Talk:Right to exist/Archive 1

Failed AFD
See Articles for deletion/Right to exist (2nd nomination). Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Palestine's Right to Exist
Why are references to Palestine's right to exist routinely deleted? An independent Palestinian State has a legal right to exist under Resolution 181 of the United Nations of 29 November 1947. This state does not currently exist. It is estimated that 5,000,000 of the 9,395,000 to 11 million Palestinian Arabs are currently Stateless people.[7][8] The Peel Commission recommended the establishment of an Arab state cooexistent with a Jewish state within the borders of the British Mandate for Palestine. In 1947 UNSCOP concluded (a) Although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine are sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently.

(b) The Arab and Jewish peoples, after more than a quarter of a century of tutelage under the Mandate, both seek a means of effective expression for their national aspirations.

(c) It is highly unlikely that any arrangement which would fail to envisage independence at a reasonably early date would find the slightest welcome among either Arabs or Jews.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 states "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948"[9] 93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments in favour or against Israel
This article is about the phrase "Right to exist" and its use in Israeli political discourse and not a critique of Zionism, so anything discussing the question whether Israel should exist should not be here. Pilatus 10:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so you say the article is about the term "right to exist", and not whether or not Israel should exist,ie, the article is only concerned with the term itself, right?

So,then, what's been put here so far is presumably an explication of the term, what someone in favor of the term thinks it means, and why it should be used (and not an argument for or against Israel).

With that in mind, I think it would be in the spirit of the article if I added a Chomsky quote that criticized the term itself and why some believe it ought not to be used, but which would not be a criticism of Israel itself, anymore than the original segement is an apology for Israel. So I'm going to go ahead and add that quote, unless there's a compelling reason why I shouldn't.--Filippo Argenti 17:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote was improperly cited. I changed the quote to reflect the citation, but the original quote that was improperly cited can be found at http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky021003.htm Macfanatic (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
The language in this article doesn't seem completely npov. Specifically, I'm refering to "the other expression forming a mask for Anti-Semitism, a disdain to see any form of progress by those of Jewish origin." Is this even true? There's no citation, and this statement is asserting a pretty bold motivation on people. I'm not entirely sure if this is correct, this certainly doesn't appear to be the proper presentation of these ideas.

Also "Right to Exist" is a pretty generic term. This article should be renamed "Israel's Right to Exist." I have would argue that pretty much every nation has a right to exist, but this article doesn't refer to any other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.146.221 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've editted it. I was simply referring to 'raw' anti-semitism and general hatred of Jews, some are motivated by that in this topic, although a small minority in my experience.

Right to Exist: Ask ten people who are politically aware what this refers to, 10 of them will say Israel. Yes it's general but in reality, specific. Not the best terminology, but just one of those things, it is because it is. LegendaryHammy (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. You can't just fill an article with your own arguments and thoughts on a topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disgraceful ignorance
The ignorance displayed on this page is emblematic of the reasonswhy Wikipedia is mocked. It is written as though this phrase originated with Israel or in Israel and is used exclusively about Israel. I am attempting toput in a little reality, with an explanation of the origins of the phrase in International Law.AMelian (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)AMelianAMelian (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)AMelian


 * If you Google, the top results all relate to Israel. I went through seven pages and found only one hit that wasn't Israel related. Of course, there are plenty of non-Israel hits if you go further down, but they are things like "Human resources has no right to exist". Non-Israel international law references are quite rare. To put "Abkhazia" first is to mislead the reader. The quote "every nation has the right to exist, and to protect and to conserve its existence" is hardly classic. It's from a rather obscure 1916 declaration by a group of lawyers and has no legal standing. Kauffner (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not a reason to delete everything else. Right to exist, and Palestine gets 200,000+ hits, which is a lot. The American president said "that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's." Right to exist and abkhazia gets 15,000 hits, which is a lot more than nothing. Russia has cited Abkhazia's right to exist in official communications - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2008/russia-080826-mfa01.htm93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I seached, the tenth result for "right to exist" was "Does Palestine have the right to exist?" .93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did "right to exist" and Abkhazia and I got 5,000 hits, compared to 389,000 for "right to exist" and Israel. The Google software isn't designed to give accurate hit counts, but to put the most relevant hits on top. In this case, those hits are all relate to Israel. The current version of the article doesn't even mention Israel in the lede, only as one entry on an alphabetical list of nations. Readers are being given a misleading view of how the phrase is used. Both quotes about Abkhazia are from 2008, so this is covered by WP:RECENTISM as well.
 * The material about Palestine is way off base. The phrase "right to exist" does not appear in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Nor does this resolution use the phrase "Arab Palestinian" or refer to the proposed Arab state as "Palestinian" or "Palestine." In any case, Resolution 181 was superseded by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967, so it no longer gives anyone the right to anything. The Peel Commission and the number of stateless Arabs has no relevance to this topic. This is a language article, so the fact that the phrase "right to exist" wasn't used with respect to Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s is sufficient reason to cut this entry out. But arguement this entry makes is also flawed from a substantive point of view: At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs.
 * The "Macedonia" entry is also very misleading, since the the phrase "right to exist" does not appear in the 1934 Comintern resolution. It seems to be a phrase used by a modern author writing about the conflict. I don't see any indication that the phrase was associated with Macedonia traditionally.
 * The claim, "The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" is incorrect and not supported by the cited sources. Both sources use the phrase "right to exist" only when quoting from the 1916 American Institute of International Law resolution, which not a 19th century source, not a League of Nations source, and not a UN source. Kauffner (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RECENTISM does not rule out covering recent events - read it. "At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."- how does that relate to their "right to exist", and is it true? 181 refers to "Palestinian Citizens", and "Palestinian peoples". Please give a source for "Resolution 181 was superseded by UN Security Council Resolution 242", and amend those articles accordingly.  You claim that "This is a language article, so the fact that the phrase "right to exist" wasn't used with respect to Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s is sufficient reason to cut this entry out.", which makes very little sense to me, especially given Obama's recent declaration on the Palestinian Right to Exist. I know little of Macedonia, and you may be right.  "The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" may not be supported by the sources, but it has been part of the article for a long time - are you sure it is wrong. The entry on Israel could use some explanation on the use of "right to exist" to deny the Palestinian right of return.  WP:RECENTISM suggests that it is wrong to rely on post 1967 usage. For example  Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that "He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." This suggests an alternative meaning that should be described in the article. Semiotics has also had a right to exist since 1966, pre-dating Israel.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The League of nations charter said "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." This contradicts the statement that " At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The phrase was in widespread use in this manner in the nineteenth century, and was incorporated in the form cited above into the basic principles of the League of Nations and of the United Nations" is wrong, I agree, as I can not find it in either text.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "At that time, Palestinian Arabs were not regarded as having a national identity separate from that of other Arabs."- how does that relate to their "right to exist", and is it true? Logically, a thing must be understood to exist before we can talk about it having a right to exist. The area intended by the UN for the "Arab State" mostly went to Jordan, and the Jordanian government didn't treat Palestinian Arabs as a separate nationality.
 * The bottom line is that Resolution 181, the Peel Commission and so forth don't say anything about a "right to exist", so they don't belong in this article. The little POV history of Palestine and the stateless Arabs has no relationship to the subject this article is supposed to be about. "Palestinian Citizens" means citizens of the Mandate of Palestine, both Jews and Arabs. Your quote from League of Nations charter doesn't say anything about Palestinian Arabs or a right to exist. The "certain communities" could be Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Jews, etc. WP:RECENTISM talks about a "ten-year test", so I don't see any problem with focusing on post-1967 usage. An article that focused on pre-1967 usage would be mostly about Thomas Paine and Ernest Renan, whose quotes you have removed without explanation.
 * I much prefer a putting the citations in chronological order because this gives a sense of how usage has developed over the years. Listing alphabetically by country gives a false sense of equivalence between various the countries listed. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Listing alphabetically by country gives a false sense of equivalence between various the countries listed' - please explain, as I thought that all the countries listed were equivalent. Your suggestion to focus on post-1967 usage to give a sense of how usage has developed over the years I find hard to understand. I removed the references to Thomas Paine and Ernest Renan in order to recover the large sections of the article you deleted. Please restore them.. The 10 year test refers to "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", not things that happened 10 years ago." Your argument about Palestinian Nationhood is Israeli POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Philosophical absurdity
It's not my area, but surely there should be some grounding for this concept? It would be good to add references to John Searle, Peter Singer, Max Weber, social contract theory and even perhaps Parmenides (if something does not exist it cannot have rights; if it does it does not need a right). At the moment the article only applies to "nations", basically meaning "sovereign states". The converse of right to exist of nations could meaningfully be equated with genocide (if a nation is a holotype for an individual), but the converse of right to exist of a state seems to be mere denial of a socially constructed proposition, and there are an infinite number of those. States are pure fiction: convenient or inconvenient fiction as may be. It seems absurd to suppose that a fictional entity can have rights. In any case "The right to exist is a bedrock principle of international law referring to the right of nations to exist" needs actual quoted sources, perhaps the UN Charter, and the second part of the sentence would is a self-definition and adds nothing. --79.72.42.92 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

revision 300404844 by Kauffner
This attempted to remove references to the rights of states other than Israel to exist. I have reverted it. Please explain the reasoning behind it, as it appeared destructive.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This version of the article has a list of problems I have enumerated above. For example, there are several paragraphs about UN Resolution 181. This resolution does not use the phrase "right to exist", nor does it recognize Palestinians Arabs as a separate nationality, nor is this resolution still in effect. Why would think you that material on this subject belongs here? You saw something about Israel, so you felt a need to write about Palestine? Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not a valid reason for removing all the material created by consensus that you have done three times. A lot of editiors have been involved in writing this entry. US president Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=3830293.96.148.42 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * talk please stop repeating your destructive edit. You have failed to explain why only Israel has the right to exist. This is a controversial topic, previous discussions here explain the current state of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Kauffner's edit, revision 303897115, repeats the deletion of most of the article,with the claim that it is the consensus version. Since it represents his rewriting of the article, I have reverted it to the consensus version.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion I concur with the anonymous IP, here. I can see no good reason for deleting all mention of Abkhazia, etc. from the article, which already includes a section on criticism as to whether the term can be applied generally or not. Certainly, the main focus of the article should be on Israel and Palestine, since that is the most common usage of the term, but it is clear that it is sometimes used in other contexts, and it seems to me that those other usages deserve at least some mention. Anaxial (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try Googling . I went through seven pages of results and basically everything was Israel, Israel, Israel. As it is now, the lede mentions a whole list of countries, but not Israel. The references in the lede claiming that "right to exist" is some sort of general principle of international law are bogus, as I have already discussed above. The section about Palestine focuses on UN Resolution 181, which doesn't use the phrase. This whole section is very misleading as it implies that Israel prevented the Palestinian from obtaining the state they were entitled to under this resolution. Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's also not hard to find references on Google to the phrase used in other contexts. For example, there are nearly 5,000 hits for its use in reference to Abkhazia, and an even greater number specifically referring to the Palestinian right to exist . As I say above, it's obvious that the main use the of the term is with reference to Israel, and that should be the focus of the article. But I can see no valid reason to exclude its use in other contexts outside the lead. However, I have stated my third opinion; it is not binding, and you are welcome to ask for a wider RfC, or pursue some other process, if you feel that would be helpful to prevent an incipient edit war here. Anaxial (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, gives you over 10 million hits, vastly more than the equivalents for  Palestine or anyone else. I never excluded relevant quotes referring to other countries, but listed them chronologically at the bottom. The problem is that Israel in not currently the focus of the article, or even mentioned in the lede. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to add an analysis of the Israeli use of "right to exist". However the term dates to the mid c19, if not earlier, and it does not belong to Israel. You say that the notion that" "right to exist" is some sort of general principle of international law are bogus" - please give references. As I understand it, Israel has the same right to exist as any other state, but feels threatened. Abkhazia is in a similar position.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The earliest usage I can find is Thomas Paine (1791), but that keeps getting removed from the article. The references for the claim that RTE is from 19th century international law or from the League of Nations don't support this claim at all. Instead, they quote from a document produced by a group of lawyers in 1916. The two main problems with the article as I see it are: (1) In the real world, RTE refers to Israel in the overwhelming majority of cases. There is no indication of this now, either in the lede or in the way the article is organized. (2) It's filled with little one-sided POV essays about various controversies around the world, such as Palestine and Abkhazia. Kauffner (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please add useful material, such as the Thomas Paine usage, but don't delete lots of text. If you add material to the Israel section, then it could be reflected in the lede. Israel's RTE is controversial, as is Abkhazia's and Palestine's. However in the real world RTE refers to all countries, and arguably to other things, such as semiotics, as well.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see wp:synth, which is Wikipedia's policy pertaining to using sourced content to reach a novel conclusion.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Kauffner and some others need to consider both the specificity of phrasing and the bias toward the recent inherent in google.  If you look in early nineteenth century sources, the debate is about the rights of the Greeks to statehood.  But they may be using words like sovereignty, ofr freedom, as in Byron's wonderful poem "I dreamed that Greece might yet be free..."  A specific phrase can develop later than the concept it represents.  Bureauracracy is a 19th-century word, but the Byzantines were notorious for their bureaucratic red-tape, although I suspect that red-tape is a 20th-century word.   Failure to use the phrase "right to exist" did not stop the seventh-century Armenians from fighting a  war of national liberation against an occupying army.   They lost.  But the fact that the phrase "national liberation" had not yet been coined did not negate the fact that this is what they were fighting for.  When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them  Thomas Jefferson did not use the phrase "right to exist" either.  But it is what he meant.AMuseo (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Make up your minds
My last post along these lines was deleted, so I'm going to make it again. At least the high points will be covered

Simply - the sections in the article pertaining to Abkhazia and Palestinian state serve to directly and and materially undermine the statement by Chomsky earlier in the article that this concept is only invoked by Israel. Decide: is Chomsky wrong (and thus presumably his statement should not be emphasized), or is the Wikipedia article (incorrectly) undercutting his statement by giving undue weight to these other countries. The Israel section is roughly comparable in size to the sections on the other countries - an uninitiated observer would therefore think that Chomsky's statement does not make sense occupying such a high place in an article that quite obviously has some serious conflicts with it. Solution: either drastically expand the section on Israel, delete these other countries' sections, or get a new quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.15.110 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. Chomsky is asserting something that almost every line of the article marks as untrue.   I moved his assertion to the section about Israel because I can see that some editors think it belongs in the article. On the one hand, although it is a false assertion it is made by a notable polemicist. It certainly does not belong in the lede.AMuseo (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the hits for "right to exist" on Google books, the overwhelming majority relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As for the other hits, they do not usually refer to other nations that supposedly have the right to exist, or even to international law, but rather to entirely unrelated subjects including abortion, animal rights, and self-esteem. This page has put together some unrepresentative quotes offers a misleading view to the reader. Kauffner (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @kauffner - read the posts above, especially the one about recentism. You were involved in that discussion, and are repeating what you said before.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be an argument against the Chomsky quote, yet you restored it. Attacking Israel's "right to exist" was already a major theme in Arab rhetoric under Nasser in the 1950s, so Chomsky is quite wrong when he links it to the Palestinian issue claims it was invented in the 1970s. But being wrong isn't a reason to exclude the quote. Kauffner (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

question
How is the "right to exist" different from the right to "self-determination"? Perhaps the two articles should be merged? Opportunidaddy (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a technical difference in that "right to exist" implies that the state in question already exists, but "self-determination" does not. But the larger difference is that the word "self-determination" is used in the UN Charter and has a meaning interpreted by international lawyers. "Right to exist" has to do with morality. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

balanced rights
This sentence in the lead: The right to exist of a de facto state may be balanced against another state's right to territorial integrity. Could someone please show me where exactly the reference says that? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Original Research Removed From the article
I have removed the following from the article as it is original research based on historical sources, that do not contain the conclusions expressed in the passage - "The phrase "right to exist" gained prominence in the 1950s because of the vehemence with which Arab states at this time denied that Israel had such a right.*"Foreign Affairs; A Time to Find a Solution for Palestine", New York Times Aug 2, 1958. "Most Arab leaders do not even dare admit Israel's right to exist. They fear assassination by fanatics."*Parliamentary debates: Official report: Volume 547 (1956), Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons: "I will give two short quotations, one from Colonel Nasser, the Prime Minister of Egypt, on 8th May, 1954. It is an extremist point of view based on the belief and the assertion that Israel has no right to exist at all."*"Arms and the Middle East", Toledo Blade, Sep 30, 1955. "the Arabs still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist." "And underlying all of the questions dividing Israel and its Arab neighbors, one issue is central: Does Israel have a right to exist?", wrote novelist James T. Farrell in 1958.Farrell, James Thomas, It has come to pass, 1958 "189.233.95.90 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain - a Novelist's opinion, extracts from a contemporary newspaper article, and reports of parliamentary debates are primary sources. Mixing them together constitutes original research. Wikipedia should be based on respected secondary sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So if there is more than one source, it is original research? The point is just to show that the phrase was applied by the Arabs to Israel in the 1950s, since Chomsky and others have claimed that it arose as a result of the 1967 war. Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Law against aggression and right to exist
If there was no right to exist then aggression would be completely legal. This would be completely self explanatory if the Jews weren't involved, and there was no appalling need to pretend that the right to exist is "not" protected under international law. 108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Request for comment
I invite neutral commentary on this article, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun ,USer:Mar4d,and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact: "It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state."  In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.205.29 (talk • contribs)


 * I've removed RFC tag from the statement as it is not neutral (see WP:RFC) and consisting of personal attacks - especially where you are blaming the reverting editors with nationalism, not to mention wikilinking the mention of that with "Pakistan and state terrorism". There's also zero discussion on this talk page. You've simply deleted and editwared over changing sourced content over a range of articles. I'm not far from reporting you for vandalism... you should stop commenting on editors and discuss the content instead. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replaced that citation as that is conflicting with everything there is about the partition of India. Pakistan did not refuse the partition - Pakistan was created by that - (congress and then) India disagreed with the partition. I've added many sources which say this. Two nation theory is the basic concept of Pakistan and disagreeing to that would logically be disagreeing with the right to exist. This has been clarified in the sources provided. Further more, your source - questionable as it is - did not even say it own its own and rather referred to the sentiments of an official which was neither stated/attributed here nor does it have any place here (and then ofcourse the inaccuracy). -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: the IP has been blocked for vandalism over a range of articles. His blanking was unfounded in my opinion even after this 'statement'. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Declaration
Why is this used as a source twice in the article? Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. It is also self published :o) And of course does not support the statement By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kargil 1999 Also used twice in the article does not support the statement above, India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state If India accepted the establishment of the state then how exactly are they denying their right to exist? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)rediff.com are not WP:RS per their own disclaimer THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS.
 * afghanland.com are not WP:RS as there are no evidence of editorial over-site.
 * This edit removed WP:OR one source is an op-ed, the other does not cover the claim made. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Every single edit I make on wikipedia is not subject to your approval so stop following my edits. 2)It is not published by the government of Pakistan to be a primary source. It is a historical piece of work and a reliable source. I've not used wikipedia for it as well rather the source (and that too is only the link - the source itself can be verified from any available medium). -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 11:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no news org that actually takes responsibility of errors published. That is ridiculous cherry picking. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All MSM outlets take responsibility for what they print, they have to, it's the law. If you disagree with my assessment that these sources are unreliable please take it to the appropriate notice boards. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Rediff.com is a reliable news source. I don't know why you would think it's the contrary. Mar4d (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they say themselves they are not. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Rediff is a major media company. Mar4d (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but yes they do [THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, AND SERVICES INCLUDED IN OR AVAILABLE THROUGH THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. Take it to the RSN board if you disagree. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a disclaimer for typing errors and misreporting. All news sites contain disclaimers. Prove how that's related in any way to WP:RS. Mar4d (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? Well were for instance does it say on the Telegraph site that they "MAY INCLUDE INACCURACIES" Take it to the RSN board if you disagree. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEWSORG. It is completely Ok to have errors for even most reputable news sources (because they do have errors every now and then and later corrected). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Full Protection due to Edit War
Please discuss any further changes here and come to an agreement before you edit the page again. If you edit war after protection expires, you may be blocked. The Helpful  One  13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for protecting this.. there were multiple reverts going on here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The recent edit war has lead to unreliable sources and WP:OR remaining in the article. Please revert to this revision so this is rectified. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus and not much discussion as yet on this to revert it. Read the statement by The Helpful One above. The sources are correctly stating fact of Afghanistan's vote in UN here. You've made no attempt to discuss these sources here either. The ones you did in a section above are supported by two editors while you alone want to remove them. Editwaring is not the solution to that and if the admin would revert it for you, it will completely be against The Wrong Version. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Section "Pakistan"
''Disclaimer:I came to this page because User Darkness Shines is on my watchlist and I saw from his talk page that he was blocked. I am not here because I am stalking Top Gun's contributions.''

Pakistan's right to exist has never been disputed by the Indian government. This is a selection of odd references selectively picked and quoted to appear as if the Indian nation disputes the right of Pakistan to exist. Imo this section is nothing but Original research in its present state and needs to be widely amended to correctly draw nuances of Indian stances. The three cases where the Partition of India, and not the existence of Pakistan, are usually in the debate of leaders of the parties seeking independence from the British rule, in right wing and left wing extremist literature and in nostalgia by a vanishing generation of Indians who had experienced a united subcontinental British India. The use of references in this section is also defective. AshLin (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The text is defective:
 * "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist". This implies India as a nation refuses to accept the existence of Pakistan which is ridiculous. The governments of both countries have long since accepted the other nations existence diplomatically since Independence. The partition of India was accepted by the predominant Congress Party and India partitioned into two nations. Some leaders, notably Gandhi was unhappy at such a state of independent India but the Mahatma's response to this was to go to Noakhali and to fast to stop communal violence. Nehru was not willing to accept a compromise if it meant he would have to play second fiddle to Jinnah in an undivided Indian nation. The Congress accepted partition and Pakistan was born uncontested. Compare Israel's case where it was attacked by its hostile neghbours. So this statement is incorrect. The Government of India continually reiterates the stand that "jammu and Kashmir" is a part of India based on its secession but not the complete nation of Pakstan. When East Pakistan broke away after the 1971 War, there was no move to absorb it in the Indian nation. India recognised Bangladesh as a separate nation, an action unlikely if the Indian nation disputed Pakistan's Right To Exist.

The sources are defective for reasons below:
 * Ref 31 - Choudhary Rahmat Ali, (1933), Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?], published 28 January.
 * This is an ancient article dating back to the early days of the Muslim League where the author Choudhary Rahmat Ali is a protagonist and one of the authors of the "concept of Pakistan". Hardly an unbiased source - his views were so extreme he was exiled by the very nation he conceptualised.
 * Not a mainstream present-day Indian source - as you would probably think seeing it in attribution.
 * The url is a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not allow its articles to be used as a source. Besides in the article, nowhere is there a mention of Indian nostalgia or irredentism.


 * Ref 32 - Jasjit Singh, 'Kargil 1999: Pakistan's fourth war for Kashmir', Knowledge World, 1999, ISBN 8186019227, 9788186019221, "... India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state, but rejects the two-nation ideology that drives it ..."
 * Mischievous use of a reference which exactly contradicts the statement it purportedly cites.
 * Rejection of the two-nation theory is rejection of the two-nation thesis that India is a nation of Hindus where Hindu religion would predominate society and politics and minorities would be dominated and unable to live peacefully and successfully under a Hindu-construct state. On the contrary India declares in its constitution that it is a secuar republic where every Indian has complete freedom of worship.
 * Poor wikiworksmanship - the reference is repeated twice, yet no editor has bothered to delete the duplicate. This at first glance thickens the article and misleads unwary readers.


 * Ref 33 - Lawrence Kaelter Rosinger, The state of Asia: a contemporary survey, Ayer Publishing, 1971, ISBN 0836920694, 9780836920697, "... The Congress welcomed the creation of a politically independent India, and accepted partition as a necessary evil in achieving this main goal ..."
 * Mischievous use of a reference which exactly contradicts the statement it purportedly cites.
 * Again this source is misquoted. The partition was accepted as a Nation and India has gone ahead.


 * Ref 34 - Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1945). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Mumbai: Thackers.
 * Complete mis-representation. Here Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian constitution castigates the rightwing extremist Hindu opinions led by Savarkar. The Right-wing extremists believed in the Two-nation theory but they are not the Congress nor the Government of India, a very important distinction that is sought to be glossed over by the defective text and mischievous referencing.


 * Ref 35 - Christophe Jaffrelot (2004). A history of Pakistan and its origins. Anthem Press. pp. 114–. ISBN 9781843311492. Retrieved 21 February 2011.
 * Strangely, the very page cited is unavailable, one wonders why the link was given, but no matter, the previous page (113) itself reiterates in its own language exactly what I am saying, that "in this respect there is a huge difference between India and Pakistan. In India after Independence, the secularists carried the day over the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The 1950 constitution, shaped by Nehru, is imbibed with secularism. In this multi-cultural nation, 'religious communities' have equal state recognition and the state itself is not defined in terms of any religion. This does not stop many Pakistanis from classifying the Indians as Hindus, making the Congress Party a Hindu party (although it partly depended in its long years of hegemony on the votes of Indian Muslims), and Nehru, an agnostic, a HIndu leader."
 * In fact this source categorically denies the sentence it purportedly cites, yet again.


 * ref 36 - "Letters and Bombs by Amitava Kumar". Politicsandculture.org. 2010-08-10. Retrieved 2012-01-21.
 * The web site is an avowed Leftist think-tank & the article is a personal narrative in first person, an odd blog-post type article, primarily about exploring the amity between the nations through children, by an Indian married to a Pakistani, which cannot be taken to be an authoritative source for this statement.
 * The author attributes nostalgia over undivided India as a barrier for Indians to accept the reality of the Pakistani state, but this is an emotive appeal not an assertion supported by rational, examples and references. . Can such a source be accepted as a mainstream critical reliable source?

For the specific reasons above the statement in its present form is POV Anti-India and false. It needs to be replaced by an accurate and neutral statement such as below:

"In India, the Two-nation theory was not endorsed by the mainstream political parties which took independent India along the path of a secular republic. It was however endorsed by right-wing Hindu extremist opinions who thought in terms of a Hindu-dominated nation and in turn accepted the necessity of a Muslim-Pakistan. Hindu irredentist views have existed during the early decades of the Indian nation but are no longer relevant or present in the views of mainstream Indian political parties. The government of India and Pakistan recognise the existence of each other as a sovereign state since their independence. Nostalgia over undivided India still exists as a lingering and diminishing view amongst Indians, especially the Punjabi and Sindhi communities on both sides whose homes in the other country were lost in Partition."

AshLin (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, at the moment I'll say it's WP:TLDR.. so I'll take some time to respond to your objections. Posting this to say I've seen them and planning to respond to them. Another bunch of sources are also presented on another talk page related to this by an IP user, I'll add them here for discussion too. I'll also specify that I've not made all entries to this section (some were present before my edits) but I'm ready to discuss all the content in the section. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Some content was there initially itself but a significant part of the present content appears to have been modified/sources introduced by you. Please give your take on this issue. AshLin (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll be adding here soon.. just a little distracted by disruption caused below and elsewhere. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(I hope the follow on will be brief so that this can get a bit fast).
 * Response to above objections


 * I think I clarified this before and I'll mention again... even in your quote of the statement you've used past tense and missed to see the meaning. India challenged Pakistan's right to exist by refusing to partition. It does not imply that India still does. They are not the same statements. Your point about 71 war is completely irrelevant here as India's recognition of BD is easily understandable as an ally.


 * Pakistan Declaration as a source:
 * The pamphlet by the person who conceptualized Pakistan to a new level from two nation theory is certainly of merit. Yes, his personal views might be favoring the partition but then gain just that doesn't make him bias. The fact that he states that Muslims of India needed a separate nation just like other nations.. and then mentioning examples... is historical fact on basis of which Pakistan was created. At a most objected case, this can still be taken in attribution to the author. And again, I don't think the claim was of present tense to say that a contemporary source is needed. About your objection to the URL... no, it is not a wikipedia article rather a wikisource link. The same content can also be verified from other sources containing the historical pamphlet. The link to wikisource was just a courtesy link - I do not need to present a link for the pamphlet at all per WP:SOURCEACCESS.


 * Jasjit Singh
 * I'll start with addressing the repetition of the citation: it is not related to this dispute and I would obviously not care if you remove it. Coming to the content, You are clearly basing your argument on the claimed secular ideology of Republic of India while the statement clearly rejects Pakistan's ideology. I've explained below... simply rejecting it now would be an ideological conflict where both can agree to disagree and coexist, but rejecting it then when it affected the decision of partition and then with congress doing every thing it could to prevent the partition (read creation of Pakistan) is a denial of right to exist.


 * Lawrence Kaelter Rosinger
 * Again, this did not say whether India rejects Pakistan's right to exist now... it was of then... and I had used past tense. Do not confuse this.


 * Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji
 * It certainly has merits, attribute them then.


 * About the content about nostalgia which was previously there in the article, I yet have to review the citations... the IP was adding that back, I guess it must have reviewed those and can help? I'll still be discussing it.


 * On the unrelated sidenote you've given in the end... I don't think that nostalgia exists on the Pakistani side... but lets stay on the topic.

I'll emphasize here that you try to understand that this was about refusing the partition of India and creation of Pakistan... ie. the right to exist. Just in case you took offense in confusion... do not confuse right to exist (of a nation) with a living thing's right to live. The right to exist is a nation related term. I find it surprising that you even find it contentious that India/or its founders denied Pakistan's creation as long as they could as it is an openly accepted fact by all. The fact that now (read after creation) India and Pakistan recognized each other is completely different than this issue. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read your point by point replies and I am putting my views in response here.
 * Reply by AshLin
 * The Right to Exist is a fundamental right of states such that it is notable only where it is denied - i.e. the reason of existence for the state is denied by other nations. That denial should be a notable ideological stance of at least one or more nations and backed by action. It should be a pervasive stand which recurs through time not an isolated occurrence or instance. This should be manifested during the nation's existence not just be a stance during the process of creation. It should be mainsstream views of governments not fringe views of left/right which exist for virtually every country.
 * This excludes all other reasons and motivations for going to war/conflict. This excludes territorial disputes, such as the 1947 and 1965 Indo-Pakistani Wars; disputes rising from responses to unstabilising forces/seccession such as 1971. Geographically-limited actions such as Rann of Kutch & Kargil also do not count. A classic Right to Exist conflict is the 1948 Arab Israel War launched by Arab countries which attempted to annihilate Israel at the moment of its creation. It was followed by a policy of diplomatic denialism, making Egypt the first country to officially recognise Israel after losing a conflict in 1973. Israel faced wars by neighbours intent on dismantling that nation's construct. No such war or threat was faced by Pakistan. The right to exist of Pakistan is not denied by either India or any other of its neighbours. If you disagree, prove me wrong by pointing to mainstream books or papers which deal with the issue prominently and discuss it. The term "right to exist" must be present in that thesis in the context of Pakistan and it must not be another idea or different nuance repackaged to imply it. Once you have mainstream academic refs which treat that issue, then this debate evaporates.
 * As of now, the refs in place are about other things. The whole refs as a set only imply cherry-picking and an OR synthesis. The exact point-wise objections of mine are not settled by your point-wise reply.
 * Any points by a country during its struggle to come into existence by getting independence do not count : they are not about fundamental RTE and its denial. So your refs pertaining to the struggle to get nationhood from British rule do not count. Chaudhary Rehman Ali included. Your words "but rejecting it then when it affected the decision of partition and then with congress doing every thing it could to prevent the partition (read creation of Pakistan) is a denial of right to exist." This is completely incorrect statement.
 * India did not everything it could to prevent the creation of Pakistan.
 * India did not deny the Partition but accepted it including accepting the existence of Pakistan right from the moment of the enunciation of the Mountbatten proposal.
 * Jasjit Singh's reference does not count. Then why let it remain, especially in disputed texts?
 * You have accepted my point about Lawrence Kaelter Rosinger's reference. Then why allow it to exist?
 * Ambedkar's reference is about right-wing extremists views which were self-contradictory. As such the right-wing extremists carried no weight with the process of Partition. Even if I attribute it, an organisation's mixed up self-serving internal contradictions are hardly proof for denial of the right to exist by the Indian nation as a whole, as your article text implies.
 * At the end, I re-emphasise the need for you to prove the existence of a real denial of Pakistan's right to exist with mainstream referencing. AshLin (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To make this brief I'll start with shorter replies. The first two points you gave are your personal commentary on what the right to exist is and is not. I don't agree with these views. Do you have a reliable source saying that denying a nation's creation is not denial to the right to exist? (because other wise is obvious from the denial itself). Also, I did not say that Jasjit Singh's references does not count... I said if it occurred twice removing it certainly wont be objected. I have not accepted your point about Lawrence Kaelter and I've not stated so either. Infact I clarified not to confuse past tense with a blame for now which I did not make. I can somewhat agree if there are views presented from the right wing extremists as of now which are irredentist in nature about Pakistan, they should be attributed to those groups rather than Indian nation (I guess that will solve this issue). If they are contradicting or anything related needs to be mentioned.. it can be. Since you've read my previous reply I think that my stand is clear that there was denial when Pakistan was being created. Just to specify, you are objecting on all fall back stances that you assume me to have on the debate which actually suggests to me that you somewhat do agree that India was against Pakistan's creation atleast then (and may still holds the same views about then). If that is correct my references about 1947 have full weight and notability to be put here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification

Content removed
With this edit I removed POV content, and also sources + content which failed verification. Absolutely none of the sources supported the content. Some were opinions and used to state facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've simply editwarred again under the pretext and disrupted the proper discussion on the Indian part of the content in the above section. You've also blanked the content of which consensus was against you in a section above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Topgun, the text and references you are defending are completely flawed. AshLin (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you think that, is why we were having a discussion on the talk... I'm sure you don't agree on blanking the content and editwarring. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been bold enough to remove the section -- none of the references listed earlier in the article mention that India has not recognized Pakistan's right to exist or vice versa. In fact, the references actually say "India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state" and "The Congress welcomed the creation of a politically independent India, and accepted partition as a necessary evil". Some of the references don't even mention anything about the right to exist. The entire section (now removed) is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN, if not downright deliberate inaccuracy. utcursch | talk 11:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been bold enough to reinsert the information the sources do back the claim : "The stand taken by Hindu Mahasabha has been defined by Mr. V. D. Savarkar, the President of the Sabha, in his presidential addresses at the annual sessions of the Sabha. As defined by him, the Hindu Maha Sabha is against Pakistan and proposes to resist it by all means." Denying the fact that many Indians rejected Pakistans creation in 1947 is a fallacy 86.176.200.54 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't support any of the content added by you. "Many Indians rejected Pakistans creation in 1947" does not mean "Republic of India doesn't recognize Pakistan's right to exist". Just because some Pakistanis say "Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan", it does not follow that the "Republic of Pakistan has expressed its desire to invade and capture India." The content added by you says that India does not recognize Pakistan's right to exist, but none of the references support the statement. As I've pointed out above, the references actually say the opposite.
 * By the way, your source does not even talk about "many Indians", it just says that Hindu Mahasabha opposed the idea of Pakistan. Plus, expressing disapproval of something and rejecting its "right to exist" are two different things. "I am an atheist and I disapprove of temples and mosques" does not mean "I think all temples and mosques should be demolished." utcursch | talk 12:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source clearly states a mainstream party rejected Pakistans creation its hard to swallow but the truth 86.176.200.54 (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And Afghans such as Bacha Khan who is seen as a saint in India rejected Pakistan also 86.176.200.54 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * India does not deny the right of Pakistan to exist - that would require that India refuse to recognise Pakistan and have no diplomatic ties. RTE can be invoked only by a state whose enemies in public declaration and in concerted action attempt to destroy the state's existence, as happened with Israel in 1947. Pakistan does not face an existentialist threat to its nationhood, not withstanding their security concerns. Its OR & Synthesis pure and simple. 12:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict with AshLin] -- Reply to 86.176.200.54
 * "A mainstream Indian party rejected Pakistan" != "India does not recognize Pakistan's right to exist".
 * "Afghans such as Bacha Khan rejected Pakistan" != "Afghanistan does not recognize Pakistan's right to exist."
 * I do not approve of many of Darkness Shines's edits, but I do not find any reason to oppose this one. Please feel free to add your content back, when you find a source which directly states something about the denial of Pakistan's right to exist by India or Afghanistan -- no original research or synthesis please. utcursch | talk 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The content on Afghanistan was removed without explanation and without getting consensus. It had direct sources saying that Afghanistan voted against Pakistan's admission to UN. About India, Those sources are a clear explanation of the denial and no one said that India denies Pakistan's right to exist... it was past tense. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an outright untruth. Each of the sources has been discredited with valid criteria with explanation above. Please address those on priority. There was no consensus for the material in this discussion and anyway tainted material requires no consensus to remove. AshLin (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Voting against admission to UN" != "Denial of Right to exist". This is classic example of synthesis -- none of the references even mention "right to exist".
 * As for India, please find a source that says "India challenged Pakistan's right to exist". This is not same as "Hindu Mahasabha opposed creation of Pakistan" or "Indian National Congress opposed formation of a nation on religious basis". In fact, one of the references cited earlier actually stated "India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state, but rejects the two-nation ideology that drives it". utcursch | talk 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Voting against admission to UN is exactly equal to denial of admission. A vote is all they had for their say and they used it completely to oppose the recognition of Pakistan by UN. This fact can not be denied. For India, this is not "synthesis", there is a difference; denying Pakistan's creation along with its ideology at that time was exactly what denial of right to exist meant. Opposing the ideology now is an ideological conflict where the parties can agree to disagree.. this was not the case in 1947 when the Indian political parties were fiercely opposing the partition (read creation of Pakistan / existence of Pakistan) itself. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is your original research. I can say that "entering into a war" is "denial of right to exist", so this page must mention all the countries which have fought a war -- but that would be original research. Please find a secondary reliable source which supports your views. utcursch | talk 13:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Going into war to completely capture/annex a territory will be an act against right to exist. So your example to is dubious. That alone gives merits to discussion of the content instead of simply labeling it as synthesis. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I see that has added back the content with simply an edit summary "Yes they do support stop edit waring", without actually posting any coherent arguments here. I'm waiting for the user to justify how this is not a case of fake references and syntheis. utcursch | talk 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines blanked the content right after the protection expired... even if you think the content doesn't belong here, this is the right venue to object. In the end, when we get to consensus the content will automatically be per that. Simply stripping the whole section is editwarring. You should know better than that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of evidence lies on the person who adds the content. There is not a single reference directly states that either India or Pakistan have opposed Pakistan's "right to exist". utcursch | talk 13:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify here that I added only the Afghanistan content and modified the first line a bit for which I had given references. All the rest was removed. WP:3RR does not say that if you think the content is not correct you can edit war. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And seriously, WTH is with the stray quote "It is essential that Indians deeply..." and "Bacha Khan...In India he is revered as the frontier Ghandi and was awarded ... Bharat Ratna". This is blatant POV-pushing.
 * Still waiting for references that directly mention "right to exist" -- if all you have is your own opinions about how denial of UN admission or opposition to ideology is same as denial of right to exist, we should probably request dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll let the IP comment for addition it made, for the rest see my comments above. I'll also be adding some replies to the above section and a few references from another page for discussion. There were four references present which you have replaced with the citation needed tag, I suggest you put them back with a discuss tag till they are considered to be removed here as that was the protected version. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the above comments again: Fake references do not count -- the references should directly support the assertion being made. You're stating "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition, India...", and not adding a single source which says that India refused to accept the 1947 partition. Both the parties accepted the partition plan -- that's why the two countries exist today. Same with your ridiculous addition about Afghanistan -- if Afghanistan did not recognize Pakistan's right to exist, it would not have diplomatic missions, embassies, APTTA or a joint chamber of commerce. Voting against UN entry due to a dispute over Durand Line is not same as denial of right to existence. utcursch | talk 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion about the "frontier Ghandi" quote, better to phrase it so that the statement doesn't base it on India and rather the person's own point of view. Something like "Bacha Khan was against Pakistan's creation for so and so reasons and he was revered by Indian political parties". This would then be a quote in context. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the content again, none of it is supported by the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed darkness shines edit since hes been blocked again for his usual antics. Moving on Bacha Khan is an Influential afghan who strongle rejected Pakistans creation as a result he did not recognise Pakistan due to this anti partition stance he was a hero in India hence him recieving the highesy civilian accolade mooted out to any non indian this is related to Afghanistan in the afghan section. On the other hand BJP which is a highly mainstream and second largest party is founded by members of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha members. 86.176.204.227 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See my suggestion above, I think we can solve this without making it contentious and include his views about Pakistan on his own merit. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very unfortunate since more than 48 hours ago. My concerns are fully laid out. The reasoning of Darkness Shine and User:utcursch are also clear. What is not clear at all is the justification of Top Gun & the anon ip to revert without attempting to even address the points. This is nothing but edit warring. AshLin (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just after replying to your objections in above section in much detail... I find this comment contentious as I addressed your comment right after you posted it and explained why there will be a delay in reply (which would be partly because of the length of the comment) and I did not revert after that. Darkness Shines was repeatedly removing content and so was utcursch. In the spirit of WP:BRD the content should have remained on the article till this discussion was over. I do not approve of the edit warring that went on right after protection but the IP's reverts were in spirit of WP:BRD even though they violated the letter if it (but then again this is from both sides). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And here you go now fueling the editwar. About your latest removal this wasn't even in the disputed section but just a citation for right to exist regardless of whether it was being denied or not. I think you should place it back. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it was not a "citation for right to exist" -- it did not even contain the words "right to exist". AshLin provided a reason in the edit summary. utcursch | talk 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * User darknessshines started this editwar not me I have explained the reasoning behind the edit this information has been here with consensus before the arrival of editors with agendas may I suggest not getting offended so easily ashlin ? 86.176.204.227 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden of adding the references lies on you, not on the editor who is removing the content.
 * You are simply refusing to address the issue that there is no solid reference which directly supports the assertion that India and Afghanistan deny (or have denied in the past) Pakistan's "right to exist". Just pulling together some statements from Savarkar or Bacha Khan and using them to prove your point is a text book case of original research and bad synthesis.
 * Afghanistan's opposition to Pakistan's UN entry comes from the disagreements over the incorporation of the Pashtun areas into Pakistan, not from denial of its right to existence. The two countries have diplomatic missions, embassies, trade agreements and what not. As for India, read the comments above -- there are plenty of references which prove exactly the opposite of what you're adding.
 * Find a reliable reference which explicitly says that these countries deny (or have denied) Pakistan a right to exist.
 * I don't want to keep repeating the same points again and again. Like I've said above, if your stance is still "My references support the content I'm adding", then let's seek third-party dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Section "Citations"
AshLin, why was the citation of Pakistan Declaration from this section removed? This was not pointing to any POV rather a citation of right to exist (right to live as a separate nation) and was a historical reliable references. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the phrase "right to exist" is not even present in that quotation. Also, Wikipedia is not a quote farm. utcursch | talk 05:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But "right to live" is which is unambiguously presented in the same context. This is not a random quotation but a notable and historical one. Per your second argument all those quotes can be removed, but here we are making a historical point. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Were in that quote does it say any nation denied Pakistan the right to exist? I went looking for sources on this subject, and I found several which say Pakistan denied India's right to exist. But none at all going the other way. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is not about denial of right to exist (which is just a part of it). It is about right to exist and that was being quoted. This citation had almost nothing to do with India-Pakistan dispute above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. It is one person giving his opinion that the Muslim people of India should have a nation of their own. That has nothing to do with a right to exist. It is a demand for the partition of a nation. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the content removed which cites the topic. That was the purpose of these citations ie. to give notable mentions of this. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Waiting for AshLin's comment on why this was removed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Attempt to provide supporting evidence for OR synthesis. AshLin (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is the reason.. I had it linked for the support purpose in the references. This is a different section where the mention is cited regardless of India or another dispute. I'm putting this back since your reason here is about the dispute above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not reinsert this content again without proving it has to do with a right to exist. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The removing editor based the removal on the above dispute which is not related to this. I think the citation is self explanatory of its relation to the right to exist. What do you expect as a proof? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. This does not simply talk about partition... this clearly relates to right to exist in itself. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is your interpretation of a primary source. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not by government of Pakistan... hence not a primary source. You seem to label any source that you want to exclude as a primary source. Even if considered a primary source for the sake of argument, primary sources if notable can still back information about themselves. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is a primary source, and it is your own WP:OR for it to have anything to do with RTE. If you disagree take it to the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is a primary source? Do you mean to remove the whole section on that argument? The quote itself mentions the concept. That is hardly original research. This is not related to RSN. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. a direct quote is a primary source as it is lifted from a pamphlet. It is OR as the pamphlet does not mention RTE. If you disagree with my assessment then it is an issue for the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * TopGun, "this clearly relates to right to exist in itself" is your original research, because the quote doesn't even contain the words "right to exist". The emphasis on the words "nation lives" and "right to live" has been added by you, and doesn't occur in the original quote, which simply uses the word "lives" as in "resides". Like I've said before, if you still insist that you're right, let's seek third-party dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 04:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

poland
i've seen people call poland an illgeitmate nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossovershipper (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source that talks about this, and feel free to add it to the article. utcursch | talk 03:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Archiving of this page starts from 21... seriously? Please move those pages and reset the counter. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestine
"In 1947, the United Nations affirmed the right of an "Arab State" and a "Jewish State" to exist within Palestine. The Jews agreed to the plan, but the Arabs denied and attacked the Jewish population of Palestine, in what was called the 1948 Palestine war." Is unsourced, and POV. There is no mention of Zionist Terrorism, the grammar is wrong, and many of the Jews were not part of the population, but illegal immigrants.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Khartoum
Regarding these edits by User:Dalai lama ding dong and the accompanying claim that the Khartoum Resolution is irrelevant to the topic of the Arabs' historic denial of Israel's right to exist, there are numerous reliable sources establishing that Khartoum was an embodiment of just that: the no recognition component was a refusal to accept the legitimacy of Israel's statehood.

Academic, scholarly sources

Israeli POV

Palestinian POV
 * —Biosketch (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i shall therfore add in RS to show what actually happened, so that all viewpoints are represented. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that there is still confusion regarding Khartoum's statement of no recognition, (which may or may not be interpreted as a refusal of a 'right to exist') and secondary interpretation that this is a refusal of the 'right to exist.' Only one of the Khartoum No's is at all relevant to this article. Knowledgeable readers will not expect irrelevant material to be included here.  This is all that this section needs on Khartoum.          In September 1967 the Arab League adopted the Khartoum Resolution which included no recognition of Israel. This statement has been interpreted as a refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist.

I will add in the alternative view later, to preserve NPOV.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dalai Lama, you haven't obtained consensus for this edit, and piggybacking on a disruptive IP's revert is not going to help your case. Explain what it is about the passage you removed that you find problematic, and propose an alternative formula you consider to be an improvement. That's how consensus is approached, not by availing oneself of a serendipitous revert to make additional reverts before consensus for the removal's been established. This is already your second revert of the same content in the article in less than three days. While not a 1RR violation, it's also not a healthy sign on your part.—Biosketch (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read the edit summaries? It does not appear that you did? As I have clearly stated at least two of the Khartoum nos are unrelated to this article.  Do you understand that?  Stating that 'knowledgeable readers' will expect to fidn something here is not sufficient reason to include it. This article is about the 'right to exist'.  It is not about recognising another country's existence.  Do you understand the difference?  The alternative text is here in this section, so why do you not read it, and say why you think it is not better than the present irrelevant text?  That is how consensus is reached.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In order to make it clear here is my proposed change copied from above. FROM HERE    In September 1967 the Arab League adopted the Khartoum Resolution which included no recognition of Israel.[1] This statement has been interpreted as a refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. [2]   TO HERE This is all that is required for Khartoum.  Nothing else is at all relevant.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
 * Please explain what is wrong with current text?--Shrike (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * please explain what the following points from the Khartoum Resolution have to do with recognition of Israel's 'right to exist' No peace with Israel, and no negotiations with Israel?  If you can not show they are directly relevant, then they should be removed. Please do not reply with weasel words about 'knowledgable readers'.  Only reply with legitimate reasons.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dalai Lama, this is becoming silly. First you don't indent or otherwise delineate the passage you want to propose as an alternative for the article and then you wonder why it is no one's addressed your proposal. Whatever mobile device you appear to be editing from has a symbol somewhere in it menus representing the Enter key. Use that instead of these weird "FROM HERE" and "TO HERE" things. And what is this argument about two of the three points of the Khartoum resolution not relating to the article? Khartoum is a packaged deal, not something that can decomposed into discrete components on the basis of a subjective interpretation. Reliable sources indicate that Khartoum was itself a rejection of Israel's right to exist, beyond simply the "No recognition" part. This, for example, is the case in the Efraim Halevy source, which of all the sources brought to this discussion so far is of the highest quality.—Biosketch (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bio, you are being silly. The proposed change was clear, and it is simply that no one has bothered to deal with it until now.  At last we can get on with the discussion  Your claim that Khartoum is a packaged deal is simply OR on your part.  Let us take the Efraim Halevy quote. 'Indeed, twenty years later, after two successive wars, the Arab world rejected Israel's right to exist at the infamous Khartoum Conference of 196[7] – 'the three NOs': no to recognition, no to negotiation, and no to peace were uttered in response to Israel's appeal to negotiate without any preconditions.'  It is subjective opinion on your part that Halevy is stating that the three nos related to Israel's 'right to exist.' If this quote is to be used in this article then it will have to be as 'Indeed, twenty years later, after two successive wars, the Arab world rejected Israel's right to exist at the infamous Khartoum Conference of 196[7'  There is nothing beyond that point that clearly relates to Israel's 'right to exist.'  I accept that Khartoum has been interpreted as being related to Israel's 'right to exist.' However that is all that is shown by the quote.  The quote does not show that Khartoum was a rejection of Israel's 'right to exist'.  Khartoum does not mention Israel's right to exist at all.  I will accept something like that which is in the Khartoum article that is in wikipedia, as follows.  'The resolution is frequently presented as an example of Arab rejectionism. Efraim Halevy, Guy Ben-Porat, Steven R. David, Julius Stone, and Ian Bremmer all agree the Khartoum Resolution amounted to a rejection of Israel's right to exist.'  The three nos do not need to be mentioned here.  The article should then state something like  "The PLO disagreed entirely with the provisions whereby Arab nations were expected to recognize Israel's right to exist, claiming that these not only ran counter to the Arab states' earlier Khartoum Summit Conference declaration but were also 'fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestinian cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland.'  This is also in the Khartoum wikipedia article, so this will give us consistency.  What the second quote shows, and this is the most fundamental point is that Khartoum, and other Arab stances are that no nation or body should be expected to accpet Israel's 'right to exist.'  Khartoum and other Arab stances do not reject Israel's 'right to exist' (though that interpretation can be stated in this article).  The alternative argument is that no one has to accept Israel's 'right to exist.'  For these bodies it is simply a non question, it is a demand that is not made of any nation, and it does not exist in International Law.  Regardless of that the present text

In September, the Arab leaders adopted a hardline "three no's" position in the Khartoum Resolution: No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

is completly irrelevant to the 'right to exist', as it stands, and needs to be removed, or added to. If you want to retain it, then you will need to add secondary sources which state that the KD has been interpreted as denial of Israel's 'right to exist' and then the alternative view can also be added. But as it stands at present, it is not justifiable that it remain in this article, without being made relevant, in some way to the subject of this artcile. Otherwise it should be removedDalai lama ding dong (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Does Israel have a right to exist? wp:NPOV issue
At the moment the article talks about Israel's right to exist being acknowleged or denied from the perspective that it has a right to exist. Given the fact that this is a hotly debated issue, should the article not take a more balanced linguistic view. "Support the view that Israel has a right to exist" rather that "supports Israel's right to exist." for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.183 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.183 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)