Jump to content

Talk:Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2025

[edit]

Palestine is NOT a country! It is a territory within Israel. Palestinians are Israeli Muslims. 72.223.98.47 (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say it is, so we cannot action this, no change requested.. Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you are saying it's a country.. which is not true. 2A0D:6FC2:4E10:9B00:7DE:6009:53FC:4514 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: This article does indeed refer to Palestine as a country: three times in the lede, and many more times in the body. I'm not sure why you seem to disagree with this. Dotyoyo (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, I am sure that we never used to but rather used to call it a state. As to why I disagree with it, I do not, we should go back to calling it a state. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 2023-10-07, this article didn't refer to Palestine as a country. Now there are about 30 such references. I agree that "state" is preferable. Quasi-state would be more accurate, but ungainly if repeated often. Dotyoyo (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at prior discussions, you did participate in a few such as Talk:Palestine/Archive 19 § A "Country", which seems to be the most recent active discussion. However, with the RFM (Talk:Palestine/Archive 21 § Requested move 31 December 2024) moving it to "Palestine", calling it a state now would cause issues and could require another RFC. However, I do not think it's necessary as what is a "country" to begin with? Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland,Cook Islands, and Niue, are all called countries in their opening sentences, even though they all have less recognition. I don't think this is something that needs to be re-litigated, and we should automatically close requests like these. AG202 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2025

[edit]

The information in this article is false, and there should not be opinion based lies on wikipidia , check your sources and make sure it is based in fact and history . Palestine is a name of a colony, the reason why the arabs left is because they chose to leave when the 7 Arab armies attacked newly founded Israel they where not banished or kicked out. There is also no genocide in Gaza it is war and civilians die in war. 2406:2D40:9228:E10:2878:6248:B52E:73C6 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is far too controversial and can't be actioned. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfolding

[edit]

@Smallangryplanet: You said: CN tags are not for when you disagree with a source

Agreed, but both the reason parameter of the CN tag and my edit summary make it clear that I was not contesting the source, but rather pointing out that the oversimplified characterization of the UN special committee's content was at odds with its actual content: (1) "a genocide is unfolding" does not claim that a genocide has occurred—it could refer to a genocide predicted to happen in the foreseeable future. I think the key issue here is the set of possible meanings of the WP:WEASEL word "unfolding".

Princeton's Wordnet succinctly defines unfolding as "a developmental process". thefreedictionary.com lists a couple meanings for unfold (intransitive):

  • To develop or occur as a series of events or stages
  • To be revealed gradually to the understanding

The first definition reflects a transformation or development: the outcome of the series of events will not be the same as it was at the outset. The second definition reflects a transformation of our understanding, not specifying whether that change might be concurrent with a change in the thing being understood. Both reflect a transition, from one state [folded] to a different state [unfolded]. Until the unfolding is complete, the state is in transition, and the current state is left ambiguous unless otherwise clarified.

For example, the phrases "unfolding pandemic" and "unfolding recession" can describe things that are suspected of soon meeting a qualifying definition, but haven't yet gotten there. Though these phrases might carry a sense of palpable presence, the writer isn't committed to a specific timeframe. So at what point does an "unfolding genocide" change from a yet-to-be genocide into one that fully meets the definition?

If the UN special committee wanted to unambiguously state that Israel has committed genocide, they could have easily done so as straightforwardly as Amnesty International did. But they didn't. Instead, they used circumspect language. When I want to convey to someone that it's raining outside, I don't usually say that the sky is aligned with the properties of rain, or that the humidity circumstances might be consistent with rain.

Of course, editors need to summarize. But we need to avoid the type of WP:BIAS and WP:OR that can easily result from selective oversimplification of source ambiguities into allegedly unambiguous Wikivoice.

Dotyoyo (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try wp:v as a tag then. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago read something to the effect that {{citation needed}} could be used to indicate that the preceding citation was insufficient. But now reading the page, I don't see that. Hmmm. I'll give a few more days for any responses, before possibly inserting a wp:v tag. Thanks! Dotyoyo (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]