Talk:United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19

Rationale

Should there be a section describing the rationale for the resolution, in particular the choice of 1967 borders? Does anyone have a good, neutral reference on this? Is it covered by another article, and if so, should it be linked? Harryjohnston (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Image

This list/picture could be used for the results: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_np/6270/18506270.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.42.105 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It cant. we have copyright concerns.(Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)).

State names

Per this, i think we should use the established common name for easier comprehension. And per precedence(Lihaas (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).

We should use the common names as used by the UN, since those names are approved by the nations themselves. In most cases, these are the common English names too. See this list. If we insist on using full official names we would have to expand most of them. Starting at the top of the list, "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", "Republic of Albania", "People's Democratic Republic of Algeria", "Principality of Andorra", and so on. It would look ridiculous. Since we aren't (I hope) going to do that, we shouldn't do it for just a few nations selected randomly. Zero^talk 07:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We now have partial reverts0, which looks silliar. Someone should go ahead and correct it per the above cite.(Lihaas (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

I think we should use short form names, no republics, principalities and the like - simply Afghanistan, Andorra, etc. Why adding that bulk? Japinderum (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I would not lose any sleep either way on this, when the UN (the only original source for the voting record) writes state names in a particular way there is some reason for it and we might be doing original research if we change the names ourselves. Zero^talk 00:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason being that it's official list utilizing official full names. We are not forced to repeat those unless there is some ambiguity - such as "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" that refer to different states and thus we should write in such a way that it's clear who the reference is to. Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not using official full names. It is using official short names! At the UN there is a process for deciding how to refer to each country in normal usage, which is nearly always how that country asks to be called. All but a handful have short names which are a single word. For example, the Principality of Andorra agrees for the UN to call it just Andorra most of the time and that is how it appears in all but the most formal UN documents. Zero^talk 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This photo is from the scene of the famous voting. Does it say Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela? --E4024 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

observer status transfer

"Effectively, the UN observer status is transferred from the non-state entity PLO to the State of Palestine" - the UN website list of observers isn't updated yet, but does anybody claim that this sentence is not true? Does anybody claim that "The State of Palestine is not UNGA observer" or "PLO remains UNGA non-state observer entity along the separate State of Palestine UNGA observer"? Japinderum (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Recital 15 is about the provisional government of the State of Palestine, not about some other Palestinian government such as Hamas Gaza strip government, PNA, etc. - the recital itself clearly states its the Executive Committee of the PLO. Japinderum (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in the first intance but lets wait for it to be updated?

Ill leave off the second as that wasnt my edit originally.(Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).

OK, but during the wait we can't leave it in ambiguous state (see my answer to you on my talk page). Japinderum (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the government edit, perhaps the wikilinked Palestinian government should mention the PLO as the UN entrusted government, yet its NOT the only governing force there.

Otherwise i now see where you were going (and that this was crapshit resolution that i cant fathom israel opposes as it legitmises the entity they deal with and is unpopular)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Iv removed this (essentially a reversion of my own edit), as the hidden text is just a rehashing of the quote above and below.(Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

The hidden text was initially added by me and its purpose is to server as editing help - to look out for change at the UN observers list website and then update accordingly here.

PLO is not "UN entrusted government". As you can see in the sources at State of Palestine (and here) - the PNC (who adopted the State of Palestine Declaration of Independence) took decision that the PCC (another PLO institution) should form a government-in-exile and that until that happens the PNC entrusted the PLO-EC (not the PLO) to perform the functions of government of the State of Palestine. The UN resolution simply acknowledges that fact (PCC hasn't formed a government yet, thus the PLO-EC continues to operate as provisional government). The PLO-EC is the ONLY government (governing force, etc.) of the State of Palestine. PNA, Hamas and Israel ARE NOT governing the State of Palestine. Israel is governing in Area C and B, PNA is governing in Area A and B to the degree Israel allows them, Hamas is governing Gaza to the degree Israel and Egypt allow them. The State of Palestine does not govern any territory right now (it strives to do that in the future, but that's unlikely to happen unless Israel occupation ends). Japinderum (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

On the premise of the PLO perhaps thats true, not the premise that there are institutions and governing forces within. That means gaza too(Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

I don't get what you mean. Hamas is not related to the State of Palestine in any way. Actually, if we are to be ORish we can say that Hamas to the State of Palestine is like FSA and Jihadist rebels to the Syrian Arab Republic (Assad-led government). The UN observer is the State of Palestine, not Hamas or the PNA which Hamas claims to be the legitimate ruling party of. Japinderum (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The UN records lists "Palestine", not the other convention. State is as much in that all countries are states(Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)).

I still don't get what you mean. The UN used "Palestine" as designation for the PLO observer delegation since 1988. This has nothing to do with Hamas... Japinderum (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was transferred, simply the PLO delegation which held the 'non-state observer' status and was designated as 'Palestine' within the UN (most member choose a shortname) was upgraded to 'observer state' status (see United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers).--Mor2 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and was a n idiotic resolution too. (Dont even know why israel got into a tiffy f they had no probs with the PLO there in the first place). As the lead "upgrade" was the word.(Lihaas (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)).

This dicussion seems to have proceeded without reference to resolutions 3237 of 22 November 1977 and 43/177 of 15 December 1988. Point 3 of 43/177 goes as follows:-

The General Assembly,...

3. Decides that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;

I deletd the second item in the Section Content which has been reinstated. On reflection, perhaps the comment might now be amended to read as follows:-

The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO (resolution 43/17), which had had the status of UN non-state observer entity since 22 November 1974 (resolution 3237).

The appropriate links should be included. Trahelliven (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New sources

So, the UN websites got updated. [5] lists Holy See and Palestine as observer non-member states. Palestine/PLO is not listed anymore (before the updated it was listed there as non-state entity). [6] has the following statement "since Thursday's Historic Vote in the United Nations General Assembly which accorded to Palestine Observer State Status, the official title of the Palestine mission has been changed to The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations. The website will undergo the necessary maintenance to reflect this change in the near future" Japinderum (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Currently it says "United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 is a resolution upgrading Palestine to non-member observer state status in the United Nations."

The problem is that the "Palestine" wikilink is to the State of Palestine and not to the PLO, that the UN refers to as "Palestine" and whose delegation status is upgraded. The resolution is about upgrade of the status of the PLO UN permanent observer delegation designated "Palestine" since resolution 43/177. Before 67/19 the observer is the PLO (and the State of Palestine had not status at the UN that can be upgraded). After 67/19 upgrades the PLO delegation status the observer is the State of Palestine. Japinderum (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems seperate to Trahelliven's statement jst above about the 1988 resoution(Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Should the wikilink be changed to Palestine with a [1] pointing to resolution 43/177 of 1988 about the designation? Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Japinderum (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted by Lihaas suggesting "discuss?"... and I think this is the place where we discussed it.

When I made the edit the summary was: "despite hidden comment I don't see in the resolution the word "upgrade", but "accord". If we keep "upgrade", then the link should be to the PLO, because its delegation is upgraded. See talk." Japinderum (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So, either we should replace the wikilink with Palestine -or- replace "upgrade" with "accord" (per the resolution wording). Japinderum (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than Lihaas making a revert with an edit summary "discuss?", I don't see him making an argument for it, what I see is a discussion(above) stating the opposite(as well as my argument bellow). So unless someone add something, revert per discussion on talk page is in order.--Mor2 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Japinderum (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

PLO vs state

Regarding this change[7] and the subsequent [8] request to discuss.

I am not certain what there is to discuss here, the resolution upgraded the PLO delegate observer status, nothing todo with the state.--Mor2 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the seat is now the State of Palestine: [9] Nightw 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The resolution decision was to accord to 'Palestine' non-member observer State status UN and Palestine is the designation of PLO in the UN since 1988. Assuming that they changed their name tag to 'State of Palestine'(Its my understanding that this outlet is not regarded as wp:rs), it will be still PLO. The resolution noted 'State of Palestine' in relation to PNA and as you well know PLO hold the sole responsibility for its Foreign affairs. --Mor2 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the 'dubious'-tag linking to the discussion far above. Japinderum (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

the template doesn't link there, so you should have indicated in the summary its about a month old discussion in section #Lede instead of letting us guess.--Mor2 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I put an anchor for that and I see in edit history here that you found it. Japinderum (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks in direct quotations

Somebody removed the wikilinks from the direct quotations. Is there a wikipolicy about that? If there is, then the wikilinks should be added along with some explanatory sentences - because we should present a way for the reader to see the articles on the actors and events mentioned in the resolution. Japinderum (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." This is a guideline and not a policy. In my opinion, if there is no non-clunky way of adding the link in the surrounding text, putting it in the quotation is ok. On the other hand, wikilinks should never be used for the purpose of emphasis, which is one of the ways links in quotations are often abused. Zero^talk 06:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The quoted passage sas "generally". Though i would agree these add context. Should restore [10][11](Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

I agree with restoring the wikilinks. Also, they are navigational - I don't think they add emphasis, etc. Japinderum (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to go ahead and dot i?(Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

OK, I'll do it. Japinderum (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well.--Mor2 (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not duplicated

This reorders context and chronology. The duplication is the buildup , which was crucial to its progress (without such explicit support the PA would never have pished for th emotion)(Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

Hmm, maybe we should report it in that way. Now it just describes that those countries supported and it's not clear (except from the ref-date) that the point is the date that they declared (and I don't get the "pished for the emotion" part? are you saying that if there had been no declarations of Western entities, they wouldn't have let it come to a vote?).... L.tak (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, they had several prior declaration of support. It was notable that the tradition US-allies supported them. WInning without several of those states would have been harder (though not necessarily impossible), including all the other states that followed this (Eastern europe and others). I can think of South Sudan as notable following the AU-lead as well where its traditionally western supportive (but thats not backed by sources [yet])

If you don mind/object ill go back to it tomorrow?(Lihaas (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)).

No problem. The text now handles only US/Israel/Palestinian standpoints (a bit too much US in my view) and would benefit from introducing UK/NL viewpoint (yes, if they agree not to go to ICC; otherwise abstain) and hte explicit agreement of France... I might look into it tomorrow; but if you have the possibility to do it now already, go ahead... L.tak (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs. Repetition.

I've recently made an edit here, where I separated some of the actual process of procedure from speeches, but some of the paragraphs have been reconnected into one large lump. I believe it requires improvement.

There is also a large repetition of countries that supported and opposed: first all country names in text, then those same names in tables. It would be easier to summarize which countries or which types of countries or which regions (like Europe/North America) voted this or that way. -Mardus (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm actually in support of a list of which country voted how just in the table (and images, because they are non-textual) to avoid repeating the names of countries all over again.

It is in addition important to note that such an event is also a political event and each country's vote reflects a combination of their historical ties, geopolitical background, and local political sensitivities; as voting either way would be politically/diplomatically a lose-lose situation, which might therefore explain abstentions. -Mardus (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The "repetitive" list is not really as such because it adds context. The intentions earlier indicate the process (which implicitly shows the support Palestine had to bring this to vote (remember UNSC)). The explanation of votes (which i originally had but removed per ITNC comments) is as you said relevant, and its also now available from the unga link and not "untv", as it shows why who voted for what and gives the historical issues yu mention along withthe changing times (Encyclopaedic study). The table is the official result (which were all agreed has to stay).Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Content sof the resolution

To comment on the resolution selectively is fraught with dificulty. Before commenting with Reliable Sources, the whole document needs to be set out in full. Trahelliven (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Copying the whole text of the resolution is redundant (we already link to it) and unproductive; let's focus on the main point - according what (observer status) and to whom (the State of Palestine) - and list the rest of the operative provisions. No need to copy all recitals, plenary debates, etc.

Commenting with RS should is in other sections - and we have quite a content about that already - positions of various states, diplomatic implications, etc. Japinderum (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we dont need the whole thing (thats what wikisource is for) and we also have a link in the infobox AND the referecnes. Even the "other operative provisions" (which is nt really "other" its the only one) doesnt need to be here verbatim. We alrady have that.(Lihaas (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)).

Capital 'S'

Regarding [12] - the resolution quote text is "State of Palestine" utilizing the full official name. In the accompanying sentence we should use the same, just as in the cases of "Republic of Moldova" and not "republic of Moldova", "State of Kuwait" and not "state of Kuwait", "Kingdom of Norway" and not "kingdom of Norway", etc. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion above said NOT to use that official name (no other wikilink leads there) and its moe a political compromise on WP. Does the declaration fo independence of palestine indicate it as such? In any case, were not using official names for any country. So why selevtivenow? Except when in quotes(Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)).

I thought the discussion some sections above was about full or short names in the table listing all states and how they voted.

That specific place of the edit here warrants the use of the full name (as utilized in the declaration, the resolution and official documents of the state institutions) - it deals with the core of the resolution - who gets the observer status, so it has to be verbatim from the resolution to avoid confusion with PNA (for which many times the shorthand "Palestine" is utilized by journalist and unofficial sources and even by some officials in speaches, etc.), PLO (who until recently was designated "Palestine" at the UN) and Hamas (who claims to be the legitimate rulers of "Palestine"). Japinderum (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree when its in general text and not in quotes. Its a distortion./misuse when it is not a proper noun and continues UN political terms as gospel fact(Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)).

In general text you use "State of Kuwait" when using full name and not "state of Kuwait". What's the difference here? And here we have to use the full name (as in the quote), so that there is no confusion with the other Palestine entities. What UN gospel fact? The text is about the UN resolution, so of course it describes the position the UNGA has taken, not all legal viewpoints, positions and opinions. Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that the official names used in the declaration of independence? Official names as such become proper nouns, i hardly doubt its going to use such a term. Eg: "Republic of...", etc. "State of..." is never an official name by any declared state.(Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Yes, it is - you can see in the declaration[13]. And there are many examples of states having "Republic of, State of, Kingdom of" as part of their full official name. Of course there are the opposite examples where the full name of a republic is simply Hungary, etc. Japinderum (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Content

Statement 1- ...recognise its boundaries as they were prior to 1967 Whose boundaries? If the quotation is meant to support the opening statement, it needs a reference for this. Point 4 of the resolution goes:-

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfils the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;

Point 4 might suffice but it incorrectly assumes that pre-1967 Palestine had borders: It did not: it was divided between Jordan and Egypt.

Statement 2 - The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO, that up to this point had the status of UN non-state observer entity: This statement is incorrect. Resoluton 43/177 of 15 December 1988 had already substituted Palestine for the PLO. (see section Backgtoumd in the article.)

Statement 3 is grammatically incorrect. After the words identified as, there should be a noun.

Trying to comment on the reaolution will be more trouble than it is worth. Trahelliven (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed another problem with Point 4. contiguous presumably was meant to refer to the West Bank, but it could mean that Gaza and the West Bank should be made contiguous . Who wants to comment on that? Trahelliven (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have worked out what is wrong with Statement 3. Omitting all the preceding recitals, the recital reads:-

The General Assembly,...Taking into consideration that. It is the General Assembly which takes into consideration. To put any other word or phrase in front of the recital simply does not make sense. Trahelliven (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are trying to say here(Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)).

Statement 1 - The objective of the resolution is to accord an upgraded status to the Palestinian delegation and recognise its boundaries as they were prior to 1967 I am not sure what its refers to, the Palestinian delegation, Israel or Palestine.

Statement 2 - The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO, that up to this point had the status of UN non-state observer entity:

Resoluton 43/177 of 15 November 1988 had already substituted Palestine for the PLO. It should read:

The reference "Palestine" had the status of UN non-state observer entity fom 15 December 1988:

Statement 3 is intende to be read as one with the Quotatio; The government of the State of Palestine is then identified as taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine.. This does not make sense. Trahelliven (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement 1 is Palestine. For the rest whee are these? and if theyre quotes then we can t alter quotes.Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas Statement 1

It is bad Englih usage to have a pronoun its, without first making clear, the noun to which it refers.

Presumably prior to 1967 means immediately prior to the commencement of the Six-Day War.

Presumably Palestine means that part of Mandatory Palestine that had passed into Egyptian and/or Jordanian control.

It does not make it clear who is to recognise these boundaries.

Where in the resolution is the concept of recognition used in respect of these boundaries?. Trahelliven (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Calls on UN recognition in accordance with pre-67 was boundaries. (notability not exlicitly mentioning land swaps). The first part of the resolution mentions this. "independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;(Lihaas (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)).

Lihaas

In the article on the Gaza Strip, the section titled Israeli occupation, in the last paragraph, it is suggested that Gaza is no longer occupied. If that is true, then it is arguable that the resolution covers only the West Bank. Point 4 wants Palestine to be contiguous. Presumably it was not the intention to make the Gaza Strip contiguous with the West Bank.

I simply want to make the point that commenting on the resolution is fraught with difficulties. It is drafted as a politial document rather than a legal one. Better left alone! Trahelliven (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Youre citing WP articles (per OSE) and "presumably", im going on the actual wording right from the resolution. Not mentioned Gaza or the West Bank here just the actual wording.

"drafted as a politial document rather than a legal one" true in the sense that UNGA resolutions are generally non-binding and then political, but thas synthesis. the intention here synthesised, thats why we use RS and attribute to the media.(Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)).

Lihaas

There are a number of points made by me to which you have not responded:-

Statement 2 - The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO, that up to this point had the status of UN non-state observer entity:

Resoluton 43/177 of 15 November 1988 had already substituted Palestine for the PLO. It should read:

The reference "Palestine" had the status of UN non-state observer entity from 15 December 1988:

Do you agree with me or do you wish to dispute the matter? 06:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk)

Lihaas

You have indicatws that you don't alway understand the points that I make. Unfortunately I have the same problem in understanding what you write.

Calls on UN recognition in accordance with pre-67 was boundaries. (notability not exlicitly mentioning land swaps). The first part of the resolution mentions this. "independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 (Your edit of 05:48, 5 December 2012.}

Sentence 1 - Calls on UN recognition in accordance with pre-67 was boundaries.; Is Calls a verb, or the subject of the verb was?

Sentence 2 - (notability not exlicitly mentioning land swaps). There is a present participle - mentioning, but no verb.

Sentence 4 - independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. If this is a separate sentence, it has no verb.

When the grammar is not correct, understanding the written word is difficult. 10:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk)

Lihaas

On a number of occasions, I mentioned incorrectness of statement The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO, that up to this point had the status of UN non-state observer entity:. You have not disputed this. Therefore I am deletng it and the quotation of part of recital 14. Trahelliven (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this statement. Since 1974 the PLO is UN observer entity. Since 1988 the PLO observer non-state entity delegation is designated "Palestine". Since 2012 the PLO mission official title has been changed to "The Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations"[14] - the PLO represents the State of Palestine in the UN because the PLO-EC performs the function of Provisional Government of the State of Palestine (per PNC decision) - as also mentioned in the 2012 resolution. Japinderum (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas

Japinderum

How about:-

The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO (resolution 43/17), which had had the status of UN non-state observer entity since 22 November 1974 (resolution 3237).

Trahelliven (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what youre trying to say, you seem to be refactoring my talk page edits or whatnot. Not sude what your comment Lihaas and then "(your edit...)" means.(Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

If I understand correctly you want to place as footnotes the two resolutions: 1974 about PLO observer status and 1988 about PLO having the designation "Palestine". I'm not sure we need this, but if so I propose the following variant (that adds less text to the sentence as it's convoluted enough already):

• The reference "Palestine" is to the PLO, that up to this point had the status of UN non-state observer entity: ...quote from recital 14 follows...

Japinderum (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Japinderum (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable sentence

This sentence in the lead had multiple problems: "In spite of being widely regarded as symbolic, the motion to adopt the resolution passed, particularly in light of Operation Pillar of Defense which had immediately preceded it." (1) The source does not support "widely regarded as symbolic". The source (an Indian news site) calls the resolution "largely symbolic" but does not say that it is widely regarded as such. All it really supports is "Zee News considers the resolution historic but largely symbolic", which doesn't belong in the article at all, let alone in the lead. WP:NPOV is also violated by the failure to mention those who consider the resolution anything but symbolic. (2) "the motion to adopt the resolution passed" is lovely, but is already mentioned a few sentences above. (3) "particularly in light of Operation Pillar of Defense which had immediately preceded it" has no meaning. I suspect someone here does not understand the English phrase "particularly in light of", since it cannot be used like this. After studying the sources, I still don't know what the last part of the sentence is supposed to mean. It might be ok to mention that the vote came soon after Operation Pillar of Defense, but tying the two in some sort of casual fashion is dubious. The resolution and the positions of most countries were in place well before Operation Pillar of Defense. Zero^talk 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This sentence has gone through pruning and explanation. There are multiple sources that call it symblic victories , per LEAD we dont over-ref that section/. Can remove th second part as redundant. The Third is explicitly mentioned as a relatied factor. If your pov to censor that content/synthesise. Unsupported setntece = synthesis "the positions of most countries were in place well before "(Lihaas (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)).

I wonder if this is indeed a very balanced sentence and whether the ref is right. If we state how things are seen using a single ref, we need a tertiairy source that more or less summarizes the general positions, and not a (set of) articles that call it symbolic (there are thousands of articles on this subject; tens will show either position anyway). I wonder if we also could balance it with the arguments that were heard as well: gaining access to institutions like the ICC (that was in many commentaries as well). If this article is long enough to warrant an extra sentence in the lead, we could also link this vote to the UNESCO vote and the UN-membership campaign. Especially the UNESCO vote was used to explain how this vote would likely be concluded... L.tak (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? Im open to adding more context if thats what you mean?(Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Something along the lines:

• The motion was seen as largely symbolic, but also remarked as enabling Palestine [or whatever we call it in these texts] to start proceedings at the International Criminal Court against Israel. The motion was noted for its timing in light of Operation Pillar of Defense which had immediately preceded it and followed obtaining membership of UNESCO by a majority vote and a stale application for full UN membership in 2011.

It groups three timing discussions (UN membership, UNESCO and pillar of defense), which were all seen as related evens (causes/effects....). The first part also highlights now the most substantive thing I often saw: the possibility to go to the ICC (personally I would say the main point is: becoming a "party to treaties open to all states" like the chemical weapons convention etc, which surely would help in giving a platform for ideas etc....; but that's something I did not see reported as a main point)... Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

?(Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)).

Taxes seize

Regarding this sentence "As well Israel seized taxes collected on behalf of Palestine and redirecting them towards the construction of the Israeli settlement Ramat Shlomo.[39]"

I wasn't sure the part about financing 'Ramat Shlomo'(settlement I presume) was valid, since it is stealing and really stupid move. However the source indeed says that. Still I wasn't convinced, so I googled it and found no other sources claiming that. However, I found and Israeli source quoting their Finance Minister: "I have no intention of transferring the tax payments to the PA this month. I plan to use them to offset the Palestinian debt to the Israel Electric Corporation". Which is very different from the first source. What you think? --Mor2 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, and the current text and its source are wrong. However, the claims of the Israeli government have to be accompanied by contrary opinion, which is mostly that the tax seizure is a punishment for the UN resolution. Zero^talk 00:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how its "wrong" when cited to a RS source just per IDONTLIKEIT.

If its said that its a reaction to the resolution as punishment then this is exactly the place to be. Nothing indicated te source is not RS (in fact its traditionally even more pro-govt), notwithstanding the fact that google is held up as a barometre to dimiss what is in here. Ths is not googlepedia.(Lihaas (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)).

I also have the feeling you are right Mor2, as most sources -also later- focus on off setting depths in the order of 100-120 mln to the electrical company.; and a possible extension to March also off setting with the Water Corporation. I think that we should go with those sources, as there seems to be some kind of consensus among them. L.tak (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Overlinking

the links to each country hat voted is OL (and silly). Need to remove?(Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)).

I don't object. Japinderum (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it is overlinking... L.tak (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

UN full membership

Regarding this edit [15]. I think you confuse Palestinian bid for full membership and their application in 2011. The source refer to their bid for full membership, which was staled due to UNSC decision, but they continued in other avenues in the UN and would request it again. However, their 2011 application failed after the request wasn't approved by the membership comity, a decision that was adopted by the UNSC without a vote, the best they could do is ask for a vote anyway, but it would have failed aswell, because there was no consensus at the comity proceeding and because US would have vetoed it regardless. So you can sugar coat it however you want, but their 2011 bid failed. --Mor2 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I've not confused anything. You claimed that their 2011 application was "... rejected. If they want to try again for a vote, they need to submit a new one." As far as I know, this is false. Do you have any sources to back up your argument? All of your speculation about what would happen if a vote was called is WP:CRYSTALBALLing WP:OR, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, you'll likely have better luck at convincing other editors by backing up your opinions with sources instead of attacking their integrity (such as calling my edits "sugar coating"). TDL (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What CRYSTALBALL ? You already have in the article(or at least in the state one) that the comity failed to reach agreement i.e. there was no majority to pass the vote, you already have a source that stated that in any case US will veto a vote. So do you want me to bring you sources that state that Palestinian application to gain full member-state status failed, due to it not being approved by the 15-member UN Security Council?(in fact you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't thought it was doomed to fail, including the Palestinians, most thought it was submitted to generate more support for their cause)

ETA: I forgot to add about the application process. As far as I know its standard procedure. you submit your application to "mr. president", who pass it to unsc, unsc comity make recommendation, UNSC accept/vote, if no vote the UNGA/party can ask for a vote anyway, otherwise its failed and you'l need to re submit a new one, when something change. btw iirc Israel had to resubmit her application in 1949, so keep your nationalistic pride in check.(I can give you sources but this already general knowledge or WP:OR domain) --Mor2 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

My "nationalistic pride"? Please explain, which nation am I proud of? If you're unable to engage in an adult conversation without attacking me, then you'll likely find yourself facing sanctions shortly.

The UNSC was unable to reach an agreeent, however they never rejected the application. All of your speculation about what would happen in a hypothetical vote doesn't prove that the application had already failed (past tense) at the time of the motion. If you have a source saying that the application was no longer active, then show us. Perhaps the best solution is to say exactly what happened: "...and followed obtaining membership of UNESCO by a majority vote and the UN Security Council being unable "to make a unanimous recommendation" on their application for full UN membership in 2011." TDL (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what it is but something made you see my question regarding the wording which I consider "sugar coating" as an attack on your integrity?! Anyway here is one source [16]

The Palestinians' earlier attempt to gain full member-state status failed because it had to be approved by the 15-member UN Security Council. In the face of strong lobbying by Israel's close ally, the United States, it could not secure the nine votes it would have required. In any case, as a permanent member of the council, the US was expected to use its veto power to stop the bid. Palestinian officials insist they have not abandoned their application to become a full UN member state, saying it is suspended for the moment.

Tell me if you need more. --Mor2 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I read from that source: for all practical reasons it has failed, but Palestine(and) holds that it is suspended (which might be the formal position of the bid). The source therefore doesn't clarify much... Clearer sources are thus indeed welcome... L.tak (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

and the current source doesn't even mention it...--Mor2 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The UNESCO application was in that state for over 20 years (1989-2011): submitted, reported, discussed, no action or vote yet. During all those years it won't be unheard for somebody to say the application was failed, rejected, abandoned, forgotten, etc. In the current case only 1 year has passed, let's avoid classifying it. Japinderum (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain what your point, if they need to resubmit the papers, it means that their previous application was ___ ?

But you still haven't been able to provide a source that actually says that "they need to resubmit the papers". Source please? TDL (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that's not a source, but look at what Night w said "They can either call for a vote or take another route.", so if he's correct the application remains not voted upon (e.g. accepted or dismissed) until the PLO decides to ask the UNSC to vote - currently they know they don't have enough votes, so they don't ask. Of course, that's only an opinion. Japinderum (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And here a copy from the Palestine 194 article: "Diplomats suggested that a formal vote on membership by the Council, which only takes place if called for by one of its members, depends on whether one is pushed for by Palestine. It was doubted that such a vote, if called, would receive the requisite 9 favourable votes due to numerous expected abstentions, thus negating the possibility of an American veto.[17] (haven't checked whether the source says exactly that). Japinderum (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@TDL, that was for the benefit of Japinderum. Right now neither source says anything about the 2011 application, I added a source and only added info per source, nothing technical. Which you have removed re-instating your unsourced variant, instead of providing a source to support your variant, so we can discuss changes. --Mor2 (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2011 membership application is mentioned in the first source, which is linked after "largely symbolic". If you'd like to add another source, that's fine. But please don't change the wording until there is a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to make this change. TDL (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

hu? I didn't said that there are no sources in the article/universe that mention the 2011 membership application. Just that the sentence in which this statement is made is unsourced i.e. its two sources never mentioned it. Which is why I added the source for reference, which you removed...

Furthermore, even your source, state that "failed bid to gain full UN membership in 2011". So again your variant is unsourced, so unless you provide some WP:RS to start this discussion, there is no need for WP:CONSENSUS, because your removal baseless WP:IDontLikeIT.--Mor2 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read again, the source is obviously in the sentence in question. If you'd prefer to move the source to the end of the sentence, then go right ahead. Also, every edit requires a WP:CONSENSUS. Just because you don't like the response you've gotten here from several editors. doesn't mean that these responses are "baseless" and you can ignore the consensus. As for sources, see my comment below.

I don't care of its in the sentence, only that the statement obviously wasn't followed by it, which is where normal people look for it, not checking each source on the article to see if it mentions there, especially when I already had a sources, which you removed. But, the main issue is which wording we should use, while I backed up my variant with a source, your variant(stall) was unsourced. Instead of finding a source that backup your variant so we can have a basis for discussion, you dig up a source that support my variant! and ask to wait for CONSENSUS, consensus for what? for you to find a WP:RS? Furthermore, while asking "please don't change the wording until there is a WP:CONSENSUS" and saying that "every edit requires a WP:CONSENSUS", at same time you went ahead and edited it[18], changing the wording using completely different variant, that we never discussed.--Mor2 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You said that "the sentence in which this statement is made is unsourced", I simply corrected you. Again, if you don't like the placement of the source then move it to the end. If you'd like to add another source, then go for it. But please don't add "failed" until a consensus is reached for that.

Also once again, you haven't responded to the sources which I've provided below demonstrating that the application is still active.

Finally, if you disagree with my recent changes then revert to the status quo "stale version" and we can discuss them further. That's how we find out if there is a WP:Consensus for the change or not. TDL (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that. I still think that it should be 'failed application', which is why their campaign/bid for full membership was stalled, but I can live with the corrent wording, I only objected to the way they were added.--Mor2 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The text of this very resolution, supported by 138 states, "Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations". So clearly the application must still have been formally open at the time of the resolution. TDL (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source which states "The Palestinians have said they have not abandoned their application to become a full U.N. member state, but it is suspended at present." TDL (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

non-member observer state status→non-member observer State status

It is only a small point. but in the resolution itself, numbered paragraph 2, the phrase non-member observer State status is used i.e state has a capital S, perhaps to emphasise the change.[19] It may be that this question has been addressed but going through the various edits is difficult, I propose to make the change in this and other articles in 14 days unless others have any objections. In my addition to article November 29, I have used the capital S. Trahelliven (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The resolution mention the word State 25 time, always in uppercase regardless of the context. Similarly the word Charter is always comes in caps, so I doubt it has anything todo with emphasizing our come of this resolution and more todo with standard UN document structure(like writing it as a single sentence). --Mor2 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Capital on "resolution"

Capital on "resolution" is consistent with other UNGA resolutions here at Wikipedia so I think the title should be changed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)