Talk:Palestine 194/Archive 1

Talk:Palestine 194

Spain and norway voted YES why you showing NO 80.192.51.22 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has voted, which is why the "Positions" column is blank until a vote takes place. You're looking at the wrong column. Nightw 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with quotations

A user appears to be opposed to the formatting of some quotations in this article. I'd ask that user to explain his issues here and propose a different formatting. I disagree that the formatting is "decorative". If the issue is with using {{Cquote}}, we can use {{Quotation}} instead, but I'm firmly opposed to outright removing of the content. Nightw 09:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You've been around long enough that you should know how this process works. You've made a WP:BOLD edit and I've reverted you. The next step in the process is to discuss the issue on the talk page. Your edit warring to reinsert the content into the article is inappropriate. Please self-revert before I have to do it.

For the record I'm all for including parts of the quotation, but when I tried to improve it I was reverted by you. TDL (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Which "WP:BOLD edit" are you referring to? The quotation has been in there for over a month and the article edited by numerous editors (including yourself) since then, so I'm not sure which "process" you're trying to impose. Nightw 17:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, isn't it obvious? I reverted these bold edits: [1] & [2].

As you are well aware, I previously did a partial revert of these edits since I opposed them. You wouldn't accept my edits and reverted me. As such the article needs to be returned to the last consensual version before the quotes were added while the issue is discussed. TDL (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the additions from over a month ago. These revisions were accepted by a succession of other editors including yourself when you made this edit. You're now proposing the removal (or parts of it), though you've yet to explain in any detail the reason for that. Nightw 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, that's not how WP:BRD works. Editing one section of the article doesn't imply acceptance of the entire thing. And can you point out where the policy states that there is a month time limit to revert? TDL (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't a policy. I'm under no obligation to follow it. But since you asked, the limit given is until non-revert changes to the article are made by other editors. You edited the article weeks ago, you are now proposing something. Again, though, you haven't given a word of reason for why you want this quote changed. You're focused on reverting procedures. Nightw 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"the limit given is until non-revert changes to the article are made by other editors." - Nope you've just made that up. Can you point to me where BRD says that? And by your logic then I suppose that this edit by you constitutes acceptance of my previous edits? Of course I can't force you to follow BRD, but if it's just a policy for you then you will likely find others wont obey it either.

I clearly stated my reasons for removing the quote in the edit summary, but you've yet to give a single word of reason why you think this quote should be included. As a summary:

• The quotes are improperly formatted. {{cquote}} is for pull quotes only. You've proposed a solution to this above using {{Quotation}}.
• As per WP:LONGQUOTE: A quotation that does not "directly support the information as it is presented should not be used, to avoid original research." Most of these quotes cover content that is already discussed elsewhere in the article and hence the quotes are unnecessary to support the content. They're just decorative.
• The same essay also encourages us to "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." I attempted to do this but you reverted me. TDL (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"When people start regularly making non-revert edits again" is the line to look for. It's also shown in the flowchart diagram, where you should be led to a box encouraging you to try compromising (not making the same edit again or reverting even further back). I try to follow BRD where I can, but I find your interpretation of it to be somewhat radical—so no, I don't consider a minor edit where I corrected your mistake as consent for your rearrangements. I expressed opposition to your edits on the talk page before making any further edits to the article, and when the rules allowed and you had not given a response, I reverted. This is the last I'll say on your approach to BRD. I'd like to focus on your issues with the content?

I'm afraid I disagree that these quotations are "decorative". The quotation from the application is essential; the first sentence can probably be cut if necessary, but the invocation of the resolutions in its original form is important to the context of the article. As are many parts of the first quote. If you can propose something which incorporates each piece of information given in the quote, this one might be okay to disperse. Nightw 12:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to focus on the content. For the life of me I can't find the quotes you provided (same edit, further back) anywhere on WP:BRD or the attached flowchart so I can't really reply to that.

I'm not opposed to including the details about the UN resolutions, but we've already covered this in the Background section. Why do we need to repeat it in the applications section? The first sentence is the only relevant thing from this quote.

For the second, most of it is repetitive. Bits from the last two sentences could perhaps be salvaged. What from the second quote do you see as important? TDL (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The background section describes what the resolutions were. It needs to be made clear that those resolutions were invoked within the application. The first sentence repeats what is already stated in prose a couple of sentences before—that he submitted the application (although it should probably be amended to include "on behalf of the state of Palestine". Maybe it can all be integrated somehow... The first quote should be kept as it is. Each sentence is vital and provides conclusion to matters raised in the preceding paragraphs. Nightw 12:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Invoked? What exactly does that mean? This isn't a court of law, states vote however they like. "Invoking" the past resolutions is just rhetoric. And it's vital to state twice in the same quote that Palestine is only claiming 22% of their historic land? It's vital to repeat that Palestine declared independence in 1988? Seems very unnecessary to me. TDL (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a United Nations application—of course you can invoke international law to justify actions. As for the quotes, that's your opinion. You're proposing a removal of content that has been in the article for over a month. The burden of getting a consensus is on you. Nightw 12:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ordering

You now seem to be doing a rearrangement of the article's contents. Many of your edits I disagree with. For example, changing the position column to "support"/"oppose" looks like a voting record, which will confuse the reader. The wording was specifically chosen as to not make it look concrete. Additionally, the "implications" section was necessary, but under-developed. I intend to expand it with legal opinions on the implications of the intended resolution. You also appear to have merged a section on counter-measures with a section on Israel's position on the application. While that may have seemed prudent to anyone who hadn't read it (given the presence of "Israeli" in the title), the counter-measures section describes efforts by other governments as well, which are now bunched in a section on the Israeli government's opinion. Nightw 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are going to have to elaborate as your explanations don't make much sense.

• Supporting is less concrete than support? This is just a matter of awkwardness.
• Oppose is less concrete than against? Where I come from these are synonyms.
• If you find content to put in the "implications" section then by all means re-add it. But as it stands it's filled with motivation for submitting the application and nothing about implications. There's WP:NODEADLINE so no need for an empty placeholder section.
• In spite of your suggestion I did read both sections I merged about Israel. While it's true that the "Israeli counter-measures" section contains info on actions led by Israel but supported by other governments, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Your argument seems to be that including such info under the heading "Israeli counter-measures" is fine but under "Responses: Israel" isn't. Given that a counter-measure is just a type of response, it's content naturally falls into the scope of the main Israeli section. Why is it OK under one but not the other? TDL (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a matter of awkwardness also. I'm not sure whether English is your first language, but your proposed change is grammatically incorrect. Algeria (a single entity) doesn't "support" the resolution, it "supports" it.
• Maybe you should check "concrete" in that thesaurus for terms you understand. I'm saying that "support"/"oppose" look like votes, set in stone, already done—confusing on a page about an expected resolution. Nevertheless, if you agree that these are synonyms, I don't see what your problem with the original terminology is.
• I'll do so when I'm ready. Speaking of which, fancy making a contribution to the article? You seem to be stuck on reverting.
• As this is an article about an event in history, it has been ordered roughly chronologically where possible. The counter-measures are actions made before the application, and the responses sections describe events after the application was lodged. Nevertheless, I've changed the section header so it won't confuse you anymore.

Also, as you know, if you want to make a change to the article, please discuss it here first and get a consensus for it first. Thanks, Nightw 11:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, fully fluent. Is condescending your first language? Your grammatically incorrect sentence is a result of you mistakenly joining the two words in the wrong tense [present]. Algeria has declared support for (or supported) the resolution [past] OR Algeria will support the resolution [future]. Obviously writing in the present tense is a very bad idea. If you like we can use "supported" instead, though this seems unnecessary. Alternatively "supportive" might be better as it conveys the ambiguity you desire.
• Unfortunately it seems that you've got your own unique definition of "concrete" so I'm not sure that would be helpful. I fully understand your point, but it doesn't make any sense since these words don't convey different levels of "concreteness". For instance the UN itself almost always uses "Against" when reporting the results of votes that are already done: [3], [4] or [5]. Seems pretty concrete to me (and the UN).
• Given that you've reverted every single one of my contributions to your article it hardly seems worth it at the moment does it? I've retained the section as it now has content, though it desperately needs to be rewritten in prose.
• It seemed to have confused you as well as this is an entirely different argument than the one you previously made. Do we really need to distinguish between pre and post submission responses? The "Campaign" is very much ongoing and essentially unchanged since the application was submitted.
• Perfectly happy to do so as long as you do as well. TDL (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, a bit defensive aren't we? The correct tense is present; the table isn't about a potential resolution, it's general responses to the application. Members are either supporting or against the application. The cells do not contain sentences, they include a single word—although, yes, "Algeria [is] supporting [membership]" is proper grammar in English. Your examples are obviously in an inappropriate tense. If "supporting" is too awkward for you, "supportive" is also fine.
• It works fine for me. "Oppose" is awkward.
• Efforts made in response to the application's submission are different—and should be described separately—to measures exacted during the campaign.
• I'm not proposing any changes to the article. Nightw 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you are going to continually attack other editors you shouldn't be surprised if the get defensive. The present tense is not correct. We have no idea if the states "currently" support the motion. All we know was that in the past they planned to support the motion at some point in the future. I never said we should claim that Algeria will support the motion. But we can report that they have claimed that they will support the motion in the future. Are you really saying that Tunisia currently supports the motion? They've had elections since the latest info we have so we have no idea if they currently support the motion. But if you're ok with supportive then let's agree to that.
• Why is oppose awkward? Because I proposed it? The probelm with supporting/against is that these aren't even the same type of words. Against is a preposition and supporting is a verb. It is very awkward to mix completely different types of words. If you are ok with supportive then how about unsupportive for the opposite?
• And yet most of the content in the "Responses" section predates the submission of the application. Are you suggesting that all this content should be moved to the counter measaures section as well?
• Yes, you've proposed the inclusion of the quotes and have been reverted. Please revert to the last agreed upon version if you disagree with my edits. TDL (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Right... asking a user whether English is their native language is a personal attack... (?) I think you're being overly sensitive. If you've taken these kinds of things as attacks, that's unfortunate, but it's not my problem.
• The present tense is the correct one. Supportive is fine, so is against. "Oppose" is awkward because it's a plain verb. Maybe it's just me. But there's nothing wrong with "against".
• If you wish to persist with your radical interpretation of BRD regarding the addition of content added over a month ago, go ahead, but you can hardly be surprised when I contest that and revert you in return. What is telling is that you also continue to push changes that you've made in the last couple of days. Is there also a convenient twist in your interpretation that deems this allowable? Please stop edit warring. Nightw 12:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine is not yet member of UNESCO

Palestine is not yet member of UNESCO According to UNESCO statment Palestine is not a member state yet: “For its membership to take effect*, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution which is open for signature in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom in London.” Aotearoa (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe section

"In his address to the General Assembly on 22 September, President Robert Mugabe, a brutal dictator who oppresses his own people"

Although I personally believe this guy to be a very bad man, there has to be a better way to quote him. --DeliciousMeatz (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

UNESCO sources?

Can someone provide the following sources:

• voting breakdown in the 58-member sub-committee vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
• voting breakdown in the main UNESCO vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
• the text of the membership application - we have "presented by 24 states requesting that the State of Palestine be granted membership" - who are these 24 states and what wording is utilized in the application?
• the text of the membership decision

Also, here it's written that there are "3 Permanent Observers and 10 intergovernmental organizations with Permanent Observer Missions to UNESCO." - who are those 13 UNESCO observers? Japinderum (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Observers list [6].

The voting and text sources request remains. Japinderum (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this just the application that was submitted in 1989? I don't know who the 24 states are that the article refers to, but it was decided that the item would be included on the agenda in the last conference [7]...the application has just been deferred every year. Surely you can't have 2 aps going at the same time? Icarus^talk 12:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, maybe the 1989 application remained on the table for all these years. But the 1989 application[8] was submitted by Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, and Yemen. Only 6, so these are not the 24 states of 2011. Maybe the 24 made some procedural thing in the 36th conference (e.g. confirm the agenda with "let's look at Palestine")? I don't know and that's why I would like to have a source similar to the 1989 source and to the 2009 source you gave above.

While we are at this - if someone is familiar with the voting database of UNESCO (if this is public?) - please give us vote breakdowns for 1989 and all subsequent years (if there were votes before 2011). Japinderum (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The resolution says the application has been inscribed on the agenda since the 25th session, it's been deferred every year (until now)...although yes confirmation on this would be good. Maybe it will become clearer in the next few days. The article also says they've submitted an application at WHO, but they've already got an application pending there as well. Same situation. I think at least the sections need to mention this. Icarus^talk 13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I found one of the voting breakdowns, but the other I can't find anywhere online. Icarus^talk 14:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Struck gold. [9] Answers my question and names the 24 states. Icarus^talk 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. But there is a discrepancy: [10] says: "Of 173 countries that voted from a possible 185, 107 voted in favor, 14 voted against, 52 abstained and 12 were absent." The 185 and 12 numbers are explicit - and they contradict the 21 absent that we see in [11]. Is it possible to have some UNESCO members not counted at all (in favour/against/abstain/absent) when voting? E.g. to have non-voting members? Maybe like those with unpaid membership fee (for similar practice at the UN see here). I would like to clarify this somehow - maybe some official UNESCO vote count source...

About the 2011 "action of 24" see [12]: "during the 187th session of the board, a draft resolution was presented by 24 states, including non-Arab nations, requesting that Palestine be granted membership in the organization." - so maybe in 2011 the 24 submitted a draft resolution stating "Let's process the 1989 application of the State of Palestine" instead of having a second "new" application?

The above was written before your subsequent source. Now, let's look at it - it's submitted by 43 states (not 24), is dated 29 October and says "Having noted that the Executive Board, at its 187th session recommended the admission of Palestine to membership of UNESCO". The Executive Board recommendation meeting was held 21 September–6 October 2011, before this draft - it seems the 2011 process started there (initiated by 24 states?) and the "draft of 43" came later, a few days before the final UNESCO approval. Another question about this draft (and the final resolution text that we don't have yet) is what "Palestine" it refers to - the Palestine Liberation Organization, referred to as "Palestine" in the UN System (see Palestine), the Palestinian National Authority or the State of Palestine. PLO or PNA are the current UNESCO observer designated "Palestine". Also, [13] writes "Decides to admit Palestine as a member of UNESCO" and doesn't have the word "state" anywhere inside it. If we get the full text of the final decision I think it will resolve this issue. Japinderum (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Only 185 members were "entitled to vote", see video of announcement. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

...I think it's safe to say that it was the State of Palestine that was admitted. Membership is only open to states. Icarus^talk 16:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as per your source they're reviving the 1989 application, done as Palestine declared its independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so (see [14] where the issue is "agenda item concerning the admission of Palestine as UNESCO State Member" and "The admission of a new Member State is a mark of respect and confidence." - but there is a similar situation in UN ESCWA and UN Asia voting group where "by default" many text are about "member states", but there is one non-state member - the PLO/"Palestine" UNGA observer - whose non-state status isn't reflected in each and every text and then we have edit-wars here - that's why I would like to have as explicit as possible UNESCO source - a list of members or admission decision with "State of Palestine" written inside instead of the short "Palestine"), but I would like to see a PDF with the 24 states initial 2011 draft. I hope it will clarify both "who the 24 are" and "exact text of the draft". Also, the text of the final resolution would be welcome (and any minutes of meeting/speeches where votes are explained). Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that it was the State of Palestine that was admitted. Membership is only open to states – Cook Islands and Niue are member states, but both are not independent states... Aotearoa (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are both independent sovereign states[15][16][17] (see Associated state) - just like the rest of the UNESCO full members. Japinderum (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

According to discussions (current and past: Talk:List of sovereign states) and its conclusions, Niue and Cook Islands aren’t independent states. Aotearoa (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. And what are they? Dependencies? Of whom? Of Queen Elizabeth? The sources show otherwise. I don't see anything non-independent in them. But this is irrelevant to the present discussion - "State of Palestine" is by definition independent. Do you think it's a dependency? Of whom? See also here. Anyway, I agree it's good to get a confirmation the UNESCO approved membership of the "State of Palestine" and not of the PLO/"Palestine" or the PNA. Japinderum (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you two please not discuss that associated state crap here? It's completely irrelevant. Nightw 19:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Sierra Leone were ineligible, which means the 12 that were recorded as absent were Dominica, East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guyana, Madagascar, Maldives, Mongolia, Niue, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. I don't think South Sudan had officially ratified its membership by that time. [18] Icarus^talk 17:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Superb! Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"anti-Semitic Arab League"

I have no idea how things are handled here, but it seems kind of strange to me to describe the Arab League like this in its first use. In any case, neither references three or four actually describe the AL as anti-Seimitic, so please find a ref or let's change it. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was added a few minutes ago by a newly registered user. Just remove it. Nightw 06:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Arab League has been officially antisemitic since it's inception. See the article:Arab League boycott of Israel which states that the boycott was originally against ALL Jews and formally began only months after the end of the Holocaust in 1945.Ericl (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Officially antisemitic"? Please show where in its charter it uses that term and why its relevant to this article. Otherwise, please read WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. Nightw 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

List of states - supportive and against

The table is ORish and crystal ballish, but anyway I think it's useful to track opinions before the actual vote takes place (so it's important that when opinion changes - the description field should be expanded, not overwritten - so that it's seen that opinion actually changed and when this happened). So far it's based on the wiki list of recognitions (first column) and various sources about opinions expressed (some are vague). I have two comments on that and I hope that editors editing the table take these into account (it seems the table is something as an edit-warring magnet, so I will refrain from editing at this stage):

• [19] gives overview of the EU members positions around 26.09 (timing is important as positions change): France + Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain (and maybe Ireland and Denmark) are supportive; UK + Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Italy (and maybe Germany and the Netherlands) are against; Finland, Malta and Sweden - in between. The UNESCO votes generally follow that (not 100% of course), so it seems reliable.
• UNESCO votes - this is the most recent, most explicit, most non-ORish and most firm position expression. I think it should be the base for the support/against column. It shows that some in the recognizers list vote against and some abstain, it shows that some non-recognizers vote in favour and some abstain. So, someone can grant diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, but at the same time don't support its membership in UNESCO, UN or elsewhere - and vice versa - someone may haven't granted recognition yet, but support membership in UNESCO, UN or elsewhere. I would like to address the issue of "absent" non voting states (at the UNGA currently there are no suspended-for-not-paying) - it seems that when the issue is important enough they manage to gather (for example [20] has only 2 absent states and I assume they will appear for a vote on Palestine UN membership) The recap is the following (for simplicity I assume those who were absent/non-voting at UNESCO will follow their recognition/no recognition stance when voting at the UNSC/UNGA):
  • Recognizers in the wiki list: 128, of who:
    • 1 is not member of the UN and UNESCO
    • 2 voted against: Czech R., Vanuatu
    • 19 abstain; in the 58-committee vote Zambia was in favour, Romania - against; Bosnia (UNSC)
  • Non-recognizers in the wiki list: 69, of who:
    • 1 is not member of the UN and UNESCO
    • 2 are not members of the UN (at UNESCO 1 abstained, 1 was absent)
    • 33 abstained; in the 58-committee vote Haiti was in favour, Latvia - against; Colombia (UNSC), Portugal (UNSC), UK (UNSC)
    • 16 voted in favour (not yet officially announced recognizers?): Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France (UNSC), Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Myanmar, Norway, St.Lucia, Slovenia, Spain
  • The rest are absent/non-voting or confirmed recognition (in favour)/no recognition (against)

That's for filling the supportive/against column.

Now some UNSC/UNGA virtual counts (Discrepancies with recognition, position per column in the article, 58 committee vote mentioned in brackets):

• at UNSC needs 9 (15/2+1?) "in favour" to pass (if in addition veto holders are split between against and in favour, then the issue can go to UNGA per Uniting for Peace).
  • in favour: Brazil, China, Gabon, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa (recognizers) + France (non recognizer)
  • abstain: Bosnia (recognizer), Columbia (non-recognizer), Portugal (against in column, supportive[21]), UK (against)
  • against: Germany, USA
• at UNGA needs 130 (2/3*193+1?) "in favour" to pass (either after positive UNSC decision or trough Uniting for Peace procedure)
  • in favour: 128-1-2-19+16=122 (recognizers without non-UN, against/abstain at UNESCO and plus non-recognizers in favour at UNESCO) So, 8 more are needed.
  • Of the recognizers who abstained 3 are "supportive" in the table column or 58 committee vote:
    • Zambia (58 committee vote in favour)
    • Hungary
    • Bulgaria (supportive in the column, but against at [22])
  • Of the non-recognizers who abstained 4 are "supportive" in the table column or 58 committee vote:
    • Haiti (58 committee vote in favour)
    • Portugal (supportive[23], but against in the column)
    • Denmark (maybe supportive[24])
    • Thailand

So, it seems possible to pass - there are multiple dozens additional non-recognizers who abstained or didn't voted at UNESCO and have empty column in the table - maybe the few missing votes would come from some of these. Japinderum (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The problem with Wiki-list is that this list based on incredible sources. The main source is the “Hundred and thirty-first Session: Item 9.4 of the provisional agenda, Request for the Admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO as a Member State” – source for mote than half recognitions (see refs in International recognition of the State of Palestine. Problem with this source is that the UNESCO’s list is not an official document. This is only explanatory note prepared by 6 countries and presented during the session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (not during the General Conference), without any information whether this document was formally adopted or not. Not even known whether individual countries took position to this document –simply, it is a source, about which nothing concrete is known. Other sources are Palestinian one. So, we haven’t conformation from other side, from respective countries. For example, Poland is listed as recognized country, but in all official Polish documents Palestine is not listed as state, and Polish statement is “Poland makes the recognition of the state of Palestine conditional on achieving a peace agreement between the parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” (so, similar to USA point of view). Aotearoa (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that the wiki-list sourcing is problematic and that more explicit and more official sources are preferable. Here there is a breakdown for many (all?) of the recognizers - whose MFA websites confirm and whose don't, etc. - you may find this interesting. Anyway, the UNESCO vote gives something like confirmation for 91 of the wiki-list recognizers (those that don't abstain and aren't against/absent). The figures I give in the crystal ball above exclude Poland and the rest of the recognizers who abstained. It still gets to at least 122 (yes, as said above this includes recognizers who were absent/non-voting - those are 15 and most of them have "supportive" in the table column - so the general conclusion doesn't change). Japinderum (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The list is based on the PLO list, not on the UNESCO document. While that document is also used to support the PLO list, it's main purpose is to provide dates. The rest of your post, Jap, I haven't the time to go through and seems forumish from first glance. Are you proposing something? Nightw 19:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, forumish is the second part (after the obvious "Now some UNSC/UNGA virtual counts"). Before that are my proposals: 1. one source to be considered for supportive/against column; 2. using UNESCO votes as guidance for the same column. Japinderum (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That source was in the article but it was eventually replaced by better sources. In many cases it just lists opponents and proponents without elaborating. It's information on Portugal is accurate (that Portugal supports observer status) and this is included in Portugal's entry. As you'll see from the premier's quote, it doesn't support membership. In my opinion, while the UNESCO vote may be used to contribute evidence to a certain position, it should not be used unless there is clear evidence that that position is already confirmed. While it's fine to say a state opposes UNESCO membership, that doesn't mean it also opposes General Assembly membership (for example, Sweden just wants it done in the right order). Nightw 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a summary of my own on the possible implications of UNESCO.... I agree that it might not convey much to the position column, but there are cases where it should be mentioned in the notes column. I'll just paste my summary here so you can look at it.

• Of those in favour: ...the following entries are empty: Armenia, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Equat. Guinea, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Myanmar, Nigeria, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Slovenia, Uzbekistan and Yemen. Note that Belgium, France, Greece, St Lucia and Spain abstained in the exec board vote. It also may add to the info on Austria and Iran who are listed as against, and Belarus, the Congos, Cyprus, France, Ghana, Mali, Malta, Mozambique and Serbia which are all listed as unconfirmed.
• Of those against: ...the following entries are empty: Australia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Palau, Panama and Vanuatu. It may also add to info on Samoa, Solomon Is and Sweden which are all listed as unconfirmed.
• Of those abstaining: ...Some switched- Haiti and Zambia--both empty--supported the board resolution, and Latvia and Romania opposed it. Latvia should certainly be updated I think because half of its notes are about its vote in the board resolution. I think Switzerland and Togo--both empty--are important to consider, reflecting Swiss neutrality and Togo's recent election to the SC. Bosnia is another.
• I dont think much can be surmised from absence unless there's a neutral source that says a certain state's absence implied something. The fact that Burundi and the Central African Republic--both empty entries--were amongst those submitting the resolution could also be useful information on their position, although Burundi abstained in the vote.... Icarus^talk 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Levant 830.svg

It seems as if this file is a bit irrelevant. This is not an article about the region's ancient history. Unless someone can explain how it contributes to the article, I suggest it be deleted. RomanPA (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeach, it's seems the "Palestine 194" topic (2011 initiative for Palestine membership) attracts the regular pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli edits such as "Land of the Jews", "Arab homeland" and other ancient history issues. Japinderum (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked now. Nightw 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

More applications expected soon

See [25]. Japinderum (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Consequences of UNESCO vote

Israel withholding tax revenues and excellerating settlement constructions. Can someone add it? Nightw 14:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellerating? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightw 15:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Admission procedure options, numbers of votes required, etc.

This edit removed the heading "UN", the number of votes required, the admission procedure options with reasoning "this is already described elsewhere; ...; removing fringe stuff from Boyle that hasn't been addressed as an option by the govt".

The Boyle source was added just as additional source - there are two other sources stating the same thing. And it's irrelevant whether the PLO/PNA have officially stated that they will use a particular procedure or not - the article should show what the available options are - in addition to informing which of those the PLO/PNA authorities decided to use. Japinderum (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does matter. This article is too long as it is. At some stage, we're going to need to go through and cut out unnecessary details — exploring obscure, potential options put forward by legal theorists definitely classifies. Also, stating "there is a possibility to overrule the veto" is taking the words of these theorists and presenting them as fact. Nightw 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"obscure, potential options put forward by legal theorists" - not so much. This option has been often discussed in the mainstream media as a possible route for the Palestinians: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. TDL (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Only two of those are journalists, but the media is certainly not a reliable source on the relevance or viability of potential routes to membership. Having said that, I've noticed that Al's article actually quotes al-Malki, so I guess that's fine. Nightw 14:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. As per WP:PSTS: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" and "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." al-Maliki is a primary source and thus obviously not a good source for the "relevance or viability of potential routes to membership". We need secondary sources to do that for us. And I'm not sure what the relevance of whether an article is written by a journalist or a news agency is. TDL (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are the number UNGA votes required (129) mentioned? (source provided in deleted text) Why remove the "UN" heading under applications? Japinderum (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Because that is what the article is about. Read MOS:HEAD. Nightw 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

'Because' answers 'why?', but what about the 'where?' Japinderum (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't added by me. I think I removed it. It was a calculation by another editor (2/3 of 194). Nightw 15:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

UNSC report?

On Nov11 the UNSC committee published the report on Palestine admission readiness - whether it complies with the criteria set in the UN Charter - to be "peace-loving," to "accept the obligations" of the U.N. charter, and to be "willing and able to carry out".[32], [33]

Anyone to have a link to the report itself? And what are the next steps/dates in the procedure? Japinderum (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To be decided by the PLO once they've discussed the best course of action with the Arab League. They can either call for a vote or take another route. The U.S. said it would veto; Britain, Colombia, France, Germany, Portugal said they'd abstain; Bosnia didn't state its intentions. Nightw 14:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Palestine at the UN - six stages

1. 1974: PLO gets UNGA observer entity status
2. 1988: PLO gets designated as "Palestine"
3. 1998: PLO gets "status of observer entity, but almost observer state" (seating in the General Assembly Hall immediately after non-member States and before the other observers)
4. 2012?: PLO UNGA status unchanged, but UNGA adopts resolution to treat the State of Palestine as a state, which is not member of the UN (currently such are Cook Islands and Niue; pre-1999 also Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati and others) - "A Palestinian resolution on non-member state status"[34][35] - after US elections.
5. 2013?: State of Palestine replaces the PLO as UNGA observer and gets UNGA observer state status (currently such is the Holy See; pre-2002 also Switzerland and others)
6. 2014?: State of Palestine becomes full UN member state

Of course none of these changes the "facts on the ground" (e.g. Israeli interference and territorial control), but climbing up the UN status ladder opens additional diplomatic options for pressure on Israel.

What's relevant to this (and other) article is the distinction between steps 4 and 5. Since all we have right now are journalistic reports about what will happen we should be extra careful when it happens - whether it's 4 or 5 (or even a variation of 3). If it's 6, then it's easy.

And a trivia:

• If 6 happens in 2012 Palestine will be the 194th UN member state
• If 5 happens in 2012 Palestine will be the 2nd (in 2012) UN observer state (195th among UN member and observer states)
• If 4 happens in 2012 Palestine will be the 3rd (in 2012) "UN non-member state" (197th among UN member, observer and non-member states)

Japinderum (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the UNGA resolution about treatment Niue and Cook Island as a state? Aotearoa (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into a CI/Niue discussion. They (along with "pre-1999 also Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati and others") are mentioned only as example of what this non-member and non-observer "state status" is. It's strange because the UNGA already has PLO as observer and could go directly to step5, but according to the news reports it seems that's not what will be proposed.

For Cook Islands, Niue (and for Tuvalu, Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati and other "non-member and non-observer states" before 1999) there are no UNGA resolutions, but decisions by other UN System organizations and organs (such as intergovernmental organizations with membership similar to the UNGA - FAO, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, UNESCO, WHO, WMO): UN Office of Legal Affairs Page 23, number 86: "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative...", Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs Supplement No. 8; page 10, UN map of the World: listing "member states", "non-self governing terriotries [of the member states]", "non-member states", "observer non-member states". There is also a Court ruling, page 262: "... the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state ..." Japinderum (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)