Talk:State of Palestine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Japinderum (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 5 February 2013 (→‎Third Opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Proposals for a Palestinian state.

Template:Pbneutral

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 02:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dublicity with Palestinian Authority

After comparing the article on Palestinian National Authority with this article on State of Palestine, one can easily spot both articles are basically twins. Indeed PNA claims to represent the State of Palestine and quiet many countries relate to PNA accordingly, rather than just an authority. But do we indeed need two articles on the same entity, considering there is already an article on the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence? Seemingly, the State of Palestine article claims to be on the "state in absentia" declared in Tunisia in 1988 and not yet recognized by the UN. On the other hand, this article also claims than PNA is carrying the de-facto representation of the State of Palestine, and all statistics and data of this article are copied from PNA article correct for current times (not for 1988 Palestinian State in absentia, as the hatnote claims). I think it would be much helpful to merge this article into PNA, and write in the lead section "Palestinian National Authority", recognized by xx countries as the "State of Palestine" and expand the background of the PNA to the declaration of 1988, which was an immediate background to the establishment of the PNA. This is not yet an official proposal - just an RFI, any ideas on this behalf of other editors would be appreciated.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the State of Palestine and the PNA are established by the PLO and that's why there are many cases where the three entities inter-mix with each other, e.g. right now the President of the Palestinian National Authority, President of the State of Palestine and Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization are titles given to the same person. But the PNA doesn't claim to represent the State of Palestine. PNA is established by the PLO according to the Oslo Accords signed by Israel, PLO, USA, Russia. State of Palestine is established according to a declaration of independence adopted by the PNC of PLO. The State of Palestine article is about the declared, but not yet effectuated state. It's not yet effectuated because of lack of control over all of its claimed territory (it's controlled by Israel or by Israel and Hamas - depending on who you ask), not because of UN position on Palestine statehood. This isn't about 1988 - it's about 2012. Not being effectuated on the ground in Palestine doesn't mean that State of Palestine institutions (such as parliament and president) don't "work". For example they conduct diplomatic relations and have embassies in many countries. PNA doesn't represent the State of Palestine - the PLO does (and this is clearly stated in the article). PNA is not recognized by anyone as a state - PNA itself doesn't claim to be a state. The State of Palestine is declared as state and recognized as state by xx countries.
Good answer unnamed user. --Mor2 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR - PNA and State of Palestine are different entities (albeit both are established by the PLO) - both alive and active in 2012 - and their articles shouldn't be merged. Japinderum (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think i get you - you mean State of Palestine is the "state-to-be", which might in some near future become reality instead of the now-existing Palestinian Authority. Both have some kind of representation, though PNA is more recognized.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"State of Palestine" also can refer to the state declared in 1964

"State of Palestine" also can be used to refer to the state of Palestine declared by the Palestine National Charter adopted in 1964 which became the proposal for a "Single Democratic State" and which was the position of the PLO until 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Demographics section

Doesn't the "Demographics" section belong in the Palestinian territories article? It was previously moved from Palestinian National Authority here per this discussion, but the Palestinian territories article seems like a much better fit. I'll invite the participants in the previous discussion (minus Alinor who hasn't edited sense 2011) to this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So this issue has arisen before, that is to say when 2 or more entities refer to the same geographic territory (or at least roughly overlap) then any or all can be used for data related to that geography, namely demographics and economic data. Here, though, 1 of the 2 refers to the geographic context (the Palestinian territories), while the other refers to the political context (the State of Palestine). And its obviously more complex than that, given that almost all data sets we work with are defined about a geographic context, but which do not always sync with named entities available on Wikipedia (Wikipedia articles).
So the question becomes: what is a better superstructure (parent article) to demographic data (and any sort of geographically linked data like economic data), a named political entity or a named geographic entity? Now that I am older and more experienced, and I have a reasoned basis for doing so (my political/geographic argument), I concur with your assessment that it should be moved (or at least copied) to the geographic entity's article, i.e. the Palestinian territories article, along with related data, such as economic data.
And there is of course a simple solution: give the subject its own article and allow any article to reference it. This is what I did with Taxation in the Palestinian territories. Int21h (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sense there's no objection to the movie I'll implement it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a kind of not smart doing this, because since tomorrow the State of Palestine will be recognized. You are fighting a lost battle.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no point in move the section. It would be moved again in few hours.--Sal73x (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't been following the news when I moved it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to follow, the Palestinian or rather the PA(WestBank)status in the UN was upgraded, it doesn't change Palestinian official status at all. Todo so they will first need to join forces with Hamas(gaza) or throw them under the bus(both very unlikely)--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense the RM failed and it looks like this article won't be merged with Palestinian territories (which presumably would have happened if the RM had passed) I take it that we can remove the section now. That section in on the Palestinian territories article now and there's not much point in duplicating content. This article otherwise deals specifiably with Palestine as a state, not just anything to do with the West Bank and Gaza, the article for that is Palestinian territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no objections so I'll go ahead and remove it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this I thought that waiting two days would be enough, concerning I originally waited five days and got no objections, then moved it. That first removal was then reverted, but the only objections were related to the UN vote, and that vote hasn't caused us to do something like merge this with Palestinian territories. Maybe I was a bit hasty there, I'll give it more time to see if there are any objections to removal. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's been 7 days and no one has objected I'll remove the section. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no need to duplicate that content here. Also, the article already mentions Palestinian people multiple times already, but if needed one more reference to that can be made. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - section restores, since the State of Palestine now rebranded official statistics under the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics (State of Palestine) [1].Greyshark09 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does the source have to do what article we include this in? If we used a UN source would we add this to the UN article? 13:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)

Now that UN General Assembly calls it a "non-member observer state"

[Note I wrote this forgetting this is page where saw original discussion on it being a state directly above.] So now that UN General Assembly passed United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member state" does this mean we use phrase in article "State of Palestine" from now on?? (Also asked at Israel-Palestine collaboration wikiproject, fyi.

There's a lot of Cable TV on "what this means" so I guess there will be a lot of new info on "what this means" for this and other articles. Something to study. CarolMooreDC 23:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. After the dust settles it will be clear that Palestine is still not a state. It all boils down to two facts: First; that the General Assembly does not have the authority to admit states to the UN without a prior Security Council vote. Second; that the UN does not have the power to recognize states even if the Security Council is in favor. Even the UN website states "The United Nations ... does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". - Hoplon (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine was a state before this vote, by virtue of having been recognized as a state by other states. That's why the UN website says that it doesn't have the authority to recognize states or governments, because that authority is solely held by other states. nableezy - 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people believe in an imaginary country doesn't make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwemnid (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that's exactly what makes it true. All states are imaginary. The existence of all of the states on the planet is based on what opinions exist in the heads of people. For Palestine, 67% of all UN states, which represent 80% of the world population, have recognized the State of Palestine. This opinion is clearly in the majority, while the opinion that Palestine is not a state is clearly in the minority. Trinitresque (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political science contains two theories of statehood. The declarative theory holds that a state is sovereign the moment it declares itself to be a state, as sovereignty in no way can depend on the actions of other states. The constitutive theory, in contrast, holds that a state only becomes a state when recognized by other states. Either way, the current content of the article is wrong. The actions of the UN General Assembly today cannot be correctly characterized as the State of Palestine being "recognized in 2012". Neither the United Nations as a whole, nor the UN General Assembly itself, has the authority to recognize states. Palestine has been recognized by some states since 1988, while it remains unrecognized by some states today. Trinitresque's comments about a "majority" are interesting, but have no direct bearing on statehood as statehood is not decided by any sort of majority vote. To clarify the specific problem with the page as it currently stands; nothing happened today that in any way makes Palestine any more "officially" a state than it was yesterday. It remains in the same status as always; a self-declared state that is recognized by some states and unrecognized by other states. The only path for UN membership for Palestine involves going through the Security Council and not the General Assembly, as the General Assembly cannot admit states to the UN without prior Security Council approval. - Hoplon (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic of this article is about the "State of Palestine", as declared in 1988. Of course in the appropriate places it is noted that not everybody recognizes this state. The term "State of Palestine" is utilized inside the article regardless of UN resolutions and positions (of 2012 and earlier). The change that the 2012 resolution requires is to mention it prominently as one very important diplomatic event, maybe the most important so far. Nothing more, nothing less. Japinderum (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UN, or others dont designate a state, see List of states with limited recognition and youll find even unrecognised states there. In this cas w should have State of Kosovo as well. At any rate, both state of isael and this page should be direc states (though i understand the need for the historical nations of palestine/isael.)(Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Yes, Kosovo is a good example where we have Kosovo (the region) and Republic of Kosovo (the state) and APKiM (the Serbian province). Japinderum (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be other political power it can have from being a non UN member now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

First this whole discussion needs WP:RS and all I see on a number of article talk pages including this one is WP:OR discussions.
Second, there is no reason to delete the vote totals and other wp:rs info from the text. One sentence? On 29 November 2012, Palestine was recognized as a state by the UN General Assembly, although it was not made a member?? Especially when 2011 vote has many paragraphs? Hopefully someone will put in some content so I don't have to... CarolMooreDC 18:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment "nothing happened today that in any way makes Palestine any more "officially" a state than it was yesterday" is going a bit too far, since according to sources: The United Nations general assembly voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to recognise Palestine as a state and a certain implicit degree of statehood recognition. So it does appear that something did happen that made Palestine more of a state today than it was yesterday. While the UN cannot recognize states, the voting parties in the GA are states and their actions can be seen as explicit or implicit acts of recognition. The legitimacy of Israel's establishment stemmed from a General Assembly resolution. In any event, I have a bottle of Lanson cooled to celebrate this diplomatic breakthrough (in the Guardian's words) ;). --Dailycare (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so just to be clear - is this discussion about the following change:

  1. This article is about the entity proclaimed in 1988.
  2. This article is about the state proclaimed in 1988.

If so, I proposed "This article is about the partially recognized state proclaimed in 1988." [2], but it was reverted. Strange, since we use "partially recognized" for all similar cases such as Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. - as an NPOV adjective. Japinderum (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Palestine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that should be addressed

  • In Legal status section it says: "In mid-September 2011, it was reported that 126 (65.4%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations had recognised the State of Palestine. Their total population was over 5.2 billion people, equalling 75 percent of the world's population.[136]" It is not clear that General Assembly does not have the power or the authority to establish states. Also law is not popularity contest, please remove the second part that seems to be there to push a certain POV.
I have updated it using neutral language. This section should probably be followed by the 'Declaration and Act of State Doctrine' as those are the two sections that deals with recognition of Palestinian statehood.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section title 'Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter' should be tweaked. Also the whole section is dubious, instead of dealing with Palestine status it deal with Israel application. I suppose its purpose is to compare and imply that statehood can be granted offhand or what? Which is not the case there are several basic qualification that you need to pass to be considered, please add those or remove these POV leading section. Also "Palestinian Justice Minister Ali Kashan had provided proof to the Prosecutor" - its a weasel statement, which proof? so we can be reviewed and added to other section and/or addressed.
  • The 'Consequences of the occupation' seems like a big "quirky" POV statement. That at no time in history has there been an Arab Palestinian state or similar Arab Palestinian political entity exercising any form of national sovereignty over either parcel of land is a fact. (not some quirky PR of pro-settlement community in Israel) The rest of the section revolve around the idea that Israel don't recognize the territory as their own, but that doesn't imply 'State of Palestine' legal rights to it! Other than the second paragraph which deals with the question of claim and principles of self-determination this whole section should be purged.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section (and 'State succession' section that chronologically should come before) seem to touch on the question of self-determination. The problem is that its all about comparison of several Israeli views on Palestinian 'self-determination'(nothing about dealing with Palestinian, UN etc view), considering the title 'Consequences of the occupation'(under legal status), I expect to see some legal consequence but if it there, no one bothered to spell it out. --Mor2 (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Decisions of international and national tribunals' section, please explain how the US/UK ruling in regard to Palestine mandate relates to 'State of Palestine' legal status. Honestly it seems like someone copy/pasted random sections from some work on Palestine, and this exactly how it reads, without context its just random text that doesn't add up to anything in regard to 'state of Palestine'.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly the History, it seem as if someone just dumps new sections without integrating them into the text. --Mor2 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
misc responses

None of your requests are going to be approved, they go against Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. You can't push your blatant POV here. sorry. 69.231.44.149 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid from nonconstructive comments and explain point by point your opinion. At best those section only imply as to the Palestinian Legal status and in a non natural way at that.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the help offered about how to avoid possible POV pushing. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any help offered, if you have ideas on how to improve those sections please offer your "POV", otherwise take note of my previous comment.(and the notice on the boards) --109.186.17.8 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independence from whom

The 1988 declaration is about independence from whom? Keeping in mind that at that time Israel was considered illegitimate Zionist entity by the PLO and the PNC - from whom did they declare independence? The rulers of the Palestinian territories before Israel 1967 takeover were Jordan for the West Bank and Egypt for Gaza. The declaration was adopted after Egpyt and eventually also Jordan relinquished their claims over Gaza and the West Bank. So the independence declared is from them, correct? Japinderum (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The independence is from Israeli occupation. It is possible to declare independence from a rule you consider illegitimate. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any source for that? As I said at that time Israel was considered illegitimate by the PLO and also the declaration of independence "waited" for Jordan to relinquish its claims over the West Bank. Japinderum (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"State of Palestine" or just "Palestine"?

Following the UN vote, should the article still be entitled "State of Palestine" or should it now be renamed simply "Palestine"? The article on Sweden, for example, is simply called "Sweden" and that or Norway is simply called "Norway" and so on. (I know there are other article named Palestine, but that is no reason to keep this one as 'State of Palestine' a simple redirect would suffice). For my own part, I think this article should be renamed. Sianska79 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sianska79. I understand that with this we will need to move the current article on Palestine to Palestine (geographical region) but it's small price to pay to keep things to the same wikistandards.--Sal73x (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Sianska79 and Sal73x, the article has to be renamed simply "Palestine". The Palestine article should be renamed "Palestine_(geography)"Gabriel arisi (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's possible that the present article Palestine should be moved to Palestine (region); the lead should almost certainly say "Palestine" rather than "State of Palestine"; but the article at Palestine should be a disambiguation page. See the discussion at Talk:Palestine#Requested move for the first and third clauses. I'll fix the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Palestine admitted to the UN and recognized by the majority of UN members, this proposal makes more and more sense. Palestine is generally recognized as a contemporary country, the fact that there are disagreements on boundaries doesn't make it a non-entity. Likewise, there are quite a few countries that don't recognize the State of Israel but that doesn't stop us from having an Israel article. --Soman (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the fourth section on this topic with barely a WP:RS in sight. Someone please list a bunch with various opinions and start an RfC. In a systematic encyclopedic fashion, not POV pushing wise. CarolMooreDC 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is an already larger move discussion/vote at Talk:Palestine#Requested_move --109.186.17.8 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are people who desire to keep "Palestine" separate from "the state of Palestine" in order to help deligitimize Palestinians as a people with a long history, with roots in that land. There seems to be an exaggerated focus on the arguement that the STATE of Palestine was "created" (ie appeared out of nowhere) in 1988, and therefore it is not the "Palestine" that most people refer to in antiquity. I dont think such an arguement would fly if applied to Israel, for example, even though Israel actually didn't exist for centuries except as Eretz Yisrael in folklore. I am new to Wikipedia as an editor so I decided to stand back a bit and observe, but I am currently working on genocide and ethnic cleansing as a project and this is my opinion.

Personally I think there should only be one article named Palestine, under which there is a subsection titled The Mordern State of Palestine or the like. A separate article can be called Historical Palestine, or Palestine (disambiguation) to address other stuff.Patwinkle (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a recentism issue. UNGA changes observer from PLO to the State of Palestine and some people jump to make big changes to multiple articles. They don't care about difference between PNA and the State of Palestine. They don't care about Hamas and Israel. They don't care about WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing else than the UNGA observer resolution has happened recently - and that's not a reason to change the article names.
"deligitimize Palestinians" - I don't agree that having article about the "State of Palestine" is derogatory in any way. Neither that having "Palestine" to describe the whole Palestine (region) (that includes more territories than those claimed, but not controlled, by the State of Palestine).
Palestine of antiquity is of course different from the present state declared in 1988. There is a big section about that history. This is so for most of the states - they are relatively recent creations - and their peoples and territories have diverse histories.
The problem with your proposal for "single Palestine" article is that it lumps together unrelated topics and that's confusing and also too long for a single article. Actually, lumping everything together will DILLUTE the "Palestinian cause" and will make the "State of Palestine" a little more than a footnote. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in the lead

This section of the lead: "Though recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as a state on November 29, 2012, its territory has been occupied by the neighbouring state of Israel since 1967. The United Nations 193-member General Assembly voted overwhelmingly (138 in favor, 9 opposed, 41 abstentions) to upgrade Palestine from an "observer entity" to a "non-member observer state".[7]"

  • 'Though' violates WP:SYN, combining the two parts of the sentence not in away presented in the source, implying something else.--109.186.17.8
  • 'recognized by the United Nations General Assembly as a state' - The UN doesn't recognize states [3]: "does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government."
  • 'its territory has been occupied by the neighbouring state of Israel', In light of UN recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinian people, isn't that make the Hamas rule in gaza strip occupation as well?--109.186.17.8 (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and remove "though". --E4024 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the culprit for both of the first issues is in the first part of this edit [4], I suggest reverting those changes and adding a link to Partially recognized to clarify its status.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you need to read WP:OR. Several sources say the UN vote was either recognition, de facto recognition or a form of implicit recognition. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is a recognition of something, but as you seen in the link 'UN doesn't recognize states'. I doubt that you wish to start an article arguing what the UN vote means(after all there many sources saying the vote is not a recognition of state [5] [6]) after all 'state of palestine' don't need the UN vote, since it was already recognized by large parts of the world even before the UN vote.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues one and two are fixed, but I am not certain about three. Does anyone know what is Hamas status in Gaza strip post 2007 conflict in gaza(btw is plo is still in a state of emergency?)--Mor2 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Additional issue, I think it is important to add the date in which PLO established its first interim administrative body PNA(1994), while details like seating arrangements and vote specifics are irrelevant in the lead i.e. "From 1998 to 2012, the PLO was seated in the UN General Assembly immediately after non-member states, and before all other observers.[17][18]" and "passed resolution 67/19 by a vote of 138 in favor to 9 against (with 41 abstentions),[19] changing..." (passed is passed regardless if its 69% or 100% move it to the body).--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vote count not only pointless but also mentioned twice in the first and sixth paragraph, make it unnecessary repetition as well.--109.186.17.8 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The second paragraph of the lead (geography) is not well-written: "Exclave of territory", "land areas" etc. --E4024 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged(the lead is quickly becoming an article in it self). The only problem is that state of Palestine don't have recognized boundaries, only declared ones based on the UN 1967 armistice line.--Mor2 (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed seen the "the UN doesn't recognize states" but, still, this page should be edited based on what sources say about Palestine, not what sources say about the UN. One way around this would be to say e.g. "Palestine achieved what was seen as de facto recognition of statehood on Nov. 29th, 2012 ..." using e.g. the Independent source already in the article, and the Jerusalem Post (in the wake of the Palestinians winning de facto UN recognition of statehood) as well. I think that based on the volume of reporting on the UN vote, it's a key aspect of Palestinian statehood and belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Protection?

Can someone please put this article under some level of protection? If you check the history out, you'll see that all day people have been doing edits that keep having to be reverted. 198.72.204.107 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an attack by one user (or a number of coordinated users) with various IP addresses.... 198.72.204.107 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and talk page semiprotected for the same reason. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles' naming

Due to the recent recognition of Palestine as a state, editors are welcome to express their opinion on the changing the naming of articles Prostitution in Palestine and List of airlines in Palestine (should it be in "Palestine", "State of Palestine", "Palestinian Authority", palestinian territories" or simply "West Bank and Gaza Strip").Greyshark09 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse upgrade in status of the PLO within the UN, with recognition of statehood. As mentioned before the UN doesn't recognize states [7]: "does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." Besides 'State of Palestine' has been recognized by many for over a decade, the issue is not recognition but lack of sovereignty over a definite territory and population. As for rest I have no comment on stuff like "Prostitution in Palestine"(is it even notable enough?), but I think that you jump the gun here, with no status change and uncertainty within the PNA concerning the Hamas in Gaza Strip.--Mor2 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do describe the UN vote as recognition, de facto recognition or implicit recognition of Palestine's statehood so the first point made above seems to be null. However, Palestine means both the area (which includes Israel) and the state. Does "Prostitution in Palestine" include information on prostitution in Israel? An obvious solution would be to use "... in the State of Palestine", even though that doesn't sound very snappy. Then again, is the subject (prostitution/airlines) notable to begin with? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just you trying to game system, pushing your POV ahead of facts.--Mor2 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you disagree that sources have described the vote as I wrote above, or what has caused you to arrive at such a bleak conclusion ;) --Dailycare (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I told you before, I agree it is a recognition of something and you are welcome to expand the article on the various views of what that something is, though claiming that UN vote did something, that it can't do (see link above, or UN charter) based on sources that say that it did and then trying to make changes based on that is something else entirely.--Mor2 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The recent vote recognized the fact that Palestine is a State. As a proof, a concern for several nations to give this new status was that now, Palestine had the right to sue Israel on the International Criminal Court, an organisation that by its internal status only States can call. I suggest to talk about Palestinian Prositution, Palestinian airlines, Palestinian etc and if the articles don't refer to the State but to the area, precise this in the title : "demography in the region of Palestine". Pluto2012 (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UNGA observer resolution is not recognition. See UN website - the UN does not do recognitions. Journalists (so called RS) being unable to describe the diplomatic nuances is nothing new. There are plenty of other sources which properly describe it. Japinderum (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the fact Palestine was promoted to non-member state, doesn't make it a "country". The question is whether Mahmud Abbas and his cabinet would decide to disband the PNA in favor of the State of Palestine and transfer all the institutions of the Palestinian Authority to state of Palestine institutions (including issuing new passports). If so, then State of Palestine would become an actual state. Correct for now, only the Health Ministry in Ramallah changed its name from "Health Ministry of Palestinian Authority" to "Health Ministry of the State of Palestine" [8].Greyshark09 (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is a now a State. The UNGA is not enough but it has also the recognition of about 100 other states in the world.
More, the fact it is now a State is explained here above and can be found in many sources and analysis.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto2012, Palestine is not a State "now" - it's a state since 1988. It's recognized by more than 80 countries since ~20 years ago, more than 100 since ~15 years ago, more than 130 since ~1 year ago, etc. Actually there are still no new recognitions announced in the period since September 2012 till now (I expect such to come, but there aren't any yet).
Greyshark09, I agree that we should keep close watch on the changes in PNA institutions. The relationship between PNA and the State of Palestine goes trough the PLO and it will be good if we can find good RS to describe what's happening. I'm not sure they will disband the PNA - but maybe the PLO will start transferring functions from it/renaming the institutions? We shall see. The reaction of Israel (and USA and Russia - as co-signatories with the PLO on the Oslo agreements about the PNA establishment) is also important. Japinderum (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Greyshark09', disbanding the PNA and renaming it to 'State of Palestine' won't make it an "actual state", it would only make nice TP. The issues is not with being an "actual state" but with being a Sovereign state and right now all the state power comes from the PNA, which in turn comes from the agreements they signed. Disbanding the PNA will not create a convenient redirect to the state, but return to its starting point(so their passports will worth as much as something me and you can print).--Mor2 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the issue is about who's in control of the territory - currently the international community considers it to be occupied by Israel, even Gaza. Of course some RS opinions disagree (especially on Gaza). Israel allowing the PNA to operate in territories under its occupation is one thing, but what will happen if PNA is somehow merged into the State of Palestine - that's unknown right now. Regarding passports I don't agree - PNA passports, State of Palestine passports value depends on where they are accepted as official documents - that's up to the other states to decide (and recognition or not is not aways the same as accepting the document - there are discrepancies both ways). Japinderum (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "occupation" is better left for the politician, Gaza is not occupied and according to the latter of the law neither is the West Bank. However, the peace process that among its goals is transfer of powers to the Palestinians and realization of the legitimate rights, is stuck in the Interim phase. According to those agreements the West Bank and the Gaza Strip viewed as a single territorial unit, so using 'occupation' is a neutral way remind Israel that the interim solution is not the end game, giving them another reason to want this solved. As for passports, I have no doubt that they will be re-recognized, starting with all of the arab states. which is inline with going back to the starting point(plus harder time, considering they'll be braking their international agreements) However the main issues is that they are still not an independent state, Israel will still hold all the international border crossings, so that's for your passports. To be honest IMO this is the most stupid thing they can do, one step forward ten backwards. Just like hamas take over in gaza, that brought nothing other than destruction of gaza.--Mor2 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - in the case of PNA passports the position of Israel is also important, because they control the entry/exit points (and most probably will refuse passage of people if they show "State of Palestine passport" - so either they will have to use two passports or only PNA passport... but we are speculating here - I haven't seen a source about "State of Palestine passport"). Japinderum (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter

Recently I have removed the paragraph[9]:

The UN Charter protects the territorial integrity or political independence of any state from the threat or use of force. Philip Jessup served as a representative of the United States to the United Nations and as a Judge on the International Court of Justice. During the Security Council hearings regarding Israel's application for membership in the UN, he said:

"[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law."

Because it doesn't says not one word about 'State of Palestine', Palestinians or any variant of the word Palestine and I don't think it bare relevance to 'State of Palestine' legal status in the UN.

To which Japinderum (talk) responded:

The section is not about "Palestinian legal status in the UN" (e.g. what status Palestine has in the UN), but about "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" (e.g. whether Palestine should be considered to be a State according to the criteria defined in the UN Charter). The paragraph you remove is notable not because it mentions US and Israel, but because it's a quote from ICJ judge statement during UN Security Council discussion on membership application - the quote elaborates exactly on the statehood criteria, their relation with the UN membership, etc.

Response: I see what you want and I have no problem to elaborate one the statehood criteria for the UN charter. However, I have to insist on this paragraph is still irrelevant, as it doesn't elaborates on the statehood criteria, but try to imply other things. It can be summed up to: past members excepted who do not possessed "full sovereign power to form their own international policy"(which means?) and that UN definition of a "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" international law(or at least its 1948 classic text book variant, which is?). Both can be replaced with a much more relevant and informative excerpts from the Member states of the United Nations and Sovereign state articles.--Mor2 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I want, but the reason why this paragraph is part of the status quo since ages. You still haven't restored it despite that I asked you to do so on your talk page - per WP:BRD. Afterwards we can discuss what changes are needed. Otherwise I have to revert your removal first.
"full sovereign power to form their own international policy" means New Zealand, Belarus and others who weren't fully independent states at that time. And that's why UN definition differs from textbook definition. That are quotes from a notable source - those can't be replaced by excerpts from Wikipedia articles.
If you think there are other notable issues about the UN Charter statehood - no problem to add such sources from other articles.
And what do you think the paragraph implies? Japinderum (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem to discuss this, after you provided a reason why this should be part of the section(a section that I worked on).
I know that 1945 five of the founding members, were not sovereign(2 were part of the league beforehand and autonomous, and 3 were the ~result of the ww2 and qualified partially), though I am pretty sure that since then no other nation was accepted to the UN which wasn't consider to possess sovereignty.
More importantly I still fail to see how the paragraph is relevant to the topic. You said that it "elaborates exactly on the statehood criteria" but all I can see is one vague criteria that wasn't not part of the UN statehood criteria in 1945. With no apparent way to apply it to 'State of Palestine' unless you are planing some WP:SYN.--Mor2 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this vagueness is what the issue is about - the precedent where in 1945 the UN founders allowed this vagueness in UN Charter interpretation. And the relevant conclusion is that from the quote "UN definition is different from textbook definition" (that's important for the State of Palestine because it lacks one major property of textbook states - control over populated territory) - WP:SYN would be to extend that into "UN members can decide - for political reasons - to allow whoever they want - even by twisting/vaguely interpreting the Charter - there is a precedent for that". Japinderum (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph says nothing about vagueness in the definition, only provide a vague and out of context none criteria from 1945. While the rest is even more not relevant, since this is not an article about the UN charter, we don't care that "UN definition is different from textbook definition", we want to know what is the UN definition i.e. "elaborates exactly on the [UN] statehood criteria" for state of Palestine, which it fails todo.
Furthermore on the topic in general, I suspect that your assumptions about the meaning of the UN statehood criteria are wrong. It seems that in 1945 he would refer to the 'Constitutive theory' not 'Declarative theory' i.e. recognition by other states not being a criteria, which is what those members didn't have at that time and the only thing that 'state of Palestine' have... that is if those members were evaluated by those standards and not just slipped in 1942 into the signing ;) Regardless, its not up to us to speculate, do WP:OR or play legal consuls, if you have RELEVANT sources that elaborate on the UN statehood criteria, just add them in.--Mor2 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph explains that "UN criteria is different from textbook criteria" and that's highly relevant for Palestine as it doesn't cover all of the textbook criteria. About what the criteria are there are [10] and [11]. "[states which] in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." and my assumption simply extends "judgment of the Organization" into the more frank "UN members can decide - for political reasons - to allow or exclude whoever they want". But my assumption is irrelevant here - I don't propose to add it in the article. And yes, non-sovereign members of 1945 lacked one thing and Palestine of today lacks another - I didn't say otherwise - I just say that the principle is the same - somebody may be allowed in even if it lacks over some part of the textbook criteria - if he has sufficient support of the UN members (9 in Security Council without veto, 2/3rd in General Assembly). I also would like to have more sources elaborating on the criteria/procedure and also specifically on Palestine - after the 2011 and 2012 applications (for member in UNSC, for observer in UNGA) I think that in both cases reports were prepared - are those public?[12] Japinderum (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you reverted my edit, while we was discussing the subject and your continued insistence that the paragraph is relevant because your assumption of what it implies rather than provide the actual criteria and from that link you provided I see your agenda so I just cut it short and added the criteria.--Mor2 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2, see WP:BRD - you made a Bold change, I Revert, then we Discuss. During the discussion remains the status quo before the bold edit. Instead of that you made your change again - I asked you multiple times to revert yourself, but you didn't - that's why I had to revert you again. And I don't have any "agenda". I'll see your new bold edits, but please keep in mind that especially for long time texts it's good to first propose the changes, discuss and then do it, not vice versa. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find the quote "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" in the source (but maybe I missed it?) - so I'll reword the section (restoring more of the status quo text). Also, it's not the the UN who "does not consider them to possess sovereignty" - that's the individual UN members' position - and if those are numerous enough (or have veto power), then membership is denied. Japinderum (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it (capacity to conduct foreign relations). But it's not the "problem" criteria for SoP - for SoP the problem criteria is the control of populated territory (e.g. ability of the SoP government to enforce SoP laws there). For example on p10/11 of the source: "has a government...have a legislative body...have a judicary...have an executive, which carries out the laws and has at its disposal a considerable force responsive to its will." - in the case of SoP the territory it claims (regardless of undefined borders) is under Israel occupation/control. All other criteria are more or less satisfied - PLO-EC is SoP provisional government in exile, SoP has established diplomatic relations with many other states, SoP has diplomatic recognition by many other states, SoP accepts the membership obligations and has submitted membership application. The rest of the criteria depend on the judgment of UNSC and UNGA - whether SoP is "peace loving", whether SoP is "able and willing" to carry out the membership obligations. Even if it's deemed "peace loving and willing to carry out the obligations" the "problem" criteria is whether it's "really a state" (because it doesn't have control over populated territory) and the related whether it's "able to carry out the obligations" (because a state needs control over populated territory, otherwise it functions only in the diplomatic realm as a government-in-exile and doesn't have the ability to do anything on the ground). Of course, if the majority of all UNSC permanent members and 2/3rds of the UN members want - for political reasons - they can grant membership to a GiE (turn a blind eye to the lack of territorial control or resort to some reasoning that it's able to comply and only the foreign occupation prevents it, but that occupation is declared illegal by this and that UNSC and ICJ acts, so they won't take it into account, etc.)
Do you insist on adding such OR/SYN unsourced analysis? Unfortunately we don't have the UNSC 2011 report that maybe deals with those issues. Japinderum (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is a recommendation. I had a valid reason to remove that paragraph, on the section I was working on. Once you provided your view on the content the section should contain, I had joined discussion, but since you decided to go ahead and going without your grandiose WP:OR I seen no reason to continue it. This what I said.
As for the rest, you are going to look closer because the "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" is a direct quote from the source as I provided in my edit summary [13], while the later part was ".." several paragraphs away. However, it seem that you finally found it, but removed it regardless, adding instead the meaningless statement i.e. that UN "State" definition may not be the same as the classic text book. Since we don't know to which classic text book he refereed, this irrelevant and not informative and overall violates WP:SYN as you try to imply that its the definition discussed before.
Furthermore you butchered the neutral statement from the Member states of the United Nations article, with a highly POVized one. Added a statement about 'state of Palestine' compliance based solely based on your OR here and expanded the current legal status at the UN with irrelevant info repeated and covered in other sections. So I am reverting your edit, and you will have to make one edit at time with convincing summaries or state your case here. --Mor2 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
procedural: when you can do whatever bold change you want, but when it gets reverted you enter into discussion and don't push it until finished. The status quo version remains during that time. Otherwise editing becomes an edit-war. You are the one initiating the changes without a source here, so do not mock of grandiose WP:OR. I didn't reverted all of your edits and made some edits on my own - as a way of continuing the discussion directly trough article edits (since you didn't utilize the talk page, but started doing edits directly). I don't say that my recent edits should stay, but neither should yours. Both are OR/SYN-tish and unsourced - and unlike you who reverted only mine recent edits (instead of imporving over them as I did over yours) - I will restore the status quo, so that we can continue the discussion only here and not in the article. And since you lecture me how to edit (despite most of your complaints being dealt with in my post above) allow me to suggest that if you want to make changes to the status quo you should describe those changes on the talk page along with explanation and sources.
Also, no need to attack me with on OR grounds - I myself explicitly pointed it out in my last sentence above: "Do you insist on adding such OR/SYN unsourced analysis? Unfortunately we don't have the UNSC 2011 report that maybe deals with those issues." - so if you think we should not add it without a source - just remove it.
Generally I think the pitch of our discussion (or edit-war?) should be lowered substantially.
now on subject: Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

By looking at your edits in that section I gather that your opinion is the following: "even if a state covers the Montevideo criteria [Declarative Theory; territory, population, government, capacity to engage in diplomatic relations] it may not be accepted in the UN because of opposition of UN members who don't recognize it diplomatically as sovereign state [Constitutive Theory; diplomatic recognition]" (first paragraph of your edit) and of the whole Jessup source you choose only one particular note as relevant: "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world [diplomatic relations] is not an essential requisite of United Nations membership".

I don't gather what's your point with those as they are not complementary and are not related to the case of Palestine - the first is clear "A state covering Declarative Theory has the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations, but when no other state recognizes it (thus it fails the Constitutive Theory criteria) this capacity can't be utilized. Similar to what can happen at the UN - "the state covers Montevideo, but isn't allowed in because of lack of recognition". Then the Jessup quote you choose (and your pointing out that some of the initial UN members "got advantage" of exactly this circumstance) is about another hypothesis - "A state doesn't cover the fourth Declarative Theory/Montevideo criteria as it doesn't have the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations [because it's not "fully sovereign" in the sense that officially and institutionally somebody else is responsible for its foreign affairs - the case for colonies, protectorates, dependencies, autonomous regions, sub-federal units, etc.], but it's nevertheless allowed in the UN".

The first hypothesis you choose to include is not applicable to SoP - currently it doesn't control any territory and thus fails the first Montevideo/Declarative Theory criteria. The other hypothesis you included is also not applicable to SoP - diplomatic recognition is commonly followed by establishment of diplomatic relations and State of Palestine has plenty of both since decades. The State of Palestine is declared as independent state, it has a legislature and a government who engages in diplomatic relations, exchanges ambassadors (duly accredited with the host states), etc. - so the Jessup quote you choose is not applicable to SoP. The fact that there are states who don't recognize SoP (and don't have diplomatic relations with it and don't exchange ambassadors, etc. all aspects of "do not diplomatically recognize SoP as sovereign state") is not related to what you choose of the whole Jessup source (the note about colonies and similar entities joining the UN in the 1940s - nobody claims SoP is a colony or protectorate of somebody else and nobody claims somebody else is responsible for SoP foreign affairs) - States that do not recognize SoP have this position mostly for political reasons and/or because they have a policy of not granting diplomatic recognition and not establishing diplomatic relations with governments-in-exile as those don't cover the first Montevideo/Declarative Theory criteria.

So, please clarify why you add those paragraphs. Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your initial rational, that this section need to cover the legal aspects of admission into the UN. However, after hearing several times your arguments for that paragraph, explaining the relevancy of what is not a requirement for UN charter and what the UN charter may define diffidently than classic law, when we the section deals with what is the requirement and doesn't contain not a single word on what are those requirements/definitions and after reading your elaborate WP:OR /WP:SYN. My opinion is that you have a single minded approach and that its a waste of time. So my point was to provide a basic framework of what is the requirements, provide the PLO application and provide legal commentary. For that I used a neutral summary from the UN charter(+sources to back it up). Moved the PLO application for full membership(the subject) up and expanded based on the provided sources(+new one that gave a little more detail on the comity) and bellow put the PLO statement about its recognition that might be relevant for when we expended the section further. With my summary of the paragraph that started all of this(even though I still think it is relevant, but I left it there for your benifit, since I didn't want to argue about). Most of this can be gathered from my multiple edit summaries I left.
Now I would kindly request you not to remove sourced material and revert the whole section. If you want to make changes please do as the rest of us do. Make small constructive changes, with edit summary and back it up with sources when needed. So that other can also review it and judge it, because honestly I don't understand that wall of text you built, in fact If you still have issues I would suggest we bring a third party.--Mor2 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on your changes please address the problems I identified in them. Also, you say you added sources to the "basic framework", "legal commentary", "neutral summary" you add, but actually the sources in your revision were either taken from the status quo, added by myself, not supporting the specific claims made or not relevant to the topic.
I explained to you multiple times that I'm not against expanding the section to include "word on what are those requirements/definitions" (and below you can see the relevant quotes from the source about exactly that issue). I already said to you - "my OR/SYN" that you refers to was only an attempt to edit your changes in a compromise to both of us way - if you don't agree, then the status quo should be restored and we have to sort out our differences here - before editing the section.
I also explained above and below what the problems are with the bold changes you introduced and I reverted. You should not place them back until a consensus is reached.
Please make a proposal for changes by contrasting with the status quo - not with subsequent intermediate edits of you or me. Japinderum (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 03:00, 22 December 2012

Criteria and Jessup source paragraph

Let's see what we have in the source - on page 9 begins analytical consideration of the membership application [I will mark with "..." places that I'm shortening/paraphrasing].

Reduced to their essence, these requirements are...: The applicant must be a State...peace-loving...accepting Charter obligations...able and willing in the judgment of the UN to carry out these obligations

I think that's a good quote for the section we discuss - right on topic. And I did a similar thing with the sentence "Admission of a state to the UN requires the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly, where the members make a judgment whether the applicant is a "peace-loving state...able and willing" to carry out the membership obligations [source: UN Charter]". The pre-discussion status quo also has a sentence about the obligations themselves: "The UN Charter protects the territorial integrity or political independence of any state from the threat or use of force." - you deleted it, I restored it.

  • To be a State (Q1)

While there are traditional definitions of a State in international law, the term has been used in many different ways...Under the traditional definition of a State in international law, all the great writers have pointed to four qualifications: ...people, territory, government, capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world

    • Capacity to enter into relations...

Here comes the first part of the pre-discussion status-quo quote: (Q2)

...we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.

And the text continues: (Q3)

I do not dwell upon this point...in this respect Israel is free and unhampered...unanimity that Israel exercises complete independence...in...its foreign affairs.

Then comes the second part of the pre-discussion status-quo quote: (Q4)

The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.

He underlines that UN definition is not identical with textbook of international law definition (for the definition see Q1 "the traditional definition...in international law" - in your comment you ask about that). And underlining that fact of definitions difference is the only reason to mention (Q3 "I do not dwell" and Q4 "the reason to mention") the fact that some initial UN members (colonies, sub-federal units, etc.) did not posses full sovereign capacity in foreign relations (see Q2) - it's only an example (pre-Q2 "arguments can be and have been made") and not relevant for the particular case (Q3 "I do not dwell...anyone has ever questioned...unanimity"). And that fact of definitions difference is the most relevant part of the source for the section we discuss. That's a general issue and not related to Israel (over which the source is focused on). That's why I restored that part of the pre-discussion quote - you removed the whole of it and I restored only the most relevant part instead of the whole as compromise with your removal. As for the quote you added instead ("capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" not being required for UN membership) I explained above that it's not relevant for SoP (and neither is for Israel as stated in the source - Q3 "I do not dwell" and Q4 "the reason to mention").

    • Government

Again referring to the "non-UN definition" - traditional, classic, textbook, international law: (Q6)

...other classic attributes of a State

Then we get to section I already pointed you to in my previous post: (Q7)

has a government...have a legislative body...have a judicary...have an executive, which carries out the laws and has at its disposal a considerable force responsive to its will.

Emphasis is mine (and note also Q3 "free and unhampered" and "complete independence") - the relevant issue here is who's in control, who can enforce his decisions and laws on the ground, in the real world - without having to consider foreign opinions. The term "controlling power" (whether in a case of Military occupation or "administering state responsible for a Non-self-governing territory").

    • People

Again the definition: (Q8)

According to the same classic definition...

And the requirement: (Q9)

...the State of Israel has a people...full of loyalty and of enthusiastic devotion to the State

    • Territory

Point relevant for both Israel and Palestine: (Q10)

...One does not find...insistence that the territory of a State must be exactly fixed by definite frontiers... existence of the USA was not in question before its final boundaries were determined.

The formulae...vary,... but do not necessarily include precise delimitation of the boundaries...

And as follow-up to Q3 and Q7 he came to "control" again: (Q11)

The reason for the rule...a State...shall possess territory is that one cannot contemplate a State as a kind of disembodied spirit...there must be some portion of earth's surface which its people inhabit and over which its Government exercises authority.

Wikilink and emphasis are mine - that's the essence of Montevideo/Declarative Theory - those who claim statehood should have control over permanently populated territory. As seen in Q3 and Q7 that's also core part of the government and capacity for foreign affairs requirements. See also Q13.

  • To be peace-loving

Describing 1947 and 1948 events about that.

  • Able and willing to carry out Charter obligations

About "willing": (Q12)

...in the terms of its application for membership has indicated its acceptance of the obligations... The willingness...to carry out these obligations is made clear in its letter of application for membership.

About "able": (Q13)

...ability...to carry out the obligations... is a functioning political entity with firmly established governmental institutions exercising effective internal administration and able to conduct the foreign relations of the State.

Here the source finalizes with the criteria analysis (see Q17). I would like to see your opinion about which of those points are relevant for SoP and which aren't.

  • One more point

Then the sources elaborates on diplomatic recognition: (Q14)

...relationship between action taken by the UNSC or the UN on an application for membership, and the problem of recognition of a Government or State.

...there are UN members who do not maintain diplomatic relations with other UN members. Co-membership in the UN does not necessarily involve bilateral diplomatic relationships among those Members.

And it's not only about Israel: (Q15)

...the same problem has come...in connexion with...various political entities

And continues: (Q16)

...existence of diplomatic relations among UN members on a bilateral basis is not a feature inherent in co-membership..., so the question of the extension of bilateral diplomatic recognition or relationship between a UN member and a new UN member is not a question which lies at the root of action upon an application for membership...that issue is not one which should confuse UNSC consideration of the applicability of Article 4 of the Charter to any applicant for membership.

Mentions the criteria analysis conducted above: (Q17)

I have discussed the question of the application...for UN membership in terms of legal analysis of the provisions of the Charter

Involves the "political" part of the members judgment: (Q18)

...something more than questions of legal concepts and of provisions in a document is being dealt with...

...dealing...with the desire of a people, who...constructed a community, an authority and, finally a Government operating in an independent State...

...supports the application...not merely because we consider that...fulfills the technical requirements of the Charter..., but because...

The Jessup source is right on topic - it elaborates on all criteria, what they mean, etc. Of course the conclusions are about another state and not SoP, so that source helps in describing the process and the criteria, but not in giving us an evaluation of SoP compliance. For that we need additional sources.

My proposal is that you avoid WP:OR and providing legal commentary and find a WP:RS that says in a clear manner, whatever you think he meant or his words meant or better analyse of the process from a book and add it to the article. I assure you that if what you say make sense this time(tldr), you'll find at least one WP:RS, but the specific quote we spoke about in the previous section, didn't say what you wanted it to say. --Mor2 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above are just quotes from the source. And I don't suggest making any changes to the article, OR or not. I simply present here those quotes, because they are relevant to some questions you had above and to our discussion. You are the one proposing changes, so it's better that you search for sources. And if the above is TLDR, then read the other sub-sections below and above that you haven't actually answered on in your other reply. Please refrain from accusing me of OR, SYN or whatever as I'm not proposing any changes. Please make a proposal of what you think should be changed in status quo and why and we can discuss it. Japinderum (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you so insist - we can directly use all those quotes from the source above - as a "word on what are those requirements/definitions". As you can see the result will be quite different from your edit that's even contradicting some of those. Japinderum (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Japinderum, we only discussed the relevance of a specific quote, in the context of that section. I have never commented on the quotes above or anything else, only that one specific quote, arguing that it didn't explicitly stated what you want it to, thus asking you to avoid WP:SYN and WP:OR explaining me the background of that quote, just use WP:RS so if you found another quote/source add it with reference and the edit summary(though to avoid issues of interpretation, I highly suggest that you find a WP:RS from a legal book on UN membership admissions). As for the your objections to my edit(unrelated to that specific quote), I haven't dismissed them, I couldnt figure out what they were. I have explained my edits here [14] if you have further concerns, please avoid analysis of what you think, that I think, based on my edits and keep it simple and to the point(for example edit/quote X has problem Y, suggest Z). In fact, unless you have a problem with outline I suggested, you can make those edits directly, making several small constructive edits with informational edit summaries. --Mor2 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's that you think "I want it to" state? As for my objections to your edit - I have replied to your post you mention above. As for making edits directly - we tried that and it resulted in edit war, so I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 you make a sandbox starting with the status quo and we both will discuss here and edit there until it's OK to be copied into the article. Whatever objections I have to your proposals - I will voice each objection when you present each proposed change (assuming, as you say, small consecutive change proposals, each with explanation). Japinderum (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other paragraphs

Another part of my edit you complain about is the chronological ordering. You put the 2011 membership application paragraph between the two paragraphs describing the general criteria. Then you put the 2009 recognition count paragraph. Then you put a mixed 1974-2012 paragraph. Also you deleted a sentence from the status quo describing the reason for 2012 observer application. What I did was to order those chronologically. You also complain that I "expanded the current legal status at the UN with irrelevant info repeated and covered in other sections." - it's your addition of a heading "Current status" (including 1974 and 2012 info) - I changed it into "Palestinian status" and moved there the chronologically ordered paragraphs. I'm not sure any of those "Palestinian status" or "Current status" headings are needed, since both are not about the "UN Charter statehood status of SoP" (which is maybe assessed in the unseen UNSC report on the membership application), but about "Status of Palestinian representation at the UN" (related, but different topic) - as I said on top of this thread - "The section is not about "Palestinian legal status in the UN" (e.g. what status Palestine has in the UN), but about "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" (e.g. whether Palestine should be considered to be a State according to the criteria defined in the UN Charter)". So, the "current status" is unknown - there is a non-public report and a membership application that isn't voted on yet. Also, the "current stathood status" according to "classic" criteria is the same as the status decades ago (SoP has not changed in that regard); according to UN Charter criteria it may be argued that there was evolution on the "peace-loving" and "willing to accept Charter obligations" criteria - but these issues weren't officialy assessed until 2011 (first UNSC report on SoP membership application) and we don't have unofficial sources (such as legal scholar describing what he thinks the UNSC and UNGA members judgment would've been in 2005 or 1990 or whenever) - so it's a moot point.

Finally, you complain that I "butchered the neutral statement from the 'Member states of the United Nations' article, with a highly POVized one." - the paragraph you refer to is unsourced and full of slightly incorrect statements. The first sentence I only shortened and de-complicated (removing the disputable part that was contradicted by the bracketed part). Second sentence was a real mess: mentions "sovereign/ity" too often where the UN Charter membership section doesn't mention it at all; "the UN does not consider them to possess sovereignty" (it's not the UN, but each of its members who consider individually for themselves, not only on sovereignty, but also other issues, including purely political, and then vote accordingly in the UNSC and UNGA); "a number of states that may be considered sovereign states according to the Montevideo Convention criteria" where "states that may be considered sovereign" is a wikilink to List of states with limited recognition that includes two types of states with limited recognition (see its criteria for inclusion) - such covering Montevideo/Declarative Theory and such covering Constitutive Theory. But your sentence mentions only Montevideo. That's especially inappropriate in the article here, because currently the only state on that list that's included only because it covers the Constitutive Theory (and doesn't cover Montevideo) is SoP; also most of the states with limited recognition haven't applied for UN membership (we assume they "want" it, but in any case they can't become members unless they first officially apply). Your sentence is also very convoluted: "Because UNSC and UNGA decide on membership, some states that maybe cover Montevideo criteria are not allowed, because the UN doesn't consider them sovereign, because lack of diplomatic recognition or opposition from some members." I tried to make that more comprehensible - first I added a sentence condensing the Charter criteria (similarly to Jessup source) - sourced from the Charter itself - and that sentence also clarified that this is a judgment of UNSC and UNGA members. Then in a separate sentence I describe the two relevant possible situations - state covering criteria not allowed in (pure logic - even if it covers the current members may "dislike" it and deny access - many examples in the 20th century with the USSR and USA as veto-holders blocking states supportive of the other side; your sentence also described that situation); state not covering the criteria allowed in (the colony/sub-federal unit/etc. example initial UN members - as described in the Jessup source). The other situations (covering the criteria allowed in; not covering the criteria and not allowed in) are not relevant here (but if you wish I don't oppose you to describe those too). I don't see any POV in my redaction of that paragraph.

Anyway, I don't say my redaction is the best. As I said - since you don't use the talk page to describe and discuss your proposals, but edit directly instead I did the same - my redaction is simply part of the discussion, an example. I don't say we should implement it in any case and as you see I'll restore the status quo before your and mine edits we discuss here.

So, please explain what's your proposal for changes. Japinderum (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My "complaint" was that you making section wide edit, based on your redaction of "our" discussion. My proposal was that you make small constructive edits, with informative edit summary, so that other who haven't read your wall of text, can review and judge it based on its merit. This way I could address specific issues, rather than continue this exercise in futility. --Mor2 (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forget my edits, they were just an attempt for compromise with your edits. Please make explain what changes you want to make in the stats quo and we'll discuss those.
Alternatively, we can do "small" consecutive edits (hopefully converging into a compromise version) - but not on the live article (with edit-war, 1RR, etc.), but in a sandbox such as Talk:State of Palestine/Mor2 starting with the stats quo. When we finalize the sandbox we'll copy it into the live article. Japinderum (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mor2, you may find this source about statehood criteria interesting and also this source about Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories. Japinderum (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration and Act of State Doctrine

What is the purpose of this 'Declaration and Act of State Doctrine' section? Note that The Act of State Doctrine states that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts will not sit in judgment of another government's acts done within its own territory. (In light of other assumptions I'll note that A AND b -> c =/= C AND A -> B)--Mor2 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine portal split

Recently user:Emmette Hernandez Coleman proposed to split Portal:Palestine and create Portal:Palestinian territories (see Portal talk:Palestine#Content split), with the rationale that Palestine is a geographic area without specific association with any people or politics, while Palestinian territories is about Palestinian people and modern Palestinian politics. Emmette also has already created a twin template to template:History of Palestine, named template:Governance of Palestine from 1948 to demonstrate this concept. Editor opinions are welcome on the issues of:

Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite my rationale. My rationale is the same rationale that Palestinian territories and Palestine are separate articles, that they are not the same thing. Also formal template merge discussions are supposed to take place at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

population_refugees = 7,428,260 - dubious tag

Greyshark09 recently added a dubious tag with the following explanation "i wonder how can we count 1948 refugees and descendants for a country born in 1988/2012". First the year 2012 is irrelevant here, the country was born in 1988. But the question is whether to count the 1948 refugees. The State of Palestine is declared as a state of the Palestinian people and those include also the 1948 refugees. That's why the "right of return" is one of the serious problems in the PLO-Israel negotiations. I suggest we remove the dubious tag. Japinderum (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is retrohistory.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why the dubious tag is needed? Japinderum (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

In a recent revert[15] to the "Statehood for the purposes of the UN Charter" section. Sourced material, that have been added over a couple of days have been removed. Does anyone object to its reinstatement?(why)--Mor2 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I object as you can see in the several sections above. Japinderum (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained before[16] your initial objections has nothing todo with this content removal and I have no idea where you gone since. So unless you can explain why you are blocking this, in a simple and to the point manner like 'Night w' did, I honestly don't care--Mor2 (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like "Japinderum" is arguing that the phrasing you use portrays the Montevideo Convention as the defining criteria of statehood while ignoring others. The Montevideo criteria has no legal standing in international law, it was just an attempt at codifying one of two widely used theories. None of this has anything to do with Palestine. All that needs to be mentioned is that the UN membership is only available to sovereign states and that a debate exists as to whether Palestine is a sovereign state. Nightw 07:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my phrasing, its the initial variant copy/pasted from Member states of the United Nations. I have no problem with making adjustments to that sentence. I too think that the 'Montevideo Convention' part is unnecessary and that the various views on statehood better expressed in the sovereign states article. The issue here is that operative word is "adjustment" something that he/you/anyone can do with a simple edit summary, not a section wide revert. --Mor2 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mor2, see not my initial, but my latest objections - all of them are related to parts of the changes you boldly implemented. So, please, as I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 - describe here your proposal of what you want to change and why, do a sandbox if you want and let's discuss whatever your proposal is. Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone explain the need for this edit [17] --Mor2 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is me restoring the status quo. You've already seen my objections above (12:44, 22 December 2012, third paragraph, "The other hypothesis you included..."). Basically, you want to replace a relevant quote of the Jessup source (one among many other relevant quotes as you can see here) with an irrelevant one. The one we have a hundred sources showing it's irrelevant (SoP diplomatic relations column). Japinderum (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "status quo" I translate it to "I have nothing to say". Considering that at least two people don't see a problem with this, so please explain the need for this edit. To avoid you reverting everyting on grounds of "status qou" and continue constructively, will start from the start, please explain why
1) The first sentence about the 'UN charter' and third about 'Israel's application' are relevant.
2) The sentence "We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership" shouldn't CE into: "capacity to enter into relations with other States of the world" is not an essential requisite of United Nations membership
3) Why sentence "[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State." with a simple few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN
4) and lastly the relevance of the last section, which can be summed up into "the UN term "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law. --Mor2 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that I already explained above, but see again:
  1. The sentence about UN charter protection of its member states from foreign force is relevant, because right now all of SoP territory is under foreign occupation (according to the UN among many others). There is no sentence about Israel's application - there is only a note about where the quote is taken from - the hearings about that application. So it's not some general out-of-context quote, but quote discussing statehood criteria in a hearing about UN membership application.
  2. It can be exchanged for the one you mention or even removed altogether, because it's there only as an example for the next sentence, the relevant one. The sentence you mention as "better/condensed" is from a different paragraph, that's why the status quo uses the longer one instead, for continuity.
  3. Because your text is not a quote and because the quote is specific (do not possess..[specific property]..) while yours brings instead one more concept that needs further defining - "sovereignty" (in addition to the concept the section is about - "statehood").
  4. that's THE sentence the whole quote is there for. It shows that UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories. If you want to go deeper you can see more quotes about the criteria themselves in the above talk sections.
I point out status quo to you, because you engage in bold undiscussed edits, which is fine, but even when I refer to WP:BRD you push them repeatedly without consensus in an edit-war-like fashion. If you want to change the status-quo, please seek consensus first by explaining what changes you want to do and why. Japinderum (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) a. How the protection that UN charter afforded to members is relevant to the application to membership? b. Unless you are suggesting that his quote is meaningless outside of the hearing procession, I think we can agree to remove the third sentence.
2) There is no contiguity as both quotes are paragraphs apart, so we can agree to remove it? (p.s. I never thought the better/condensed part relevant, only that it the only thing stated clearly in the quote).
3) We are going to introduce the concept of sovereignty in either case(according to many legal WP:RS). So what the problem with using the better/condensed to the point variant.(also provided with sources)
4) No, you said that "UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories" while the quote says that 'UN term "State", may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.' Which is what I told you before, that you are violating WP:SYN trying to imply something that is not stated in the quote. The quote doesn't explain what the criteria is or give us info on what the classic definitions maybe, as such it was removed.
My edits were simple, making small changes which I already explained here, you already know that because I even highlighted them with difs for you. I am not at fault that you do WP:VOODOO blocking addition of sourced info, because you can't make your case about this unrelated paragraph.--Mor2 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. a. You can't protect something that currently don't exist (territory free of foreign intervention) and at the same time having it is one the statehood criteria. b. this sentence is the context/introduction to the quote - there's no reason to remove it unless the whole quote is removed.
  2. we can remove it depending on what's the overall setup of the edit's other changes.
  3. at the point above you suggest removing the quoted example for that same thing, so I don't see a point in adding it in a different form (especially not quoted, I don't know what other sources you have in mind).
  4. What I say is explanation on the talk page - for the article I propose using the quote from the source. So, no SYN here. Also, for SYN you need more than one source - here we speak only about the Jessup one. As for what the source means with "classic textbook international law criteria" you can see the quotes from the same source, above.
Your changes are inconsistent and some of them irrelevant, as I explained above. You haven't responded. Also, your changes are not small, but wreak havoc on the whole subsection. It's better if you don't show me diffs or ask me "why do you revert this and that", but explain what you want to change and why. Even better if you create a sandbox as I suggested at 09:51, 31 December 2012 - copy the status quo there, start making small edits with edit-summaries, then I'll join editing and we will discuss it here. Japinderum (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. a. Good so you agree is not statehood criteria for UN membership that we discuss in this section, but one of many things in the UN charter afforded to UN members and thus its relevance only if you want to imply something... b. I don't mind a little introduction, will get back here when we will see what we are left with.
  2. good we agree, at last I am a believer.
  3. I see many good reason to add/improve it with several none primary sources.
  4. Again this STOP DOING WP:OR WP:SYN, I don't care what other quotes says, THIS quote DOESN'T says that, which is why IT was removed! If you want to re-add it with something that clarifying it, please do WITH WP:RS and simple edits and summaries, instead of blocking other work!
I don't think you understand what I mean by several small constructive changes, here is my small change [18] you can easily go over the list and see exactly what I did and how it adds up. If necessary you can change/discuss whatever portion you need. While this [19] is big change, I don't need to try to figure out why you did what you did and then try to edit out the changes I don't like, which is why I asked you to re-add those in small changes with explanations.--Mor2 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, let's get to those when we have a draft to work over
  2. as above
  3. I don't see any reason to add "Dependencies and colonies that don't handle their own foreign affairs can nevertheless join the UN" (that's irrelevant for SoP) unless that's an example about "UN statehood membership criteria are different from textbook criteria" (that's relevant for SoP)
  4. The quote says "the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." - that's the relevant part of the quote. I didn't say we should change it to include the other quotes, but only suggested that in case you want "classic criteria" to be described (using other quotes from the same source, no OR/SYN).
  5. It's not me that want to re-add something, it's you who want to do some changes. About your small bold changes - I explained to you multiple times - I attempted a compromise in doing some adjustments over your changes, you pushed again for your version and then I and other editors restored the status quo from before your changes. I also explained in detail on the talk page why I did those adjustments and what I disagree with in your changes. The paragraph you read now I have written several times already and as you know it continues with: please do a sandbox where we can edit over each other's changes without breaking live article rules. Please explain what changes you do and why on the talk page, so that we can discuss those. Accomplishing those two things will help us reach a common solution. Japinderum (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree about 1.a and 2 - good.
3)again I have no idea what you are talking about! What "Dependencies and colonies that don't handle their own foreign affairs can nevertheless join the UN" ?! we spoke about changing: "[W]e already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State." with a simple "few members were not sovereign when they joined the UN" and providing secondary sources, instead of this primary one.
4) Who cares if its "relevant part of the quote" when its not relevant to the topic at hand, Which is why it was removed! My question wasn't how you can make it relevant, but why you keep re-inserting this whole paragraph, block changes, make me explain this again and again, rather than actually add something constructive that will make this specific section relevant?!--Mor2 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1)2) as I said, depends on what the final result is.
3)That's what I talk about. Your "non-sovereign" UN 1940s members are dependencies and colonies that didn't conduct their own foreign affairs (see Jessup source if you want) - that's what their "non-sovereign"ess is. I explained to you multiple times - that's irrelevant for SoP (it is declared as independent state and it conducts its own foreign affairs with ~100 states for more than 20 years already). It's relevant only as an example for 4) and it seems you don't want 4) included.
4) That's a quote relevant for the topic. The topic is UN statehood criteria (and the quote explains about them that they are different from the classic statehood criteria) and how SoP fares according to those. Of course I agree with adding other sources (or quotes from the Jessup source, there are plenty there) describing the criteria and sources about whether SoP covers them.
Please make your proposal for what sources describing which criteria you want to add. No diffs, just a list:
  • criteria1[source1], SoP complies (yes/no)[source2], sentence for the article
  • criteria2[your opinion], SoP complies (yes/no)[source3], sentence for the article
  • criteria3[source4], SoP complies (yes/no)[your opinion], sentence for the article
  • criteria... (I assume you'll have a source either for the criteria or for SoP compliance or for both; in the ideal case all will come from a single source, e.g. the UNSC report, but it seems that's not public).
The Jessup source has plenty of quotes describing the criteria (for statehood: capacity for foreign affairs, government, people, control over territory; for UN membership: statehood, peace-loving, able to carry out Charter obligations, willing to carry out Charter obligations; related, but not codified: diplomatic recognition by and political opinion of the UN members). I extracted the quotes above. Of course that source from 1948 doesn't mention SoP, but for each of the criteria described in the source you can find other sources describing SoP in that regard. I don't suggest making that exercise in the article (so don't yell OR/SYN), but do it for yourself. I would be happy to see what your opinion is - which criteria SoP covers and which it doesn't. Japinderum (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its a waste of time... do you have any objections to Wikipedia:Third opinion ?--Mor2 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making a proposal along with the sources to back it up is not a waste of time. After you present your proposal here, then of course we can invite others to join the discussion. Right now there's nothing to ask a third opinion about. Japinderum (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to have to agree to disagree on that as well. Because I am tired of you arguing with yourself on things we are not discussing and I am tried of explaining you why the quote is not relevant to the topic. You want to constructing something relevant from that source by combining several quotes make your suggestion(when I get there I'll just use any number of books on UN admission), but at this point its irrelevant and this a valid edit.--Mor2 (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also tiered of explaining to you why the quote is relevant, but I do you that courtesy. I also explained to you that your edit replaces the relevant quote (UN criteria are different from classic criteria) with an irrelevant one (Dependencies were among the UN founders). So, no, it's not a valid edit - why do you think having UN members without a capacity to conduct their own foreign affairs is relevant to SoP who has that capacity and conducts diplomatic relations since its inception in 1988? Japinderum (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

It seem that Japinderum and me at an impasse, i'd like to receive a third opinion on the question, so we can get the the ball rolling again and build something rather than argue over and over on the something. The issue at hand is with the legal section, which deals with Statehood and UN Charter[20], where we are trying to establish what are the criteria for admission into the UN. In this edit[21] Japinderum re add this quote:

"the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.

Question: Considering that this quote doesn't state what is the UN definition for "State", nor what is the definition from "classic textbooks" the speaker refers to in the late 40s, nor what does he means by "may not be wholly identical". Is this quote as is, relevant to determining what are the criteria for admission?

I think it is not relevant, because everything that might seem relevant in it is WP:SYN. Instead of bringing the actual criteria from a book dealing with admission to the UN or one that deals with Palestinian admission. It use unrelated case of Israel, ignoring the circumstances and context of the speaker opinion and selectively picking several section from this primary source. All it does is try to imply that admission criteria are not relevant, that they can be waved out, playing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict saying they too didn't comply fully. While this just the position of the speaker, it refers to a case of unrelated country and refer to a fulfillment of a specific condition. It doesn't show other positions or show UN practice since we don't know if this position was accepted in resolution. --Mor2 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "instead of bringing the actual criteria from a book". If you have such book, let's use it as a source. I asked you in the above section to provide such other sources, but you haven't so far. "Selectively picking...from this source" - I asked you above to pick other quotes from the source, but you haven't so far. Israel has nothing to do with that - the Jessup source is from the UNGA discussion of Israel UN membership application and the quote utilized is not about Israel, but about UN membership criteria in general (which obviously are part of that discussion).
Now, let's see your SYN/OR: "they too didn't comply fully" - does the source contain a statement that Israel doesn't fully comply or that's your opinion? Or you complain that the quote you question implies "Palestine doesn't fully comply" and "that's irrelevant"? It implies neither. It doesn't say anything about SoP compliance with UN admission criteria and doesn't say they are irrelevant. "imply that admission criteria are not relevant" - on the contrary, the quote states (and gives supporting example from the UN practice) that UN statehood criteria (one of the admission criteria) are different from "classic textbooks on international law" statehood criteria (which are described in detail elsewhere in the source). Different, not irrelevant.
So, instead of requesting to delete the only source in that section describing something about the UN membership criteria, I again (see 09:24, 7 January 2013) suggest you make a proposal here about what other sources (or parts of that source) describing those criteria and/or SoP compliance you want to add. Japinderum (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again you lose focus, arguing irrelevant points. The only question that matter is if this quote is relevant, so your post boils down to your last statement i.e. that you think that the source "describing something about the UN membership criteria". Which is the core of the problem, we are using a primary source not directly related to the topic, which is vaguely describing "something", so it doesn't matter if you agree with me what it implies, only if you can show that it provide anything relevant without WP:SYN. Note that due to its vagueness you already made assertions that the quote says that "UN criteria are not the same with those of the Declarative/Constitutive theories" but its not, its what you think it implies, but not clearly stated in the quote. Furthermore, I can not provide actual sources that show what needed for admission(instead of source that implies what might not be needed), trim that one or do anything, because you keep stone walling, insisting that this quote(as whole, not just the discussed part) is relevant and reverting any change and thus we can't proceed.--Mor2 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't loose focus, I only pointed out conflicting statements in your previous comment.
Yes, that quote doesn't say much, but that's all we have in the status quo and you are still to make a proposal about what other quotes from that source and what other sources you want to add. What the quote says is relevant (as explained in above section - it's a primary source dealing with the topic of UN membership criteria during official discussion of a UN membership application) and you are still to propose anything that's more relevant. I'm not preventing you from proposing that, on the contrary - I asked you multiple times to use this talk page and to present your proposal (see 09:24, 7 January 2013).
Any "assertions" I've made are on the talk page in repeat explanations to you, not in the article. As for whether "classic textbook criteria" Jessup refers to in the quote are the same as "Declarative/Constitutive theories" - the criteria themselves (without calling them "Declarative/Constitutive") are described in detail elsewhere in the source, so again, please say which other quotes from the source you want to add.
So, I again ask you, please explain here what quotes or sources you want to add - "criteria1[source1 or your opinion], SoP complies (yes/no)[source2 or your opinion], sentence for the article" or do a sandbox with consecutive edits. Japinderum (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: Hello. I am User:Codename Lisa and I am responding to this third opinion request. If any of you are unfamiliar with what is (and what is not) a third opinion, please see WP:3O. Now, I looked at the contribution log for any circumstantial evidence and now I can say with certainty that the disputed sentence is not justified in Wikipedia. It employs three instances of weasel words that are not allow in Wikipedia: It does not give the classic definition of "state", it does not define what is a classic text book and "may not be wholly identical" does not specify to what extent they have differences and to what degree the speaker is certain about the presence of an alleged difference.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the source (the rest of it, not only what's quoted in the article). It describes in detail the classic definition of "state". Also, the point is not in the "extent of differences", but in the fact of existence of differences. Japinderum (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet

The infobox says: Statehood effective: not yet - territories claimed are under Israeli Occupation I believe that the 'yet' should be deleted, as it is not clear at all whether Israel will ever stop claiming and occupying the Palestinian territories. FranziJoJO2 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "yet" implies that it's highly probable to happen in the future. But simply deleting the word will make the sentence "Statehood effective: not" which doesn't sound a correct English to me. Maybe it should be "so far, not - territories claimed ..." or something like that? Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PNA rebranding itself as State of Palestine

In this NYT article:

Abbas has enjoyed a boost in his status since he led the Palestinians' successful bid to upgrade their status at the United Nations to a non-member observer state. On Friday, he signed a presidential decree officially changing the name of the Palestinian Authority to the "State of Palestine." All Palestinian stamps, signs and official letterhead will henceforth be changed to bear the new name, according to the official Palestinian news agency Wafa.

Not sure if this means the distinction between the Fatah-run institutions of the PNA and the State Palestine are now being dropped or if there are notionally two separate institutions still, but it's probably worth integrating into this article somehow. --Jfruh (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For WP purposes, this is far more significant then the UN vote. Related discussion at Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Abbas_changes_PNA_name_to_State_of_Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the general discussion of that issue I think we should use the talk page Emmette linked. As for how to mention this in the article here I suggest adding a sentence in the "Palestinian Authority" section. Japinderum (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil, Costa Rica et al have begun using the name "State of Palestine". --E4024 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's not news, similar sources (they copy from each other) are already utilized in the article. Also, the cited states "Brazil, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras" have recognized SoP already in the previous few years. What will be interesting is news about somebody out of that list utilizing the SoP name. Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The independence of israel was accepted in the well documanted UN vote in 48'

The majority of nations agreed to estamblish a jewish state,and the information about it is missing somewhere in the article. "The resolution called for the withdrawal of British forces and termination of the Mandate by 1 August 1948, and establishment of the new independent states by 1 October 1948. The Partition Plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership, but rejected by the Arab leaders. The Arab League threatened to take military measures to prevent the partition of Palestine and to ensure the national rights of the Palestinian Arab population"

Where's the vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that aspect is more directly relevant to the Israel article? --Dailycare (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

This coat of arms is used by the Palestinian Authority, while a different golden eagle is used for official state documents. See this discussion. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see that discussion and the links there. PNA Ministry of Foreign Affairs, PNA Ministry of Interior. That golden version is clearly used by the PNA. The grayish version shown in the articles infobox is also used by the PNA. Do you have a source, preferably an English source, for the distention between the golden and grayish versions that your are asserting, or for that matter a source that the state even uses the golden version. The grayish CoA has been shown in the infobox sense 2010. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_of_Palestine&oldid=536665290"