This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A user has continued to revert and make edits that include Palestine within the list of sovereign states. The user has cited the General Assembly resolution that recognizes a state of Palestine. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding, even at the United Nations. The user makes a red-herring argument by saying in his edit summary: "Israel is also partially recognized, does not have sovereignty over all that it claims, sovereignty is a fuzzy term...." But there is a strong difference between these two situations, namely, that the United Nations Charter makes clear that only the Security Council can recognize states. Israel enjoys full-member status and has been recognized by the Security Council. As to the argument that "sovereignty is a fuzzy term," Palestinian control over the territories is in no way sovereign--fuzzy or not.
However, UN recognition, though significant, is a side issue here. No mainstream news source systematically refers to the territory as the state of Palestine. For more information, see this article, explaining how "the gap between the symbolic U.N. nod and the reality on the ground remains wide." Indeed, mainstream news reports and comments by government officials all indicate that a Palestinian state has not yet been established. See examples below, all published after the symbolic UN nod:
"However, Palestinian officials close to the talks have said Israel proposed to keep control of the valley and of West Bank border crossings with Jordan for 40 years after a Palestinian state is established. ... The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war." 
"The U.S. says a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, with the border between them based, with some modifications, on Israel's 1967 frontier, before it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem." 
"The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967, but are ready to accept some modifications..." 
For the sake of neutral point of view, the Palestinian Authority will be moved back to partially recognized states. --Precision123 (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well of course the PA is not a state, but of course the highly recognized state of Palestine is one. Please stop this Palestinian denialism. Sepsis II (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid incorrect, irrelevant, and potentially offensive accusations. Some editors are trying to engage in an honest and professional discussion and such accusations are distracting. This has nothing to do with Palestinian denialism.
To address the merits of this issue, this is not about being "highly recognized" so much as it is about sovereignty, which a Palestinian state lacks. (Also note that a partially recognized state can indeed be "highly recognized" as well.) Furthermore, per all the mainstream sources (many of which were given above), all reliable sources indicate that a Palestinian state is yet to be established. --Precision123 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read about Palestine. You are currently edit warring, either revert to before your last edit or I will ask that you be blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussing edits on the talk page and using sources--two actions that you have not done--does not constitute edit warring. Instead of using personal attacks on editors or telling them to "Please read about" an article, you should address the editor's legitimate concerns and comments. You have not done so, and have instead made cries of "denialism." Please act professionally and assume good faith. --Precision123 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't have the Palestinian authority Listed. The Name of the State that would go in the Partially recognized and unrecognized states is the State of Palestine. 134 States recognize the State of Palestine. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/sep/20/palestinain-state-israel-un-interactive Representing the majority of the worlds population and also being the majority of States this shows the criteria of being partially recognized is met. Thanks for rehashing this argument elsewhere. It's not been had in enough Places yet on Wikipedia. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment: Should the Palestinian Authority be included among "Sovereign states" or "Partially recognized states"?
I'd like to commend Sean.hoyland for building a helpful foundation for this discussion. That said, I don't really think this was fully taken advantage of by the RfC participants here, which is unfortunate. Given the discussion, I find sources and arguments brought into this RfC from Precision123 and Sean to be the most compelling. There is some level of recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state from the UN per the Reuters and Telegraph articles, and that there are a nontrivial number of countries who recognize its sovereignty. At the same time, there are important considerations about its economy and the way reliable sources frequently describe Palestine in prose. Furthermore, many of the editors supporting Palestine as a sovereign state did not advance particularly strong arguments (and were summarily discounted). Given this, consensus was that Palestine should be included among partially recognized states to best reflect and balance these considerations regarding sovereingty. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Palestinian Authority be included among "Sovereign states" or "Partially recognized states"? --Precision123 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Palestinian Authority, no, because its official name is now the State of Palestine. So the question should be about whether Palestine is included among "Sovereign states" or "Partially recognized states"? Well, first let me say that repeating falsehoods in edit summaries to justify edit warring is unacceptable, especially given that the WP:ARBPIA topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions. For example
"Rv - No major news agency (including that article) systematically refers to it as Palestine. It is still referred to as the territories."
"Rv (Vast majority does not equal sovereignty. Only the Security Council can approve states. There is a section for partially recognized territories below"
"Again, per all mainstream, reliable sources. Not sovereign, please use talk".
See for example Reuters, "Palestinians win implicit U.N. recognition of sovereign state" or The Telegraph, "UN defies US to recognise sovereign state of Palestine". Setting aside the complexities of what sovereignty actually means and the various kind of sovereignty, there is no avoiding dealing with RS based evidence, no matter how contradictory it may be. I don't care whether Palestine is put in the sovereign or partially recognized sections, but that decision must be based on evidence, the decision procedure must be rational and policy based and it must be applied fairly. That means deciding whether the partial recognition of Israel also places that state in the partially recognized states section. If there is anything, anything at all, that could prevent you from dealing with Israel and Palestine fairly using the same rules then please do not participate in the decision making. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority is not a sovereign entity. It does not enjoy full recognition by the United Nations (it enjoys partial membership) and it is partially recognized. All mainstream, reliable sources abstain from referring to Palestine as a state. All indicate that a Palestinian state is yet to be established.
I have already addressed many of the points that you insist on bringing up again:
"Is Palestine a partially recognized state ? Yes, there are many countries that do not recognize Palestine." True.
"Is Israel a partially recognized state ? Yes, there are many countries that do not recognize Israel." This is completely different. Most importantly, Israel is both (1) completely sovereign, and (2) is fully recognized by the United Nations.
Your other two points are irrelevant WP:Original research and pushing the limits of WP:Neutrality. (This is not a discussion about whether Israel is a sovereign state.)
Last, even the sources that you yourself have put forward do not regard Palestine as a state. This includes the very articles you are citing. (Indeed, the articles you cite mention that a Palestinian state is not yet independent.) Your insistence on an issue when no mainstream, reliable source does is at odds with WP:Neutrality and WP:RS. You should not have to redirect us to a book if WP:Reliable sources actually treated Palestine as a state. All sources including Reuters (e.g., "Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already balked at an Israeli demand to keep an Israeli troop presence in the Jordan Valley, an area likely to be the eastern border of a Palestinian state.") and the Daily Telegraph, and every other reliable source for that matter, do not treat Palestine as a state and indicate that a Palestinian state is yet to be established.
Furthermore, the Congressional Research Service makes clear: "Without sovereignty or a self-sufficient economy, Palestinians’ fortunes depend to a large degree on the policies of other countries and international organizations with influence in the surrounding region." --Precision123 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though Palestine, not Palestinian Authority, as per Sean's arguments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No. There are no mainstream, WP:Reliable sources that refer to Palestine as a state. Per above. It is not sovereign and it is partially recognized. Sean has only submitted his WP:Original research. Note that as editors we may not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." See WP:SYN. This is what Sean has done.
All sources I have submitted indicate that (1) a Palestinian is not sovereign, and (2) it is yet to be established. Otherwise, all news sources, from Reuters to the New York Times to the Associated Press to the Los Angeles Times to the BBC to the Telegraph, etc., would have it wrong when they use "Palestinian Authority," "Palestinians," and "Palestinian territories," and never Palestine. Be mindful that we ought to follow their example. Note that, per WP:NPOV "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." A General Assembly vote is not "commonly accepted reference texts." A collection of reliable news sources—which yields the same result in overwhelming consensus—is. --Precision123 (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Besides numerous unfounded claims which contradict sources and our articles on the related subjects, I've heard of no argument for not including the sovereign state of Palestine from the list of sovereign states. The article should go back to how it was before Precision's six reverts. Sepsis II (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes Palestine is a sovereign state. That it is under occupation doesn't change that. Precision123, you shouldn't canvass as you did here and here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sepsi II, have you put forward even one reliable source? Have you named even one Wikipedia rule? Your personal attacks are unappreciated. You claim "numerous unfounded claims which contradict sources and our articles," yet you have failed to address any editor's concerns. Rather, you are focused on personal attacks and stating original research with reliable sources. If you have an issue with a statement ("an unfounded claim") please address it here, use a reliable source, and indicate your issue with the statement. That is the point of discussion in the talk page. --Precision123 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No Any UN General Assembly Resolutions are primary sources and require interpretation by reliable secondary sources. Per reliable secondary sources, like the BBC:
Palestinians were granted the status of a non-member observer state at the UN General Assembly in November. This has earned them the right to use the designation 'State of Palestine' on UN documents and possibly to challenge Israel's occupation of Palestinian land before international courts. However, in real terms a sovereign Palestinian state remains as elusive as ever.
The news service, like all other mainstream news services, continues to notrefer to the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. --Precision123 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes but call it Palestine per Sean Hoyland. Pass a Methodtalk 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No if that means that Palestine is a partially recognized state. I could cite reasons why it should not be counted as a state, but this RFC is too contentious already. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Partially Recognized The UN upgrade isn't said to offer more than De Facto recognition. There has only been Partial recognition. No international consensus offer full recognition. They only excercise minute soveriegnty. Going beyond partial recognition would be ranramount to original research. No one has offered a persuasive argument of why it should be listed as anything more than partially recognized. To be clear The Palestinian Authority is not a Partially recognized stae. The State of Palestine is. Does the PNA even exist anymore? If does then does it exist anywhere besides on Paper?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This was incorrectly closed; Serialjoepsycho was the only one wanting Palestine as Partially recognized state, while Pass a method, IRISZOOM, Nomoskedasticity, and myself opposed moving Palestine from soveriegn states. I, and I expect many others ignored Precision's comments as they were beyond the pale, making offensive statements, personal attacks, maknig statements which clearly go against the facts. Sepsis II (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thus the above section should be ignored. There were two editors making offensive claims that Palestine does not exist, one stating that it should be placed under partially recognized, one commenter, and four for status quo. A non-admin closing in favour of one editor and deleting the comments of those who oppose such a poor closer, reeks of impartiality. Sepsis II (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
RfCs are closed on the basis of arguments, not on votes or on facts/arguments that were not presented here. I simply do not agree with your characterization of the discussion, and I'm not willing to reconsider my close based on what you've presented. Your recourse is to contest my close by opening a thread at WP:AN. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 15:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish I had the balls to just close discussions however I wanted to then demand that what I say is now consensus and that others have to go to WP:AN to revert my tyranny while breaking 1RR without a care in the world. Sepsis II (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So why is Arabic "official as minority language" in Oman and the UAE? The coloring of the map is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" and "Somaliland"
Good evening The so-called "Sahrawi Arab Republic" is not a state and has no sovereignty because these people live in Tindouf camps in Algeria. You call it the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". So why does it not a member of the Arab League ? And you wrote that its population is more than 500,000. "What statistic did you adopt? You should know that two-thirds of the African countries do not recognize this entity, and are not recognized by the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the European Union, and of course the United Nations.
The Polisario, which auto proclaimed this alleged republic, was not present during the Spanish colonial period. This front is not internationally recognized as an "liberation movement", so how can it be representative of the Sahrawis? Consequently, the Polisario does not have any legal or popular basis, or even democratic legitimacy, to represent the population of Saharawi origin.
In summary, giving the so-called SADR the status of a "state" along with the Arab states in your statistics (although this entity is not recognized by the United Nations : the only body authorized to recognize the states) is completely wrong and inappropriate.
The lead indicates that the entries in this list should be "sovereign states and territories". One of the entries is Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is a partially recognized state. Either the lead should be modified to indicate that partially recognize states in addition to sovereign states are permitted or the entry should be removed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
why do they speak arabic in countries/places outside saudi arabia?hint-the same reason they speak english in countries outside of england and same reason they speak spanish in countries outside of spain.invasion,conquest,imposition and assimilation.human history is a continuous universal brutal shit-show of violence.not an excuse for anyone,just an explanation.stop weaponizing history.