The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
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.
Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
There is consensus to keep the lead as it is, both denoting Palestine as a state and noting later on that "The Palestinian Authority applied for United Nations (UN) membership in 2011 and in 2012 was granted a non-member observer state status – which amounts to a de facto, or implicit, recognition of statehood." Given the sources and UN recognition, it is clear that there is at least some reliable source backing for "state" – enough that those arguing for "state" in the lead cannot be dismissed as not based in policy. Given the well-founded and sourced concerns that Palestine does not show all the features of a typical state, however, we should continue to qualify our use of "state" in the lead with the sentence I quoted above. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:33, 23 May 2016 (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.
An RFC recently closed on Israel and it was determined that this article's lead should not describe State of Palestine as partially recognized.
Please respond whether in your opinion, the lead should say that State of Palestine:
Proto-state, a term used by several sources that means "a group of people in the process of becoming a state, or performing some but not all functions of a state", summarizes what SoP is without implying whether it will or will not become a "real" state. Failing that, De-jure state although in my opinion it's less clear. “WarKosign” 11:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
De-jure state- Palestine is de-jure a Sovereign state. So saying it isn't sovereign is unacceptable. "Proto-state" is too vague, and also not really true, as it is, de-jure a state. Or just "state"'. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
state in the middle-east - I thought it would sound stupid, but it doesn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
state in the middle-east - There are many states and governments of different types and levels of peer, independence, and effectiveness. We can stick with simple terms and strive to maintain mutual respect. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
De-jure state - My arguments are in the discussion section below. I would also support Proto-state but I prefer the de-jure.--Bolter21(talk to me) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
If 'a partially recognized state' is to be Now that 'a partially recognized state' has been removed then my preference would be to leave it as 'is a state in the Middle East' with the rest of the lead unchanged. The lead immediately goes on to explain a bit of history and the current status. If there is a need for detail in the first sentence about Palestine's status, then that detail should be the most prominent detail according to RS, which is very likely to be something along the lines of 'currently under Israeli occupation.' That would require a potentially fraught rewrite of the lead. Perhaps it would giving that information the prominence it deserves but my preference would be to
- keep it simple
- resist the urge to use original research to measure sovereignty
- resist the urge to use euphemisms for what RS call occupation
- avoid illegitimate inconsistency e.g. deciding to say Palestine has no defined borders while not deciding to say Israel has no defined borders. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
is a state in the Middle East or keep partially recognized - Per Sean.hoyland. De-jure while possibly accurate is a little jargony for the lead. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
De-jure state - all other options I can think of have more cons than pros. DGtal (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
is a state in the Middle East as the closed RfC already decided with a large consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fine the way it is. They have held elections, they certainly are not part of Israel, Egypt or Jordan. They have a national authority with an internationally recognized president. As far as they are concerned they are a State. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
state: keep it simple. The occupation and recognition by various other countries can be elaborated upon afterwards. Kingsindian♝♚ 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
state: per Sean.hoyland. Since "partially recognized" is out, the number of states recognizing Palestine should be mentioned in the lead, but not in the first sentence. --T*U (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
state. We don't adjectivalize states, though North Korea is most frequently called a 'rogue state'. Any adjectivalization smacks of some POV spin to undermine what happens to be a widely recognized state, in order, at peace talks, to avoid the complications of an inter-state negotiation between equal actors. It is a method of denying parity of status, and one reason why peace talks always fail, since they are organized on the premise of a 'state' (not universally recognized) coping with the claims of a non-state (widely recognized as a state).Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
state in the Middle East: per other users and per the closed RfC already decided with a large consensus.. Khestwol (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you please go an see the list of sources I gave in the "representation of arguments" below?--Bolter21(talk to me) 18:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
state in the Middle East per others in agreement. Arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. Jusdafax 07:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"Proto-state in the Middle East." Palestine is an entity in the process of becoming a state. It is still missing quite a number of features of a full-blown state, such as internationally recognized borders, control over its own territory, full sovereignty, wide recognition, and is therefore considered a "proto-state" by many scholarly sources. --PanchoS (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Something else A partially recognized state. I think descriptions that are willfully ambivalent should not be used in an encyclopedia (de jure state or "proto-state") It could be added that Palestine is not in full control of all it territory, but that's about it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hebel: Note that it's not an option. There was an RfC that specifically determined *not* to describe it as "partially recognized state". Would you like to consider something else ? “WarKosign” 18:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really. But as you may have noticed this is another RfC altogether, so your assertion that this is not an option doesn't really apply anymore. Many states are described on Wikipedia as that (partially recognized state) an that's what Palestine basically is. Whatever earlier RfC may have come along. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Proto-State to underline that it is a State in building and also that it has not the usual features that could be expected from a State (it is not totally recognized, its capital has been annexed by another country, it has no real control on its territory and mostly occupied, ...). Pluto2012 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Pluto2012, a proto-state is another thing altogether in historical discourse and nomenclature. Look it up! Calling Palestine a proto-state would involve changing the very meaning of the term. That's unacceptable.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment As I have said earlier the option "proto-state" is completely ridiculous for this situation because it has very different historiographical connotations that are remarkably different from this situation. Chieftaincies in pre state situations were once considered proto-states. The very language is unacceptable for this particular situation in history. This is not a situation in which related tribes unite to appoint a king back in the iron age! A proto-state is basically a concept about pre or proto history! Or about some 19th century Africa and before situations.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the point of Habel, that Proto-State is too vague. That's why I still support de-jure over Proto.--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not voting in this poll. However, I'll mention that I looked up "proto-state" in a large database of law journals and found nothing like what Hebel claims. In fact I found multiple experts applying it to Palestine. I conclude from this that Hebel's analysis of the "proto-state" possibility is not very reliable. Zerotalk 03:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
De-jure state, per arguments given below by Bolter21 and others. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Palestine is a state under Israeli occupation Simple, honest, and informative; it lets the reader know the state of the state and why. The proto/dejure/partially recognized would be confusing and/or inconsistent and not inform the reader as to why this state can't be normal. Sepsis II (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
www.SpesisNPOV.com "Only 6.99$ for the most NPOV title in the universe!" Seriously.. do you really think this is NPOV and encyclopedic? In 2011 Palestine was nothing, then all of a sudden in 2012 it became a fact parts of the UN and the English wikipedia recognize as a factual, physical state. De-Jure/Proto/Par-Rec are not ideal, but they are reflected in sources. The current title fails to meet with Wikipedia's policies as it was accepted by a vote that was pretty much boycotted by people who saw it as a wrong question and it was accepted by a Democratic vote, with no source to back it. That's a shame. The title you suggest is in the level of the random IPs that pop every now and then, asking why Wikipedia supports the Zionist Regiem.--Bolter21(talk to me) 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Pot, meet Kettle. Yes, Sepsis II's suggestion is POV and not serious, but not any worse than Bolter21's consant POV-pushing an unbalanced rants, such as dismissing a POV as "a vote that was boycotted". Neither of you can be considered to be here for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Sepsis offered to write only State with no source = NPOV, Bolter21 offered to write De-Jure state with 45+ sources = EVIL WP:NOTTHERE!! ARBPIA logic.--Bolter21(talk to me) 12:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, I thought you were either refraining from this site or ramping back on provocative rhetoric. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
state in the middle east As resolved by the RfC. The issue of recognition is largely irrelevant in the opening, as determined by the RfC. Not all states maintain effective control of their borders or exercise total sovereignty. Somalia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are such states. That does not affect their legal statehood. AusLondonder (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not only recognition, it's Palestine's physical existance.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought you were stepping back from this topic? My mistake evidently. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@OpenFuture: The reason I suggested "not Sovereign state" as an option is the definition: "In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area". Sovereignty in turn is "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies." The Palestinians do not and never had governed any geographic area "without any interference". “WarKosign” 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
State of Palestine is fine as it is. There are many states and governments of different types and levels of independence and effectiveness. We can stick with simple terms and strive to maintain mutual respect. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
See WP:RS. UN and states are not sources. A press release by a political body is a primary source that may be used to describe the position of the body. The purpose of this RfC is not to determine the position of certain political bodies, but to create a consensus on how wikipedia should describe the subject, naturally supported by sources. “WarKosign” 13:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No, these bodies (ie states) actually decide what is a state and what is not. They are not "primary sources" but authoritative sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course I can't argue with your TRUTH, however wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on political opinions held by specific editors or political bodies. “WarKosign” 13:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, wow, did you read anything I said? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I did, and I think you are wrong. Please re-read what I wrote for my reasons.“WarKosign” 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Where you simply dismiss those bodies, ie other states, who does the actual de-jure recognition of sovereignty in favor of your own opinion, because you don't like what those states say. So as you see, I did read it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not dismiss the body. SoP is a proto-state, that is an entity that has some but not all attributes of a state. One of such attributes is international recognition. Nearly all the states recognize that SoP *should* be a sovereign state. UN recognizes it as "non-member observer state", which is symbolic. Recognition of SoP by any given state is a fact, and an official document by the the state or by a scholar/journalist describing it is a good source, but we cannot deduce from a list of states that recognize SoP that it's a recognized state, doing so would be WP:OR. “WarKosign” 14:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you dismiss them. "We cannot deduce from a list of states that recognize SoP that it's a recognized state" of course we can. No, but the United Nations can, and they have. But you dismiss that as a political organisation as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The action of one party recognizing the other, doesn't make the other a fact. Kosovo, is a fact, they practice sovereignty on all (or most, can't remember what's the status with Northern Kosavo) of the terriroy they claim. Same goes with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Transnistria, Lukhansk and Donetsk etc. Those countries are de-facto before they are even recognized. The State of Palestine was never de-facto and the fact that most of the countries in the world recognize it, doesn't make their sovereignty a fact, it only makes it supported.--Bolter21(talk to me) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact is that a majority of the worlds states have recognized Palestine. That makes Palestine a de-jure state, as per reliable sources, as the worlds states are authoritative sources on their own state recognitions, for obvious reasons. You can sit that are declare WP:TRUTH as much as you want in face of reality. It really is the states of this planet, and by extension UN, that makes international law. Not you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think we are misunderstading each other. I agree that SoP is a de-jure state, regardless of how many countries recognize it.--Bolter21(talk to me) 15:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, then you still misunderstand how it works. A self-declared state is not a de-jure state. It can be a de-facto state, but not de-jure. It has to have recognition from international bodies to be a de-jure state, and it won't get that unless many other states recognize it. So it is definitely not regardless of how many countries recognize it. De-facto statehood or not is regardless of how many other states recognize it, but de-jure is heavily dependent on other states recognizing it.
Therefore Palestine *is* a Sovereign State. More specifically a de-jure sovereign state. I agree it's not a de-facto soveriegn state, but I have no idea how you would go about finding reliable sources on that, when the authoritative sources say it's a sovereign state. Those sources, obviously, do not qualify it with either de-jure or de-facto. They just recognize the state. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In order to straighten WarKosign's arguments: There is no full sovereignty over Area A in the West Bank . The Palestinian Authority, which is controled by the same leaders and so-called government of the State of Palestine is effectivly an Autonomous body (=not a state) . The Gaza Strip is administrated by Hamas since 2007 . So the "State of Palestine" doesn't practice sovereignty in any territory it claims and it never had, since it was declared in 1988. No Palestinian entity existed before 1994 . and indeed the current one is not independent . So what we have is a non-State, non-Independent, effectivly an autonomy with international recognition. The State of Palestine can't be called a state. There has to be something in it's definition that implys that it is not yet a state. I support De-Jure State more than Partially recognized becuase the current one is a little vague. Maybe a combination of the two, such as Partially recognized De-Jure State will work.--Bolter21(talk to me) 13:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, can you please put your !vote in the #poll section above ? This section is for free discussion, where the above section is simply for stating one's opinion. “WarKosign” 13:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No one prevented you from doing it. I expressed a direct opinion so he asked me to state it in the poll.--Bolter21(talk to me) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I see, and I will try to make my opinions more direct then. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"State of Palestine" is not an answer.... The sentence is "The State of Palestine is ____". You can't say "The State of Palestine is a State of Palestine"--Bolter21(talk to me) 13:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the intent is not to add anything. And yes, I did not see you expressing a clear opinion suitable for the poll. “WarKosign” 13:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to fix it. Basically, I don't think we need to keep applying qualifications to the term "State of Palestine". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you propose a wording? "The State of Palestine is ..." what? Because I too would prefer to avoid the whole thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland: Note that saying that State of Palestine is under Israeli occupation contradicts the sources and common sense. The territory claimed by SoP is considered under occupation, but the state did not exist when the territory was allegedly occupied so it cannot possibly be under occupation.
As for Israel not having borders - I often hear this claim, yet Borders of Israel has sources for each of the borders. Disputed is not that same as completely undefined. “WarKosign” 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree and in my view there is nothing to be gained by responding to your points in detail here. This is the kind of issue that is probably best discussed and resolved centrally with maximum exposure to uninvolved editors. All I will say is that I think Wikipedia should
- not inconsistent with the International Organization for Standardization change from "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" to "State of Palestine" and the spatial implications of the various codes for Palestine and its subdivisions.
- acknowledge the existence of documents like the Palestine Mission to the United Nations' "About Palestine".
Regardless, I've given my view in the poll section and I'm not planning on changing it unless I see a compelling reason to do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think WarKosign has to get due credit for taking hairsplitting to a never before seen level. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Being pedantic (a.k.a. hairsplitting) is preferable to blindly repeating falsehoods like "State of Palestine is occupied". We are here to correctly represent the state of affairs, not to grant credibility to dubious claims by either side. “WarKosign” 09:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Being pedantic is the only possible route we can take here if we want to stay purely factual. DGtal (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Calling Palestine a "state" is the most absurd, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and overall an insult to common sense, that I have seen from educated an serious wikipedians. We are talking about an article with some 50,000 visitors every month, you can't just rely on two sources - the UN resolution in 2012 (Which will be refuted in the sources below) and the UN's change of the name from oPt to SoP.
The UN is one of the most inconsistant things in the world you know, The UN organization regarding Human Rights' in "Palestine" still uses oPt , UNRWA doesn't use the term "State of Palestine" for where they work . And how can "State of Palestine" be named only a "State in the Middle East" while in the context, "state" means a sovereign state (since it is not a federal subject), which Palestine surely isn't? of course, the 2012 vote, did not change anything, even though they UN officially said so. According to this article, like many others, we are talking about a "future state", or a "proto-state", not an actual state that exists today. this article also says that: In order to recognize a state, it must first exist in both geographical and political terms. That is, it must have a defined territory with internationally accepted borders and an established government that effectively runs that territory. This is not true of Palestine, where in reality we must talk about two governments and two territories: Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. This article says "A sovereign Palestinian state was not born in 1988, when Yasser Arafat proclaimed independence, or in 2012, when 139 states voted to grant “Palestine” nonmember observer state status at the United Nations, or in 2015, when the Palestinian flag was raised at UN headquarters in New York." this article, talks about wither "will there be a Palestinian state by the end of the week?". this article explaines "How Palestine might become a state". Also this article talks about the Palestinian request to recognize them as a state, arguing "that over the course of the past two years the Palestinian Authority has made great progress in building the infrastructure necessary for maintaining a sovereign state.", so there's not yet a state, there's a just a progress toward one - a proto-state.
Regardless of any consensus reached here, the option of "Palestine is a state in the Middle East" will not be accepted by me until a Palestinina state will be established. There's no way, all mainstream media around the world, including Palestinian media and also UN organization, either see the State of Palestine as a state that was not yet estbalish or simply ignore it, since the State of Palestine is not yet a thing.--Bolter21(talk to me) 12:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I am struggling to decide of this is the most idiotic thing I"ve encountered in Wikipedia or that ridiculous consensus about the PNA being replaced by the State of Palestine...--Bolter21(talk to me) 12:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You *do* realize that an Israeli newspaper can't be regarded as a reliable source on that topic? And that an article from 2011 is severly outdated on this topic? Leaving you so far one blog post as a source. As opposed to 136 UN member states as sources. However you turn that, it's going to be very hard for Wikipedia to ignore the position that Palestine is a state. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't even worth the answer but I can't facepalm on the internet. You probably didn't read all I wrote or visited the articles I sent. There are two sources from 2011 who explain what is the outcome of the 2012 resolution. The sources from 2012 and beyond imply that nothing really changed and all imply that there is no Palestinian state yet. The Times of Israel is a reliable source just like Ma'an News is a reliable source. I have no idea on what blog you are talking about.. Here are the sources I used:
I can go and give you hundred more sources that says imply the State of Palestine is not a de-facto state, this is just like the argument from last October on the ultra misleading statement that the Palestinian Authority ceased the exist when Mahmoud Abbas officially changed it's name to "State of Palestine". As I said, regardless of what consensus will come up here, I still have enough sources to imply that the State of Palestine is not a "state" but rather a "proto-state" or a "de-jure state". Even the Arabic Wikipedia agrees on that.--Bolter21(talk to me) 14:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
But de-jure, it is a state. Therefore we can not say "It's not a state". Yes it is. De jure. We can only say "It's not a de facto state" or "de facto it's not a state", but saying "it's not a state" without qualifications is simply incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Palestine is not a "state", Palestine is a de-jure/proto-state. I said it quite a few times in this discussion and this is the option I supported in the poll.--Bolter21(talk to me) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A de-jure state is a state. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
But the lead section can't say that "The State of Palestine is a state". The difference between a "State" and a "de-jure state" is that saying "State" will probably make people think that Palestine is a de-facto state.--Bolter21(talk to me) 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, but it can say "is a state in the Middle East". I don't mind "de-jure state", that was my original vote, but just saying "state" just avoids the problem, which after years on Wikipedia has tought me usually is the best solution. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's some more hair splitting for you: saying that it's "in the Middle East" is technically incorrect. The de-jure state claims territory in the middle east, but since it's a virtual entity without set borders - it doesn't have any physical location.
Not saying that the state has no de-facto existence doesn't solve the problem, it misleads the readers into thinking that is a regular sovereign state with same degree of control and self-government as one would expect from any other state. “WarKosign” 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a "virtual entity without set borders", that's nonsense. And it doesn't actually mislead anyone into thinking that, because anyone who actually knows enough about statehood theory certainly is aware about this conflict. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
"Virtual" means "almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition'". See Palestinian Declaration of Independence, no borders were specified. Those who know about statehood theory would not be mislead, but a layperson idly stumbling upon the article can be mislead into thinking that SoP is more than it currently is. “WarKosign” 08:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Aha. "Almost an entity" is a meaningless statement, which confused me, but it doesn't really make the statement any more correct. It is most definitely an entity. I looked up a few declarations of independence, including the US one, and none of them specifies any borders, I really hope you don't claim that USA isn't a state. ;-) Nobody will be mislead into thinking it's more than it is, because nobody who understands what a state is and what the difference between a de-jure state and de-facto state is will think "oh, it's a de-facto state" when they see the claim "Palestine is a state". Other people don't know what "state" means, but will assume it means "country", and they won't be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Assuming people should understand the conflict when they enter the article is wrong. A "State" is either a soveriegn state or a federal state (Like in Germany or USA), Palestine is either of those. Simply saying "Palestine is a State" implys that Palestine is a state, which it clearly not yet. Palestine is a de-jure State, is doesn't exist de-facto. You can also call it a "proto-state" per WarKosign, since many sources say that Palestinians are in the process of establishing a state.--Bolter21(talk to me) 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That's your POV, but not supported by reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's supported by countless sources: . What is not supported is the claim that SoP exists in reality (de-facto) rather than only on paper (de-jure). “WarKosign” 13:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Each and everyone of your sources support what I just said: Palestine is a state. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, once you ignore the "de-jure" qualifier. “WarKosign” 14:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you searched for and found sources that said "de-jure" state? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you worth the answer anymore, OpenFuture... Palestinie is a de-jure state, calling it just a "state" is misleading.--Bolter21(talk to me) 16:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A de-jure state is also a state. It is a state by law. From Wikipedia's standpoint Palestine is a state where over a hundred authoritative sources (ie other states) has said that it is a state. I know you don't like that, and you therefore insist that Wikipedia should accept only de-facto states as states, but even if we accept that, then which source do we go with? Well, you see, the AUTHORATATIVE sources say that Palestine is a state (see previous sentence). Countries do not recognize each other as "de jure" or "de facto" states. They just recognize each other as states. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, I don't ignore it, I leave it out. A blue car is a car. A de-jure state is a state. Your sources all stated that Palestine was a state. Your insistence that it is NOT is even directly contradicted by your own sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Palestine is not a "blue car", Palestine is a "car in production". You can't say "Citroen blah blah 2017 is a car", you have to say "Citroean blah blah 2017 is a car in production". There is a major difference between a "state" and a "de-jure state". The fact that other countries recogznie something, doesn't mean it's a fact. There are sources I and Kosign gave that say the recognition is symbolic. In addition, Ukraine was recognzied as a state by the world before 1991, but it doesn't change the fact it was a subject of the Soviet Union. Palestine is recognized by 136 members of the UN, but that doesn't mean it's a state yet, it is a de-jure state.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That is YOUR POV, which is directly contradicted by reliable and authoritative sources. FYI "de-jure state" does not mean "state in production". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, do you have a problem writing "de-jure state"?--Bolter21(talk to me) 18:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, but I prefer just "state" considering the enourmous amount of molecular hair-splitting this issue generates, because just writing "state" avoids the whole issue. And no, it does NOT make the implication that it is a de-facto state, because, as mentioned, anyone who knows the difference, also know about this conflict. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
"Blue car" is not a good example, color is not a critically important property for a car. A better example would be leaving the "toy" out of the "toy car". Technically correct, but completely misleads the user into thinking that it's something that it is not. “WarKosign” 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, better one: It is *legally* a car, even though you don't think so, because it doesn't have four wheels or whatever. It doesn't matter that you find a law that says that cars should have four wheels and points at it and says "it only has three", the car has legally been defined to be a car by the relevant legal authoritative reliable sources. So from Wikipedia's viewpoint it's a car. It still comes down to WP:TRUTH vs WP:RS, and your POV is not a reliable source. We have reliable legal sources saying it's a car. Hence Wikipedia says that it is a car, because of WP:RS.
The dispute now is about if we should say that it's a 4-wheel car or 3-wheel car, or if the number of wheels are disputed. And that dispute is best avoided by simply saying "It's a car". Problem solved. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, not a good example. The car in your example supposedly was manufactured with a full set of wheels and restoring a wheel is a trivial operation that can be done at any moment. SoP eventually becoming a completely independent state, with effective control over well-defined borders is very far from certainty. Pretending it is violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. I demonstrated several WP:RS that use the term "de-jure state", and countless more can be found. “WarKosign” 07:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
CommentBolter21, the RfC about this was started two months ago, it ran for two months and lots of people commented, with the overwhelming consensus to use "state" for both Israel and Palestine, and that was the result of the close. This was just closed a few days ago, so to start rehashing it now looks like little else than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a failure to respect the consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I really don't have any respect for a consensus when it clearly contradict most sources. Calling Palestine only a "state" is highly misleading, implying it has the same status as Israel or any other country, while it clearly doesn't.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The sources, as is clear from the above, call Palestine a state. Calling Palestine a state therefore *agrees* with the sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Original RfC was only about partial recognition. Many people there commented that partial recognition was a minor point, and that this article should in some form acknowledge that SoP has not achieved all the milestones of a "proper" state, and this RfC attempts to formulate this. I waited for the original RfC to close before opening this one, note that I did not suggest "partially recognized" as one of the options since the consensus is clearly against it. “WarKosign” 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Representation of arguments
So, we have the "State of Palestine". The state of Palestine has 136 UN members who recognize it. In 2012, a UNGA vote to upgrade the stauts of the State of Palestine to a "non-member observer" passed - does it make it a "state" - a sovereign state?
First of all, the move was regarded as symbolic even before it happened:
[Efforts to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the River Jordan and Gaza on the Mediterranean coast have been frustrated by the continuing conflict with Israel and disputes over the status of diaspora Palestinians. - BBC]
And now for the 'killer' source: This is from a meeting of UN members:
Russia: "The peace process should ensure the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian State co-existing peacefully alongside Israel"
Palestine: "The 1993 Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were supposed to lead to a comprehensive peace agreement — ensuring an end to the Israeli occupation and creation of a sovereign Palestinian State — by May 1999. Instead, Israel had continued violating international law and pushing the Palestinians further and further away from independence."
Jordan’s representative said the creation of an independent Palestinian State living in peace and security was a top priority for his Government.
Morocco: "The international community must launch a new dynamic that would serve as a catalyst for the peace process, culminating in the creation of an independent Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital."
Pakistan: "It was high time for the Security Council to assume its responsibility and adopt a resolution that would set a clear timeline for creation of an independent Palestinian State and an end to the occupation."
[source] So... Does the Palestinian State exists, or it doesn't yet exist? Every one call for the establishement of a Palestinian State, so we can't only say that the "State of Palestine is a "state", we have to mention the fact the State of Palestine is either a "de-jure" state or a "proto-state" (or both). I searched for sources saying Palestine is a "de-jure state" and found these:
Yes: it changes nothing. Palestine is not universally recognized and does not have established borders. Israel is not universally recognized and does not have established borders. Both are recognized by a large majority of the world, and we describe both as "states" as per the RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign and Bolter21, your behavior above is as ridiculous as it is dishonest. You know very well that there was an RfC for two months and that this is about WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:TRUTH, so your arguments above are downright dishonest. If you could try to leave your strong n nationalist WP:POV behind for once, it would make for a big change. Jeppiz (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, in addition to the over 40 sources I have gave. I still don't understand how can an encyclopedia can use a democratic vote over reliable sources? You are trying to dictate a false consensus by saying that the users agreed on it and no you refuse to discuss about it becuase it is a consensus. There is a discussion about what should be the name in the lead, and reliable sources were brought, if you have a consensus, defend it with reliable sources. You only say that there is a consensus (Which about describing Palestine as a "partially recognized"). So for you it might be the words of god, but for us it is a consensus, and when a consensus is not backed with a signle source while being refuted by over 40, I don't think it is a consensus Wikipedia should go by, this is why we are having this discussion. You can always WP:TALKEDABOUTIT.--Bolter21(talk to me) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying very hard not to accuse you (or others) of being dishonest, I expect you to WP:AGF as well. 5 different editors in the original RfC expressed the notion that recognition is not the main issue with SoP, yet it was pointed by 2 editors (and implied by you in wording of the RfC) that it deals exclusively with the issue of partial recognition. I waited for the original RfC to close before opening this one. WP:Local consensus cannot override wikipedia principes, that is WP:RS. Bolter21 found an impressive list of sources supporting describing SoP as de-jure/proto state, one can't simply say "we have consensus to ignore all the sources and write whatever we want instead". “WarKosign
WarKosign, I said that the argument (not you) is dishonest, by which I stand. You invoke WP:THETRUTH even though knowing fully well that that is not the issue. So yes, the argument you made above is, I believe, dishonest and constructive to the discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The muddled hodgepodge of 40 sources Bolter has given don't underscore the inference he makes from them, that Palestine is not yet a state. It is a state for 136 countries which have duly recognized its statehood, first pronounced in 1988 and endorsed soon after by 100 countries (Jerome M Segal The State of Palestine: The Question of Existence,in Tomis Kapitan (ed.) [Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,] M.E. Sharpe 1997 p.221). Most recently the Vatican itself recognized that statehood with the appropriate legal instruments of recognition. What Bolter does not understand is that the UN Charter does not require members states to recognize each other, and statehood does not require an endorsement from the US, Europe, or Israel. That Palestine can be described as a 'proto-state' doesn't elided automatically its actual statehood: the EU recognized 2 proto-states in 1992, Slovenia and Croatia, though technically they had no where the juridical history of partial international recognition for decades that Palestine has, and Croatia had no control over all its proclaimed state territories. That unanimity of recognition does not pertain to either Israel or Palestine does not mean neither exist as states. Both do. The second point is that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, requiring editors to exercise neutrality, and not press for a partisan, esp. nationalist view. Israel has a vested interest in denying Palestinian statehood, its Prime Minister has publicly declared that. Editors from that area should take more care to exercise restraint in not repeating this under the alias of objectivism.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
What you are doing is WP:SYNTH, becuase you assume that because a state (like Kosavo) doesn't need recognition in order to be a state and that because 136 countries recognzie Palestine, it is "state" like every other "State". The reality is, by the sources I gave, that the recognition is symbolic and many country leaders, including those who recognize Palestinian statehood, have made statements calling for an establishment of a Palestinian state, including Palestinians, who openly express their ambition to create their state. Not only I brought sources that imply the state doesn't exist yet and that the recognition is symbolic, I also brough sources who literally say that the state is a "de-jure state" and some that say that it is a "proto-state". You have brought exactly 0 sources who say or imply that "Palestine is a de-facto sovereign state". This is exactly the same thing that happened last October, when users claimed that the Palestinian Authority ceased to exist and was replaced by the State of Palestine. They screamed "consensus!" "They changed the name!" but they didn't bring a single source outside to range of SYNTH and this is exactly the situation here. Angry users scream "consensus!" "recognition" "y'country also not recognized by everone!!!111" but you bring no source to support a claim that says that the "State of Palestine is a de-facto sovereign state". Kosovo is called a partially recognized state, but it has the recognition of the majority of the world + actual sovereignty. How come, Kosovo is a partially recognized state while the State of Palestine, a state with no direct sovereignty on a centimeter they claim is s "state" just like every other country? This is absurd and outragous. I can go and say that most of the world belive in God, as well as many country leaders, so does this mean god exists? The argument that because Palestine has a recognition, it is a state if miserable and not backed with a single non SYNTH source, and even if there were, two or three sources, there are still 40 sources that are enough to not choose one POV.
Those ridiculous arguments are not reflected in the highly biased Arabic Wikipedia which says that "State of Palestine is a term thate desctibes "Palestine" or political non independent entities calling demanding a creation of a state in part of the region of Palestine" or the highly biased Hebrew Wikipedia, which says "The State of Palestine is a state many Palestinians want to establish".
While Wikipedia is surely not a source, but it is intresting to see how both wikipedias treat the subject, and how still, the only source that says that literally "Palestine is a state in the Middle East" is this spesific article.--Bolter21(talk to me) 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
'When you walk into the zoo and see an animal that looks like a horse and has black and white stripes, you do not need a sign to tell you this is a zebra. It is a zebra. When you read this agreement, even if the words a Palestinian state are not mentioned there, you do not need a sign; this is a Palestinian state.' p.761.
All the rest of this newspaper quackery is just partisan newsprint hairsplitting to reinforce one nation's POV. 'Symbolic' is particularly stupid because when a state signs a treaty with another state, and those articles stipulate negotiated rules regarding matters of property, rights, etc., that is not 'symbolic'. The articles have legal force having been agreed to as operative by the contracting parties.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu is a good example for why Palestine is a state.
And will all the respect for John Quigley, I don't think that his single article can overturn 40 other sources, some of them mainstream media, some of them from books and some of them are statements of country leaders who recognize Palestine. This source, says that the 2012 resolution didn't create a Palstatnian state. other section of the book talks about the existance of the State before the resolution. It states:
"...this chapter shares the view that irrespective of the desirability of the establishment of a Palestinian state, such a State probably did not exist prior to the adoptation adoptation of UNGA Resolution 67/19 because it lacked sufficient independence and consequently effectiveness, and that treating a Palestinian entity as a state for the purpose of international law, be it represented by the PA or the PLO, required engaging in legal fiction, which is undesirable as a matter of legal policy, and not neccesarily conducive to rendering statehood a political reality
Useless. It is written in the past tense, and you have completely misconstrued it.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
So we have 40 + 1 sources against 1 source of yours. Now what?--Bolter21(talk to me) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
John Quigley, unlike the overwhelming majority of your sources (World News, Zee News, USA Today etc.etc. aree all meme recyclers and worth nothing as evidence), is a leading international expert in the specific area. He's not Gospel of course, but none of your sources face the evidence he produces for the existence since Mandatory times of a state of Palestine, of which Palestine is a successor state. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
On Easter Monday, the people of Ireland celebrated the centenary of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic during the Easter Rising. The rising was a military failure. In 1919, the representatives of the people, meeting as Irish: Dáil Éireann (legislature) approved the proclamation and authorised a military campaign to give de facto effect to a de jure reality. That war was ultimately successful in gaining independence. The succeeding assemblies are numbered from that first Dáil; today, the 32nd Dáil sits. The numbering does not start from the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty nor the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. That is to say, the people of the Irish Republic regard their state as having been proclaimed in 1916 and legitimately established in 1919, despite their territory being under foreign occupation at the time and having failed to receive international recognition at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. That its borders were unsettled (and indeed were reduced by the extent of Northern Ireland) was, and is, immaterial to its statehood. It was then, and still is, a state; the parallels with Palestine are clear for all those whose eyes, and hearts, are open. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE IS DISPUTED, BUT WE CAN'T CALL IT A "STATE" WHILE IGNORING THE FACT SOURCES IMPLY IT HAS NO SOVEREIGNY - IMPLYING IT'S A DE-JURE STATE - BACKED WITH RELIABLE SOURCES - made it bold so we could go back to the original point of the conversation.--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Stop shouting. It looks hysterical. I'm afraid this has nothing to do with refuting Quigley, since the sources you cite were all written before his paper, but, more importantly, all were written before the 2012 UN declaration accepting Palestine as a "non-member observer state."Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sovereignty comes from the people, not as a gift from other peoples. Neither does it require the acknowledgement of other peoples. Ireland was sovereign while lacking territorial integrity, border certainty, international recognition and financial wherewithall. The votes of the Irish people, a expressed in Dáil Éireann, made it sovereign. The same is true for Palestine and the Palestinian people. Wishing that it was not so does not extinguish their voices. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are sources above, implying Palestine is not sovereign. I think you should stop trying to show Ireland as a parallel example. The Palestinian people by the way, did not vote for the last 10 years.--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Btw, the legal status is not disputed. The argument here is consistent "Yeah, but it's not a de-facto state". That's not a dispute of the *legal* status. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"The Palestinian people by the way, did not vote for the last 10 years." What does that has to do with anything? The Cuban people have not had a democratic vote for over 50 years, but Cuba is still a state. Just more evidence Bolter21 is just flooding the discussion with "stuff", much like the pointless list of "sources", hoping some of it sticks. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I am really starting to feel unconfortable when you are around but simply ignoring you will be wrong. I told this to "Laurel Lodged" in response to his spesific comment. Can you leave me alone please? You"ve already ruined one day of my life with your wierd accusations against me in that ANI so you can skip the accusation and move talk about the discussion it self?--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure that countless sources could be adduced from the 1919 - 1921 period to show that Ireland was not sovereign. They were mainly written by English sources. Those views were reinforced by the presence of English troops in Ireland, in case anybody missed the point. It was only when Ireland became ungovernable and the will of the people could no longer be ignored, that de facto freedom was wrested from the Crown. Throughout this period, the Irish people acknowledged the Republic, asserted their statehood and did not rely on the oppresor to "grant" them their sovereignty; the eventual treaty was signed by equal partners. Does any of this sound familliar in the Palestinian context? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Listen, I really don't think that Ireland is relevent here. What I know that, I presented some 30 sources from mainstream media and statements by country leaders, later I presented sources from 10-15 sources from scholers who understand the conflict and international law. One of the scholers spesifically oppsed the minority-opinion of Quigly, who said Palestine is a state since the 20s while another three sources talked about that same agenda without spesifically talking about Quigly. By that, and by WP:WEIGHT, Palestine is not a state, and the minimum number of reliable sources here is around ten, if you don't want to consider mainstream media and statement by leaders. There are several sources saying Palestine is a de-jure state as well. Quigly is not a god and his opinion cannot overturn the opinion of dozens of others, but it seems that if I"ll bring 100 more sourecs, that are not SYNTH in any way, i.e. talking about the status of Palestine, there will still be opposition.--Bolter21(talk to me) 16:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
And all these sources argue that de-facto it doesn't have control so de-facto it isn't a state. But LEGALLY, what is a state or not is not decided by these sources. What is a state or not LEGALLY is decided by other states and the UN, and they have decided that it is a state. So de-jure, it is a state. And you STILL pretend to not grasp that difference, and I know you actually do grasp that difference. And we will continue to repeat this until you stop pretending. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
With Bolter21, we have a bad case of [I'm not listening]. If Bolter21 was writing the Ireland article for Wiki in 1921, he would be denying the existence of the Irish Republic because of the volume of credible references from reputable (English) sources that were saying so. Yet here we are in our happy republic, celebrating the centenary of its proclamation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You wrote "In 1919, the representatives of the people, meeting as Irish: Dáil Éireann (legislature) approved the proclamation and authorised a military campaign to give de facto effect to a de jure reality." It shows that you understand that proclamation without effective control creates a de-jure state that lacks de-facto existence. Yet, being one of those "whose eyes, and hearts, are open" you are emotionally involved and are ready to misrepresent the reality in the article to help the underdog that you clearly sympathize with. Note that there is a big difference between thinking that SoP *should* become a de-facto state (I think so too) and writing that it already is (any reasonable editor, including you, agrees that it's not). “WarKosign” 14:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
But we aren't writing that Palestine is already a de facto state. If some fool changes the lead from "is a state in the Middle East" to something like "is a completely independent state in the Middle East, with effective control over well-defined borders", it will be reverted immediately. The risk of someone transforming the word "state" in their mind to mean something like "a completely independent state, with effective control over well-defined borders" is insignificant given that the word "state" is followed a couple of sentences later by a sentence that explains the current status, that the lands claimed by the state "have been occupied by Israel since 1967". A reader would surely need to be extraordinarily and unrealistically foolish to not understand that a state whose claimed lands are under occupation by a foreign power is not the same as a state that has achieved independence, whose lands are not under occupation. People are not that dumb. Perhaps there is merit to the lead saying something about de facto vs de-jure, I don't know, but if so I think it would be better to do that in context. If it is not a de facto state why is it not a de facto state, why is it not independent, why does it not have full control of the lands upon which it's sovereignty has been recognized by other states? That's related to the occupation, so the best place to talk about that is where the lead talks about the occupation. At least that's my view for what it's worth. But again, this opens a can of worms that is perhaps better opened elsewhere where the result might have the cost/angst saving benefits of cross article standardization. Look at the effect all this had on Bolter21. It's not right. This is just one of many articles that talk about the State of Palestine and have to contain a policy compliant sound bite that captures/summarizes the status. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
My opening contribution to this debate was, "I agree with @OpenFuture: - just saying "state" just avoids the problem". That does not mean that I don't recognise differences in types of states, rather I say that it's best to draw a veil over them. In the opening words at least. Let them be fully teased out in context in the main body by all means. But as an opening shot, keep it direct and simple. By the way, the first acts of the early Irish republican leaders was to set up parallel power structures: legislature, executive, judiciary. Eventually, everybody brought their cases before republican courts. The British Army stood guard over English judges presiding in classical pomp over empty courts. That is, they acted at all times in the conviction that the republic, as declared, was a reality. It took a few years for the reality on the ground to reflect the reality in their minds. But the people today recognise those proto courts as legitimate having been legitimised by the people in their votes. It would be distasteful and disrespectful now not to accord the term "state" to the Republic of that period. In time, that too will be true of Palestine. While not engaging in crystal ball gazing, it is neither disrespectful nor dishonest to describe the SoP as a state in the opening words. It harms nobody. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
You expect an average layperson to know that "state" might mean something different from "de-facto independent state fully in control like most of the states in the world", and I think you are very wrong. People aren't dumb, but they aren't very knowledgeable either - the average reader knows a lot less about the subject than an average editor, otherwise why would they be reading this article ? Your view on the occupation might be correct, but you are forgetting the underlying reason - Israel can't stop controlling (a.k.a occupying) the territories as long as the Palestinian leaders continue openly calling to end Israel's existence and throw all the Jews into the sea. “WarKosign” 16:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The view of both of you on the occupation is irrelevnt. Please try to avoid WP:EXHAUST.--Bolter21(talk to me) 16:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And your view is ALSO irrelevant, and YOU are the one who keeps repeating the same thing without listening to arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't listen to me, listen to reliable sources.--Bolter21(talk to me) 17:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign, apologies for a lack of clarity, I have no expectations with respect to a reader's level of knowledge. Nothing I wrote was based on an attempt to estimate the knowledge of people because it isn't possible for me to do that. It was based on the premise that they can read the lead and understand that a) Palestine is a state (there is a link there and there is never going to be a consensus based on the premise that the word "state" does not apply to Palestine) b) it was declared in 1988 c) it claims some land and d) those lands are currently occupied by Israel. Regarding "why would they be reading this article", I have no idea and no data about that, so I don't think about it. I'm definitely not going to comment on what leaders can or should do or the the underlying reason for the occupation. I don't care about that for the purposes of Wikipedia editing. I didn't intend to express an opinion on the occupation by connecting the de facto vs de jure issue to it (although of course I have one). I just wrote based on the assumption that the cause->effect relationship was a given. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Don't listen to me, listen to reliable sources." - That's what we are doing Bolter. And we are asking you to do that as well. And the AUTHORITATIVE sources say that Palestine is a state. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
<- Bolter21, regarding the comment up at the top - I also searched for sources, that just describe the State of Palestine, as well as the word "Palestine is a state", "Palestine is a de-facto State" but all I found was this Wikipedia article. - did you look for reliable sources that use "occupied State of Palestine". Representatives of the state refer it as the "Occupied State of Palestine" nowadays (so perhaps that needs to be an alternative name) and there are third parties that refer to an "occupied State of Palestine". So that is an optional qualifier that also needs to be considered. But I think it is important to accept that it is impossible for a policy based consensus to form that results in a UN non-member state not being referred to as a state. That just isn't going to happen so things need to move past that if they haven't already. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I have brought sources saying the recognition is symbolic and de-jure state simply explains that. This is why I support de-jure state over "partially recognzied" or "proto-state". How about "Palestine is a de-jure state in the Middle East. Most of it's claimed territory are occupied by Israel... Palestine is a UN non-member state since 2012"?--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Bolter21, you have made your point. Around 20 times already. It's not that we have not read it or not understood it, it's just we don't share it, and several users have explained why. Might be time to accept that and stop this pointless repetition. Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there an un-SYNTH sourced alternative?--Bolter21(talk to me) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a solid consensus for "Palestine is a state in the Middle East". Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
A consensus is not a valid source. WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. It also says "Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
I'm not against it, but I don't see the point. We had a first RfC, it went against you so you refused to accept it. Now we have a second RfC, it's also going against you, so you refuse to accept that as well. Dispute resolution is usually for thorny issues, not for a situation where one or two users just insist on making a dispute over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that a consensus is not based on reliable sources in such a disputed topic and clearly pushes a certain POV is very problematic. I have presented sources, you presented a consensus based on no sources. I am not trying to prove my cocksureness that I am right, but I think that we should construct two large arugments (which I have already done) and let people with less connection to the topic but understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and they will determine if the consensus is stronger than the sources.--Bolter21(talk to me) 21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
As I already said, you're perfectly free to take it to WP:ARB/R if you want. BTW, I have no connection to the topic, being neither Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish or Muslim. I've made a small stand for neutral language regarding both Israel and Palestine. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Politeness demands that all now leave the stage. Enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2016 (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.
Raising the flag at the UN
While I think this is a good idea for a section, the inclusion of a series of quotes from Ron Prosor seems a little non-NPOV. I'm not a regular wikipedian, but someone should take a look at that and consider cutting it down a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, those are his own words.. The article doesn't suggest them as facts.--Bolter21(talk to me) 14:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to have Prosor occupy almost the whole section. Delete at least half of it. Zerotalk 12:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's just repetitive hot air. There are probably hundreds of statements from several dozens notable figures about this minor event. I've cut out the hot air, and left in the gist of his beef, that Palestinians are arseholes.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
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:
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".