Talk:Right to exist

Quality, locking

Isn't this very flagrantly in the form of an essay or editorial? Even the introductory section is as such. What are the grounds for its permanent locking other than to protect this? Zusty001 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

On grounds, see [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

the lock was introduced in Nov 17 after an edit war and ensured editors were successful in ensuring the term "right to exist" should not be used when describing Israeli leaders who reject Palestine's right to exist, as I described in the link above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 82.11.163.59 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Instead of editwarring with the archive bot, you could try some WP:APPNOTEing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am !!! "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

....The talk page"

why is the archive bot doing this ? in fact why aren't the clear NPOV with this article not addressed after all these years ? 82.11.163.59 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

but thanks for suggestion 82.11.163.59 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought you may want wider than this talkpage, where not much is happening, but if not, fine. On why, see WP:CHOICE. en-WP has about 6,5 million articles and about 117,000 active editors (that includes you), and they spend time on what they think is interesting atm. The bot is archiving old threads without comments after awhile because that is what it's meant to do, it keeps talkpages from getting too long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

fair enough, thanks for your advice - I'm not familiar with those other avenues such as the village pump - to be honest at first glance this talk page seemed the most obvious place with most footfall (albeit not so much) and those comments aren't so old to be archived. there are "older" undated comments that seem to evade the archive bot. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

to be honest the more I look at the Palestine section the more odd it looks : "The Knesset plenum gave initial approval in May 2009 to a bill criminalizing the public denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with a penalty of up to a year in prison."

what exactly does that have to do with Palestine and its right to exist ?? 82.11.163.59 (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Make an edit request, I'll deal with it, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I fixed that section up now. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks Selfstudier - it does seem that in the joint Israel/Palestine section only 1 of 10 paagraphs deals with Palestine's right to exist. And would it good t oadd back in the detail of Danon's stanced that has vanished ?

In an August 2011 interview with Teymoor Nabili on Al Jazeera English, Danny Danon said "There is place only for one state on the land of Israel.... I do not believe in a two-state solution.", reaffirming his stance in June 2013: "Oy vey! Is it such a criminal offense to oppose a two-state solution?" 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

On the older comments, that's because the bot doesn't "get" the unsigned/undated comments, someone has to be arsed to do it manually. This talkpage is the right place to start, but "no reply" is a fact of life on WP, and then one has to decide to take it further or do something else. My personal choice for "next" in this situation would be appnoting some of the WP-projects listed above on this talkpage (or perhaps WP:NPOVN, your argument seems to be WP:NPOV-related), if you're not on a laptop you may have to tap something to see them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove Northern Ireland

This article explicitly distinguishes between a right to exist and self-determination, but then wrongly implies that the Good Friday Agreement gives Northern Ireland a write to exist. The GFA does the exact opposite- it directly gives conditions for the dissolution of Northern Ireland and the territory's incorporation into the Republic, those being if a majority in both jurisdictions vote for a UI in a referendum. Neither the Irish nor British government holds that Northern Ireland has a right to exist. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is no one going to address this point? The article is locked so I can't edit it directly, I had assumed that there would be someone watching the talk page and update the article based on input here. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that can be cited? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

See the section "iii. The Good Friday Agreement, consent and self-determination" in page 4 of this source (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution_unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll_0.pdf). It says that the signatories (the British and Irish governments), "recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland." This is an expression of self-determination for NI, which is explicitly laid out elsewhere in the document as well, and which directly contrasts with the definition of a right to exist given in this article ("Unlike self-determination, the right to exist is an attribute of states rather than of peoples"). No one recognises Northern Ireland's right to exist as an entity; the only reason it seems to be included is one clumsily worded source that refers to the pre-GFA Irish constitution as a "flat denial of Northern Ireland's right to exist." All parties who signed onto the GFA, with its explicit provision for a referendum to abolish Northern Ireland, similarly flatly deny its right to exist in the context of this article's definition of the term.

The current wording of the Northern Ireland section of this article heavily implies that in 1998 the Irish constitution was changed to accept NI's right to exist as an entity. As I explained above, it did not. No signatory to the GFA can support NI's right to exist (as it is defined in this article) without repudiating the treaty. ComradeKublai (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the entry to reflect that the original denial by way of the Irish constitution was not just deleted but changed and detailed that change. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Now it's somewhat better, but the paragraph still implies that Ireland somehow recognizes Northern Ireland's right to exist through its layout. The first sentence says that the Republic's constitution formerly denied NI's right to exist, and then details an amendment to it in the GFA. While each individual piece of that is correct, the average reader will walk away with the impression that the Republic now recognises NI's right to exist, which it does not due to reasons I explained above and which you don't seem to have an issue with.

If the NI section is going to remain it should say something like "Both the Irish and British governments recognise Northern Ireland's right to self determination, which negates any right to exist." ComradeKublai (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I can add the ucl source / quote you gave above if that would help. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That would improve it, but I don't understand why a section on NI exists in this article at all. There is no entity that recognises its "right to exist."

If you're dead set on keeping the section you should at least make the difference between a right to self determination (what the sources are actually taking about) and a right to exist explicit. The source in the section that refers to a "right to exist" for NI seems to just be talking about self-determination in a fairly clumsy way. As this article describes in its header a right to self-determination is an explicit negation of a right to exist, with no entity recognising the latter. ComradeKublai (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The entry exists because someone produced a reliable source stating that the Irish constitution as was, denied NI right to exist. It is not that I am "dead set" on keeping the section. My personal opinion about that is irrelevant, as is yours, WP goes by RS. You have produced a RS stipulating the view now of the British and Irish governments and I will put that in. It seems to me that this clarifies the situation sufficiently.

To be clear, I have previously stated my personal view that "right to exist" particularly when used by politicians is more a rhetorical device than anything else and I also agree that self determination is the more modern expression of what these politicians are trying to say but the article is here so c'est la vie. Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, my whole argument was that the structure of the paragraph falsely implies that the Irish constitution somehow acknowledges a right to exist even if the text itself is without error. I don't know who you mean by "these politicians," as the source given is an author who only briefly touches on the Troubles, isn't quoting politicians, and seems to be the only source that uses the term "right to exist" in relation to NI. Why not just add a sentence saying "The signatories to the Good Friday Agreement acknowledge Northern Ireland's right to self determination, which is distinct from and negates a right for the province to exist" or something to that effect?

I also noticed a second problem, and I'm not sure if if it was put there before or if it is a new innovation. The article describes the Troubles as "a violent conflict between Irish nationalists and Ulster unionists from 1969 to 1998," which is incorrect in that it totally leaves out the role of British state forces in the conflict. The concentration of British forces relative to the population was the highest relative to the civilian population of any guerilla war in modern history, so calling it a conflict between Irish nationalists and Unionists is effectively a lie by omission. You could change it to "A violent conflict involving Irish nationalists, Ulster Unionists, and British state forces."

Overall the inclusion of NI here is a poor and NPOV attempt to fit the Troubles into a framework largely particularly to the Israel-Palestine conflict, in an attempt to imbue NI with a "right to exist" that no entity has ever acknowledged. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) ComradeKublai (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, see if someone else will help, I have other stuff I have to do and I believe the amendments I made dealt with your original point. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

In the section on Israel/Palestine, the name of Egpytian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser is linked to the page for the name "Abdel Nasser" instead of the page for the individual himself. Recommend fixing this link to lead to Gamal Abdel Nasser. Lucasisaacfrye (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

War

Peace treatys of the government militarys and how they should be handled. 69.55.98.34 (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)