Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 13 April 2016

Template:Vital article

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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Palestine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Palestine at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Unrecognized countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Unrecognized countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesTemplate:WikiProject Unrecognized countriesUnrecognized countries Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Haviv Rettig Gur (16 May 2010). "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Misplaced Pages". The Jerusalem Post.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 15, 2015.

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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Opening sentence bias

I changed the opening sentence from "Palestine is a partially recognized state in the Middle East" to "Palestine is a state in the Middle East". It is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the opening sentence to reference recognition. 22 UN member states do not recognise the People's Republic of China - the opening sentence for that article says "China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a sovereign state in East Asia". China's lack of universal international recognition is not mentioned in the first 500 words.

Those seeking to add the lack of universal recognition in the opening sentence cannot hide their agenda. They seek to de-legitimise the Palestinian state. Palestine is recognised by 70.5% of all UN members including major world and regional powers such as Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa and China. A number of European countries, such as Malta, Serbia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Iceland and Sweden. It is an astounding example of WP:GEOBIAS to suggest because the USA does not accord Palestine diplomatic recognition that that is the most important thing to know about the state. Israel is unrecognised by 32 countries. Why is that not stated in the opening sentence? Cyprus? Armenia? South Korea? AusLondonder (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestine is not a regular state (yet). Unlike any other country in your list it is not fully established, has no defined borders, has no effective control over its territory. Many sources describe it as proto-state or a state-to-be. Not mentioning it in the lead would be extremely misleading. Please see the previous discussion before continuing. “WarKosign” 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:AusLondonder that the partial recognition is not the point, but noticed that the opening dentence is misleading in another way. When I read it I understand that Palestine is a fully functional (or disfunctional) independant state, but in fact it is crystal clear that in several key aspects it is a state de jure but not de facto. Nobody reading the opening line can know that. DGtal (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:WarKosign - "many sources describe it as a proto-state or state-to-be" - I strongly dispute this. The vast majority of the world recognise it as a sovereign state. Why should the US position dominate the opening sentence. Mention lack of universal recognition. But the opening sentence is not the place. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Even Abbas doesn't claim that State of Palestine is fully established. See Here: "The Palestinian Authority exists and it is here," "It will be followed by a Palestinian state.". No doubt that there is overwhelming support for SoP to be established, but can you show any source claiming that it's already a fully formed state ? “WarKosign” 09:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the lead at Israel

To find an WP:NPOV solution for the lead, I've launched an RfC about "partially recognized state" here. Jeppiz (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The State of Palestine isn't a member of UN which is the important thing. Yes, some Arab and communist dictatorships don't recognise Israel but it is still a full member of the UN which makes it recognised while Palestine lacks that quality. Jewnited (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Map in infobox - caption mismatch

The caption for the infobox map refers to green and light green: the map only shows green. Could either the caption or the map please be changed? PamD 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, if I click on the image and zoom I can see a very small pale green area. But the scale of the image doesn't seem appropriate for the point being made. PamD 12:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look very closely (or zoom in), there are a few light green pixels around Jerusalem (the ident in the middle). East Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel, but it is also claimed by State of Palestine, hence the caption. “WarKosign” 12:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Description of State of Palestine in the lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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:

• is not a Sovereign state
• has no defined borders
• has no control over most of the territory it claims
• is a de-jure state
• is a proto-state
• something else ?

“WarKosign” 11:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, No More Mr Nice Guy, BushelCandle, Malik Shabazz, Cliftonian, AusLondonder, and Zero0000: @Nishidani, Oncenawhile, Bolter21, Dailycare, DGtal, Benjil, and Pluto2012: @Kendrick7, Tradedia, and Sepsis II: Pinging all the users who participated in the original RfC, if I missed someone please add them.

Poll

• 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)
• is a state in the Middle East Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:48, 13 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)

Discussion

@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)

@WarKosign:, thats WP:THETRUTH, but authoritative sources, ie UN and other states, say otherwise. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 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 [REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

Are these terms in reliable sources? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the terms in the lead secions of Sovereign State and Sovereignty articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:39, 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)

Why didn't you ask me? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:46, 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)

Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:31, 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 Misplaced Pages should

- use an approach that is not inconsistent with 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations

- 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.

- not inconsistent with things like International Criminal Court welcomes Palestine as State Party to the Rome Statute and the ICC's jurisdiction of over alleged crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.

- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Occupied Palestinian Territoriy - Main page
• CBS News - "Is Palestine now a state?" - 30 November 2012
• 972+ Magazine - It's time to recognize the State of Palestine, Mr. President - 17 September 2015
• The World Post - Is Palestine a State That We Can Recognize? - 18 January 2015
• The Times of Israel - So what if Paris recognizes a Palestinian state? - 31 January 2016
• The Guardian - What would Palestinian statehood mean? - 21 September 2011
• The Economist - How Palestine might become a state - 13 October 2014
• CNN - What does Palestinian statehood bid mean? - http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/20/world/meast/palestinian-statehood-bid-explainer/ - 26 September 2011

Again, this argument of "136 state recognize Palestine" doesn't mean the Palestine is a state. Here is the Palestinian President saying He went on to say that Palestinians seek a sovereign state with East al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital.

Here is another source saying "The Palestinians have long sought to establish an independent, sovereign state in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip - occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War." later in the article it says "Getting recognition of Palestinian statehood on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines has largely symbolic value". Of course Mahmoud Abbas knows that the State of Palestine doesn't exist, like he hints here when he says "the PA will only be replaced by a Palestinian state".

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I agree with @OpenFuture: - just saying "state" just avoids the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment Bolter21, 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)

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 98.240.228.152 (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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Top-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (November 2015)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment