Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine

I hate to be pedantic in these objectively difficult times, but since when is Palestine a state? Shachar (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine refers. Pedantry is a bug, not a feature.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be changed. Look at all the other similar articles. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_by_country_and_territory

The words "the State of" should be deleted. It is completely inconsistent with the other article titles. Pretty easy to see. And odd that this was started this way. 2604:2000:E010:1100:60F3:B5D8:FCA4:9680 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't started this way, it began as just "Palestine" and was changed on March 14 to the current title, I assume firstly because it is the official name according to ISO and because Palestine by itself has the potential to cause confusion (or dispute). If one checks the page State of Palestine, there are links to many articles that include the official name.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Palestine, as you indicate it first was. The official name of various others on the list includes State or Kingdom. But we don't put it in the article name. There is not risk that I can see of confusion. There is more chance of confusion with for example Jordan - it could be the Jordan Valley or the Jordan River, but obviously that is silly. And this invites more potential for dispute. I think it should clearly be as it was originally. It sounds like no reasonable reason was offered for the change, and none exists that I can see. It should conform with our title names approach generally. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B8BA:51F3:3E2B:DD42 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle. I don't know how much you know about Wikipedia and the Israel Palestine thing but I can assure you that there are editors who will object no matter what you call it. The title names policy doesn't really help here, this particular case is sui generis. See

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data has "Palestine" so perhaps its best to just leave well alone.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting. What do you see as the relevant WP policy on article titles? And where is the forum to have this considered and addressed? It seems pretty obvious to me that if all the other "pandemic" titles don't say "Kingdom of Jordan" and the Islamic Republic of Iran" and the like, that this is inconsistent and if there is no sufficient reason I expect wp is not in favor of inconsistencies in naming. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:646D:3FDE:7DD5:D192 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is

WP:RM. El_C 20:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

So it is, if you want to do it, seems that you may need to recruit someone to act on your behalf, your account being very new and your contributions being 8 in total and mainly here, I think the current restrictions on Israel Palestine articles do not allow you to do it yourself. The article title policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I ask one of you two to act on my behalf? Understanding that you are simply taking an administrative act, on behalf of a good faith editor? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:646D:3FDE:7DD5:D192 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C is an admin, I'm sure he will help you. Or you could post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, that's another possibility.Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi User:El C. Can you help? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B802:4553:6936:1C2C (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*No need for me to do anything. You're allowed to initiate the process yourself. Note that

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Republic of Ireland also uses the conventional longfrom, for eg. El_C 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• It looks like I misread
  WP:ARBPIA4 and that a process such as this needs to be initiated by extended-confirmed users only. Sorry, I would rather not be involved in drafting it myself. El_C 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I made

COVID-19 pandemic in Palestine a redirect. GeraldWL 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

And now I moved the page to simply "in Palestine." There's no need to mention "the state of." GeraldWL 13:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Commons Cat. -- Willi The Kid (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how to make calls via this and use the results to update the stats, graphs? Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Selfstudier, Hi, Can you update the graphs? and Palestine medical cases chart? Thank you. أمين (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

أمين It was Allio19 who put these elements in, I don't know how to update them. I asked if anyone knows how to call the corona API to autoupdate but no one has replied. I have no time to do it manually every day, sorry.Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier Thank you. Ameen (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if the EJ figures now being reported separately by corona.ps are included in the Israel figures?Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit much to be including daily case counts in this article. IMHO would be better to by summarizing as seems to appear on other such pages. (Also oddly some stats are attributed to MOH while others have Mai al-Kaila's explicitly. | MK17b | (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk17b: I was thinking of changing it over to weekly as was done with the graphs, maybe at the month end when the daily figures are collapsed. The reason some stats, not that many, are attributed to MOH is because al-Kaila sometimes does not give the daily briefing herself and the rs reports it as MoH in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is obliged under the terms as belligerent occupant to provide covid vaccines to Palestinians, which of course it hasn't. Does the page note this?Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I referred it under the Vaccines section (at the top) in reference to this. I am watching developments, it won't go away.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Well we have contradictory sources on this now. We will have to wait for more (detailed) sources but if Israel, as it typically does, denies applicability of Geneva (a breach of international law), then it can justify its position by hanging its hat on Oslo. But then, the status of Oslo is unclear because it hasn't been complied with and the current situation appears to be only one of mutual convenience for bits and pieces of Oslo. Still. I don't see how Israel can at once have control over Palestinian finances and imports (they have to approve vaccine/medical equipment importation!) and then place the responsibility on Palestine to vaccinate. We'll see.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I once begged in the streets as a small part of an effort to get money for medical equipment in Palestine. We got the sum, which was over 30,000 euros, but the money had to be spent in Israel which also produced the machine, rather than importing the equipment from abroad, before it was ferried over the border. It was needed because the paperwork to get Muslim children in a critical condition into Israeli hospitals, as per the conventions regarding belligerent occupancy, was so slow and complicated several of them died before the red tape problems were resolved.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Are you prepared to accept https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-palestine-and-covid-19-vaccines-legal-and-moral-obligations-2021-1 as a suitable source for resolving the source contradictions identified in the article? Supposedly it is not the best of sources per RSP and a current RFC about it but having looked at the article I think it is the fairest summary that I have seen up to now.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Please post here your version of text so we can agree on it Shrike (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: We can leave it for the time being until there is a clearer statement from a completely reliable source.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: The Irish Times source ^[1] that you gave originally in support of the statement that Palestine is responsible under Oslo now no longer includes the statement "Under the terms of the Oslo peace accords, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is responsible for the healthcare of its own population." and now it instead appears to lend support to the competing claim put forth by Amnesty and others. Therefore I am removing it in the article. This leaves only the Jerusalem Post taking this position. I have sourced an opinion from Eyal Benvenisti that also supports the opposing position. I am now able to write this up properly in the article and will do so while mentioning the JP source as a minority position.Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough edits to make the change myself, but I noticed that in the Vaccines section, it says "...the Palestinian Authority asked Israel for up to 10,000 doses of vaccine for frontline medical workers, but the request was refused." It was reported today that Israel has now agreed to the request^[1] which should get added to that section.

Jacob.stein (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the doses arrive (no date has been set for delivery and I understand it is 5000 not 10000), it will be added into the article. It doesn't change the fact that the request for 10000 was refused to begin with.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confirm 5000 of which 2000 was delivered today and that is in the article now.Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I removed three things that are in no way on sided: 1. The line that the request was declined as that has no changed per the talk section above me. 2. The settler line as that belongs in the Israel article. 3. Added a well known document. Idan (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvikorn: You removed "Israel will vaccinate Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank but not Palestinians in the same area."^[1] giving no reason, in fact your entire edit has no edit summary at all. You say the settler line belongs in the Israel article but you removed it there as well! You removed "but the request was refused" also without any edit comment. Both of these are correct and can be found in multiple sources. You added " Article 17 of the Oslo Accords also states that the PA is the sole party responsible for the health of the palestinians." This is already dealt with in the NYT source immediately prior to the JP sourced material, did you even read it? It says "The Oslo Accords, the interim peace agreements signed in the 1990s between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, commit the two sides to cooperate in combating epidemics and to assist each other in times of emergency. The Geneva Conventions also oblige an occupying power to ensure medical supplies for the local population and the preventive measures needed to combat contagious diseases and epidemics" which is correct and contradicts the JP source which is mostly false and contradicted by all the other sources. So please revert as I asked you to on your talk page as your edit is POV, wrong and in breach of ARBPIA 1R restrictions.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, lets work through your reply line by line. I removed the line because it better fits the Israeli article, not the palestinian article, I said that. That's your first lie. I removed the request was refused because up until a few days ago the PA had refused all aid and had recently started to accept vaccinations from Israel. As you can from the talk section above this one, soemone made an edit request. That is your second lie. Article 17 is a useful piece on information that wasn't in the article. I added it because without there is POV. I did not remove anything that other editors wrote like Geneva or the UN. My edit isn't POV unlike yours and is not in breach of any restrictions. Take it to neutral administrators if you have a problem. Idan (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boffey 'Denmark under pressure to drop plans to work with Israel on vaccines,' The Guardian 3 March 2021 Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Palestinians can't get the vaccine while they remain in the West Bank.Yumna Patel 'Palestinian-Americans struggle to get vaccinated, say U.S. government abandoned them,' Mondoweiss 10 March, 2021 Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Kontorovich is "director of international law at the Kohelet Policy Forum, a conservative Israeli think tank." Description via NPR here. The material attributed to him includes the view that the Oslo Accords outrank International Law, a view held only by Israel and it's defenders and already included in the article sourced to the Jerusalem Post. It also includes the view that the international community (the UN, Amnesty, HRW, many other orgnizations plus US politicians) is engaged in some sort of anti-Semitic plot against Israel, a fringe conspiracy theory. This material is completely UNDUE and should be removed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:I disagree. If we can have multiple people opine on the opposite position, including minor politicians with no expertise on the topic, we can include a noted scholar, who is , unlike the impression given by your biased description, a Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, at George Mason U. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same opinion from the same group cited in the previous paragraph. Pick one. nableezy - 22:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::It's not the same group, and likewise, the opinion of Joaquin Castro is the same as Warren and Sanders - so either pick one of them and remove there rest , or allow multiple commenters on the other side, This double standard stinks. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. He's a fellow at JCPA, which is already cited. B. Whether or not Israel is the occupying power is not something that needs to be covered at length here, and if it were covered at length Kontorovich would certainly not be the source we would be giving that much weight to. This isnt the page to include what are fringe views on the territorial status of the occupied territories, because if you want to include those fringe views then

WP:WEIGHT would demand that we include substantially more information on the super-majority view on the status of those territories. As far as Castro, I'd combine that with the other congresspeople. nableezy - 22:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

:::::He's a fellow at the JCPA and also a prof. of International law at a major US university, and he wasn't speaking on behalf of the JCPA. If he commented on the issue of Israel being an occupier or not in this context, it is most certainly relevant. I am open to whittling down both sections, but it's is the height of hypocrisy to have 3 US politician voice the same opinion, plus an academic saying the same thing, but limit the other side to just one group. Not going to work here, sorry.Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Sanders, you can go ahead and remove that if you like. I did before but Shrike put it back in, idk why. The material duplicates material already present in the article, if I wanted to do the same I could bring in the WCC, doctors without borders and a bunch of other people to flat out contradict what he says but there's no need, there is already a sufficiency of material doing just that. On that point alone, the material is undue. The Kontorevich material essentially says that Oslo trumps international law. That position, the Israeli position, is straightforwardly contradicted by the balance of reliable sources. Again, undue. The addition of a completely bogus anti-Semitism conspiracy theory is not really relevant to anything at all although it succeeds in rendering the whole essay unserious (UN watch made all the same arguments in a written submission to UNHRC 46 and no-one paid any attention). The Israeli position, a minority of 1, is sufficiently covered without this material.(The case is similar to the procedure we follow in all the WB articles, the world says X, Israel disagrees (per the usual suspects, Baker, Kontorevich, IMoFA, we don't bother to list them individually because they are all singing from the same hymn sheet).Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Kantorovich makes two arguments - 1 - that explicit agreements made in take precedence over the general requirements of the 4GC and 2 - that the 4GC does not apply. That's not repetition. In the other section, we have Sanders, Warren and Castro all making the same argument, which is the same as the one of Benvenisti But let s start with this - remove the congress people whose opinion is not really relevant (the are not international law experts), for balance. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include that Israel is not occupying the Palestinian territories according to this one academic then per

WP:WEIGHT that tiny minority view needs to be presented as a tiny minority view. If you insist on doing that then fine. What isnt going to work here is putting in fringe views as though they were anything but fringe, sorry. nableezy - 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

:::::::The view that Israel is not legally obligated to provide vaccines post Oslo is not fringe, sorry. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The view that Israel is not the occupying power and claiming that it is is intended to besmirch Israel’s world-class reputation in vaccinating its own population, and simply rechannel, in legal dress, an age old antisemitic libellous blaming of Jews for spreading pandemics is, sorry. And why did you remove entirely all the parts on the congresspeople? nableezy - 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::I explained why - they are repeating the same argument already made by an authority (Benvenisti ), and they have no special expertise here. I thought you were opposed to repetition? Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That US senators called on the US government to take some action wasnt repeated anywhere. nableezy - 22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::Fair enough, I'll add as sentence to that effect. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put the material back (minus the Sanders ref if you like) and then make an argument why that material is undue or accorded too much weight, you don't get to decide the position unilaterally.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::Take your own advice Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pick the wrong edit? That is why we had this discussion even though 3 editors reverted the material.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the top photo really the best one for this article? It is a distance shot whose focus seems to be the red-white curb markings. The street is empty, yes, but from such a distance, it is not obvious without the caption. But even if it was - Salfit is a small town of 10K people, you could probably take a similar, empty street picture on any given non-COVID era weekend, in the early morning hours. I don't know what other images we have, but I Think this one would be better - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19,_Bethlehem.png - at least it is connected to the first cases discovered. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo gallery at the bottom, including one similar, you can shuffle them around, speaking for myself, I have no objections which photo goes where.Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User @Shrike: has inserted material (and reinserted it after revert). This deal has nothing to do with Covid in Palestine, it is not even clear that these vaccines are the same vaccines rejected by Palestine. Palestine did reject a similar deal with Israel but that is already in the article so this material is a )irrelevant and b)undue.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This is hardly irrelevant, all sources reporting on this mention that the Palestinians refused these vaccines - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57732033, https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/israel-and-south-korea-to-exchange-vaccines-672981 , and this second one explicitly says "These are some of the approximately one million unused doses that Israel purchased from Pfizer last year and that stand to expire at the end of the month, after a deal to transfer the vaccines to the Palestinian Authority fell through. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by And So It (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC) sock[reply]

I have rephrased hope it better now.--Shrike (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information that Palestine rejected a deal with Israel was already in the article before these edits. Putting it in again is pointless. Israel can throw them away if it likes.. or use them on Israeli teens or any other thing they like. That they chose to sell some vaccines to South Korea has nothing to do with Palestine, this material should be on the Israel Covid page, not here.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Many sources clearly mention Palestinian rejection in conjunction with Israeli - Korea deal Shrike (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources mention many things, not all of them need to be in the article, it is clearly nothing to do with Palestine what Israel chooses to do with its expiring vaccines (unless they are giving them to Palestine) so this is undue weight since Palestine rejection is already included in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its

WP:DUE as multiple sources mention it Including WSJ,BBC,Israeli, and Korean sources --Shrike (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I can repeat myself just as well as you can. It's undue weight because the situation with Palestine was already in the article before the edits and it has nothing whatsoever to do with South Korea. In any case, my edits have clarified the situation to my satisfaction, it is perfectly obvious to the reader that this is nothing more than an Israeli narrative of the usual type.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a BBC source specifying why Palestine rejected the vaccines and that the vaccines going to Korea are not the same ones rejected by Palestine so as to correct the misimpression caused by the recent edits.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if it will be a good idea to create two separate timeline articles for the daily case reports. This appears to be the norm for most national COVID-19 pandemic articles including New Zealand and Malaysia. Perhaps Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine (2020) and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine (2021)? The existing article is already over 400 kilobytes. Just wanted to gauge what people think. Andykatib 08:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andykatib: If you want to spin out the 2020 timeline material into a separate article to reduce the article size, it's fine with me, I'd be inclined to wait on 2021 until it's over.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Okay, I think the standard practice with the other articles is to have separate articles for the timelines and things such as vaccination and the social and economic impacts. I think it depends on the amount of material available. Will think about it. Andykatib 10:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joplin201017:@Tol: A new template has been added here and I am unable now to reconcile the figures with https://www.corona.ps/details or reconcile the daily rs anymore. I will not any longer update these figures and you or someone else should take that job over from here on in. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]