Extended-protected page

Talk:State of Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
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.

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Farm-Fresh eye.png Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We have now two sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language about Jerusalem

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

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

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

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