dictionary (it's second definition) and maybe the travel guide, tough it's a bit ambiguous (see it's key facts and geography page) seem to define the "PNA as a territory" as being the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but this article is about the administrative organization/government, not the territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, at this point I don't really care about other articles. I'm talking about this one here. The sources contradict each other on both sides, which means it's unclear even to the international community. The "vote" Greyshark initiated resulted in 8 government/organization votes, and 1 or maybe 2 (a bit ambiguous on one of them) as a geopolitical entity as for what the PA is. That is clearly a majority backing the current "government/organization/authority" stance already embodied in the article. The constant bickering between both of you (both Emmette and Greyshark) is rather tedious. At this point I'd suggest that both of you are overly passionate about your stances and should probably step back, letting others edit the article. You've both made your positions clear, but there hasn't yet been a sign of compromise, and we've dealt with a cyclical set of the same arguments for far too long. At this point I suggest you leave the article at the mercy of the community for a while. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how you counted the opinions and what exactly you counted, but to my best understanding the balance is the following: 8-9 users said that PNA is organization/government (Emmette, Araignee, GHCool, Al Ameer, Beam, Int21h[canvassed by Emmette], CMD, Soman[?], Mor2); while 3 users say that it is also an entity (Greyshark09, Pluto2012, Japinderum); 2 users are not clear on their stance (Futuretrillionaire, AnonMoos). I do agree that 8-9 votes against 3 votes is close to what is called consensus majority, but not a very clear one. I do however think that Emmette's efforts to form this majority were not fully legal which is unfortunate. In any case, it seems that currently this dispute PNA/Pt is becoming less relevant with the new editing battle of those supporting using the title "Palestine" in favor of all others.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course the PNA is an entity, no one disputes that, "entity" has an extremely broad meaning. Japinderum called it an "interim self-government administration" and that sounds about right to me. I think the conciseness is that it is an administrative organization/government and not a territory/place/physical location, unlike Hong Kong Iraqi Kurdistan and Italy which are a territories/places/physical locations, and are not administrative organizations. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"interim self-government administration" sound right, or at least very close to the actual definition(see oslo agreements on wikisource)--Mor2 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Name

The name in Arabic name given in the box, both in Arabic script and in romanization says "Palestinian Authority". The correct form for "Palestinian National Authority" is given in the text. Please correct.

Ybgursey (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

All the external links that show a CoA show rather then so I'll change the CoA to what now seems to be the more common one. I think the PNA began the "Palestine" version of the CoA well before the UN vote or rename. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It began prior to the change, but not officially and in a limited form. The transition from PNA to SoP is not imminent, but gradual - it will take years before all PNA CoA will be changed to SoP CoA.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Even before the UN vote or rename you discovered that the PNA used a version of their CoA that said "Palestine" (same version that SOP uses) instead of "The Palestinian Authority", and now all the external links to PNA websites on this article that show the CoA show the "Palestine" version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
But "Palestine" is the CoA belonging to the SoP, not to the PNA; what is your point here on this article? (remember this article is on PNA)Greyshark09 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Your assertion that the "Palestine" version is not a PNA CoA contradicts the Ministry of Information and the external links to PNA websites on this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
In this regard, you have once again edited pages using my name (see [56]), which i see as a disruptive editing and in some way a personal attack (since this is not the first time in my case). You have done the same to another user on SADR issue. I issue a complaint on repeating harassment by yourself.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CWW when importing content from elsewhere on Wikipeida I must give the contributers credit. I see you grossly overeating to that as harassment and a personal attack. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit to the infobox. I don't think the version of the CoA we show there is that big of a deal, but the PNA websites (under the government section of the external links section, most clearly the Ministry of Information site) which show a CoA, shows the "Palestine" version as the PNA CoA, so if anything it's asserting that the "Palestine" version is not a PNA CoA that's WP:SYNTH. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ministry of Information use the SoP CoA, not a "version" of PNA CoA.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ministry of Information site' header says "Ministry of Information Palestinian National Authority" and right next to that text shows the "Palestine" CoA. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand the arguments of both sides, each of them correct, but I think it's better we keep the "PNA" CoA in the infobox, at least for the time being. I don't see a need to rush it right now. Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Abbas changes PNA name to State of Palestine

According to this AP news article, Mahmoud Abbas changed the name of the Palestinian National Authority to the State of Palestine, how does this affect this article, should the article be renamed?--WikiU2013 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be renamed (there is already a State of Palestine article), but it definitely puts new light on how this article should be treated. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Presumably this means the PLO is merging SOP and PNA. This would make the new SOP roughly the equivalent of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The new SOP and SADR claim the Palestinian territories and Western Sahara respectively, but only have de-facto control over parts. Still, the news reports just started coming in a few hours ago, let's whiat at least a day before making any important decisions based on this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It could mean many things, but so far all the sources site "Palestinian news agency Wafa". I assume that if this not an empty gesture or PR stunt for the crowds due to Abbas poor standing in the local political arena, we will see more on this soon(as well as its ramifications).--Mor2 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in Ha'aretz now. —Ashley Y 11:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
again "according to the official Palestinian news agency Wafa", see my previous post.--Mor2 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
They cite Wafa, so what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
So its a re-quote of the same sources, thus we have no additional info on what it means or its ramification or in your words "Let's not jump the gun here".--Mor2 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend this article continue to be about the Palestinian National Authority as was, i.e. before the U.N. vote. Just change it all to the past tense. —Ashley Y 11:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun here, the news reports are just coming out. All we know for sure is that the Palestinian National Authority has been renamed "State of Palestine", We don't know what the impactions of this rename are yet. For example I would think that this means that the PLO is merging the PNA and the SOP, but we don't know that for sure. It's possible that the old SOP and the PNA (under it's new name) might continue to exist, albeit with the lines between them very much burled. Like Japinderum said "The PNA and the State of Palestine are not the same, on the contrary. They have separate governments, separate presidents, separate parliaments. The only thing they have in common is that both are established by the PLO". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I added the new name to the lead, and tweaked the hatnote at State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Like you said "Let's not jump the gun here". Wikipedia is not a tabloid, you can add it as news, but don't change article leads, stating facts based on one report, without knowing what the act means. Last time when people got excited over 69/7, it took several weeks to undo all the misconceptions.--Mor2 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why, we have RS that the PNA has been renamed "State of Palestine". We don't know what the impactions of that rename is, but we know that the PNA's official name is now "State of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This isn't the first time the PNA has renamed itself, yet the former name "Palestinian Authority" is still very much in use, even throughout Wikipedia. If this ends up not being a merger of the PNA and the SOP, but little more then a very confusing rename of the PNA, we probably wont need too do much differently with these articles. In that case I would tentatively say that we ought to use the old names mostly as we have before, and use "State of Palestine" to refer to the State of Palestine.
If this ends up being a merger of the PNA and SOP that's a whole other can of worms. One things for sure, the line between the PNA and SOP has become very very burley. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it became both very blurry and that'll have bad consequences for editing Wikipedia, because plenty of sources wouldn't follow in those details and distinctions and will use the terms interchangeably even more than they did so far (which was annoyingly often). Japinderum (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Emmette's comments above. Either that's one more renaming of the PNA -or- it's a merge of PNA into SoP. In any case we should wait for the dust to settle, and in case of a merge we should have three articles (SoP pre-2013, PNA pre-2013, SoP/PNA post-2013) as such a merge is quite a big event (see another option further below). Did someone already found the original WAFA announcement or even better - the official decree document ("Abbas signed a presidential decree officially changing the name" - he's both SoP president and PNA president)?
So far, besides the above re-quote we have also [57][58]:

"Yet this does not mean that the UN also automatically considers PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad the prime minister of the new state. “The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority is not exactly the prime minister of the State of Palestine,” Mansour said. This could change, however, were the PLO’s executive committee — “the acting government of the State of Palestine” — to make a decision to that effect."

As stated in the 2012 resolution the provisional government of SoP is the PLO-EC. And that's according to a decision of the PNC of more than 20 years ago:

"The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such time as a government-in-exile was established." Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 0-19-829643-6, 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link); Executive Board of UNESCO (12 May 1989). "Hundred and Thirty-First Session – Item 9.4 of the Provisional Agenda – Request for the Admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO as a Member State" (PDF format; requires Adobe Reader). UNESCO. p. 18, Annex II. Retrieved 2011-09-28.

So, actually according to current SoP setup it's either the PNC or the PCC who should take the decision about the SoP government. Or alternatively the PNC may appoint PNA cabinet ministers into the PLO-EC, but that seems unlikely. PCC and especially the PNC are bodies that don't meet very often and it's not easy to gather sufficient number of their members for a quorum (as you can see with the difficulties of meeting to appoint PLO-EC members and SoP president). Also, PNA elections complicate the matter (for governments and presidents and chairman), including those scheduled for 2013. My opinion is that it will be most straightforward if the PNC decides to apply to SoP the PNA Basic Law and all of the PNA legislation (but that won't solve the issue with the possibility for Hamas, or somebody else outside of PLO, to win the elections).
Until something along these lines happens it's a PNA rename and not a merge. Japinderum (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't found the presidential decree at http://www.president.ps/ or the WAFA announcement at http://www.wafa.ps/ But instead found PLO’s Central Council to Discuss Changes:

...the meeting will discuss the changes that must take place within the Palestinian Authority in order for it to cope with the recent changes. The meeting will also discuss the relation between the PLO, Palestinian Authority and the various Palestinian institutions. He pointed out that an earlier decision has been reached to delegate to the Central Council the duties of the Palestinian Authority’s government and parliament.

Hopefully we'll have access to direct quotes or the official documents themselves as journalistic reports will most likely be not very reliable, but mostly with catchy headlines and interpretations. The last sentence is also quite interesting - PCC taking over the functions of PNA Cabinet and PLC. Japinderum (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at third to last paragraph I think that while Israel continues to exercise military rule over the Palestinian territories whatever the name, government and other institutions the PNA uses, it will still exist in its Oslo Accords form, required for its multiple interactions with Israel. So, it seems that even if all of its institutions get merged into SoP, some "Oslo PNA, department of SoP" will continue to operate until SoP gains control over the oPt. In terms of Wikipedia articles this means having post-2013 articles for both SoP and PNA, with the pre-2013 setup described in their historical sections.

But I drifted into forumish and crystal balling about a SoP/PNA merge. So far we have only a source for a new name and the PCC meeting is "in the next few days". Japinderum (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. IMO its a political move, they don't officially/legally declare state of Palestine, because this would violate their agreements and cause them huge damage. However, practically they do, which will help Fatah in the local political arena and will cause Israel to react(help them in the global arena). I bet that in couple of days we will know something more concrete. --Mor2 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this change changes our editing in any way. We should continue to use the terminology reliable sources use. The State of Palestine, of course, has already been proclaimed in 1988 and now recognized by more than half of the world's nations. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that now we have two "State of Palestine" - the State declared in 1988 and the Authority established in 1994. They seem to be in a process of merging (as you can read above), but still aren't and obviously the PLO choice was for the "step by step" path instead of a "big bang" announcement, so that makes editing and sourcing quite difficult. The other issue (see third to last paragraph) is that some "PNA/Oslo SoP" should continue to exist for the interaction with Israel (and there will be such interaction until the Israel controls the oPt). So, basically there are no changes to the overall article setup ("1988 SoP", "1994 PNA/Oslo SoP"), but of course each of the "steps" should be mentioned at the appropriate places in the articles. Japinderum (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a strange conclusion, because the State of Palestine is clearly one and same. It had only some symbolic meaning until the UN upgrade and the consequent transition of PNA. In the near future according to Abbas, the State of Palestine (proclaimed in 1988) would absorb all PNA institutions and become a much more factual state according to Palestinian official stance.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for "according to Abbas, the State of Palestine (proclaimed in 1988) would absorb all PNA institutions"? Also, please keep in mind that "much more factual state" doesn't mean "state controlling territory" until Israel occupation remains. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
From what we have now it's not clear at all. It seems like that, but it's not clear. First we have neither the presidential decree, nor the WAFA announcement of it. We have only short third-hand interpretations of those. And they speak about rename, not merge. Also, we have the source about expected PCC meeting soon, where it's expected PNA to be merged into PCC (the source says PCC to become assume duties of PNA parliament and government), not the current SoP government (PLO-EC) and parliament (PNC). Whether that will be the case or SoP government and parliament will also be changed - that's unknown right now. What will happen with the post of PNA president (who is elected by the way, unlike SoP president who is appointed) is another unknown. Also, as third to last paragraph clearly explains - for the day to day activities of PNA, especially those that require cooperation with the controlling power of the oPt - Israel, the PNA invokes Oslo and that means that PNA will continue to operate (regardless how it's referred to by Palestinians, e.g. "SoP Oslo department", by Israel, e.g. "Palestinian Authority", by UN and others, e.g. "Palestinian National Authority" or "SoP Oslo department", etc.) until Israel occupation remains, so we should be extra careful how we title the current PNA articles (and what tense we use inside) - I think that a clear distinction with the "pure SoP" articles is needed. But we need the sources to lead us here, not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Further news [59][60][61][62][63]. Note the mention of new constitution, the "backtracking" on IDs because of Israel reaction, "the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said", "limited options so long as Israel remains in charge of territories", "Abbas security forces continue to coordinate with Israeli troops in tracking Islamic militants in the West Bank." - clearly Oslo interactions are quite important factor. Japinderum (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one more thing, the sources just talk about the Fatah government in the west bank renaming itself. As far as we know the Hamas Government in Gaza is still calls itself the "Palestinian National Authority". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting detail... But I'm not sure that Hamas calls its government in Gaza "PNA" or at least that it adheres to the Oslo Accords - maybe that's another "naming"" issue - they call it "PNA", but that doesn't actually mean the "Oslo Accords PNA", but another Hamas-created governing authority. We need sources explaining what's the situation... Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that Hamas won the PNA elections, Fatah decided to remain in power anyway. They had a civil war, which left the the Fatah government in control of the West Bank and Hamas in control of Gaza. Despite Hamas being the democratically elected government, the international community and PLO recognized the Fatah government as the legitimate PNA. Their both the PNA, with the same institutions and same offices, but separate administrations, both calming to be the legitimate PNA. Now confused sources sometimes use the term "Palestinian Authority" to refer to the Fatah government.
Relations between Israel and the Hamas Government broke down, and now instead of throwing accusations of Oslo Accords violations at each-other, they throw missiles and bombs at each-other. That probably makes the Oslo Accords moot for Hamas-Isreal purposes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_Authority/Archive_2&oldid=1222301411"