Jump to content

Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Lead section is based on a democratic poll and does not reflect the sources it lists

A poorly discussed RfC about whether the lead section should be different than the one of Israel started last February and created a democratic consensus. In 11 April the conclusion of the majority opinion was implemented into the article and the lead section was changed to match the one of Israel, but the sources were not replaced. A very long discussion was followed, claiming that the four options that were propsed by the RfC were not the only options and there are other options reflected in reliable sources. Long story short, the discussion ended with an attempt to get me indefinitely banned over accusation of trying to violate a consensus.

Now we are passed the shitstorm and there is still not a solution, as we are standing in front of a situation, where in the last three months, the first sentence of the lead section of an article that was read by almost 300,000 people is a result of a democratic RfC and is still contradictory to the sources listed after it.

If you don't want to read the full story, I summed it up in the buttom

The first source by Reuters was added on the day it was published (somewhere in late 2012) but was used in the lead for the first time to support the fact the State of Palestine "...was accepted in the UN as "non-member observer state", following resolution 67/19, upgrading Palestine from an "observer entity". After this addition to the lead there was a dispute the format of the lead and the description of SoP, which was about, should it be a "state" or a "sovereign state" and if is is just a "state" or a "de-jure state" etc. For one point it was written that "[SoP] is a de facto sovereign state" and there was a source from the Telegraph but it was dropped out becuase it was not a good source and insteed the lead said "[SoP] is a sovereign state.", which didn't make much sense giving the fact there was not source at all to support the claim. Saying "Palestine is a state" followed by a period implies that Palestine is a state like all others, but that is not true for obvious reasons. After a few months of no edits about the lead section, someone edited the lead adding "de jure" and linking to a section in the article Sovereign state. This version, using the two sources that currently exist in the lead, stayed the same for 13 months, untill I (in a regretable move) added "partially recognized" to the definition in the lead. My addition sparked a discussion and after a good 12 days, a user boldly removed "de-jure". His addition was reverted due to no actual consensus but he later made another bold edit, some 20 days later, replacing "de-jure" with "proto-state" (proto-state is a term for a state in the process of being born). There were disagreemtns on "proto-state", so I decided to do the right thing and re-add "de-jure" with sources but then I removed it because there was not a consensus, dispite the sources and the sentecnce became "partially recognized state in the Middle East". No consensus was achieved for "de-jure"/"proto-state" and the problem is, honestly the term "partially recognized" is correct for Palestine is a bad description and therefore in February, five months after "partially recognized" was added to the lead, an RfC started and asked if the description of Palestine should be different than the description of Israel. The user who started the RfC stated no actual explaination to why the four options who listed are good. In the RfC, 13 people voted, but four other people (including me) did not vote and insteed pointed out the nonsense of the RfC, which was ignored. The last comment was made in March and it took a month for someone to decide it's time to close the RfC and declare a "consensus" dispute the fact there was literally no discussion whatsoever and so we reached the current description, that "Palestine is a state" period, as if it was a state like every other state, which is clearly not. As I mentioned above, the same people who discussed the nonsense of the RfC (including me) tried to challenge the bizzare notion and I personally brought a shit ton of sources but the discussion had to stop because over three users tried very hard to get me banned because I was violating this consensus (which I didn't really).

We have now two sources.

  • The Reuters one:
    • Doesn't mention the word "State of Palestine" (except for a quote by the Palestinian president)
    • Says the vote changed the status of the Palestinian Authority to an "non-member state" but not the State of Palestine
  • The NewsHub one:
    • Says the vote gives Palestine a "non-member observer status"
    • Says the vote will "formally" put Palestine "on equal footing" with Israel
    • Says the vote endorsement of the "establishment of a Palestinian state.." therefore the State of Palestine is not yet a state

So both sources contradict the lead section that says "Palestine is a state" like all other states, because in fact, according to the listed sources, Palestine is not yet a state and the vote did not change anything.

In a nutshall: There was a consensus for a definition in the lead that was built on two elements: "state" and "de-jure". The addition of a third element: "partially recognized" caused a discussion because of one user who did not like the definition and he boldly removed "de-jure" and the discussion reached no consensus and thus we remained with "partially recogized state" which had a different definition and a dubious RfC, based on democracy and not discussions, determined that the element "partially recognized" will be removed and thus left us with the "state", dispite the fact it contradicts the sources. The sentence can also be refuted with this article

My conclusion is that because we reached the current wording via bold moves that created dubious RfCs and not an actual discussion and a democratic consensus, we sould revert the entire thing back to "Palestie is a de-jure state".

Such language is also used by the representor of the PLO in the US, Basheer Al Zoughbi of ARIJ which also wrote a section in the book Palestine Membership in the United Nations: Legal and Practical Implications in which he explained that Palestine is not yet a state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason no one comments is the long post or the fact I did not mentioned anyone directly? I believe there are enough people with this page on their watchlist.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

From past experience over mid July through August, questions that require considerable study are generally ignored, or get zero attention, even important issues. I myself don't have the time to go through all this, though I hope to get round to it. But the arguments have been made in several forums, and the general consensus is that one doesn't need US or Israel's consent to be a state, when 136 nations treat you as one.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have the same experience. It's very frustrating as often the most important issues which need resolution are also the most complex. It annoys me but I am also guilty of it - I skim read Bolter's post twice now, and concluded that to reach a useful conclusion I would need to spent a reasonable amount of time doing my own research first. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The most frustrating thing is that I the idiot me of October 2015 brought the same conclusion, without reasonable explanations or sources, and now I sit and try to bring an actual argument, but I get the same odd answer: "one doesn't need US or Israel's consent to be a state, when 136 nations treat you as one".
I"ll tell you something Nish. We are looking at a watermelon. UN arrives and says "This is a potato, 136 countries have recognized it as a potato", and I tell you "Well it doesn't matter if the UN say this is a potato, this is clearly a watermelon, it is green and larger than the avarage potato" and you reply "one does not need your concent to be a potato, when 136 nations treat you as one". There are sources to explain that UN recognition is formal, and such sources are currently used in the article. Other sources are here to tell you "it is not (yet) a state". There are statements by leaders who recognize Palestine as a state that they "support the establishment of a Palestinian state". It's quite hard being a state when people are still want you to be established. There are couples who already name their children and buy them toys before their conception, but that doesn't mean those those children exist, even if they do exist their parents' minds same is with Palestine. Although not a reliable source, my conclusion is supported by the Arab Wikipedia, which refers to "State of Palestine" as a "State Palestinians are seeking to establish". Who knows better than the Palestinians about their (lack of) statehood? To be honest, I have never seen a serious source (apart from that absurd John Quiegly argument that Palestine is a state since 1930) that says what the article suggests, and this is a problem, we are facing WP:OR and nothing is done. Therefore, I suggest, to revert it back to "De-Jure state", which even if it doesn't satisfy you, has sources. It was changed by the opinion of a single man and the change caused it to make no sense and a problematic RfC turned it into WP:OR.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I think your watermelon / potato analogy is flawed because international relations is not hard science and is deeply subjective. A better analogy is your childbirth one. We can think of the SoP as an unborn baby. The active debate between pro and anti abortion groups regarding whether and when it constitutes a human child with applicable human rights is then an apt metaphor which can help structure our thinking. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, You and I are observing a watermelon seed and the UN says 136 countries recognizes this watermelon seed is a large juicy watermelon. You may put the seed in the ground (1988/PNA) but it will not be a watermelon until you water it (peace agreement/unilateral establishment).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:VNT. If vast majority of the sources say that the seed/potato is a watermelon - as far as wikipedia is concerned it is. If there is a reasonable number of sources that say either way, per WP:NPOV wikipedia describes both possibilities. There is no reason to assume that UN is a better source than others, though. “WarKosign” 14:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The Vatican is neither large nor juicy but it's still a watermelon. Has been since conception, according it RC theology. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The Vatican is something else, that has its own explainations and sources. The Vatican is a city state that is also an elected monarchy that is owned by a throne that is also an independent entity that has representation in the UN and all official relations of this state are made with this throne. You can be a citizen only if you work for the throne who is the Pope and if you work for him the King of Vatican, which happenes to be the pope, will grant you citizenship within the Vatican state. Do you really want to compare Palestine to the Vatican?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign and that is exactly the problem, the UN does not say Palestine is a state, the UN recognizes Palestine as a state and there are sources that say this recognition is formal.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no way out of this. One can push this way or that but the facts can be spun one way or another. It all depends on which state's POV you want to adopt. If Sweden, or the Vatican, 134 other countries, then Palestine is a State. The Vatican has a formal state treaty with the State of Palestine. If you look at it from Israel, the US, or much of the EU, then it is not yet a state. Israel refuses to accept State of Palestine documents, and one of the things holding up the change from travel papers issued by the Palestinian Authority to passports issued by the State of Palestine is merely technical: if they former are instituted, Israel won't allow anyone to move outside its colony in the West Bank. Implement it, and you lose what travel rights you have. This is therefore not a de jure/de facto issue, but perspectival. It's not in some nations interest to recognize what other nations recognize.That difference between partial and universal recognition cannot translate into either a denial of a Palestinian State or affirmation of its existence. In practical terms, the conditions of statehood are almost totally met, the missing step is broad American-European recognition, which h is withheld for political reasons. In practical terms, if Daniel Barenboim, who has had Palestinian citizenship conferred on him, presented his Palestinian passport at Narita airport in Japan, no objections would be made.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Just. No.
1) It's not about POV. According to Sweden Palestine is not a state. Sweden recognizes the Palestinian right to have a state. Sweden does not think that there is already a Palestinian state, cause if there was, you wouldn't be crying about colonies.
read the words here, or here. 'Colonies' is a neutral descriptor, our 'settlement' is a euphemism to make the diaspora feel comfortable. Early Zionism described itself as colonial project, and dropped the term when it became unfashionable, even saying it was a National Liberation Movement. The old guys got it right the first time round.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
2) The passports of the State of Palestine are issued by the Palestinian Authority. The national Emblem on those damn passports says "al-Sulta al-Falasyinyya" (i.e. Palestinian Autohirty), not "Dawlat Filastin". The passport of the State of Palestine is effectively the passport of the Palestinian Authority.
3) The fact Palestine is a state de jure, doesn't mean that if those passports were of the government-less State of Palestine, Japan wouldn't accept them.
4) Hong Kong and Macao both have passports, yet not states.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I stopped paying attention when I read your first reply re Sweden. Sorry. It's not an argument I get heated up about. I don't care one way or another. I stand by my argument however that a State of Palestine exists or doesn't exist according to the country you observe it from. Since this will only change when Israel gives it permission, which it won't give for the forseeable future, we just have to live with an ineludible Schrödinger's cat reality, in which it is simultaneously dead and alive.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Wikipedia is about sources, not cats. I will just boldly make a sourced version (which you"ll probably revert).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime, you might explain to others, why the Guardian and the New York Times screwed up, while you know the truth.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The NYT and The Guardian did not screw up. Both articles did not include anything to support that fact Palestine is a de facto state or oppose the fact Palestine is a de jure state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
OF course they did not screw up: you did, as we all occasionally do.

((a)(claim 1)According to Sweden Palestine is not a state. Sweden recognizes the Palestinian right to have a state.

((b)claims 2)Both articles did not include anything to support that fact Palestine is a de facto state or oppose the fact Palestine is a de jure state

(B:the fact)Sweden has officially recognised the state of Palestine, the Swedish foreign minister said, less than a month after Stockholm announced its intention to make the controversial move.“Today the government takes the decision to recognise the state of Palestine,” Margot Wallström said in a statement published in the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Thursday.

I hate to nag you, but no government source is required to satisfy your linguistic specifications as to what they must say when they formally and publicly recognize another state. No country in the world takes the step of formal recognition by stipulating that:'We recognize such and such a state de jure et de facto.
No country signs a 'treaty' with another state while claiming that this does not constitute de jure/de facto recognition. The Treaty between the Holy See and the State of Palestine, to add another example,

is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state and constitutes an official recognition. “Yes, it’s a recognition that the state exists,” said Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi last month.

That is why I am saying this issue is perspectival. Our article can't make the distinction you want because there are instances like these which affirm what your proposed edit would deny. Nishidani (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't make the distinction, but we can report both POVs. I think the current version is neutral and correct except 2 problems:

  • SoP is a de-jure sovereign state, which has a de-facto recognition of statehood (by some states). It leads the reader to the (arguably) wrong conclusion that since it's both de-facto and de-jure state, it is just a regular state. De-facto in the lead actually refers to the implicit recognition of of the state, but I think readers are likely to contrast it with de-jure statehood. I'd like to remove "de-facto" from this sentence to avoid confusion. Just "implicit" should suffice.
  • "The State of Palestine claims the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)[1]" - I don't see anything in this source supporting the exact territory claimed. Is it supported by some other source already in the article ? “WarKosign” 07:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ban sends Palestinian application for UN membership to Security Council". United Nations News Centre. 23 September 2011. Retrieved 11 September 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
That's helpful. You wish to avoid giving from the text the misleading impression Palestine is a regular state. But by the same token, it is easy to argue that neither Israel nor Palestine are 'regular states' in the modern Western sense. The former because it won't define its boundaries, and set territorial confines are central to the definition of a state according to the Montevideo Convention, the second because it still lacks the Security Council's stamp of approval, due to the U.S. veto, etc. In Weberian terms one might even argue that Israel is a state constituted by Israel proper, and the West Bank (but not Gaza). The flaw in trying to get a clear-cut, unequivocal definition of the 'reality' is that to do so, one must embrace an essentialist concept of the state, whereas in theory, the category of 'states' does not allow one to establish such a definition, since we have at least several varieties of state. States used also to be defined as controllers and issuers of their own currency. That criterion was dropped for Europe in 1999 after the establishment of monetary union.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Nish you have a tendency to always compare Palestine to Israel. Israel has borders, from 1949, the Arabs insisted to call it "armistice lines". Today Israel has actual borders with all countries except the West Bank which Israel argues is a "disputed territory".
There are enough sources to determine Israel is a state. There are enough sources to say that Palestine is not yet a state. The State of Palestine is effectively combination of the PA and the PLO. Its declared government doesn't just happens to be the Fatah cabinet of the PLC.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I have a tendency to state on pages what I have read, even when I do not cite a book or appear to be opinionizing, I'm mostly just rephrasing sources. Israel has not defined its borders yet, as is well known. If it had, we wouldn't have so many Israeli editors trying to insist that the West Bank is 'disputed territory', Israel doesn't define its borders, as all other states do, because it still aspires to expand beyond the various internationally recognized borders. That particular view is written by an Arab, and the same view is written by a respected Israeli commentator, who does in this context make an Israel/Palestine analogy which you attribute to me. Of course Israel is a state. I've said several times, that in my book, any one denying this fact is almost certainly motivated by anti-Semitic attitudes. It is a state that has not defined its final borders, indeed says they cannot be defined until Palestinians underwrite those borders, just as the State of Palestine has no borders, and will not have them until Israel gives its consent. This I/P reality is intrinsically utterly blurred, B., and sanity requires that we accept the conceptual confusions that arise from the paralysis of decisions and history. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not say the State of Palestine hasn't declared their borders, but in general, the State of Palestine has no borders, because maybe Israel doesn't have 100% of its borders defined, but the State of Palestine lack something much wrose: sovereignty. If you cross the greenline you enter what is recognized by 136 members as the territory of the State of Palestine, but the deeper you go, you don't actually enter any state. In East Ukraine, the pro-Russian rebels have declared two oblasts of Ukraine as their states, if you enter those oblast, nothing changes, but if you go deep, you"ll reach the territory that is actually controlled by these republics. Even if Palestine has the recognition, you will never actually find yourself walking in an area under the control of the State of Palestine, which was originally declared as a government in exile.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Well again, I don't try to make sense of the bureaucratic and legal nightmare in all of this area. Everything you touch is contaminated by conceptual, legal, political confusion. As they say in Hebrew, it's the Wild West, where, in English idiom, Rafferty's Rules apply. I've almost never experienced headaches, and have no intention trying to iron out this mess by arguing by comparisons or analogies about what may or may not be the case. Area A is under sovereign Palestinian jurisdiction - yet it is invaded every other night. Everybody breaks the rules they underwrite in accords. So, I just go for the least controversial option, describing the POVs, one of which is that a State of Palestine exists. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, the statement that SoP is a state, is actually POV, especially when Palestinains from ARIJ say it is not. As I said, it is not a source, but even the Arabic Wikipedia acknowlege that there is no Palestinian State yet. Formal agreements between the fricking vatican to the SoP doesn't mean that the SoP is a state, especially when there are enough sources to claim all recognition of the State of Palestine is no more than symbolic. De-Facto, it seems like almost the entire world has relations with the Palestinian entity and pretty much all countries recognize the Palestinian right to have a state, some states made this recognition official, that doesn't change the fact there is no Palestinian state yet. It is not sovereign nor independent. Making the borders between the PA and the SoP vague will not bring us anywhere. The PA is not the SoP, although the Palestinians have decided to change the name of all their official PA doccuments to SoP, but still you have the PA leader saying the PA will not collapse and the majority of media and Palestinian sources still calling it PA.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said you can argue till the birth of aRed heifer gets Yehuda Glick riding herd on the Haram al-Sharif, that Sweden and the Vatican are in denial in believing that a state of Palestine exists (after all the latter believes God, who doesn't exist, exists - they'll believe anything) but sources say you are wrong. I'm not trying to be stubborn, or unreasonable. I just don't see light at the end of this tunnelNishidani (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Some sources say that SoP exists, some sources say it is yet to be established. These sources are sufficient to report that both positions exist, they are not enough to choose to represent only one of them. It doesn't matter (here) what the article on Israel says about Israel; there is no tit-for-tat relation between articles; if there are issues there they should be discussed and corrected there. Here we are discussing issues of this article. “WarKosign” 14:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually in this case there is a "tit-for-tat" when it comes to recognition as per this RFC.--TMCk (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Where does the RfC result say "Israel and State of Palestine shall be described in identical terms in their respective articles/leads" ? It only says that neither should be described as a partially recognized state. “WarKosign” 14:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If you argue for limiting the recognition in the lead in another but similar way, the RFC's discussion and outcome clearly has to be taken in consideration. Same for the informal RFC still on this page above.--TMCk (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Recognition is not the main problem of SoP. Many, probably most, of those recognizing it also admit that they recognize its right to exist, not that it actually exists - even Abbas admits it. The lead should describe things as they are - SoP is a state on paper, recognized by some but not all countries, with limited control over any of the territories it claims. Of all these things, it only has incomplete recognition in common with Israel - and the RfC specifically determined that we shall not mention partial recognition of either in their respective leads. “WarKosign” 16:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Language about Jerusalem

The sentence "The international community also does not recognize either Israeli or Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem." was added with a source from a book about "legal anthropology". I reverted because I think the expertise is questionable and because the sentence is too vague and actualy unprecise. What is meant by this sentence, and why does it speak of "Jerusalem" as if this is Jerusalem as a whole. "The international community" is also not very presice in this p[articular context. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Neither the UN, the US or the EU has ever challenged the legal designation of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, and that is what the author alluded to. You have a huge amount of reverts to do throughout wiki, I'd say 10,000 per diem for a few years, if your criterion is so severe it excluded as RS a professor of the anthropology of law writing on the legal situation of Jerusalem. After all, he has a study of Law, Violence and Sovereignty among West Bank Palestinians,Cambridge University Press 2006, among his publications, and is a full professor in his profession, which combines law and anthropology.He has carried out ethnographic and archival research in Israel/Palestine, the UK and at the UN. He received a PhD in Anthropology from the London School of Economics in 2003, and has worked at the Institute of Law of Birzeit University, the Crisis States Programme at the LSE, and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University.' The statement is a truism, in any case. You probably also broke the 1R rule on these articles. I'll be putting the text you excised back, unless you have the courtesy to revert yourself.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to note that the text involved was introduced for the first time earlier today by another user, which I reverted even before your own intervention, so there is no 1R issue here. Therefore I will refer to the state the article was in before. The question about the "corpus separatum", while interesting in itself, doesn't play a role anymore because many countries in the world (including the US) have recognized the territorial integrity of Israël in its pre 1967 borders. Some (not many) have even gone as far as implicitly or explicitly recognizing the Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which Jordan has disavowed in 1988. I would also like to mention that neither the UN or the EU are state actors and that they are not in the business of recognizing countries or their territorial circumference in a way relevant in international law. I would like to know, preferably from a genuine academic source in international law, whether countries that recognize the State of Palestine, make an exception for East Jerusalem, or indeed if there are countries that recognize Israël, but do not acknowledge that West Jerusalem is a part of it. These seem like exceptional claims to me and as such they need to be sourced somewhat better, as I said preferably by an academic source in the field of international law. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You undid successively two recent edits within a few hours. I don't argue about these topics. What RS state, we transcribe in paraphrase. The datum is technically correct.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I however think that we are dealing with an exceptional claim, which is why I object to the source given, as it is not a work about international law, nor authored by academic experts in international law. Which is why I have challenged it. The source given for the sentence is not sufficient in that context. The question is whether the source given can be considered an reliable source in this particular context and I don't think so. Thank you for coming to this talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that won't work either. As I said, this is a commonplace, you can find almost the same words in Michael Dumpers, 'Constructive Ambiguities:Jerusalem, International Law and the Peace Process' in Susan M. Akram, Michael Dumper, Michael Lynk, Iain Scobbie (eds.), International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Rights-Based Approach to Middle East Peace, Routledge, 2010 p.119. Dumper is one of the leading world experts on Jerusalem. There is only one ground not for including such a source in these cases, i.e. where proof or strong evidence exists or suggests the claim is unfounded, which is not the case here.Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't access page 119 of that work, but I can see some other works by the same author. I will concede the point and self revert for now, although I do think the language is a fraction too strong, as the statements I read leave some ambiguity about what is and what is not acknowledged by countries pending a final determination..... etc. It seems like reservations are made to what may in some cases be a form of state recognition. While also "the international community" of course never speaks with one voice in matters like this, as different countries might be holding different points of view. I might come back on that in the future. Thank you! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, you do have a right to request that I, as linker, reproduce the passage. I don't think you need revert until you have examained independently that link, which, since you cannot access it, I am obliged to describe:

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended the creation of an international zonea, or corpus separatum, in Jerusalem to be administered by the UN for a 10-year period, after which there would be referendum to determine its future. This approach applies equally to West and East Jerusalem and is not affected by the occupation of East jerusalem in 1967. To a large extent it is this approach that still guides the diplomatic behaviour of states and thus has greater force in international law than many of the other approaches. At its core, this approach can be characterized by the refusal to accept the claims of either of the parties to sovereignty over the city to the exclusion of the other. The problem is whether Resolution 181 has been superseded or not by Security Council Resolution 242.

I would add that Dumper correctly clarifies that it’s difficult to determine title on the basis of 181. What he argues is that there is no legal consensus in any sense but that in practical terms most states behave as though in international law the status of Jerusalem East and West is not determined. After 1967 there is a grudging acceptance that Israel controlled West Jerusalem as Jordan did East Jerusalem, and that recognition of this would eventually emerge in final status talks. There a huge interests in this, because a formal legal determination of who owns what will have vast ramifications for who pays land taxes to whom, a particular concern for Christian communities with their extensive holdings. Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Nishidani, Thank you for your elaborate answer. Sorry I didn't respond quicker but I was busy with other matters. This is most interesting and I will think about it. At least I learned something. As I said I may be back with language that is slightly more appropriate, but I won't be challenging the jist of what you have said here. I just think it might be better to place these matters in the wider context of what is or was in practice accepted by the countries that make up the international community. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative divisions data source

Can someone find a live source for the data in the area column of the administrative divisions table here State of Palestine#Administrative_divisions? I couldn't find one myself. ImTheIP (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

State of Palestine Geography

This is intended to forment a discussion about the geography section of this article specifically, and what it should entail. This section is currently empty. I had originally added a brief description about what I considered the State of Palestine, describing the neighbouring countries, latitude, and region in whcih it is located. @WarKosign: reverted my edit as per WP:BRD, having brought to my attention that the State of Palestine claims territory as per its de jure status, with no explicitly established borders. Part of the explanation was also the lack of sources, as per the edit summary. I agree with the edit being reverted, however, I believe

  • This article requires content in its geography section. Linking to another article is contrary to every other country article, and detracts substantially from this article.
  • The West Bank and Gaza Strip are considered part of the State of Palestine, as per this article's lead: "is a de jure sovereign state in the Middle East, claiming the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)"
  • Geography sections with nonspecific details like neighbouring countries do not normally require sources, as per almost all Wikipedia country articles: a) Canada, b) France, and c) Germany, among many others. These are articles that are assessed very highly, even to featured status, and I believe that this general format would hold true despite the admittedly controversial nature of this country article itself.

I would desire a geography section stating "the areas claimed by the State of Palestine are located..." with all essential details and noting the specific area for which the measurements are describing (ie West Bank or Gaza Strip).

A short discussion we previously had on this topic is located on WarKosign's talk page. Cheers, "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me reply to each of your 3 points:
  • Ideally yes, but not if it contradicts sources and common sense. See point 3.
  • The very quote contradicts what you want to say: they are not *considered* part of SoP, they are *claimed* by SoP which is far from being the same.
  • State of Palestine is not similar to other countries. It doesn't have geography. To have geography a state has to have defined territory, which SoP lacks. SoP is vague in its territorial claims. "On the basis of the so-called 4 June 1967 borders" is usually interpreted as Palestinian Territories, but it could mean more or less, and some fractions (Hamas) within SoP government call for destruction of Israel, which means they see all of Palestine (region) as SoP.
Check Geography of the State of Palestine - almost all the sources in the article discuss Palestinian Territories (or West Bank and Gaza Strip separately). As long as the article's supposed subject is State of Palestine, it is one big unsourced mess, and the way to solve it is just to rename it to Geography of Palestinian Territories. We should talk about geography of a well-defined area, and leave politics out of it. For now this article should link there. Once State of Palestine's border issue is resolved one can say what exactly is and what isn't part of its geography and update the articles accordingly. “WarKosign” 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to make this a back and forth discussion between only the two of us, but I believe your reference to Palestinian Territories defines the area in question, and therefore the details that should be in the Geography section. From the article - "The term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" was used by the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations between 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. In December 2012, UN Secretariat communications replaced this by the term State of Palestine. The ISO adopted the name change in 2013"/
I agree that the status of the territories is vague - this is is illustrated once again by the Palestinian Territories article: "are descriptions often used to describe the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip" (emphasized often to show that it is not universal). However, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are identified as being Palestine - Hamas's claims to all of Israel's current territories are mirrored only by some Middle Eastern countries that are belligerents in the conflict.
That being said, the State of Palestine does in fact have territory. Area A of the West Bank is under complete SoP control, and is therefore irrefutably part of the state. The reference to the Palestinian Territories indicates that the State of Palestine consists of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, not present Israel.
Furthermore, I should have brought up different countries as references. Other, even self-proclaimed territories, all have geography sections irrespective of whether this territory is considered as legitimately under their control. See Luhnask People's Republic and |Donetsk People's Republic for examples of unrecognized, self-proclaimed states that still describe the geography in question. Other generally unrecognized states such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia also define the geography of the states, even though they are (like Palestine) considered disputed to some extent.
You also make reference to the Geography of the State of Palestine article - regardless of its sources, it describes the Gaza Strip and West Bank seperately due to their geographic seperation and different terrain. Together, they constitute the area of the State of Palestine, as indicated by the article. The specific geographic references (like the lakes of Palestine reference the Palestinian territories once again. This brings us back to the fact of that article describing those areas as being the State of Palestine - therefore stating that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are the State of Palestine, and therefore its geography should be described in this article.
A final point I would state is that the geography section of all country articles serves as an abbreviated summary of the geography article itself. Based on the Geography of the State of Palestine article, the geography section of State of Palestine should describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Renaming that article is another beast entirely - considering the State of Palestine has been recognized by the vast majority of the world as an observer state, I doubt it will be possible to rename that article and leave this one without a geography section. Cheers. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Marcus. De jure Palestine is a state. De facto Palestine is also a state because it is the sovereign in the Gaza strip. It means that the entity full-fills the four requisites outlines in the Montevideo Convention. The entirety of its territory is not defined, but a dozen other states are in the same boat. Does Kashmir belong to India or Pakistan? On point 2: While the West Bank and Gaza strip are not considered part of the State of Israel, I'm not sure that implies that the territories are considered part of the State of Palestine. Perhaps it could instead say "The territories the State of Palestine claims, the West Bank and Gaza strip, are located in the Levant ..." On point 3: I don't think you can get away with not linking to sources in articles related to Palestine. ImTheIP (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: Actually, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, not SoP. I'm not sure whether Montevideo Convention is relevant, but SoP definetely does not fullfill its requirement (b) - if you think I'm wrong, please point me to an official source defining territory of SoP. This is exactly why it should not have a geography section - you can talk about geography of a well-defined area, and SoP is not one. “WarKosign” 14:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Can you point me to an official source defining the territory of the State of Israel? See where we're going with this? "Defined territory" does not imply "completely defined territory." ImTheIP (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: See Borders of Israel#References. There are some territorial disputes such as Golan and East Jerusalem, yet for every POV there is a well-defined line on the map. Now, is there any official document by SoP that defines what exactly is the territory it claims ? The best I could find is "based on 1967 lines", which I understand as somewhat similar but potentially different from the green line. “WarKosign” 18:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@WarKosign: That section doesn't contain an official source defining the territory of the State of Israel. Both Palestine and Israel's borders are in the "to be decided" category. That's not an argument for deleting the geography section. ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: Is Israel's Ministry of Foregin Affairs official enough for you ? Here are some more official maps. Granted they are Israel's POV regarded disputed territories, however there *is* a definition of borders so we can talk about geography within some borders. Is there anything resembling this level of detail from SoP? No need for a map, just an official reference to specific historic lines (green line?) or geographic features (Jordan river?) would suffice. Correct me if I'm wrong, the best we have is "based on 1967 lines" and "historical Palestinian lands".“WarKosign” 21:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@WarKosign: No, it is not official enough. ImTheIP (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@WarKosign: @ImTheIP: Shall we consider this resolved? At this point I believe it is quite evident that we are referring to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Using a source that is party to the conflict is irrelevant, furthermore even Israeli sources document the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and being distinct from Israel proper. I believe it would be most beneficial to the article to add the section, as previously stated, by including "The areas claimed by the State of Palestine", in the section. It is near universally recognized that these are the territories of the State of Palestine; the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be detailed in accordance with other Wikipedia articles relating to the subject, which describe these two territories as being part of Palestine. And @ImTheIP:, thanks for taking the time to look over this and provide your point of view on this topic. Much appreciated. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
At very least the geography section should mention that this is geography of the territory claimed by the state. “WarKosign” 08:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Definitely, as I understand all three of us have agreed doing that would be beneficial to the article. I will go ahead and add a brief part of the section, with further details to be discussed in the future. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally I found a source for exact definition of territory claimed by State of Palestine: [1] "Thus, we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22% of the territory of historical Palestine - on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967."“WarKosign” 08:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus on the move requests for State of Palestine and Palestine. Consensus to weak consensus to move Palestinian flag Flag of Palestine, but this borders on a consensus to move but no consensus to the title, so if someone wants to open an RM immediately on the flag page, they should feel free to do so per WP:RMCI.
Unfortunately this move request did not provide much sourcing on either side, or arguments as to why this was or wasn't the primary topic, and I don't think relisting this move request would do much to alleviate that. At the same time, in general there was support for the move of the flag from its current title, but some opposition to the title Flag of Palestine. That being said, no alternative title for that move gained consensus, so per RMCI, the best step here is to move to Flag of Palestine, while making it clear that it was a weak consensus leaning towards no consensus to the specific title. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

– Looks like most media outlets and OpenStreetMap uses the name "Palestine" and fits consistently with WP:COMMONNAME. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support - I imagine this is going to be quite controversial, and I don't know if there are any special arbcom mandated steps needed for this kind of move, as there are for Ireland... perhaps not, since there have been RMs here before. Personally I do think that this is the entity most often meant when people say "Palestine", and the proposal meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE. It is a UN observer state, it's listed in the main section at List_of_sovereign_states as "Palestine", and it enjoys the lion's share of the page views, amongst the main three topics: [2]  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support moving Palestinian flag. Hundreds of articles in Category:National flags are titled "Flag of foo" and only one is titled "Fooian flag". There's no good reason to buck obvious naming convention. Undecided on the other two proposed moves. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support all This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Palestine" as demonstrated by the clear lead in page views. Palestine has existed since Ancient Greek times. Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world, including superpowers and global powers Russia, China and India. Palestine is the unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME and is used by reliable sources to refer to the state, such as The Guardian (it's official style guide) and ABC News Australia. The flag is pretty simple, as it should match all other national flag articles. AusLondonder (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It is very rare that a present day state isn't the primary topic and here it's clear this is the modern usage of the term "Palestine". Timrollpickering 15:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose first two moves. The term Palestine currently has two primary meanings - Palestine (region) and State of Palestine. Since a reader searching for "Palestine" could mean either, we should not pick one article and try to guess the reader's intention. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline specifically describes this situation and tells us that "the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term". Also see this discussion from about 2 years ago when there was a rough consensus that Palestine (region) is the primary meaning.
Last move should be to "Flag of Palestinian National Authority" or "Flag of State of Palestine". This is definitely not a flag of the region, nor of Mandatory Palestine or any other of the multiple distinct meanings of "Palestine". “WarKosign” 21:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Simply stating something, without presenting a shred of evidence, does not make it true. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright then. Do you have evidence to disprove my statements?  ONR  (talk)  00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support first 2 (Palestine), Weak Oppose third (flag). While the status of Palestine as a state is not as clear cut as some of the commentators here make it to be, the COMMONNAME has evolved to mainly mean those areas under the control or claims by the PA and not the wider historical region. Contemporary usage usually does not include pre-1967 Israel when Israel is recognized (these are included when claiming these regions for Palestine) or areas beyond the Jordan river. The moved Palestine article should have a hatnote directing to Palestine (region) as well as the disambig. The flag itself is in wider use than just the PA - representing Palestinian people and organizations outside of Palestine, and I believe that the COMMONNAME is Palestinian flag.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The modern state is not the primary meaning for the term Palestine. And the flag appears to represent Palestinians in general and not just the state. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The first two. We need to differentiate from Palestine (region).I am neutral about a flag.--Shrike (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Having checking the articles that carried the prefix "Palestine" such as the football team, olympic team, etc..., User:AusLondonder got a point. Even Anadolu Agency, Al-Jazeera, and the story published Sunday on the Evening Standard uses the short form name "Palestine" as well. Wrestlingring (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Taking a look at the page views [3], although State of Palestine has more views, it is not drastically different enough to qualify as the primary topic to me. - GalatzTalk 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palestine is the name of geographical region. State of Palestine or Palestinian Authority is the name of the geopolitical entity. Sokuya (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The State of Palestine is rarely mentioned anywhere in the media. The name "State of Palestine", or "Dawlat Falastin" isn't even mentioned in Palestine itself. "Palestine" is first and foremost, the region. The State of Palestine is the de-jure state the PLO declared in 1988. The Palestinian Authority is the entity ruled by the PLO.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 & 2, Support 3 Per well-rehearsed arguments ad nauseum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When most people (and sources) talk about Palestine they are talking about modern political entity, not the historic region. And if the State of Palestine article has three times as many readers as the Palestine (region) this what most Wikipedia readers expect. It is therefore right that the Wikipedia article Palestine should be about the modern political entity. As for the confusion issue, that's why we've invented hat notes.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • At this point, I don't have any feelings one way or the other concerning two of these proposed moves. However, I strongly encourage editors who comment, whatever their views, to focus on compliance with Wikipedia naming conventions (summarized at WP:TITLE) instead of arguing that one name or another is better. If you wish to assert that one name or another is more common per WP:COMMONNAME, cite relevant research (such as searches of the Internet, news sources, or scholarly papers) rather than your personal opinion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To those asserting that State of Palestine is the primary meaning - all the dictionary definitions of "Palestine" I checked ([4] [5] [6] [7]) refer to the historical region, not the modern political entity. It is evident from the list of meaning on Palestine that there are many possible meanings. “WarKosign” 06:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
To add WarKosign, New York Times, Press TV, RT, Taipei Times (This article) and rarely, CNN uses the name "Palestine" as well. Wrestlingring (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Raising the flag at the UN

The section of the article with this caption fails to mention that the UN General Assembly resolution passed by 119 to 8 votes[1][2] and the Palestinian flag has been raised at the UN ever since. This is a very severe political bias by omission. 2A02:2149:A000:8200:216:76FF:FE91:2064 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Vote allows Palestinian flag to be raised at UN". bbc.com. Retrieved 10 December 2017.
  2. ^ "State of Palestine Flag to Fly at United Nations Headquarters, Offices as General Assembly Adopts Resolution on Non-Member Observer States". un.org. Retrieved 10 December 2017.

Info box capital

I believe following this discussion and other on Talk:Israel that the same phrase should be used here as "Jerusalem (East) [not recognized internationally]". There should be same treatment here. Sokuya (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First, "following" implies some sort of conclusion has been reached at that RfC, which is not the case. Second, the infobox in this article and its footnote describe the situation with Jerusalem quite differently from the way the infobox and footnote at Israel do—which is appropriate, because the relationship between each state and Jerusalem is quite different. The same resolution is probably not appropriate for both articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The situation is indeed not equivelant. The question in this article should be whether a proclaimed (but not in the posession) capital should be in the infobox. Fot a normal state this would probably be a clear no. However this state is to a large extent proclaimed in and of itself.Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I see no problem with writing that SoP claims Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as its capital in the infobox. It would be as real as SoP itself. “WarKosign” 08:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing is common, neither claim is internationally recognised. There was originally a proposal to make Jerusalem an international territory (see Corpus separatum (Jerusalem)), which is no longer talked about much but is by no means off the table entirely. I think, if Israel's infobox is to state "(not recognized internationally)", as it does at present, so should Palestine's. Obviously Palestine's claim to half of the city is better regarded then Israel claim to the entire city and its eastern suburbs, but most countries still retain the stance that the outcome of the status of Jerusalem must be part of a Palestinian–Israeli peace agreement. Rob984 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Both claims are equally (un)recognized, but Israel's claim is grounded in physical reality - Israel has control of the city and many governmental offices are located there. For SoP it is a claim only - so sure, we can say that SoP *claims* Jerusalem as the capital, but in no way we can say that Jerusalem *is* the capital. “WarKosign” 15:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Did Brussels cease to be the capital of Belgium when it was under German occupation in the wars? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Jerusalem was never a capital of SoP, and SoP did not even exist when it was allegedly occupied, so your analogy is incorrect. Would Brussels become a capital of SoP if SoP claimed it to be its capital ? “WarKosign” 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
"when it was allegedly occupied". Allegedly? Seriously? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. I'm not going to write that it is occupied if I do not consider it occupied, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Israel took East Jerusalem from Jordan's occupation in 1967 while SoP was not proclaimed until 1988, so Jerusalem never was capital of SoP. Simple facts. “WarKosign” 13:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
We can discuss the applicability of analogies later. Right now, the question remains, "Did Brussels cease to be the capital of Belgium when it was under German occupation in the wars?". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
We can discuss this question later, after you show how this analogy is applicable. “WarKosign” 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Both of you, stop wasting your time -- and that of other editors -- with pointless analogies. We're not discussing occupied Belgium or whether Israel occupies the Palestinian territories. We're discussing whether and how to change what the infobox in this article says. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Area claimed by

Is the SoP defined by its people and UN recognition or is the SoP defined by zones imposed by an occupying power? Is the SoP only Area A (where it has de facto contro). Are other areas (B, C & Jerusalem) not part of the de jure state? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The SoP may be defined by whatever/whomever (and yes - it has some recognition and some de-jure legs) - however said definitions are claims as long they do not actually control what they claim. It may be a very strong claim - but it is still a claim. You can argue that in Area A in the West Bank they have actual control (so in that case - it is beyond claim - though this isn't a 100% clearcut arguement). In Areas B and moreso C - they do not have control. And Gaza - is a complex issue (probably akin to rebel province - or two competing governments (i.e. China and Taiwan) claiming the entirety of Palestine (however in Palestine's case - the authority's claim is much more widely recognized than Hamas's claim).Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
They are more than claims. They are de jure realities, albeit unenforceable due to war / occupation. Occupation does not de-legitimise underlying realities, it merely delays their effective implementation. So they are more than claims. A sentence like "pending the reintegration of the national territory" might cover the situation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing reality with claims. The areas are claimed, and it could be a valid claim supported by international law. It does not change the fact that SoP does not actually hold the territory and therefore their claim on them is not grounded in reality. If you claim that your wallet was stolen, you cannot claim that you still have it, but you can claim that it belongs to you and hope that one day it will be returned. “WarKosign” 12:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "de-jure reality" (a contradiction if I ever saw one - de-facto is usually referred to as reality) is a bit more complex than you let it out to be. The SoP is not yet fully recognized by all, is not a clear successor state of any prior entity, and many of the positions regarding it are positions regarding what a final status agreement should be. But all this is besides the point - since as long as this a de-jure, but not de-facto, situation - or a "pending the reintegration of the national territory" per your words - it is a claim. Maybe it is a bulletproof claim. Maybe it is a very strong claim. It is still a claim of sovereignty - without actual sovereignty on the ground. Hence - claim.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"The SoP is not yet fully recognized [by] all, ..."

By that 'reasoning', neither is Israel: 161 UN countries currently recognize Israel, 135 Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Response to [20 December] stmt by Laurel Lodged, if you would read down to the next sentence - ... But all this is besides the point - since as long as this a de-jure, but not de-facto, situation - or a "pending the reintegration of the national territory" per your words - it is a claim..Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

According to these news:

The OIC members through representative leaders and officials of 57 sovereign states, made an official declaration about "East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital" on 13 December 2017 at an extraordinary summit meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

OIC declared Jerusalem capital of SoP. It does not mean that all 57 states did. “WarKosign” 12:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
WarKosign is absolutely right. If the United Nations adopts a resolution, it doesn't mean that every member of the UN has adopted that as their foreign policy. The OIC adopted a resolution, not each of its 57 member states. They may recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine in time, but they haven't done so yet. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
"It does not mean that all 57 states did." Are you sure? Then, who are the people did make the declaration? a leader of a sovereign state, a partial group of an organization, or a collective voice of all 57 leaders and officials of 57 states through an OIC summit.
Of course "If the United Nations adopts a resolution, it doesn't mean that every member of the UN has adopted that as their foreign policy." However, you forgot to notice that in a resolution, every member can show a stance either to approve or to reject, or even to abstain. In this OIC resolution, every representation of 57 member states in the summit has an agreement to approve the resolution.
Let be clear, see this comparison:
UN General Assembly = 193 sovereign states, mostly approve the denial of status of Jerusalem recognition (with 128 in favour - 9 against - 35 abstain - 21 absent) It is only a partial of an organization, not all of them, decide status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital as "null and void"
OIC = 57 sovereign states (or Muslim nations), they (all the representations of countries) unified in making "East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital" declaration (with 57 (all members) in favour - 0 against - 0 abstain - 0 absent) All of them, (without any rejection or absention) made a single stance on the East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital declaration in an OIC summit.
"Leaders and officials of Muslim nations declared East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital..." — New York Times
"...Wednesday's summit of Muslim and Arab nations — the 57-member (state) Organization of Islamic Cooperation — which declared east Jerusalem the capital of occupied Palestine." - Fox News — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Fifty-seven states' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine needs to be stated by reliable sources. Jumping to the conclusion that because the OIC agreed, each of its member states therefore recognizes Jerusalem is original research. Please see WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Haven't you read this article, "Leaders and officials of Muslim nations declared....Among the 30 leaders present were Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader; King Abdullah II of Jordan; President Michel Aoun of Lebanon; President Hassan Rouhani of Iran; and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar. Officials were present representing the full 57 members, Mr. Erdogan said. President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela also attended by special invitation of Mr. Erdogan." — New York Times
When a president of United States declared Jerusalem as capital of Israel, the state (United States) is considered as an official state recognition. Actually there are 30 heads of state and 27 officials declared together that East Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital in an OIC meeting. You may count a head of state (President of United States) declaration as a state recognition, then you only count this declaration as 'OIC recognition', but you failed to count 30 heads of state and 27 officials in a meeting declaration as the '57 states' recognition'.
The sources are from The New York Times and Fox News ("News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact — WP:NEWSORG) with one official news agency Anadolu Agency, are they not "reliable" in your opinion? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Those reliable sources *do not* say that each of the 57 member states recognized Jerusalem as SoP capital. “WarKosign” 15:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
If so, can you mention any of the 57 member states that do not recognize East Jerusalem ('not Jerusalem') as Palestine capital in the meeting? — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The burden to provide sources for your edits is on you. Can you prove that each of the 57 states does recognize East Jerusalem ? “WarKosign” 15:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Briefly, Leaders and officials of Muslim nations declared East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital, (How many leader attend the meeting?)...Among the 30 leaders present... (How many official attend the meeting?) ...Officials were present representing the full 57 members...(/27 officials).
The representatives of 57 states attend the meeting to declare East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital, When they declare, surely they recognize. If they do not recognize, what are 30 leaders and 27 officials doing in "an extraordinary summit meeting" in Istanbul? then why they came and made an official declaration? Read "Istanbul Declaration on Freedom for Al Quds" "While we reaffirm that we recognize the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, we invite the whole world to recognize East Jerusalem as the occupied capital of the State of Palestine."
By the way, you did not answer my question Among the 30 leaders and 27 officials, which one that opposing the declaration? — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Was the stmt binding or declaratory? Were all officials (e.g. the 27 officials) with appropriate accreditation to making binding decisions regarding their countries?Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course, this declaration called "Istanbul Declaration on Freedom for Al Quds" with the Final Communique that was officialy adopted.
Actually, the meeting is "The extraordinary meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of Member States" Unexpectedly, some heads of state also came to Istanbul. Therefore, the officials mostly are Foreign Ministers of OIC member states who represent their countries in the meeting — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
My reading of the text is that this (clause 8) is a non-binding declaration of the OIC, that doesn't bind the members of OIC. You would need a RS specifying this was binding to the members to insert this.Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is subjective understanding ("My reading of the text") that you think the declaration is a non-binding statement. The official communique is the original source/primary source to show fact (it is reliable). Whatsoever, the declaration is the official proof and the result of 57 member states meeting, that they (in a joint action) officially recognize "the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital" — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This is simply a matter of phrasing.

8- Declare East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invite all countries to recognize the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital.

This should translate into our article as

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 member states, convened in response to Trump's declaration and, in its closing statement declared in turn that East Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine.

It is totally errant to require evidence for each single member state. There is no room for subjectively (mis)reading the self-evident sense of the words in point 8. Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Nishidani, and I will support the addition of such a statement because it is supported by the sources. Unfortunately, MusenInvincible is fighting to add a much broader statement that is not supported by the sources: that each of the 57 member states has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.[8][9] — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Read from the first sentence of FINAL COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE EXTRAORDINARY ISLAMIC SUMMIT CONFERENCE:

We, the Kings and Heads of State and Government of the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), gathering at the 6th Extraordinary Session......Declare East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invite all countries to recognize the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital.

Look at the word "We" that refers to The Kings (of some member of states), Heads of State (of some member states) and Goverment (Foreign Ministers) of Member states {They who attend the meeting}
While in the Istanbul Declaration on Freedom for Al Quds:

We, in our capacity as Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) coming together...We call upon all countries which have not yet recognized the State of Palestine...While we reaffirm that we recognize the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, we invite the whole world to recognize East Jerusalem as the occupied capital of the State of Palestine.

Evidence for each single member state: The witnesses of 30 heads of state and 27 officials (of 57 member states). This declaration is decided by "We" who attend The extraordinary meeting in Istanbul. Also remember that they (Kings, Heads of State, Goverment) are together declaring in the meeting. — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Lots of pomp. This is exactly how a non binding declaration (i.e. formaal declaration that does not bind the members) is phrased.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether it is non-binding declaration or not, The extraordinary summit meeting showed a proof of joint action that 30 heads of state officially recognized the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. — MusenInvincible (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
No. They agreed to the OIC publishing the declarative stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to "publish" through "extraordinary" OIC meeting? then, who were the people that proposing, making and reaffirming the statement? — MusenInvincible (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You are making unnecessary heavy weather of this, MusenInvincible. Don't overreach, go for the compromise offered (seconded by Malik Shabazz) above, and, just be patient. If sources emerge that corroborate your inference, then the picture changes.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You are just underestimating the participating nations in a "special OIC summit" (not a common annual or yearly summit).
If you said: "The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 member states, convened in response to Trump's declaration and, in its closing statement declared in turn that East Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine."
How about this:"The 57 member states of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation held an extraordinary summit to make a joint action in response to Trump's declaration and, in their Istanbul declaration they reaffirm to recognize that East Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine." — MusenInvincible (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You're engaging in original research (not to mention purple prose). We can't include material that is not directly supported by the sources. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I might add that, unfortunately, the purple prose is not idiomatic or acceptable English. 'make a joint action' sounds to a smoker like myself like getting together to smoke some hash. But making a statement is not tantamount to undertaking a joint action. Secondly, 'reaffirm to recognize' fails all tests (what, one asks also, is that 're-' doing in 'reaffirm'? No, look. Just stick to what looks like a consensually accepted wording, as above. It ain't the end of the world (for that, you will have to wait a few more months, on present indications). Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Original research? not directly supported by the sources? Which part?
The 57 member states of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - Fact (Officials were present representing the full 57 members), Referenced Muslim Leaders Declare East Jerusalem the Palestinian Capital, Verifiable.
(they) held an extraordinary summit - Fact, Referenced 'Muslim world to unite under Turkey's leadership', Verifiable
to make a joint action in response to Trump's declaration - Fact, Referenced, Istanbul declaration, Verifiable
and, in their Istanbul declaration they reaffirm to recognize that East Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Palestine. - Fact, Referenced, Istanbul declaration, Verifiable.
Futhermore, I realize that this statement "The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing 57 member states, convened..." is unsourced statement and more questionable. Just see the phrase "The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, representing? 57 member states" Which one is more logic;
a single organization (OIC) was representing 57 nations[source?] {#Who is OIC? a leader, a nation or a group of nations?}
or 57 officials (leaders and foreign ministers) were present representing 57 nations.New York Times

I am pretty sure that you did not read the whole document of Istanbul declaration.
Joint action of "an official political decision" compared to "a smoker getting together to smoke some hash"? They were not only making a statement, but their official international declaration to contend Trump's declaration. According to the declaration: "Underlining the importance of "joint action against the statement" of the US President Trump, together with all like-minded international partners on the basis of international law and legitimacy" Istanbul declaration
'reaffirm to recognize' is not my phrase, it is based on the content of declaration itself. Read the whole of Istanbul declaration — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
'make' as a verb should never be used to govern an expression like 'joint action'. One 'makes' a statement, one doesn't 'make' an action, unless that abstract 'action' is specified (peace, etc). 'if reaffirm to recognize' is in the source, then the source was written by someone not wholly at home in the English language. In any case, I can't see any support for your suggestion. So you might consider adopting a compromise, since as it stands it will be reverted. The compromise says everything without frills.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Should a Wikipedian compromise a published fact and verifiable statement because of the personal belief of other editor who cannot provide supporting source? WP:VERIFYOR

Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

— MusenInvincible (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Excellent quotation. You should follow it - find a previously published information that supports what you want to add, and then you can add it. You believe it's true, but it must be verifiable before you can add it.“WarKosign” 08:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove citation 17, Jan 18 2018

Source #17, which links to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-palestine-now-a-state/, is presently being cited to support the assertion that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state. But the source never makes that assertion, and in fact it specifically and repeatedly cautions that the news event it describes "does not necessarily mean independent statehood. . . does not recognize Palestine as a state.". Whether or not the assertion itself is retained, the citation is an extremely poor match for what it's purporting to establish, and should be moved, revised, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.41.213 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

+ Linkrot


Please add tag. Thanks. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I only saw two raw URLs. Instead of adding the template, I just fixed the two footnotes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Map

The unhighlighted countries of the rest of the world is not inline with the recognised international borders. For example the horn of afria, the map of Somalia as shown on this article is the pre 1960 borders of Somalia and not the current one. Can this be changed to show the correct map, i know the focus is on Palestine, everything else should remain the samePepsmiand (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine/Archive_15&oldid=852584180"