Talk:State of Palestine/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Golan Heights

An editor has edited to imply that the Golan is a part of Israel, Diff. When I removed this obviously incorrect information, another editor reinserted it. Obviously, the Golan is not a part of Israel. If someone would be so kind as to sort that out.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: To say that "obviously, the Golan is not a part of Israel" is definitely, an incorrect statement and I advise you to try your best not to let your own personal bias affect your editing. While the Status of the Golan Heights remains unclear, and while many countries recognize it as an Israeli occupied part of Syria, many other countries recognize Israel’s sovereignty of it and currently it is effectively a part of Israel. The article states “Since the British Mandate, the term "Palestine" has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel (with the exception of the Golan Heights).” This sentence isn’t in reference to or debating Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights but is instead clarifing the definition of “Palestine”. Thus for the sake of clarity, it makes the most sense to include “with the exception of the Golan Heights” in this article as Israel has control over the region and several countries recognize the Golan as part of Israel so it’s relevant to clarifying the geographical area of Palestine. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Inserting false information into the encyclopedia is not a good idea.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You saying "inserting false information into the encyclopedia is not a good idea" is not constructive of helpful. Please try to understand the reasons for the edits on this page even if they may come into conflict with your own personal, instead of simply rejecting them. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ibn Daud: Your statement "many other countries recognize Israel’s sovereignty of it" is simply not true. This is an issue of fact that is easy to check. It is not a great idea to accuse other editors of personal bias on the basis of your own misconceptions. I reworded the sentence to just say that the Golan Heights is not included in "Palestine" since that is all that is relevant to this article. Zero^talk 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Were the Golan hights ever part of Palestine?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The post 67 position is that the occupied Palestinian territories are currently claimed by the State of Palestine with that part which is annexed disputed. The Golan is not part of those territories (pre-Mandate it was mainly handed over to the French).Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Before WW1 there was no formal definition of "Palestine"; some included the Golan and some didn't. In 1920 the draft boundary between British Palestine and French Syria-Lebanon gave Palestine a sliver (about 1/10) of the Golan but that was ceded to the French when the boundary was demarcated in 1922–3. Mandatory Palestine as such never included any of the Golan and that is the main reason why almost nobody considers it part of Palestine now. Zero^talk 12:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

So we do not say it is anything, as it has sod all to do with this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That should suffice, but the problem is that some people like Ibn Daud think "Israel" includes "Golan Heights". Zero^talk 14:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This only became worth discussing at all because of the Trump administration recognition of sovereignty. But the US is also signed up to UNSC resolutions stipulating that it is occupied territory, so which has priority? The fact is that there is a 15-0 UNSC resolution signed off stipulating that the Golan is occupied (497) that is subject of an annually renewed GA resolution and that really ought to be the end of it. If it is to be mentioned anywhere it should be mentioned in the appropriate article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Even one accepts that de-jure Golan not part of Israel, de-facto it is and there are countless sources to support it. It's better to explicity define the area being discussed to avoid confusion. “WarKosign” 14:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

But this article is not about Israel, its about the state of Palestine. So unless Palestine claims it its not relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"The term 'Palestine' has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the exception of the Golan Heights". Omitting the last part one could mistakenly understand that 'Palestine' includes Golan Heights. I agree that current phrasing is awkward. How about "The term 'Palestine' has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel (without Golan Heights), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." “WarKosign” 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@WarKosign: That seems reasonable. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, because that still implies that the Golan is in Israel. Despite the beliefs of two Wikipedia editors, the Golan is neither de jure or de facto in Israel. It is Syrian territory held by Israel under belligerent occupation. That is sourcable to a thousand reliable sources. Ive made a slight tweak to the phrasing and think that should settle this here. nableezy - 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: "Belligerent occupation" I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. However your latest it acceptable.Ibn Daud (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Belligerent occupation is indeed neutral. nableezy - 19:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: If you truly believe that to be the case, I suggest you do research into what the standards of encyclopedic neutrality really are, as it seems you may be a bit confused. Ibn Daud (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Very much no. Try to read Golan Heights. It lays it out pretty well. Or look at Israel. See the map? You arent going to be able to make some valiant stand for Israeli sovereignty over the Golan here. Just will not happen. nableezy - 22:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your tweak to the article seems fine to me.

De-facto Golan is in Israel. If you wanted to visit the Golan Heights, what would you do? Unless you plan to attempt crossing the border from Syria and risk getting shot in process, you will get plane tickets to Israel. The reason is simple: Golan is de-facto in Israel. There are countless sources that attest to this simple and obvious fact. Accepting the reality does change the legal fiction. “WarKosign” 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

De facto the Golan is Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with that fact that is indeed attested to by countless sources. I have no intention on arguing with some random person on the internet about this, especially if all they intend to do is wave at sources that may or may not exist. Here however is a reliable source that lays out why your misimpression on the status of the Golan is in fact incorrect. Using Latin words like de facto does not change any of the pertinent issues here, namely that the Golan is not, de facto or otherwise, in Israel, but that it is in Syria and held under Israeli occupation. Yes, that means Israel controls it, like every other military occupation on the planet. That is kinda what military occupation means. nableezy - 19:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Golan is within borders of Israel; any source that does not deal with legal fiction describes it as part of Israel. Your opinion does not change the facts, so feel free to believe whatever you want. “WarKosign” 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an extreme minority viewpoint, and as such it has no bearing on our articles, this or Golan Heights. You can keep pretending like you get to decide these things, but I have the sources here, you have some bluster and not much else. Which is why Golan Heights does not say anything as silly as Golan is within borders of Israel. Take care, nableezy - 22:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The US State Departments 2020 HR report has walked back the Trump nonsense and once again describes the Golan as occupied (as well as the territory claimed by SoP). That being the case, there is really nothing more to be said about this.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: "The Trump nonsense", must I remind you too of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Let's all try to separate our political beliefs from our edits.Ibn Daud (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you must not remind me. And you don't need to ping me either.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means proportionately representing reliable sources. They are emphatically clear on this point, the Golan is in Syria and is occupied by Israel. nableezy - 22:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This matter is much too geopolitically complex for you to say that so authoritatively. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It very much is not. It is a near unanimous view that the Golan is in Syria. There is a fringe sized minority that says otherwise. That this minority appears well-represented on this talk page is one of the many curiosities of the internet, but it isnt going to change much in terms of Wikipedia's currently accurate portrayal of Israel's borders and the Golans status (that being, outside of said borders). nableezy - 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether the Golan Heights are in Syria or Israel is irrelevant for this discussion. The article, before I edited it, said "the term "Palestine" has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the territory controlled by the State of Israel..." de facto, Israel also "covers" the Golan Heights, but they are not part of the region of Palestine, so it has to be mentioned they are an exception. Also, the current wording does not work. "the term "Palestine" has been associated with the geographical area that currently covers the territory controlled by the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the exception of the Golan Heights." the Golan Heights are an exception to what here? I've reworded the text again to "the term "Palestine" has been associated with the geographical area that the State of Israel currently covers or controls, with the exception of the Golan Heights, as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". I believe this version doesn't have any potential problems. Super Ψ Dro 09:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus is correct. Whether the Golan Heights are in Syria or Israel is irrelevant for this discussion. Ibn Daud (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Back to WP basics, I have included a direct quote from the given source, this is what the source actually says, readers will have to make up their own mind what "modern state of Israel" means, if they want to believe that that includes the Golan that's up to them. People might want to add another source specifically stating that the Golan is included in it, the likely result then would be many people bringing sources saying that it isn't. At any rate the Golan has nothing to do with the subject of this article. I am also quite happy to delete the etymology section altogether since it seems not germane.Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It matters if your edit implies that the Golan is in Israel. Which it did. nableezy - 15:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Now editor Ibn Daud has deleted a quote from the source and introduced his own unsourced OR that is not in the source, thereby misrepresenting the source.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel does not include the Golan Heights. This latest edit by Ibn Daud is absurd. Ive reworded it once more to make this clear, includes Israel proper and the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How was my edit absurd? I said, “The geographical area of Palestine has varied since ancient times, covering the modern State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, yet it does not include the Golan Heights”. This doesn’t imply anything about the Golan being part of Israel. It simply recognizes that the Golan isn’t considered part of Palestine. This stands in contrast to your edit “The geographical area of Palestine has varied since ancient times and covers Israel proper, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip” This implies that East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine, which is definitely not a neutral position. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The yet is expressing an extreme fringe viewpoint as nearly no state recognizes the Golan to be in Israel. And yes, East Jerusalem is widely recognized as being in the occupied Palestinian territories, you can see that in the countless UN resolutions that explicitly include EJ in the West Bank. And youve violated the 1 revert rule. nableezy - 23:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ibn Daud: I have commented your previous editing on your talk page and you have paid no attention. Looks like we are in AE territory, 1RR breach, unsourced edits, misrepresenting a source.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Israel proper" is a good wording I couldn't think of. The current version does not work as mentioning the Golan Heights without saying they are occupied by Israel removes the point of mentioning them in the first place. I propose "The geographical area of Palestine has varied since ancient times, and the current view is that it covers Israel proper (and not the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." I don't see a need to mention East Jerusalem but I don't have any problem with it. Also, "The geographical area of Palestine has varied since ancient times, and covers" the wording here is kind of weird in my opinion, I propose adding "and the current view is that" as a "transition" between both parts. Super Ψ Dro 13:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What really needs to happen is that editors stop adding unsourced original research into the article because they think that the Golan Heights have anything to do with the price of bread or this article. I have restored what the source says, adding stuff not in that source is unsourced original research.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested necessary edit

It would truly be more accurate and fairer to add that this point below occurred as a result of Israel being unilaterally and concurrently attacked by numerous country’s armies. As it reads now, it looks like Israel initiated the “capture” of these areas, which is just not true.

“Israel later captured the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria in June 1967 during the Six-Day War.” Richology (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you should read more about Six-Day War. Israel attacked first in what it describes as a pre-emptive strike. It's possible to argue whether the strike was justified or not, there is no point in disputing wildly accepted facts. “WarKosign” 21:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Has anyone else noticed the note icons don't show up with anything when clicked? This is due to the dodgy 'ref label' format; I tried to make the lead consistent with the note labels in preview but even that didn’t work. I suggest switching to the '{{efn|' format or some alternative for all notes. IronManCap (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

In the first paragraph it currently reads:

The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied since 1948, first by Egypt (Gaza Strip) and Jordan (West Bank) and then by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967.[7][22]

It's controversial to say Palestine has been occupied since 1967. To what extent Israel is occupying Palestine is a question under heavy international debate, and the implication that there is an ongoing occupation of all Palestinian territories represents a political standpoint which sees Israel as an occupier instead of a legitimate state. This is a political standpoint, not a fact. Therefore the paragraph should be removed, or updated into a politically neutral wording. 85.76.115.91 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done There are sources included supporting this wording. It is accepted by international organisations like the UN that this is indeed an occupation under international law, and all reliable sources use this wording. Wikipedia bases information off reliable, published sources. IronManCap (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2021 (2)

Source 22 raises questions about bias. The news article cited as a source uses for example quotations for the expression "Jewish state", implicitly questioning the existence of one. It also uses terminology referring to the "Zionist" agenda, which sounds uncomfortably close to thoughts expressed in the charter of Hamas, which among other things claims the first world war to have been started by a Zionist conspiracy. I suggest the removal of this source as a biased news source. 85.76.115.91 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:BIASEDSOURCES suggests such sources are mostly fine; and although Al-Jazeera might be biased in regards to this, it isn't being used to support anything controversial (rather, a mere historical fact) so I see no reason to remove it; unless you want to replace both of the existing ones with WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Hello Wikipedia editors. I would like to edit the national anthem of Palestine in the State of Palestine page since the audio quality is extremely low. I hope you accept my request and hope you have a good day.

. Neon Blueskin (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC).

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 20:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A source seems to be used improperly

In the first sentence of the lead, to support the idea that Palestine is a de jure sovereign state, two sources are cited. One of the two sources, the CBS article does not seem to support that idea, but rather seems to be close to taking the contrary position. In fact, while saying that Palestine was granted Observer State status in the UN, it immediately follows up by saying that UN membership is not that important to sovereignty and that "It's also worth mentioning that U.N. membership does not necessarily mean independent statehood. India was a member of the U.N. in 1945, two years before it became independent from Britain." The article also quotes a US official as saying "This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state." The conclusory paragraph of the CBS article does not seem to come to a definitive answer to the question posed in the title of whether Palestine is a state and basically says that the UN resolution changes nothing. I believe that this citation should be removed from the lead sentence. There is already another source there anyway.JMM12345 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Yes, the source is unclear, I agree and I have removed it. The dejure status derives from recognition by countries, not the UN, the UN upgrade treats Palestine more as if it were a state than previously based on UN resolutions covering the topic. At the same time I have wikilinked to the article Legal status of the State of Palestine which carries more pertinent information and added instead a better ref from that article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian National Authority, not PLO

In the lead, it's said that part of the West Bank is governed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); it is actually formally governed by the "Palestinian National Authority (PNA)" - basically the same people, but the name officially since they gained control of the area is PNA, no longer PLO. Dan Palraz (talk)

The PNA does not govern the State.Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, just as you say it doesn't, I say it does. What are needed here then are sources. The truth is they don't call themselves either PLO or PNA when governing the state, they call themselves "State of Palestine", so, again, do you have sources saying the State is governed by the PLO instead of by the PNA? Otherwise, the article needs changing. Dan Palraz (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It is yourself that needs to provide sources saying that the PNA controls the State of Palestine (an assertion by yourself at this point).Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Source 1: "In a nutshell, the PA has “municipal authority” over the affairs of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while the PLO takes broader decisions regarding Palestinians worldwide and the status of Palestine, but holds no legal authority over internal local governance" (http://passia.org/media/filer_public/8a/e7/8ae7c030-ac1d-4688-b3f4-606fbd50cd41/pa-plo2.pdf)

Source 2: Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Palestinian Authority (PA), formally Palestinian National Authority, self-declared State of Palestine, is the governing body of the Palestinian autonomous regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip established in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority But I wouldn't even need to prove anything as I didn't add any content to the article, it's who inserted a disputed claim in the article saying the State of Palestine is controlled by the PLO who'd need to add a citation to it. The same person runs both the PLO and the PNA and has done so for 15 years, I don't get the point of what one's been trying to do in Wikipedia in creating an opposition between the two bodies which doesn't exist in real life (or in any sources)...Dan Palraz (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Look, in the article body it says (section International recognition) "The PLO's executive committee is empowered by the PNC to perform the functions of government of the State of Palestine." and that statement is cited. Do you have some problem with this citation? If not, then that is sufficient (ie direct, per policy) support for including it in the lead.

As for your sources, source 1 distinguishes between the PLO and the PA, local vs global if you like. It is self evident by Oslo that the PA can only exert authority over areas designated by Oslo, assuming that one still considers these agreements to have any validity at all. Britannica (a tertiary source only, like WP) also says PA "the governing body of the Palestinian autonomous regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" ie the areas B and C per Oslo. I don't understand what Britannica means by self declared, the PA did not exist when the State of Palestine was declared.

Now if you want to make an entirely different point that the long period without elections has caused legal and other confusion as to who exactly is in charge of what and by what authority, you can certainly do so, but you will need a source for that and and a proper edit request to include the material. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

Hello. I would like you to change the audio of the Palestinian National Anthem since the sound is of poor quality. Please accept my request. Thank you. Neon Blueskin (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous

this is outrageous. To publish false information about Palestine. Palestine has been there thousands of years and not established in 1948. The editor locked the edit feature. This sends out wrong information about Palestine as a country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.125.242.67 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The landmass existed for billions of years and since humans evolved was known under several names - Canaan, Israel, Palestine, Holy land. State of Palestine was declared in 1988 and received observer status in 2012. We're yet to see when it will negotiate full control over any of the territory that it claims. Which of these fact do you find so outrageous and what do you want fixed in the article? “WarKosign” 04:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

ROFL. Oh dear, temper tantrum? 'Palestine' has never existed as a country. As to the nonsense of 'declared in 1988 and received observer status in 2012', that makes it no more a fact that saying the same thing about the man in the moonor Narnia.

Read wp:soap and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

DirectX8 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)I'd like to change the quality of the anthem.

Wouldn't we all, happy to do it if we can find a suitable source.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Palestine is an invention— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.46.96 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You really need to read what edit requests are for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is it "dejure sovereign state" in the first sentence of this article and not "country", like it is for Taiwan?

Taiwan is recognized by 14 countries. Palestine by 130+. Why is it not labeled as a country here in the first sentence like every other country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.185.160 (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan exercises complete control over its territory. The entirety of the territory of Palestine is held under foreign occupation. nableezy - 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

History section has too many citation needed tags

The history section has too many citation needed tags in it. If the claims in that section are unreferenced they shouldn’t be on Wikipedia in general. I don’t wanna remove them to be honest. But, if they remain uncited any longer they are gonna eventually get removed.CycoMa (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased Lead

The lead seems extremely biased and is worded in a way that erodes the actual history of the occupation of Palestine. I believe this is done to confuse the readers intentionally so as not portray the current reality that Israel has been the sole occupier in the negative sense from the date of the claim in the article. Below are clarity points:

1. The entirety of territory claimed by Palestine was never occupied by Jordan nor Egypt. the parenthesis after these 2 nations such as “(gaza strip)” and “(west bank)” do no justice and is part of the problem of the biased lead. It also goes to prove that there is conflicting claims in the lead; if Jordan only occupied the west bank, then it never occupied the entirety of the territory claimed by Palestine; and if Egypt only occupied the Gaza strip, then it too never occupied the entirety of the territory. They both only occupied portions. Israel on the other hand has occupied entirety of the territory of Palestine, currently so as well.

solution to this point: would be to remove Egypt and Jordan from this section. They never occupied the entirety of the territory, neither was it really an occupation in the same sense as Israel; rather it was a military presence in assistance to the Palestinians which the Palestinians supported.

2. The lead, in regards to the occupation, also mentions “… and then by Israel after the six-day war in 1967”. The tone here does not do any justice to the reality of the situation; the reality is that Israel is the occupier in a current sense, not the occupier of the past as the quote makes it out to be. It currently occupies Palestine as well known.

solution to this point: turn the tone of the quote into a present-seeming one. An example would be “The territory claimed by the State of Palestine is currently under occupation by Israel since the six-day war that took place in 1967.”

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is actually biased but I agree that sentence is a bit confusing and since there is no real need to cover partial pre 67 occupations,  Done Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with you choosing which parts of history should be represanted. The responsibility of editing this article is very heavy as Wikipedia is today's main source of information for many peoples. Slight change of sentence could lead to bias and mistakes that are hard to fix. By choosing to remove this, you remove history.

For the second part, how can there be a country which is occupied? You must decide if there is occupation or a State, only one of them can exist at the same time.

Duke of Somewhere (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A country certainly can be occupied, see France during World War II for example. It is not the case with SoP, however: the state was declared long after alleged occupation began, so SoP can't possibly be occupie. At most one can say that the land claimed by the state is occupied, and this is exactly what this article says. “WarKosign” 08:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

But the land was not assigned to Israel, and was taken in war. So how do we describe the situation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's OK because here we talk about the SoP which is a de jure entity with a claim on territory and this claim is based on so called 67 borders so that's why we don't need to address pre 67 matters which anyway have their own articles. The claimed territory is also the same territory defined by the UNSC and the ICJ and the ICC as the Opt. No need to make a meal out of technicalities.Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Limited recognition

After an editor removed Israel from the category Category:States with limited recognition claiming "that's not necessary. Although it has outsanding diplomatic disputes, Israel is a UN member state recognized by nearly all other members with few exceptions, similar to Armenia, PR China, Cyprus or South Korea. This is overkill and not WP:DEFINING." I then removed Palestine from the category on the same basis (not WP:DEFINING) but was reverted with "SoP has limited recognition, see International recognition of the State of Palestine. It is introduced in this article as a de jure sovereign state"

Both Israel and Palestine are in List of states with limited recognition and yet an editor wishes to include Palestine but not Israel in the associated Category:States with limited recognition.

If instead we turn to the List of sovereign states (of which List of states with limited recognition is a subset), then we see that both Israel and Palestine are included in the UN system part of that list and not in the Other states (ie not in the UN system) section.

Question, should Palestine be in the Category:States with limited recognition if Israel is not? Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Very different cases, so different categories. SoP has limited recognition, it is one of its definiting traits, together with being a de-jure and not a de-facto state. Israel has a nearly universal recognition, so it does not belong in that category. Perhaps a new category can be added, something like "states with nearly universal recognition", for cases like Israel, South Korea, Cyprus, Armenia, etc. “WarKosign” 05:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We can just rename the existing one in that case so as to reflect the List of sovereign states, all such states are included there already, no need to use a subset with artificial inclusion criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can pretend that SoP is no different from any "real" state, or we can tell the readers the truth. “WarKosign” 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to debate that with the editors at List of sovereign states. Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Debate what? “WarKosign” 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion that those editors are not telling the truth. Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And what makes you say that I made such an assertion? “WarKosign” 14:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I said "We can just rename the existing one in that case so as to reflect the List of sovereign states,..." and you replied "Yes, we can pretend that SoP is no different from any "real" state, or we can tell the readers the truth". Seems pretty clear to me.Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

List of sovereign states says that both Israel and SoP are "Partially unrecognised", and this is a fact that nobody (I hope) can deny. The truth is that Israel is an actual state with nearly universal recognition, while SoP is a de-jure entity without effective control of its claimed territory that is not recognized as a state by many key UN members. List of sovereign states says that much in its "Further information" column. As I said, we could put them in the same category, but that would be dishonest and misleading. “WarKosign” 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverts

This edit on 22 May I reverted with reason "Not in article body and not a common name" either of which is sufficient reason to revert.

The edit was restored the next day without entering into any discussion on talk and with edit summary "restoring restoring well-sourced designation of current political status", failing to address either reason given for the initial revert. Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The quasi-state it is referring to is the PNA anyway, not the state of Palestine. nableezy - 21:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could shed a bit more light about the difference. As far as I know, the "State of Palestine" is a title used by the Palestinian Authority on official documents and in international organizations, i.e. they are the same entity. Tombah (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume you have taken that from the PNA article? (IP area rule of editing, take nothing for granted). OK, first principles again. Palestine (the State) is a legal entity, it exists and has legal relationships with others. A topical example, it is a State party to the Rome Statute and the jurisdiction that the ICC can exercise is the territory known as the oPt (ie the occupied territories), those being the territories claimed by SoP. The PNA is not a State party to the Rome statute and the territory over which it has any control is the A, B Oslo nonsense. Now there is a great deal more complexity here but even this small explanation should suffice to clarify that the two entities are not the "same". Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 by the PLO, predating the PNA which is a result of negotiations between the PLO and Israel. The PNA has more recently started to fuse its function with the state, and has started to use that title, but the state itself is not a creation of Oslo and its existence as a state is due to its being recognized by other states. nableezy - 00:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

The largest city is Jerusalem not gaza 120.21.169.185 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

SoP claims East Jerusalem. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think East Jerusalem's population might just scrape ahead of Gaza's in theory - the bigger question being whether that population counts in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

De jure

I removed this language from the lead, @Daveout: reverted with an invalid reason "Palestine is not de facto sovereign and this is important to stress since they're actively fighting for that" that also did not address the given reasons for removal, so I removed it again. Happy to discuss it more fully here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but removing the 'de jure' before 'sovereign' is 100% bullshit. Everybody knows that Palestine is not really sovereign because of the occupation. That is one of their own main complaints. (and 'de jure' in this case obviously means *only* de jure, as not de facto). –Daveout(talk) 10:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I already started a discussion above so I will merge it here to avoid confusion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"100% bullshit"? Please explain which WP policy this refers to.

Everybody knows that Palestine is not really sovereign because of the occupation I don't know that although I agree it is occupied.

'de jure' in this case obviously means *only* de jure, as not de facto Why is that obvious?

I am contesting the inclusion of the material and I provided reasons to which you have not responded with anything other than your opinion. The need is to justify the inclusion of the phrase "de jure" which merely means "legal". Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This entity lacks independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's one view. As far as the 137 UN member states that recognized it are concerned, it is a sovereign state. Although WP is not a source, it is included at List of sovereign states. It is a state party with UNESCO, UNCTAD as well as a state observer at the UN. The International Criminal Court debated ad nauseam the entire issue of whether Palestine was qualified to file with the court ultimately finding in its favor despite many objections from the usual suspects) so that view appears to be in the minority as well as having been overtaken by events at the ICC. All this is straightforwardly found in any number of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

De jure, recognition, it has some. In terms of being a sovereign state, there is no credible claim that Palestine controls its territory or has centralized government. It fails the definition. Philip Leech wrote: "despite winning overwhelming support from members of the UN General Assembly in 2012, the Palestinian national project stalled once again and the new ‘State of Palestine’ that emerged lacked independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty". Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

And what's the issue? The article already makes it clear that its territory is occupied. Jeppiz (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Jeppiz, this edit changed "de jure sovereign state" which was there to begin with to "sovereign state". Palestine does not have actual sovereignty, so saying it in this way is a problem. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It is only you and one source saying it is not a sovereign state, the fact that it is occupied is entirely separate from that. It fails the definition What definition? Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Amici curiae filings made by eight states parties, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Uganda argued that the ICC did not have jurisdiction on the grounds that Palestine is not a state. Along with the US and Israel via proxies. Their objections were overruled in court. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the statement that Palestine is sovereign (without caveat), which is untrue. And the only source that supposedly supports that claim doesn't even say that Palestine is sovereign. It only says that it was promoted from "entity" to "non-member state" at UN. Selfstudier stop bullshiting. –Daveout(talk) 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, particularly WP:AVOIDYOU, and WP:CIVIL. You can make your point without being intentionally insulting. And if you cannot then you may be asked to not make your point at all. nableezy - 22:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a de jure sovereign state, not de facto, and this is backed by numerous reliable sources, in fact you can find four in Legal status of the State of Palestine, which states " there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is de jure sovereign." Plenty more sources can be found on this [1][2][3] and these are just three additional ones I found in a few minutes. Bill Williams 13:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

"It is a de jure sovereign state" just means it is a legal sovereign state and since all sovereign states are legal, it is redundant. The 4 sources you give are hopelessly out of date, 1990, 1997, 2009 and 2011 (an oped) all predate Palestine becoming an observer state at the UN. Of the additional 3, the first is not an RS (it looks like they just copied from WP), the second is again out of date and the third supports what I am saying. Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The phrase in its entirety also appears to be used in the lead at Palestine (region) and Palestine is cited again as an example of a 'de facto sovereign state' at the page Sovereign state under the subsection De facto and de jure state, so, depending on the result of the RFC below, worth coming back to. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

References

RFC about de jure

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. The community agrees that Palestine is a state. There is substantial and well-argued support that says we should add certain qualifiers such as "sovereign" or "de jure" in front of the word "state", but this falls short of an actual consensus to add these words. There is also no consensus to remove the disputed words. So the question is what to do without a consensus.

One policy, WP:CONSENSUS, says (in this paragraph): a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal, and the article currently says it's a sovereign de jure state. Another policy, WP:VERIFIABILITY, says (in this paragraph): The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So by one policy the disputed phrases remain, and by the other policy the disputed words are removed.

I have thought long and hard about this decision and I've formed the view that with this particular decision, verifiability is the controlling policy. By very old, very longstanding rule, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are our three "core content policies" and this is a content decision, so I think the core content policies take precedence. I believe it's right to remove the disputed phrases and I will do that with my next edit.

This is a close and contentious call, whichever way it goes, and of course the disappointed side is welcome to appeal. The right place to appeal or review a RfC close is the Administrator's Noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the first sentence of the lead include the phrase de jure (as in "Palestine... is a de jure sovereign state"). Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

!Vote

• Yes, at a minimum, but political entity is better. Palestine has some recognition by other states, but it is not sovereign by any normal definition: "the new ‘State of Palestine’ that emerged lacked independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty" saying it is a "sovereign state" is not verifiable or neutral. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have marked that cite as failing verification because it does not mention de jure sovereign state anywhere in it afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither - it should just say state. It is not "some recognition", Palestine is in fact widely recognized. It does not exercise sovereignty over its territory, as even Area A remains occupied territory under Israel's military rule. That some of that rule has been outsourced to the PNA (now calling itself the state) hasnt changed that. Avoid this entirely and say Palestine is a state. de jure is redundant, all states are de jure states. This also could have been done without an RFC. nableezy - 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe, but it seems an odd question divorced from the rest of the opening paragraph/lead. It is potentially a useful adjective highlighting a unique situation, but it's not so common and well-known a term to a general reader that it could replace a slightly longer explanation elsewhere in the lead. Thus the inclusion or lack of doesn't seem that important. CMD (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neither as per Nableezy. Looking at other articles, the most common working by far is to say that "X is a state". So drop both de jure and sovereign to say Palestine is a state. Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Prefer partially recognized UN observer state but otherwise yes to dejure. The State of Palestine is verifiably not sovereign, since sovereign means having control of the territory, united political structure, and freedom to make decisions, which is stuff Palestine lacks now. The "Neither" proposal will have the article saying "the State of Palestine is a state" which is bad phrasing, besides also being a contested statement, it is partially recognized and not admitted as a regular state to the UN. Writing "partially recognized UN observer state" in the first sentence accurately summarizes the degree of recognition that Palestine has. PrisonerB (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a contested statement that the State of Palestine is a state, that is simply a made up assertion that has zero sources. Some states not recognizing it as a state does not make it a contested statement that it is a state. Try not to make bald assertions based on nothing but your imagination please. Its status as a full member or observer at the UN has nothing to do with its status of a state either, making that formulation illogical and off-topic. nableezy - 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Who is imagining here? International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Chapter 26: Is Palestine a State?, from chapter summary: "It is a subject of controversy as to whether the State of Palestine has a sufficiently effective government and defined territory to be considered a State in accordance with classical international law definitions. It can be argued that the large number of States and international organisations that recognise and treat Palestine as a State overcomes such deficiencies. The issue of whether Palestine is, at present, a State remains controversial.". A book published this year calls it controversial. Saying that "the State of Palestine is a state" is a problem. PrisonerB (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Amusing that editors seem to think that they can support the phrase "de jure sovereign state" meaning it is a legal sovereign state and at the same time argue that it is not a state :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Being controversial doesnt mean in dispute. And I actually have access to that chapter, see where he notes There are those however, who argue that widespread recognition can in of itself establish an entity as a State even if the entity does not fulfil all the Montevideo criteria. This reflects the constitutive theory whereby it is recognition by other States that is conclusive evidence of Statehood. and that the Resolution of the UN General Assembly has been quoted as the basis on which international organisations agreed to accept Palestine as a full member State. Sabel never once actually says Palestine is not a state in that chapter, at least not where I see it. Lots of facts are controversial, and oh by the way your formulation still says Palestine is a state. nableezy - 15:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the List of sovereign states, which includes SoP, discusses the two equally valid theories which scholars, lawyers and others argue about all the time, thus controversy. The US/Israel are always citing Montevideo when arguing Palestine is not a state while conveniently overlooking the second theory. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, per Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) and PrisonerB. Palestine is not a sovereign state, and this article needs to make that clear. The current term, "de jure sovereign state" is fine, but there are better options. I had considered proposing "quasi-state," as some sources refer to the PNA, however, after seeing PrisonerB's proposal, "partially recognized UN observer state", I believe it is the best option. Tombah (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry but what exactly does its status in the UN have to do with anything? Beyond that, it is factually wrong. It is much more than "partially recognized", at this point it is "widely recognized". See for example:Mirilovic, Nikola; Siroky, David S. (2015-04-08). "Two States in the Holy Land?: International Recognition and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Politics and Religion. 8 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 270. doi:10.1017/s1755048315000164. ISSN 1755-0483. While Israel, which controls the situation on the ground more than Palestine, is more widely recognized than Palestine, the difference is not as great as one might suppose. Palestine has been recognized by more than 120 United Nations member states, even though the Palestinian Authority does not fully control much of the territory that it claims. Meanwhile, Israel has been fully in control of its territory for decades, but 32 United Nations member states do not recognize it. But for some, inexplicable obviously, reason, people arent rushing to put in that Israel is a partially recognized United Nations member. The details on recognition are already covered, and so is its UN status. But one is incorrect, and the second is irrelevant. nableezy - 21:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we get to disregard the UN for other articles? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I know you think you're being clever here, but the lead already says and since 2012 has had a status of a non-member observer state in the United Nations. Nobody is disregarding anything, its UN status is included. And the UN admitting it as a an observer state doesnt make it somehow not a state. It is not relevant to its status as a state, but it is also pertinent material to the topic and is included in the lead. nableezy - 17:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither per Nableezy. Andre🚐 02:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, at a minimum. Its status as a state is controversial. It lacks "independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty", which a 'state' should have to be defined as such. Noon (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That isnt the definition of a state, much less what it "should have to be defined as". Bald assertion that is both wrong and OR. nableezy - 13:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not even a state. Lots of academic sources for this simple fact. Some examples: Is Palestine a state? Cambridge University, it would be wrong to classify Palestine as a state, and many more. It's about time that you and your friends stop distorting Wikipedia with your Original Research and nationalistic theories and inspirations. Wikipedia becomes a sad joke whenever it comes to issues regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Noon (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol simple fact, as though the overwhelming majority of academic sources dont support it. Including that source lol. The chapter you cite concludes:

Perhaps Palestine today is best understood as a kind of state, but one that really does not enjoy actual governance. It exists on paper and there are ministries, police, and other manifestations of stateness. But Palestine is not allowed to exercise actual governance, at least not to any reasonable extent. A state that does not govern is essentially a fiction, but perhaps a fiction that is convenient to have continue in the eyes of many actors. If Palestine were to become a truly independent state, then social scientists could seek to measure its capacity and strength as a state. But if Israel’s occupation is permanent, as many analysts suspect is the case, then Palestine would, of course, be considered a state that never really came to be. Palestine would then probably be known to history as the world’s most famous stillborn state.

Beyond that, there are countless more sources that say very matter of factly that Palestine is a state. And oh by the way, your formulation also says Palestine is a state. It just, for reasons that should be apparent to anybody familiar with the editors voting in lockstep here, attempts to insert some meaningless nonsense in to the first sentence of the article. nableezy - 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes as per Sovereign state , "A sovereign state, also known as a sovereign country, is a political entity represented by one centralized government that has supreme legitimate authority over territory." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Uh huh, so what's the difference between one of them and a de jure one of them? Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is not de facto sovereign according to the argument that it is occupied. It is de jure sovereign which simply means an international court said it was sovereign (according to a forceful interpretation of the law, of course), but is that in fact the case? Arguable. The argument made by Nableezy is that it is not de facto sovereign. Some might say that simply writing that it is a de jure sovereign state, implies that it is not de facto sovereign, because in that case you could simply "state" (ha) that it is a sovereign state, full stop. Do I have it right? But you could just say it's a state, without getting into this complex topic in the lede, and avoid all that. Andre🚐 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  Good point, since none of this is in the article body to begin with, it is difficult to know. The four refs in the article that were moved up to the lead to support de jure sovereign state don't support it at all nor does the remaining one afaics. If we look at List of states with limited recognition it says there "There are two traditional theories used to indicate how a de jure sovereign state comes into being." and goes on to talk about the two theories. (the assumption there seems to be that de jure follows de facto whereas the arguments being made here (not by me) appear to be the other way about, that de jure implies not de facto (so not a state = contradiction). As far as I can tell, currently the arguments appear to run along the lines that Palestine has the right to exert sovereignty over the oPt and that an illegal occupation cannot impede that right, "The exercise of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is being obstructed by practices contrary to international law" along with "No other State has sovereignty over the Occupied Palestinian Territory" point. Again, none of this is sourced in the article at all so I tend to agree that absent such detailed considerations we should dispense with the complications and simply say it is a state with a view to providing a proper sourced analysis of the situation in the article body. A little bit complicated but doable, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither per Nableezy. It's a recognised state, end of. 'De jure' is implied and tautologous to assert. Sovereignty is not in evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Either "de jure sovereign state" or just "state"; but it cannot be "sovereign state". –Daveout(talk) 14:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the latter bit, but I just do not understand what people are arguing about with de jure here. Sovereignty is a de facto thing, there is no de jure sovereignty. It is the exercise of sovereignty, in actual fact, that makes one sovereign. But I agree we should not be saying Palestine is a sovereign state, it isnt. But I still dont understand why people are arguing over de jure here, the argument should be over sovereign. de jure sovereign is just meaningless, its meant to say "not de facto", but that isnt what de jure means. It is not the antonym of de facto, and as far as I can tell the point that people are trying to make isnt being made by that usage. Its just adding a meaningless phrase into the lead, and I think all of us should want to avoid that. nableezy - 17:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

De jure and de facto aren't antonyms, but they have an overlapping and contrasting truth table of a particular form given the implications and vagaries of language. The form is that when something is "de jure, and only de jure," it is something that a court/laws said, but is not the case on the ground through the lived experience of that place. When something is "de facto, and only de facto," it is only a lived experience, contrary to the statement by a court/laws. In most normal cases, there's no need to say "de jure" because it is acceptably both "de jure" and "de facto". When you say something is "de jure," you are perhaps implying that it is not de facto. When you say something is de facto, you may be referring to the fact that it is in fact, but not in name.

So in this case, the international courts and the UN have found that Palestine's territory should be granted back to it - though there are split factions which are each recognized by different other states which affects their recognition (namely, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas). And there's disputed territory, which is currently occupied by Israel, and the courts/laws say that the Palestinians should be given their land and sovereignty due to them by international treaties and agreements. Therefore, it is said by some sources, apparently, taking the word of Iskandar below, that Palestine is "de jure sovereign," ie it had sovereignty granted it by a court/laws, and not "de facto sovereign," ie that it truly controls its territory and destiny due to it by itnernational agreements and laws. This is further complicated by the fact that many countries such as the US, choose to deal with the PA to weigh on the side of Israel, while Hamas is the popularly elected group, and that group is treated as a terrorist group by the US. Do I have it right? Andre🚐 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the line When you say something is "de jure," you are perhaps implying that it is not de facto. When you say something is de facto, you may be referring to the fact that it is in fact, but not in name. And there are times where making that distinction is important. For example, in a separate topic, the Taliban is de facto banning women from universities while de jure maintaining they may attend. The problem here is that the term being argued over, sovereign, is a description of the de facto status. So in trying to imply "not de facto" by saying de jure, we are effectively saying "The State of Palestine is not de facto the de facto ultimate authority over this territory. The complications you talk of matter for the governance of it and its structure, but not really for this part. And elections have long since lost any meaning since the last ones held were in 2006. My problem here is the meaningless of the sentence, and honestly Im a little disappointed this is falling on largely partisan lines without much actual discussion on the issue. I appreciate you actually engaging in the discussion very much. nableezy - 21:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that - and while I have agreed with your position that we don't need to state "de jure sovereign" in the lede because it's too complicated to do it justice, I think I have to quibble on "definition of sovereign." According to our article (which, I know, is not a usable RS to cite), De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to do so. Andre🚐 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That in the lead is based on a nearly entirely uncited section. Normally, at least in my reading, de jure sovereign is a term used for when a governing authority devolves some of its authority to some other entity, granting it the de jure right to exercise that sovereignty. But for states, sovereignty refers to the absolute authority over a territory. And nobody comes even close to claiming Palestine exercises that authority. The IDF shot Shireen Abu Akleh in Jenin a few months ago. Can the State of Palestine arrest that soldier? Can they try him? Do they have that authority? No on all counts. Some say they should, and that is what I guess people mean by de jure here (that they should), but thats it. nableezy - 21:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

De jure is more than a should, it's that they have a legal right to, according to the legal authority (courts/lawyers/laws/lawmakers/governments) and any de facto inability to exercise that right would therefore be illegal or extrajudicial. However if it was granted a legal right to sovereignty, I'm seeing that usage, according to Iskandar below there are almost 70 scholarly sources that use that language? Andre🚐 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes it's not a sovereign state, as it has no sovereignty, but de jure it is recognized by many countries as a sovereign state, including the UN. Bill Williams 16:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as others stated. This is a hard issue, but Wiki should stick to a neutral point of view -- and no -- opinion of states, especially controversial states like Russia and China, is not necessarily neutral. Archway (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Other states (and what does a controversial state mean?) are the only ones that decide if a state is a state. Statehood is basically a country club, and you need the existing members to admit you in to the club. nableezy - 17:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This edit in 2016 rewrote the lead section, deleting "Palestine, is a state in the Middle East" and replaced it with "Palestine, is a de jure sovereign state" added two refs, this one that uses the phrase "de jure State of Palestine" " and this rather irrelevant one while wikilinking the phrase "de jure sovereign state" to Sovereign state#De facto and de jure states where the relevant material is uncited. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  "de jure sovereign state" is a rare phrase in general, with just 69 scholar hits. Of these, 32 mention Palestine, often in international relations works on parastates, which cite Palestine as an example of a polity that is working towards becoming a "de jure sovereign state" [4], while others seems to suggest that it already is by virtue purely of the PLO's declaration. At the end of the day, it is probably a fairly unresolvable legal debate - and that is all the more reason to not include what appear to be a contentious and quite evidently disputed label in the lead, especially when it was clearly originally inserted with little to no supporting sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Still, wouldn't this evidence prove that "de jure sovereign state," is not a logically incoherent construct, contrary to argument made by Nableezy? Andre🚐 20:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  What might have been meant is de jure recognition as a sovereign state see Report of the UN committee (same membership as UNSC) concerning the application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations where it says "In addition, over 130 States had recognized Palestine as an independent sovereign State."

  See [5], "As a result of the upgrade [to observer state], therefore, there is little doubt that the de jure state of Palestine exists" and "That Palestine is currently under occupation does not vitiate this legal reality".

  Then I am thinking that SoP is a state de jure recognized by (calc) states looks OK. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  69 scholarly hits is not a particularly glowing recommendation for the widespread currency of the term in legal usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having scanned through them, I agree. The very first one says "The second approach proposes that only if a de facto State is explicitly recognized as a legitimate international legal personality does it achieve the status of a de jure sovereign State" and several others refer to recognition as "Taiwan is not de jure sovereign state based on the number of recognition of other states." I still think "de jure sovereign state" just by itself is weird, I cannot see how a sovereign state needs to be described as "legal" unless the intent is to refer to its level of recognition in which case that needs to be appended. Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Legal sovereignty" is quite a common terminology, I think, for example: [6] versus "actual sovereignty." I don't see why 69 scholarly sources don't go to prove that "de jure sovereignty" is an acceptable synonym for same. Another is "titular sovereignty." I don't think it's tenable to argue such on-paper sovereignty is nonexistent; sources discuss it quite a bit. Andre🚐 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thats usually in addition to being de facto. It formalizes through recognition what is already in effect. The titular sovereignty is related to what I discussed earlier for a pretty common usage of de jure sovereignty, in which a government, the actual sovereign, devolves the exercise of that sovereignty to some subordinate or even potentially outside interest, but remains titular sovereign. But, laying all the cards on the table here, you can certainly source that the State of Palestine is a de jure sovereign state. Most of the sources just off-handedly mention that and are on topics largely outside of statehood, but there is one that uses that language in a footnote but it is in a book on international relations footnote 35 here. I havent been able to find much in terms of sources focused on statehood in international law and relations that uses that language though. My understanding remains for the topic of international relations, and not national governance, sovereignty is a property of a state and exercised by a government, but the de jure part of it is about recognizing governments as the lawful authority to exercise the sovereignty of a state. The recognition of statehood though is independent of the exercise of sovereignty, and I cant find any reference to states recognizing a sovereign state of Palestine. They recognize a state of Palestine, but havent made any claim that it is sovereign, either in law or in fact. Most in fact explicitly say it is occupied by Israel. Many of the states that recognize a state of Palestine did so well before there was anything approaching a government, when it was declared in 1988 (eg China, the USSR, much of the non-aligned bloc). nableezy - 18:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  So I don't think we're far off from agreeing. Palestine isn't universally recognized, and those that recognize it, do not generally believe it has de facto sovereignty. However if they recognize it, that gives it de facto recognition of statehood. Their de jure sovereignty comes from the international laws and courts, which are also not universally accepted and interpreted the same. Andre🚐 18:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is not that it is nonexistent but that one cannot divorce the term from the specifics of the case in which the term is applied. I already identified two sources from the 69 (of which only 32 concern Palestine) using the phrase but in the context of recognition and if I put my mind to it, I am sure I could identify a lot more in that context. Having no context is what allows the specious argument that de jure carries an implication of something else besides legal, if you can find a source saying that is the intention I would be extremely surprised.

  (Btw, Your jstor source (1955, really?) has nothing to do with any of this as it concerns a debate over the relations between courts and parliament in the UK system.) Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  That was simply the first source that came up. My point was that "legal sovereignty" is a common usage and well-attested for a long time. Here's a more germane example: [7] Andre🚐 18:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am familiar with that one, it says "intentionally (sic) recognized legal sovereignty", again recognition is the context. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe I lost the thread of the conversation and this is complicated stuff, but why isn't the recognition context a valid context and usage? Isn't the whole point of statehood and sovereignty how it is recognized by other states and by legal authorities? Andre🚐 18:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is a valid context, that is precisely what I am arguing. The phrase in the lead has no context, it's just hanging there, that's the principal problem imo, it is left for the reader to decide what the context is, thus the nonsense about how it means or implies something else. All the guff about it isn't really, etc is largely an expression of the fact of occupation. To describe the situation fully is some work and not really capable of a short and sweet summary in the lead, why I am plumping finally for neither and leave the gory details for the body of the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree on the neither rationale, but I'm just trying to clarify that while it may be undue weight or too complex to cover except in-depth in the body, it's not wrong or incoherent to describe legal or de jure sovereignty Andre🚐 18:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  My argument has been that the phrase "de jure sovereign state" on its own makes no sense because all sovereign states are legal. There is currently no effort in the article to describe legal or de jure sovereignty. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but can we sidebar on this. I have tried to show that de jure sovereign state does make sense, it's logically coherent to be, on-paper, sovereign, even though in practice, you may not be. And in fact stating a statement like "de jure sovereign" may imply de facto non-sovereignty. What is the state of non-sovereignty? I suppose, it would be occupation, but another example is a Native American reservation when its sovereignty is nullified de jure, but they may still be de facto in charge of their territory and able to run things there. Or, the opposite - at times, the Native American reservations have had rights recognized due to them, that they weren't able to exercise - like Palestine. Andre🚐 19:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now we are going in circles, I don't agree so we needs must agree to disagree. If you hold this opinion, you should !vote yes because that is essentially the argument put forward by the !yes votes. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  OK, we can agree to disagree, and I'm sorry if it felt repetitive. The reason why I'm not !voting yes is because I still think it's too complex and not necessary in the lead to cover in depth. Since it's a disputed and difficult issue, it would be undue weight and it needs a delicate touch. But I don't believe the phrase itself is vastly illogical or incoherent, and I think that's a weak argument for the no !voters. Andre🚐 20:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither as it is a state, plain and simple. This RFC makes no sense. It's just a state. Parabolist (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it is correct to say "It's just a state". The question is whether we need to say why it is, given that the position of some (the US/Israel principally) is that it is not a state. Does the weight of recognition (directly and via the "upgrade" to observer state) outweigh the minority position sufficiently to ignore it? (in the lead). Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Neither Finally I can !vote, we should simply say that Palestine is a state and deal with the fact that it is contested by a minority of states in the body of the article. There, editors may cite as they would like to, the precise status of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. De facto it isn't sovereign since Israel directlly or indirectly controls much of ehat happens there so de jure is precise. DGtal (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes at minimum, it is fairly widely recognized.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Neither. Keep it simple and just use "state". The next three sentences explain the full situation. It is best not to use labels for complicated situations, but rather to use a sentence or two to explain the situation. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Change - Palestine is a nation-state that's broadly internationally recognized and has many powers that you'd associate with such an entity. Sovereignity is complicated due to the context, of course. It seems best to just say "state" here. Simple. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Only if it can be wikilinked to an article explaining what a "de jure sovereign state" means, as the term is bordering on WP:JARGON. Until then, the International Recognition section is the place to explain the situation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Neither and go with just "state", per nableezy. Also, the cited sources for "de jure sovereign state" are fine for what they are: brief asides and footnotes explaining Palestine's inclusion in lists of other states. They do not provide much indication that the phrase is useful as an opening descriptor of a work about Palestine itself. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

Do you even have any RS saying tha Palestine is sovereign? –Daveout(talk) 14:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

At a guess, this remark is directed at myself, this is a discussion among editors in general, so WP:AVOIDYOU and ask the question without personalization. eg "Are there RS saying that Palestine is sovereign?". Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

it is not sovereign by any normal definition I will repeat the question posed in the RFCbefore, what definition? Nor do I have any idea what "normal" means in this context. Normal according to who? Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thus the inclusion or lack of doesn't seem that important It was important enough to be reverted back in three times, probably with more to follow, hence the RFC. The principal argument being put forward in support of inclusion is that de jure somehow signifies non sovereign, which of course it doesn't. While occasionally claiming that Israel should be sovereign (as well as acting as if they are), Israel has variously proposed that Jordan is the sovereign or that there isn't a sovereign. Needless to say all three of these ideas have virtually no support in the international community and begs the question, if SoP is not sovereign, then what entity is? Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not the argument that was put forward as I read it. What I read was that adding de jure provides an indication that de facto sovereignty is lacking, which is one of those rare facts in this topic that everyone seems to agree on. However, as I mentioned, I do not think adding de jure is enough to convey this point to a general reader. CMD (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty is defined by the exercise of absolute authority over a territory. Palestine does not do that. But the argument on de jure misses that point entirely. All states are de jure states, what makes them sovereign states is the exercise of sovereignty. nableezy - 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through, checked and removed the irrelevant citations that were recently added in support of de jure sovereign state, if anyone cares to return any of them with an appropriate quotation in support, please do. I have left the last one (the one below) and marked it as failed verification, same thing, can someone please provide a supporting quote or that one will be removed as well, leaving, well, none. Selfstudier (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

They were not all irrelevant, so you removing them to pretend like there are zero sources on the matter is highly misleading, when the sources directly state "de jure" within them. There are zero sources stating that the State of Palestine controls its own territory like a de facto sovereign state, de jure is the proper term because while many legally recognize it as such, it is not one in reality. Bill Williams 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My invitation to restore any of them along with a relevant supporting quote still stands. De jure does not mean "not one in reality" it means "legal". The phrase "de jure sovereign state" has been sourced by Iskandar to a number of scholarly sources, if you think one of those is relevant, you could add it, I am not preventing you from doing so. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: For the three citations added here in support of Palestine being a de jure sovereign state, kindly provide a quote in each case. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

While we are waiting for those, I see that one of the cites is apparently a paper about gender representation in delegations to the World Health Assembly from 1948 up to 2021, how is that relevant? You say that the Elgar cite is recent but there is no date given? The other one, is it the intention to say that Palestine is a parastate (whatever that might be)? (Later edit) I marked the parastate one as failed verification as I can't see how that supports the material (see the edit summary).Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave the quotes necessary, the information is recent and relevant to the specific wording "de jure sovereign state". Those are only a few sources I found in a few minutes, I can provide more if you would like. The other source from cambridge which I did not provide a quote for stated it somewhere when I logged in and looked at it, but I'm having trouble with my institutional account so I'll get back to that when I get home. Sorry I can't provide that one at the moment, but I did so for the others. Bill Williams 13:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the Cambridge one, please restore it with quote should that prove possible. After lots of searching, we have produced 3 sources (2 of them are from Iskandar's 32 and found again by Bill, the other via Nableezy, thanks) supporting "de jure sovereign state" although two of them appear to be passing references in articles about health and the environment. It would be interesting to find a reference that predates the 2016 edit that inserted "de jure sovereign state" into this article, if anyone can find one of those, that would be useful. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Differing treatment between Palestine and Taiwan

Why is it that Taiwan could be considered a "country" in the lead, but not State of Palestine, being a "de jure sovereign state? Palestine has much more global recognition than Taiwan, are they not? Palestine holds observer status in the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), and is recognized by more UN members (138) than Taiwan (13) does. Even Kosovo has more recognition (100) than Taiwan. What makes Taiwan so special over Palestine, or better yet, over other partially recognised nations with much more intentional recognition in multiple areas? 222.100.139.62 (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a de jure sovereign state. Good luck trying to apply that description to Taiwan. CMD (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan has always been a country and has never stopped being a country - it's the last little nub of the "Republic of China". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No real point in trying to compare these two cases, they are entirely distinct. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"What makes Taiwan so special over Palestine, or better yet, over other partially recognised nations with much more intentional recognition in multiple areas? " The fact that Taiwan's "lack of recognition" is a pure farce designed to keep China from getting all pissy? When push comes to shove, no other country really has any doubts that Taiwan is independent. But no one wants to piss off China, so they do this annoying little verbal dance around the facts while at the same time treating it the same as they do any other country (with, again, only a few words changed with no change in effect). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha. Best answer so far. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is not occupied, it is wholly sovereign. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)