Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine

Attribution for content merged from Template:Palestine foreign relations. Do not archive.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2111 (UTC) * 04:46, 9 February 2011 Eliko (152,699 bytes) (The old version claims that "102 to 111 states recognise the State of Palestine" and that "45 to 36 states...conduct official relations with the PLO and tha PNA") (rollback | undo) * 21:34, 8 February 2011 Night w (90,158 bytes) (revert: this "update" just copy-pasted the article (including sections that were not part of the template created); i'd suggest discussion before making any changes to a template pending deletion) (undo) * 10:07, 8 February 2011 Eliko (148,344 bytes) (Update taken from Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. No problem of copyright when indicating at the summary edit where the update is taken from) (undo) * 09:56, 8 February 2011 Dpmuk (90,158 bytes) (Undo unattributed copy paste move for copyright reasons. This also belongs in the article not here and it's already been agreed to merge this with the article so it seems pointless adding new stuff here.) (undo) * 09:34, 8 February 2011 Eliko (148,344 bytes) (Update) (undo) * 05:31, 8 February 2011 Dpmuk (90,158 bytes) (Undid revision 411848628 by Eliko (talk) - no such thing as a "final decision" - that is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works.) (undo) * 15:49, 3 February 2011 Eliko (90,122 bytes) (Please don't by-pass the final decision that rejected the idea to delete the template before it's merged) (undo) * 23:53, 2 February 2011 Night w (90,158 bytes) (please don't remove a tfd nom; consensus will determine what action to take) (undo) * 15:44, 2 February 2011 Eliko (90,122 bytes) (The decision was "merge" rather than "delete") (undo) * 08:14, 2 February 2011 Night w (90,158 bytes) (Tfd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Palestine foreign relations) (undo) * 03:55, 11 January 2011 Eliko (90,122 bytes) (the decision was "merge" rather than "delete") (undo) * 02:21, 11 January 2011 Night w m (227 bytes) (undo) * 02:21, 11 January 2011 Night w m (202 bytes) (undo) * 02:20, 11 January 2011 Night w (194 bytes) (speedy delete per CSD:G6) (undo) * 12:46, 22 December 2010 Yobot m (90,122 bytes) (bypassing a redirect using AWB (7486)) (undo) * 06:44, 17 December 2010 Eliko (88,670 bytes) (undo) * 06:39, 17 December 2010 Eliko (88,671 bytes) (undo) * 05:09, 17 December 2010 Eliko (88,668 bytes) (undo) * 03:44, 6 December 2010 Night w (88,442 bytes) (Tfd: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Palestine foreign relations) (undo) * 11:09, 5 December 2010 Eliko (88,405 bytes) (No agreement to delete the article. See talk page) (undo) * 09:15, 5 December 2010 Night w m (247 bytes) (undo) * 09:14, 5 December 2010 Night w (197 bytes) (blanked page; req speedy deletion per agreement on talk page) (undo) * 16:59, 2 December 2010 Eliko (88,405 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 17:07, 1 December 2010 Eliko (88,129 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: Acronym) (undo) * 17:04, 1 December 2010 Eliko (88,165 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: fix tabulation) (undo) * 16:59, 1 December 2010 Eliko (88,164 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 18:45, 30 November 2010 Night w (86,141 bytes) (reverting disruptive edits) (undo) * 07:13, 30 November 2010 Eliko (87,592 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 07:12, 30 November 2010 Eliko (87,592 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: See 127th footnote) (undo) * 07:10, 30 November 2010 Eliko (87,592 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: See 127th footnote) (undo) * 05:16, 30 November 2010 Eliko (86,900 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 05:12, 30 November 2010 Eliko (86,877 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: UNCTAD) (undo) * 02:58, 30 November 2010 Eliko (86,873 bytes) (See 127th footnote) (undo) * 20:35, 29 November 2010 Night w (86,141 bytes) (revert vandalism) (undo) * 03:21, 28 November 2010 Eliko (86,873 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: Asian Group) (undo) * 21:41, 27 November 2010 Night w (86,141 bytes) (undo) * 21:08, 27 November 2010 Night w (86,186 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 11:59, 27 November 2010 Alinor (86,167 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: organizations sources) (undo) * 10:03, 24 November 2010 Alinor (85,581 bytes) (?Bilateral: non-resident ambassadors) (undo) * 09:15, 24 November 2010 Night w (85,498 bytes) (?Bilateral: nor) (undo) * 05:25, 24 November 2010 Night w m (85,473 bytes) (?Chronological table by country) (undo) * 05:22, 24 November 2010 Night w m (85,473 bytes) (?Background) (undo) * 03:37, 24 November 2010 Alinor (85,474 bytes) (?Diplomatic recognition and official relations: see talk) (undo) * 01:27, 24 November 2010 Night w (85,027 bytes) (?Background: tessler can go here) (undo) * 08:23, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,774 bytes) (?Bilateral) (undo) * 07:25, 23 November 2010 Night w (84,458 bytes) (because of WP:UNDUE, WP:V, and WP:RED) (undo) * 07:21, 23 November 2010 Night w (84,684 bytes) (examples are not adequate in this case; don't stick random uncited sources in the editor space) (undo) * 07:05, 23 November 2010 Alinor (85,404 bytes) (?Background: why delete this?) (undo) * 06:59, 23 November 2010 Alinor (85,186 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: why remove the red-links?) (undo) * 06:41, 23 November 2010 Alinor (85,178 bytes) (?Diplomatic recognition and official relations: let's not delete this source entierly - put as hidden; why delete this from the Argentina delegation?; other citations provided) (undo) * 06:10, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,483 bytes) (?Diplomatic recognition and official relations: why remove the navigational help? While the Foreign relations of PNA page includes links to SoP, the reverse is will not be true.) (undo) * 05:54, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,400 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: in line with the 102 to 111; 77 to 81) (undo) * 05:08, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,394 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: CI/Niue are in the same situation as the rest; I don't put them along the pacific states, but on their own "bullet" - pending finalising of the other debate) (undo) * 05:06, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,365 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: table headings) (undo) * 05:01, 23 November 2010 Alinor (84,297 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: no sources for all of these) (undo) * 03:06, 23 November 2010 Night w (84,380 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: fix) (undo) * 03:04, 23 November 2010 Night w (84,380 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: at least) (undo) * 09:51, 22 November 2010 Colonies Chris m (84,411 bytes) (unlinking common words) (undo) * 08:00, 22 November 2010 Night w (84,419 bytes) (move uruguay: multiple explicit sources; more available on request) (undo) * 07:58, 22 November 2010 Night w m (84,419 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations) (undo) * 07:45, 22 November 2010 Night w (84,418 bytes) (?Relations with international organisations: merge sections: blatant self-referencing; cite tags will be enough) (undo) * 07:34, 22 November 2010 Night w (84,561 bytes) (?Chronological table by country: these numbers are needed) (undo) * 07:27, 22 November 2010 Night w (84,447 bytes) (copy edit (table); terminology; merged sections needing sourcework) (undo) * 06:37, 22 November 2010 Night w (85,022 bytes) (major copyedit (first part), merged subsections, rmv bad source, cite tags, other minor fixes) (undo) * 03:08, 22 November 2010 Alinor (86,045 bytes) (?Bilateral) (undo) * 02:46, 22 November 2010 Alinor (86,029 bytes) (?Bilateral) (undo) * 17:19, 21 November 2010 Alinor m (85,987 bytes) (?Bilateral) (undo) * 17:17, 21 November 2010 Alinor (85,979 bytes) (?Created page with '==Diplomatic recognitions and official relations== {{See|Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority|State of Palestine}} In 1974 the [[Palestine Libera...')

Independence struggles

I added this in the background section: "Many of the countries supporting the PLO and early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." - but Night w removed it.

I think this is stating an obvious fact (that many of the recognizers and supporters are states that have been decolonized) and in addition we have two sources linking support for PLO of two particular countries with their own decolonization/independence struggles.

Any objections to restore this text - or suggestions for rewording it? Alinor (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The first source, as I've said before, doesn't support the statement it's attributed to. It says "The Guyana/Palestinian fraternal relationship dates back to the 1950s during the height of the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa". Nowhere in the document does it say, for example, that Guyana has gone through an "independence struggle and decolonization". In fact, Guyana's independence came about relatively smoothly. The second source you've provided does better, but as you stated yourself recently, one or two (in this case only one) examples are not indicative that the claim applies to "many". Additionally, that this is the trend for "early recognizers" is plain original research, as neither of those sources indicate that either one of them recognises the State. Nightw 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Guyana has gone trough decolonization - regardless if there was armed conflict, political issues, or smooth calm transfer of power.

"Early recognizers" - as >80% of the current recognizers are from 1989/1988 and ~75% are from 1988 (no more than 1.5 months after the declaration) don't you think that these are "early"?

"neither of those sources indicate that either one of them recognises the State." - yes, these are "countries supporting the PLO"

Do you question that 'many of the recognizers and supporters are states that have been decolonized'?

Also, both sources clearly show a link between anti-colonial/independence struggles and support for the PLO.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5] - all of these UN documents show the same link. You can read for example page76/50 of Volume I PDF and many other parts of these sources; and you can read about the "national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States," in the UNGA resolution; the issue of "finishing decolonization" was very prominent at that time and of course the states that make statements in support of PLO and decolonization in the sources were quick to recognize SoP in the first 1-2 months - and this of course includes all the states run by former "national liberation movements recognized by OAU/AL". Alinor (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what I'm supposed to be looking at with these UN documents. Can you quote a particular line? Otherwise, can't you just find a source that states exactly what you're trying to add? I don't question any of it, but I do question your choice of references. So per WP:BURDEN and WP:OR, you need to find an appropriate source that directly supports your choice of words. Nightw 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Directly"? We are not supposed to write only quotes from the sources. The links that I give (and previous links about Guyana, East Timor, ...) clearly show that a major driver for supporting PLO and later SoP was shared self-deterimination/independence struggle that many of the early recognizers of SoP have gone on their own. You don't question this, but you object adding one simple adjective to the current relevant sentence, because the resulting phrase is not found letter-by-letter in the sources? I will later formulate again some proposal for wording of the sentence in question. Alinor (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Many of the countries supporting the PLO and of the early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." Alinor (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this? You said you were formulating another proposal. This is a copy-paste of the first one; it even has the same spelling and grammatical mistakes! The sources don't say what's being claimed, nor is the quantative terminology supported (to verify "many" would require many sources), or (once again), you could just find one source that says roughly what you want to claim. Nightw 19:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous more important sections waiting for your answers and you focus on this one...

This sentence doesn't require any sources - you can see in the "History of XXX" articles that many of these had independence struggles and have been decolonized. And you can see from the UN sources I gave you above that these issues are tightly coupled with the PLO. But you already said that you agree with that. Your obstructionist approach is appealing. Alinor (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot bypass WP:BURDEN by asking readers to go looking for sources in other articles. You've been told that before by a number of editors. And you cannot use two examples to verify "many". Your lazy approach to finding sources is, similarly, "appealing". You don't have to wait for me to find more for you. Go to the library. Try searching on the internet. If the information is true, it shouldn't be difficult. Nightw 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some of the countries supporting the PLO and of the early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." If you say where and what the grammatical errors are we can correct them. Alinor (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Spelling: "trough" should be "through", and "struggle" should be "struggles", unless you're only referring to one instance. See plural. Nightw 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Paraguay

I've noticed that several articles I've read about the Chilean recognition of Palestine include statements along these lines:

"Several other South American states, including Peru, Uruguay and Paraguay, are expected to follow suit." [6]

Perhaps you jumped the gun on listing Paraguay as a recognizer? TDL (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed the same thing, but these news reports are know to be inaccurate/conflicting (see here) - some of them mention Uruguay as recognizer in 2010 [7], [8], [9] - albeit we have sources showing that it announced 'intention to recognize in 2011' [10], [11] and the quote of the Uruguay President words [12] shows the same - in addition to the Uruguay government report that albeit contradictory also shows intention for 2011.

About Paraguay - in the table we have this from Paraguay MFA showing "EMBAJADA DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA" (emphasis mine) - and this non-resident "Embassy of the State of Palestine" as listed in the Paraguay diplomatic list) is based in Brazil, who at the time of making the list was still not recognizing SoP and the mission name in Brazil is 'PLO/Palestine Special Delegation' [13] - so Paraguay position was different from that of Brazil - Paraguay recognized SoP. Alinor (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Nightw 10:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to rub it in, but: [14] :) At least we have some clarity on the issue now. TDL (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The situation on Paraguay is clear - on 28.1.2011 it "reiterated" SoP recognition [15]. You can also read the official statement at [16] (Flash): "RECONOCIMIENTO DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA (Asunción , 28 de Enero de 2011) RECONOCIMIENTO DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA COMO LIBRE E INDEPENDIENTE DENTRO DE LAS FRONTERAS EXISTENTES EN 1967

1. .La República del Paraguay en consonancia con su posición en foros internacionales, particularmente en la Organización de Naciones Unidas, estableció relaciones diplomáticas con Palestina el 25 de marzo de 2005 mediante el intercambio de Notas Reversales, acto que implicó su reconocimiento. Es de señalar que Palestina ejerce su representación diplomática ante nuestro país a través de su Embajada en Brasil acreditada desde el 28 de mayo de 2009 y nuestra representación diplomática es ejercida a través por la Embajada nacional en Egipto desde el 29 de octubre de 2009.
2. .Si bien Palestina no forma parte de la ONU, actúa como observador permanente en las reuniones de esta organización, habiendo sido a la fecha reconocido oficialmente como Estado por 108 países (aproximadamente el 56% de los Miembros de la ONU).
3. .Paraguay, fiel a su tradición pacifista, ha apoyado los esfuerzos de la comunidad internacional para colaborar en la solución del conflicto territorial entre Palestina e Israel, entre los que se destacan los Acuerdos de Madrid de 1991, de Oslo de 1993 y 1995, el Plan de Paz en Palestina de 2003 (conocido también como “Hoja de Ruta”), así como todas las Resoluciones de la ONU que condenan la ocupación israelí de territorios palestinos, como ser las Resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad N 242/1967, N 338/1973, N 446/1979, y N 478/1980.
4. .La República del Paraguay reafirma su convicción de que las negociaciones bilaterales directas entre Israel y Palestina, actualmente estancadas, son fundamentales para alcanzar la paz y la seguridad. Una resolución aceptable para las partes constituye la clave para que ambos pueblos puedan vivir en paz con sus vecinos y se alcance la tan anhelada estabilidad en la región.
5. .Por esta declaración la República del Paraguay reitera expresamente el reconocimiento de ese Estado como libre e independiente con las fronteras del 4 de junio de 1967."

The relevant part is in point1: "established diplomatic relations with Palestine on March 25, 2005 through the exchange of notes, an act that implied their recognition. " - the SoP recognition is from 2005-03-25. And of course point5 about "reiteration".

If there is a moral of this story it is that journalistic interpretations are not aways correct and when dealing with the issue of SoP recognition we should first rely on the official MFA pages - and only if we can't find information there - the interpretative statements by journalist/analysts/bloggers/laweyrs/consultants/etc. should be taken with great caution and doubt applied. Also, details such as explicit SoP recognition reference vs. "Palestine state support" and similar should be distinguished. Alinor (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This only strengthens my belief that a number of these statements are simply a codification or reiteration of recognition that was already extended in the first place. Given the pack mentality of Latin American governments, the surge over the past two months in recognition from South America creates (in my view) a scenario where all are expected to participate; even if they have already beaten the others to it long ago, to reaffirm that action in writing. The press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which can be seen here, states:

"La República del Paraguay en consonancia con su posición en foros internacionales, particularmente en la Organización de Naciones Unidas, estableció relaciones diplomáticas con Palestina el 25 de marzo de 2005 mediante el intercambio de Notas Reversales, acto que implicó su reconocimiento. Es de señalar que Palestina ejerce su representación diplomática ante nuestro país a través de su Embajada en Brasil acreditada desde el 28 de mayo de 2009 y nuestra representación diplomática es ejercida a través por la Embajada nacional en Egipto desde el 29 de octubre de 2009...

..."Por esta declaración la República del Paraguay reitera expresamente el reconocimiento de ese Estado como libre e independiente con las fronteras del 4 de junio de 1967."

So, according to Paraguay, by establishing diplomatic relations with Palestine in 2005, it had indicated recognition. And the Ministry in fact listed the "Embajada del Estado de Palestina" in its list of foreign ambassadors. Nightw 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we knew about (and listed) Paraguay recognition since the moment when SoP embassy/relations were discovered. The recent statement just clarifies the exact date of recognition - 2005-03-25. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be the first thing we've ever agreed on. Nightw 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is an issue of what constitutes recognition. Personally, I'd say that if we want to list a state as having recognized Palestine, we should have a source that explicitly states this. The current list includes any state which has implicitly recognized Palestine, by establishing diplomatic relations with them. There is a leap of logic here, that is dangerously close to WP:OR since there are examples of diplomatic relations without recognition.

The original statement says (via Google Translate) "..established diplomatic relations with Palestine on March 25, 2005 through the exchange of notes, an act that implied their recognition." IE..no previous explicit statement of recognition had previously been made. TDL (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that would make things fairly difficult, as many states no longer practise recognition of states, and even fewer issue formal declarations. I remember a few editors lobbying to get Montenegro on our List of states with limited recognition, on the grounds that a large number of states had not yet extended formal recognition. But it was scrapped, of course, as there appears to be a consensus within the international community that formalisation of diplomatic relations—de facto recognition—is enough. And to me, to "reiterar expresamente" something is to confirm something that has already been said. Nightw 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the degree of difficulty doesn't exempt us from WP:V. If, as you suggest, many states no longer practice recognition of states it's rather misleading to claim that they have recognized Palestine isn't it? I'm not suggesting a formal declaration is needed, but at minimum we need a RS which draws the conclusion that they have implicitly recognized, not us.

I don't think there is a consensus that diplomatic relations = de facto recognition. As you yourself have argued in the past here:

• "Ethiopia has a consulate in Somaliland, overseen by an official with the rank of ambassador, despite the fact that the government recognises it as a region of Somalia."
• "No, it's now a consulate. The post, however, had always enjoyed the rank of ambassador."

Perhaps the solution is just to soften the wording so we don't claim more than we can verify. IE: clarify that we are listing explicit recognizers or states with relations at the ambassadorial level with the State of Palestine. TDL (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could break them up into two sections: Explicit recognizers and those with only diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine. TDL (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't have SoP Embassy if you don't recognize SoP (in such case you will have PLO embassy, PLO delegation or whatever). Regardless if we call this de jure, de facto or something else (de jure/de facto are somewhat tricky terms - Somaliland is de facto independent - in the view of all. But Somaliland is de jure part of Somalia or de jure independent - depending on who you ask - TFG in Mogadishu or Somaliland government). Of course it is better if we have explicit statement "recognition of SoP", but keeping in mind our much bigger WP:V problems here (such as using "Embassy/Recognition of Palestine" (e.g. of PLO/PNA/whatever) as reference for "Embassy/Recognition of SoP") - see #Weakly supported in the recognizers section - I think we should refrain from further splits in the table and focus our energy on finding better sources for the weakly supported recognizers and for the inconclusive/no information sections. If we are going to make splits/coloring/whatever - I propose that this is done to distinguish weakly-supported-by-sources from the firmly supported. Alinor (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"You can't have SoP Embassy if you don't recognize SoP" - says who? The diplomatic police? Do you have sources to support this claim? Unless there is some law I'm unaware of, states can do as they so choose. It might not seem logical to maintain an embassy but not officially recognize Palestine, however political pressure can make states do funny things to try and play both sides of the field.

If we only have sources showing the establishment of diplomatic relations, and not recognition, then that's what we should claim. TDL (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to translate Alinor's comment. If a state does not recognise the "State of Palestine" as a state (and a person in international law), then its ambassador would be accredited to the interim government of the Occupied territories: the PNA...or to the representative of Palestinians recognised by the UN: the PLO. The embassy would not be accredited to the State of Palestine, as that is a separate institution that, at the moment, is all talk. The "State of Palestine" is just a name; foreign relations (even with the states that do recognise it) are carried out by the PLO anyway. So there is no reason for it to be dropped in an official accreditation unless the government were (in Wikipedia terms) making a point. Nightw 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. I understand the argument, and I agree it's unlikely that a government would specify that their relations are with the State of Palestine as opposed to the PNA/PLO if they didn't recognize them. My point is that this is only circumstantial evidence. If the souces don't explicity state that they recognize the State of Palestine, then it's OR for us to conclude that they do, no matter how likely it is.

It seems like it would be easy to get around this by changing the heading from "Recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988" to "Recognising or establishing diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine as declared in 1988" or something along those lines. If nothing else, this would make it clearer to the reader what we mean. TDL (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Paraguay example with SoP and many similar cases of countries going straight to "establish relations" and skipping the act of making separate "recognition statement" (such as many of these, in the case of Croatia) IMHO show that "diplomatic relations with SoP" indisputably imply "recognition of SoP". But, OK, if I understand correctly TDL point is that this is just IMHO/assumption and thus may be accused of OR. But do we have any source pointing in the opposite direction? I think that much more important OR/WP:V problem here is with the weakly supported states (for example Azerbaijan - the only link we had with a "SoP" reference is now a dead link. As a separate note - that's one of the reasons why we have to include the relevant quotes in the reference texts).

I don't object changing "Recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988" to "Recognising or establishing diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine as declared in 1988" - in the cases where there is enough space, etc. But what will we do with map legends, table headings/etc., where the added length of "Recognising or establishing diplomatic relations with" vs. "Recognising" would be too cumberstone? Alinor (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TDL, I see that you added a note that "Paraguay recognizes 1967 borders". This is another important aspect in SoP recognitions (what borders, if any, are specified). But are we going to mention this only for Paraguay? (and do we need additional source - this is already mentioned in the official statement) Should we make some other list (or column) with "1967 borders" vs. "no borders specified" (the 1988 declaration also doesn't specify borders). Alinor (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't me, that was User:Dailycare who added it: [17]. I think it's notable if '67 borers are explicitly mentioned in the recognition. If you want to add another column for it then go ahead. That being said, it will obviously be even more tough to find references for this than just a recognition/establishment of relations. Most of the cells will probably end up being empty. TDL (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the name mixup! Yes, I also think it would be difficult to find this information - the problem is with the states that haven't said what borders they recognize (the majority of the cases). But mentioning only Paraguay seems strange. I think we should either make a list of "recognizers of 1967 borders" (those that we have sources for) - in a separate section (not as column, so that it doesn't become empty as you say/doesn't imply that those that we don't have sources for recognize different borders) - or not mention this at all. Alinor (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Uruguay

This opens the question - should we really keep Uruguay in the "inconclusive" section or move it to "not recognizing" (yet)? Alinor (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, and I'll do this shortly myself. The entry is covered in citations and needs a good sort-through. I'll also add an attached footnote describing the confusion, if you don't mind. Nightw 10:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Alinor (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean it's OK for "attached footnote describing the confusion" - not to add a whole sub-section in such a place. Alinor (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well there's genuine confusion about some of the cases. It needs to be explained, and I can't add references in footnotes. Unless you want to do the work of splitting the notes and refs... Nightw 13:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I don't understand why Uruguay is still listed as inconclusive while many reputable sources list them as having recognized the SoP, like [18] and [19] and [20]. Also, why is the Dominican Republic not colored in on the map even though it is listed as a recognizer of the SoP in the table? Btw thanks for all you do on wiki! Umar99 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You can see it explained in the footnote in the "recognition" column: "In November, it was reported that Uruguayan President José Mujica had announced his government's recognition of the Palestinian state during the sixteenth conference of the Federation of Arab-American Entities (Ferab), held in Montevideo that month. Mujica later announced that his intentions are to do so in 2011. Later reports have shown that he is expected to make these arrangements in March 2011. Lim, Sean (7 December 2010). "More Latin America Nations Recognize Independent Palestine State". Arirang. The Korea International Broadcasting Foundation. Retrieved 2010-12-11."

And also in some of the other sources like [21].

The Uruguay president announced intentions to reconize SoP in 2011, but this was wrongly reported by some as "already recognize SoP". The latest source shows that this is expected to happen in March 2011. Alinor (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dominican republic - what of the maps? maybe you looked at the older map. It should be OK now. Alinor (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Alinor. As to the map, I'm still seeing DomRep in gray.. Cuba is in green but DomRep is still showing gray = does not recognize SoP. Umar99 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The new maps are still under discussion. During that time - you can use the map below the table. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Europa World Year Book source

About this source - it includes it in a "Countries with which the PLO maintains diplomatic relations: ...Swaziland...Vanuautu..." and the next paragraph is "The following states, while they do not recognize the State of Palestine, allow the PLO to maintain a regional office: ..." While this arrangement may imply that the first list contains states that do recognize SoP - this is not written in the source (it writes about PLO diplomatic relations - and as we have multiple examples, including the above Australia source [22], this isn't the same as to recognize SoP). Also the list of states that 'PLO maintains diplomatic relations with' includes Austria and Vatican City - and we have sources showing that these don't recognize SoP (see here and here) - so we should not just assume that the first paragraph lists states that recognize SoP - this isn't written in the source itself and contradicts the Austria and Vatican City MFA pages.

I added 'not in citation given' tags [23], but Night w removed these with explanation "implication is obvious".

The source is useful to show PLO diplomatic relations (above in the article), but is there any reason why we should use this source for "recognizes SoP"? Alinor (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. Alinor (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

See above - this source was replaced with similar, also dubious (contains contradictions, "blanket list"), but at least stating "SoP recognition". Alinor (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations and footnotes

Alinor, please familiarise yourself with Citation style.

• When providing links to online addresses, the link to the book's preview on Google books is only ever provided for the title. Don't link to book pages within the page parameter. Don't include wordsearch in the URL. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't provide online links to documents like constitutions, legal charters, treaties, etcetera. Cite the name of the document, followed by the date. Identify a specific article or chapter where applicable.
• Where citations are duplicated, the first instance of the citation should include the information. All subsequent citations of the same name should be empty.
• When multiple citations provided all say the same thing, select two or three in order to reduce clutter.
• Footnotes that need to include citations must use the {{#tag:ref||group="note"}} markup. Since this page does not use that template for its footnotes, information that needs to be sourced cannot be added in the form of a footnote and must be instead added within the main text. Footnotes in <ref> format should not include Citation templates if that is not the adopted citation style. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• And where to provide the direct source to the page used? About wordsearch in the URL - why? Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs.
• Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents?
• OK about duplications. This is related to last bullet.
• OK about that - but I would suggest keeping the rest as hidden text - in case some of the "selected three" becomes a dead link.
• I agree with arranging footnotes and references separately - maybe we should do over the whole article. Also it needs a bibliography section for some of the references. I would try to arrange that. Would you care to "properly format" citations about who you added the second tag-template on top? Alinor (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. Please stop adding these incorrect citations to the article when I've asked you not to. At least educate yourself on how to properly cite sources first. Please discuss any issues you have first. Nightw 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you're reverting my change to Uruguay, revert it. But you're not, you're making your own edit, which will need to be discussed. Nightw 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, please don't make incorrect edit-line descriptions of your edits. [24]

Would you answer the two questions above? (bullets 1&2) - and comment on bullet4

"you are making your own edit" - I just tried to preserve as much as possible from YOUR undiscussed edit. And it's not only about Uruguay, but the whole new section you added. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be patient, I'll get to your questions when I have a chance. And we should both refrain from reverting anything for another 24 hours... Nightw 07:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I made 3 reverts here and you - 4 - and now we should stop? Before we stop, should I do a 4th like you did? And the same at State of Palestine - you've done 2 reverts and I - 1. Before we stop, should I do a 2nd there like you did? When you revert something you should explain why. Should I open WP:3RR/1RR notifications in order to understand what you don't like in the things you reverted? Alinor (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I only count 2 reverts here, and 1 at the State of Palestine. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

[25], [26], [27], [28]; [29], [30]. Mine reverts follow yours with the exception of the last at each article. Alinor (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This, this, and this are not reverts. Nightw 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not argue about that, what's the point? Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to the "why" questions, this is just the way things are done. For basic law documents (such as the Arab League Charter or any national constitution), the reference is kept simple. An online link to the text is inappropriate, and the use of abbreviations and symbols is preferred (see here). Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. I definitely agree about splitting footnotes and references. You can see here for an example of where references are included within footnotes. A bibliography is also a good idea. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you mention the List of monarchs - what about this question? Alinor (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find such rules there, would you specify/quote them?

• Where to provide the direct source to the page used if not where the page number is mentioned?
• About wordsearch in the URL. Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs. Why should we remove it?
• Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents? Alinor (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As you said above "if you're reverting my change to Uruguay, revert it" - while I don't object the Uruguay/Suriname move itself your edit adds a whole new section below and that's what I don't agree with. So, in order to find the middle ground - and so that we can start the footnote/bibliography edits (I can't do any of these when you continue to revert to your non-consensus changes) - do you have objections with this for things other than the citation style we discuss above? Alinor (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it disperses a section which described discrepancies between sources into random areas. If you can set up footnotes using the ref template, then I can move the section about Uruguay into a footnote, and link directly to it from the table. But it can't go in a citation as is without skipping WP:V requirements. And the section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations was moved to a section on Palestine's representation within the OIC... which left me confused. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations - that is one of the new, still under discussion, additions - was moved to section "Relations with international organisations", subsection "OIC". I find this as suitable place for this content and could agree to put it as footnote in the "Background" section after the OIC statement - but using this as content for a new "No relations" section is inappropriate and misleading.

So, I propose that we restore this, move "Doebbler and the OIC declarations" as footnote on OIC in the "Background" section - and then start sorting footnotes and references in separate lists using the ref template (thus correcting the Uruguay links issue). The other linking/citation style issues to be changed according to opinions in the below comments. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the referencing questions, you can link to a specific page, just not on the page parameter. Use the url parameter, which places the link on the title only. This avoids confusion with readers and problems with Checklinks on the Toolserver. Online versions of any old document are fine, just not basic law documents. I don't know why that is the case, it's just the way it's done. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But you reverted when I put the link to the specific page at the url parameter. That's why I moved it to the page parameter. So, you now agree to have link to the page at the url parameter?

Charter of the AL is not "basic law". Also, I still don't see what policy prohibits linking to it.

Anyway, if you agree on the above restoration - we can temporary remove the AL (and/or page) links - until we reach consensus on these. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

...Am I supposed to answer these questions? Am I supposed to agree or disagree, as you've asked me to do? I'm unsure because you've actually gone ahead with your "proposal", even the parts of it that you said you'd wait for consensus to determine. And in your edit summary, you give the description "restore version prior Uruguay move; just moving Uruguay without other changes; the other things - to be discussed - see talk...". So, was that a mistake, or ...? Either way, I'll provide my answer below, and if you care to read it you're most welcome. Otherwise, I'm not sure how this "discussion" would continue... Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my additions, "Relations with international organisations" is not a suitable place to discuss recognition by individual states. When you're able to split the Notes and References properly, I will change this section to a footnote, which can be linked to from each entry that it affects (e.g., Turkmenistan, etc). Similarly, when you're able to split the refs, I can put the Uruguay section into a footnote, and link to it from that state's entry. Until this split occurs, however, we cannot include references within other references, and we cannot skip WP:V requirements. It needs to be set up before a footnote is created. I can help you with the formatting if you like.

I've corrected the formatting on that book source. The Charter of the Arab League is indeed Basic Law (?), and while I don't know whether WP policy prohibits links to online texts, it is conventional not to, especially if the original is not in English. Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think AL charter is "basic law"? And where should we put a link to it if it is? In the future Bibliography section?

Doebeler OIC generalizing claim is not about individual states - it's a generalizing statement about "OIC members". But OK, let's use a footnote for this.

Night w, the changes I made to the pre-Uruguay-move version were to simply move the Uruguay line in the below section - as we agreed - what do you object in that? (no ref inside ref, etc. - I had just copy-pasted the line - as it was in the status quo - eg. if there is ref-in-a-ref it was there since long time) It is a compromise until we decide how/where to describe the situation. I don't agree with your current version with new sections - but I agree with moving that in some way/form to footnotes. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and one last thing - the "44 to 40" vs. "48 to 40" - the first number should be lowered, because some of the "inconclusive" states have no relations (e.g. 4 of them or something like that). Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the moving of Uruguay to the bottom section, but you didn't do "simply" or "just" that as you claimed (and still claim, apparently), you made a whole bunch of other changes aswell that you said you'd hold out on. And, in addition, you added some hidden notes regarding WP:CIRCULAR that went clearly against consensus on a noticeboard discussion. If the confusion is not explained properly, then Uruguay needs to remain in the middle section. So we'll wait for you to split the Reflist, and then this bickering can end.

Any written constitution is a basic legal document. Did you read this? See also here. If you want to persist with this, you can add, "available at {{Cite web|title=[name of website]|url=[link]|accessdate=[date]}}, and that will be acceptable. Nightw 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What "other changes"?? This is the comparision [31] (between pre-Uruguay move and my edit of yesterday) - besides "just" moving Uruguay the other changes are pretty minor (missing letters, reference names that YOU added after the Uruguay move - and I did care to restore, etc.) - if you argue about the hidden text or some other even more minor change (these came because they were in the pre-Uruguay-move version - but yes, it was also my edit, so maybe you object some of these) - fine, why haven't you just removed these (they are really minor and easy to remove) - instead of pushing back your version with new sections, that I clearly said that don't agree with. If you want to restore Uruguay to the middle section - then, OK again - you can restore to the pre-Uruguay-move - but not, you pushed your edits. So, in order that you don't accuse me again for some minor grammatical edit or hidden text - would you restore back to some commonly agreeable version, so that we can continue from there? (for example [32] with the minor changes - remove hidden text and something else if needed)

Is the AL charter a "constitution"? Are constitutions of international organizations "Basic law"? Anyway, I don't mind having the link after the description - as you propose, so we can just make it that way. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I see that you are active here [33] - since you haven't restored to the version prior to your addition of new sections, and haven't said anything about the proposal for interim solution right above - I will implement it. Alinor (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is me reverting IP vandalism. What of it? Nightw 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean that you are active, but haven't restored - but now I see that you at least removed the additional sections. I still haven't got time to look into the other changes you've made recently (the Uruguay/OIC notes, etc.) Alinor (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the last I had looked at this thread, you had said you would organise splitting the footnotes and references, so that I could move my new sections to the footnotes. I had been waiting for you to finish that, but returned this evening to see that you had perhaps forgotten, and were talking about something else. I presumed that you were still okay with this initial motion, and so I did the footnotes for you. I haven't removed the additional sections, I've moved them to the footnotes. That was what we had agreed? Do you remember now? Nightw 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems there was a misunderstanding. I asked you to restore to no-additional-sections version so that I can start dealing with the footnotes. You didn't do this, I was waiting (because the previous time you accused me of making more changes than 'restoring and just moving Uruguay') for you to restore - before I start with the footnotes. Currently I see that you removed the new sections (as I said before - putting these into footnotes is OK, but I will have to check what's written in these notes). You also made some changes that I still haven't looked into. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, because moving a whole paragraph into a footnote was a bit much to ask of you...that's why you couldn't start on it? I should've known... Luckily, I seem to have mustered the energy. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you changed the description of the no relations/recognition section:

1. There is no information available pertaining to the positions of:
2. The Palestinian administration has not established diplomatic relations with the following states:
3. The State of Palestine is not recognised by and the PLO and PNA have not established relations with:

The initial version is 1. You changed to 2 (but it's incorrect - some of the recognizers also don't have established diplomatic relations yet; also "Palestinian administration" - what does this mean? Something like "Palestine" maybe? We need to be more specific and careful here). I propose as version3. Alinor (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't read right. "The PNA has not established diplomatic relations with the following states, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine" would be better. Citations are still need, of course, but the dubious tag can be removed. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This leaves ambiguity about PLO relations. What about "The PLO and the PNA have no official relations with the following states and entities, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine:"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, mention them as well, that's fine. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you removed the FRG link with explanation "doesn't support the claim". This is the only source we have in the table about that. Do you suggest that we move FRG to "inconclusive" section or what? Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FRG? Federal Republic of Germany? Where in the source does it state that Germany does not recognise the State of Palestine? I may have missed it... Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If so, should we move it to "inconclusive"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...(?) That's a separate matter. I removed the ref from that statement, because said ref did not support said statement. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And what's this obsession with removing links? Your recent removals include:

• Link to former UN observers
  1. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity"
  2. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity."
  3. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity"
• Link to Occupied Palestinian Territory
  1. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
  2. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
  3. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."

I see that both point to articles linked somewhere else, but these two links are labeled differently from the other occasions - and one of them directs to a specific/different section. I restored the links and made slight amendments - variants3. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know! Could it possibly be that repeating links is discouraged by policy? Or that linking to disambiguation pages within article space is similarly discouraged? Oh, that must be it! It doesn't matter what they're labelled as; if this was up for FA they'd be the first thing to go, no excuses. That observer page is already linked to twice in the article. I'm of half a mind to remove the second instance aswell. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK doesn't say that ALL duplicates should be removed. In these particular cases (I already agreed with you on many more) I explained above why we should retain the links. No change needed here.

The Palestine (disambiguation) link points exactly to the article needed - it is about the "inconclusiveness" and "unclarified reference". This is one rare example where exactly the ambiguity of the term is what we want to show. The disambiguation page shows exactly this ambiguity. Of course, if you insist (but why would you?), my addition of Palestine (disambiguation) link can be reverted. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do insist, and I do remeber something about "otherwise" and clarification, but these are not excuses for repetitive linking. You can easily explain within the text what you mean. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, removed Palestine (disambiguation) link. I think it's the best way to show the ambiguity.

What about "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."? Alinor (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not where you add the link, it's the simple fact that a dab link is present in the article. Nightw 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's the article we need to link to (and DAB links are present in articles, when there is need to link to them - for example at Palestine top). Otherwise what can we do? List the first section of the DAB page in the footnote? Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab links are not to be present in articles. That's a hatnote in the Palestine article. These are picked up by the toolserver, as an issue that should be fixed. See WP:INTDABLINK. Nightw 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The toolserver doesn't prevent us from keeping the DAB link if we decide that it's useful. Do you have another idea how to explain the ambiguity without repeating the Common meanings section? Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but policy does, and the toolserver picks up on instances where policy has been disregarded. Another idea? Yes: a citation linking to a reliable source on the ambiguity of the term "Palestine". Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"toolserver picks up on instances..." - yes, and a bot places a tag on the talk page. That's it. And we have a good reason to link there - we want to show the ambiguity.

What about:

1. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification.
2. "Such as listing "Palestine"[34] or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
3. "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification." Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There isn't a good reason to link it, no matter what style you do it in. If you want to explain the ambiguity of the term, add a lexicographic source. And "Occupied Palestinian Territory" won't be linked either, as it's a redirect to a page that has already been linked to. If you have problems with our Manual of Style, take it up on a community talk page. Nightw 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." - the case with this OPT link (and the other of the links that you strive to remove) is of occurrence a long way from the other occurrence - even in a different section. What about:

"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "a long way from the other occurrence", and it isn't "even in a different section". They're both in the "Relations with international organisations" section, and in fact, the other "occurrence" is exactly halfway between where that footnote is written, and where it's linked from. In my current resolution, would you believe, they even fall in the same screenshot. So stop making things up. And you won't get any of those links in that new version you're drafting either.

My proposal: "Such as referring to "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory", without further clarification, which can be understood to mean a number of things." Cite a dictionary or something similar at the end, listing the multiple meanings. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The other occurrence is in "United Nations representation" section. And additionally the OPT occurrence we speak about is in a footnote. And also the other occurrence is not shown-in-the-same-way.

A dictionary? What a good joke.

What problems do you see in the 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal above? "you won't get any of those links" - why? are they linked nearby, in the same way, or what? Alinor (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you're going to need to cite something, be it a dictionary or another kind of lexicographic source. If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be included to begin with. The problem with your version is that it is badly arranged and badly written. You won't get any links in there because none of those will be their first instance. Sorry. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What isn't sourced? The Palestine (disambiguation) content? Please, stop wasting my time. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel your time is being wasted, feel free to edit another article. I'm afraid you'll be here for a while if you're trying to push through unsourced edits. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

'There's nothing wrong with having the simple clarification based on Palestine (disambiguation), instead of leaving the reader wondering what this means (since you object just putting a link to the DAB page), especially when the situation is unique.' Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding a source either. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a so obvious issue - "Palestine can be a reference to different things" - I don't understand your objection here, I propose that we just copy the relevant common meanings from the DAB page. Even wikipedia Palestine page is about the Palestine (region). Regions do not participate in organizations - some organization/entity/government/etc. from that region or representing that region can participate, but not the region/territory itself. And my proposal is to mention the three entities that are know to participate in some organizations - plus to mention the possibility that some other entity from the region/territory participates (as we already have such examples - associations for Red Crescent/Football/Olympic/Trade unions/etc.) Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because while WP:V doesn't currently extend to dab pages, and so can theoretically include any reasonable item, here the policy should be strictly enforced. You need a source that verifies that all these things are commonly referred to as "Palestine". The best thing I can think of would be a dictionary, as they backup the claim explicitly and efficiently, but if you want to look to alternative types of sources, this is fine. But it can't go in without either a) a citation, or b) a bunch of cn tags. You pick. Nightw 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO of the things mentioned in my 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal only "PLO-is-referred-to-as-Palestine" is not obvious, but all of the other are pretty obvious. And for PLO we have a source - the UN resolution. About the obvious - we also have for PNA (Baroud source) and you think that we have such also for SoP (the Bissio source) - but anyway, both are obvious. Sources showing that in some organizations other entities related to the region/territory are listed under "Palestine": [35], [36], [37]. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It will not be obvious to a first-time reader. It may be obvious to you and I, but this is a detailed political subject where most will not have the prior knowledge necessary. To most people, "Palestine" simply means the Holy Land. So where you are making the claim that an organisation (PLO) or government (PNA) or state, you need to back up the claim. So, with inline citations included, what is your proposal? Nightw 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory."

If you think that it's needed we can also put there the links to ITUC, IFRC, FIFA examples of 'other entities representing Palestine territories/region/holy land'. Alinor (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any of those sources use "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three? and do we have sources for them? Nightw 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about OPT - we can write '"Palestine" or something else' instead of '"Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine"'.

"What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three?" - of these that we have in the table - [38]/[39]. I assume that these ISO/ITUC/IFRC/FIFA entities are actually somehow related to the PNA - but unless we have a source showing such link we can't be sure. Anyway, the reason for this note is not in the cases that we have sources for, but for those that we don't - IPU, NAM, G77, ESCWA, UNWTO, WIPO (and any other organization that we haven't listed yet, if any). Alinor (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of "something else" and "or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory" - these should remain, because while we have identified the Red Crescent as PLO-affiliated we still don't know about the Standards Institution, sports associations, etc. Alinor (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The note is about vagueness in sources. There's nothing vague about "something else" if you don't know what that is. Nightw 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The note is about inconclusiveness in sources that manifests itself in not specifying what entity is represented at the organization in question. "something else"/"some different entity" are there, because we can be exhaustive in listing all possible references/entities - this is just a general remark note. If you remove these you imply that the only reference used is "Palestine" and the only entities are PLO/PNA/SoP. Both assumptions are incorrect (instead of Palestine we have also other references such as "Palestine standards institution"/etc. - see sources above; instead of PLO/PNA/SoP we have also other entities - such as Palestinian trade union federation). Alinor (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How are "Palestine standards institution" and "Palestinian trade union federation" ambiguous? They both use "Palestine" in the title, so what else is ambiguous about their titles that is not related to the ambiguity of "Palestine"? Nightw 08:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine standards institution" is ambiguous because it's not clear whether it's established/sanctioned by PLO, SoP or PNA. And it shows why we need to have "something else" besides "Palestine" - just sharing one word in the caption is not enough.

"Palestinian trade union federation" shows why we should have "some different entity" for Palestine region/territory - it's not established/sanctioned by PLO/SoP/PNA, but is a different entity - established by private organizations. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Following your insistence to remove the UN#Palestine link from the UNESCO section I tried to find a compromise solution by utilizing the ambiguity note there. You are right, that it doesn't match perfectly both locations where it's used, that's why I propose the following wording: "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or something else that can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN), the PNA, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're also attempting to quote irrelevant sections of a source. The only states needing to be mentioned in that Europa book are Cameroon, Swaziland and Vanuatu, as those are the only claims the source is attributed to. Nightw 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because the source is not easily inaccessible. Austria, Germany should also be seen, along with lacking Kenya, Namibia, etc. - that's why the whole list is show. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Negatory. If you want to attribute this source to a particular claim about Kenya, Namibia, etcetera, then it becomes relevant. Until then, only the relevant portions need be quoted. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to attribute it to claim about Kenya, etc. We need to show these, because in that shows the problems with this source, not to attribute it to something. Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you insist, you can add the problematic areas aswell, but including the entire quote including the irrelevant areas is unnecessary. Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But two of the problems are with missing states - what area to show? alphabetical around them? And with so many 'areas' isn't it better to just include the full quote? Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's unnecessary and it wastes space. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can use smaller font for the list. Or [show] button? Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How about

? Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Errr... no. If you must insist on adding the entire thing, it should be in ordinary format. I'll get over it I'm sure. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And again

Night w, you made this edit with explanation "don't repeat links (clarif. is not an exception, see WP:OVERLINKING; find anther way to present info); replacing tag on challenged info; WP:EP: talk before making changes to accepted versions".

• "don't repeat links" - I will reply to you above, where this is discussed.
• "replacing tag on challenged info" - if you want the dubious tag - link it to the section where it is described what's dubious - or add hidded note - or whatever - but explain somewhere why the tag should be added. My opinion on the sentence is above in comment from 18:37, 21 January 2011.
• "WP:EP: talk before making changes to accepted versions" - the last accepted version is around [40] - and I already explained that I don't agree with some of the changes you pushed afterwards (inconsistent "pending" marks, wording of the Uruguay note you add, etc.).

So, please, talk before making changes - or we have to restore to [41]. Alinor (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making threats here you better start discussing the changes you want to make. Alinor (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

They're discussed above; haven't you been following. I don't know what this new section is for. They're all the same changes you're trying to make. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What you don't know? Have you looked at [42]: "Don't agree with this; to be either date or dash; El Salvador, Mexico and others are also potentially pending - Uruguay pending is already in described in the note"; [43]: "rephrasing newly added note - clarifying Palestine reference; chronological ordering of events"; [44]: "this has to be linked, otherwise we imply that "State of Palestine participates at UNESCO through its National Organizing Committee.", etc.? Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is about the "pending", the wording of the newly added (by you) Uruguay note, etc. new changes.

I propose that we put back [45], implement these of your changes [46] that are acceptable to both (citation formating on Belarus, Sri Lanka, India; Quigley link/formatting). And then continue to discuss other changes. I also have some new mission links, but can't add them during this edit-warring. Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. While recognition from El Salvador and Mexico is speculated, Uruguay's decision to recognise has been made, and they've publicly announced when it will happen (see here). Nightw 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, until it happens it hasn't happened yet. No need for new special marks only for this - it is already explained in the note in the same column. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We already do the same for future embassies - dash/old type + footnote/source - no "pending" marks. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a need for it, because reliable sources show genuine confusion over this. The recognition has been announced, and the formalisation of the declaration is scheduled. The alternative is to add "See note" in the column, rather than "Pending". Nightw 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusion shown by some of the sources just shows that they are not so reliable. These are just reports/announcements wrongly interpreting the official decision.

What more "see note" note do you want than the "[note 9]" already there? Alinor (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask what note you want and you go back in circles. The fact that "the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration" is already mentioned in the footnote. There is no need for any additional notes. Alinor (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is, because Uruguay's situation is unlike any other's. And it avoids the same confusion demonstrated in reliable sources by summarising the point quickly. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Everybody that is confused about why there is a — instead of date will click on the note and read all he needs. No need for special marks here. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't predict what "everybody" will do. There's nothing wrong with having a simple clarifying word instead of a — , especially when the situation is unique. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

what if make the — itself a link to the note? (I'm not sure if this can be done, but I will try if you accept such solution). Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to let it slide, as I doubt it will matter for much longer. We can just stick with the note. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Also, I checked if the dash can be made a link to the note - it works. Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, but it's not an improvement to have it that way. The reftag sitting right next to it already links there. Nightw 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you like it more if we put only a [note 9] without a mdash;? Alinor (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it a big deal. Nightw 07:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Fowler, Michael; Bunck, Julie Marie (1995). Law, power, and the sovereign state: the evolution and application of the concept of sovereignty. Penn State Press. ISBN 0271014717, 9780271014715. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Takkenberg, Alex (1998). The status of Palestinian refugees in international law (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198265905, 9780198265900. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Talmon, Stefan (1998). Recognition of governments in international law: with particular reference to governments in exile (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198265735, 9780198265733. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Quigley, John (1990). Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice. Duke University Press.

To be added when edit-warring is resolved. Also, there is one more Quigley DAB link in the article. Alinor (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was resolved prior to your revert. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My revert of your undiscussed changes about Uruguay. Let's hope we move on soon. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other issues to resolve before restoring this version? Nightw 14:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have to check it against the combination of the versions cited in 13:43, 22 January 2011 comment above - and we also have to implement the multiple changes we agreed above. You can do a temporary sandbox if you want. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

...It's not that big of a deal. Take a look at the current version and the changes that were made. If I've left anything out, feel free to add it. Otherwise, everything I've done was agreed to beforehand. Nightw 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And why have you again put up that "Pending" mark and other things I clearly said are disagreed? I assume (haven't readed it yet) that you also again put your initial Uruguay note wording without taking into account my subsequent redactions. I don't insist on you discussing this, if you accept my redaction - if you don't, then please discuss the whole note addition first. I will restore the text you added in the version redacted by me. If you don't like my redaction - then remove the whole note you added, don't revert to a version with your initial undiscussed text.

I will also check the rest of the changes. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I completely forgot about the "pending" thing. I don't know what "redactions" you're referring to actually. Is there an issue with the wording? Nightw 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redactions/issue with the wording - I speak about the Uruguay note. I can accept the following redaction of your newly added note: "In April 2010, Uruguayan Foreign Affairs Minister Luis Almagro and PNA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki signed a joint communiqué formalising relations. In September Uruguayan President José Mujica announced his intentions to recognise the Palestinian state in 2011. In November, it was reported that he had announced his government's recognition of the Palestinian state during the sixteenth conference of the Federation of Arab-American Entities (Ferab), held in Montevideo that month. However, later reports have shown that Mujica is actually expected to make these arrangements in March 2011, in line with the previous announcement for recognition in 2011. Mujica indicated that his government will establish a representation at Ramallah, and that the State of Palestine will establish an embassy in Montevideo within the first half of 2011." Alinor (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a difference. Is there one? Nightw 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not big - just a minor rewording/rearrangement. If you find this OK we can use it. Alinor (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. It's very poorly arranged, which makes it difficult to read. I'm not seeing any rewording. If you don't mind, there's nothing wrong with the note as it is, so please leave it. Nightw 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "note as it is" - there is the initial text that you added and there is my redaction of it shown here above. I made the redaction in order to clarify and properly order your newly added texts. What is bothering you in the latest version shown in the 09:28, 29 January 2011 comment? Alinor (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's poorly arranged. I just said that. Did you miss it? Nightw 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, yours is poorly arranged as I just said. Your version jumps around the events and doesn't present them in the order they happened. Alinor (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not in kindergarten, are we? Putting things as a plain rehash of events ("he did this, and then he did this, and then this happened...") demostrates extremely simple writing style and, frankly, a poorly-educated author. In either case the differences are de minimis, but consistenly blocking the addition of a note simply because you disagree with the arrangement of words is the very definition of disruptive. Nightw 12:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What's important in that note is to show that early announcement of intention to recognize in the future was made, later an erroneous reports were made that this has already happened, and finally these reports were disproved by subsequent reiteration of intention to recognize in the future. What redaction would you propose that makes all this clear?

Also, we don't need this long note - we can just mention the most recent announcement for expected recognition in March 2011 (unreliability of unofficial/interpretative sources can be discussed at the talk page). Alinor (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We do, because there is genuine disagreement between sources, and so it is necessary to explain this. You can't just say that "reports show Mujica will recognise in March", because reports also show that he has already done so. So it is necessary to describe the situation, and what different sources say. There is nothing wrong with the current note in my opinion. Is there some other issue you have with it other than the fact that it's not "ordered chronologically"? Nightw 08:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't object having the long note. But about its exact wording - I think that we should describe November events after we described the September events, not before. Why do you object this? You added the note (bold), I made slight re-arrangement/rewording. If you want to change my redaction, please be so kind to explain what you don't like in it. Alinor (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And again again

It seems our differences are over this. These difference include changes to the status quo ([47]) made by me and made by you. It seems that you don't agree with the changes I do and I don't agree with the changes that you do. I will list/explain below the changes I do (minor IMHO), but you will have to do the same for the rest of the changes (e.g. your changes).

1. I added links to Cyprus MFA mission lists - you want to remove the quotes. I agree for the representation link (because the quote is duplicating the title), but the quote for the general delegation is needed and relevant.
2. I changed a little the description of the Paraguay MFA link - you want it removed. I don't agree - at most we should restore the status quo here. The issue here is that the http link in this case doesn't point to the page needed, but to the home page. The description provides navigation for the reader to find the relevant page. - Fjmustak provided a direct link to the recent press release; also, strangely Palestine is now missing from the list of states with bilateral relations (or I can't find it) - so there is no use in the navigational references anymore. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
3. I made a slight redaction to your newly added OIC note (underlined text) - "However, whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states, and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine, is unclear." This is important addition, because even if all OIC member states support the decision to give SoP OIC membership/recognition - this doesn't mean that in addition each of them, as individual state, recognizes SoP.
4. I added hidden text explanation after three 'verification needed' tags. You removed two of these. I think it's better if there is explanation after each instance of the tag/source - and not only after the first instance as in your edit.
5. I added link to the Israel department dealing with the PNA - as footnote. You edited it to be wikilink. I think that for consistency it's better that we keep it as footnote - like the other notes/references.
6. I made a redaction to your newly added Uruguay note - see above section.
7. I added a link to Ireland mission. You moved this link to Iceland. I assume this is a typo.
8. I changed a DAB link on the bottom of the article from John Quingley to the specific article - John Quingley (academic). You removed the link altogether. I assume that your reasoning is "no duplicate links", but the other instance of this link is in the beginning of the article, e.g. a 'later occurrence that is a long way from the first'.

That concludes the list of my changes. The other are yours (please describe them below). Since you are the one that opened the issue after the previous restoration of the status quo - I will put back in my changes along with some new links (if you don't like them - revert to a version that doesn't have your changes too - e.g. the status quo). I will say some words about some of your changes:

1. Pure citation formatting and some other things that I agree - I will adopt these in the revision that I will do shortly.
2. Citation formatting where deletion of relevant quotes is involved - I don't agree to remove the quotes.
3. UNESCO NOC link removal - I already explained that I don't agree - see my comment 13:43, 22 January 2011 above. No rely from you.
4. OPT link removal (from footnote about ambiguous/non-specific membership lists) - we are discussing the whole note above - last comment is mine from 17:54, 28 January 2011. I will put a revised version of this note. Feel free to restore the status quo if you don't like it. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Night w, please continue the list with the other changes you propose to make

I can't really see anything worth discussion here. They all seem to be minor technical details. The quotes you attached to Cyprus citations simply duplicate the titles, as your "redaction" to the OIC note also does the sentence before it. Point number 4 is unnecessary, as an editor will need to look for the source's markup anyway. Point number 5 is interesting, since I had previously removed this link, then you put it back, then I removed it again, and then you put it as a footnote; then I moved it back to a link, and now you want it as a footnote. It links to the actual subject being described, it's not an egg link, so if it must be included, it shouldn't be put as a footnote. I'm also puzzled about this "consistency" issue you've raised. What other notes and references are about specific consular offices? I can't see any... As for the last point: yes, there are too many wikilinks in the article. I'm working on reducing them. An article on Quigley certainly doesn't need to be linked twice.

That footnote about ambiguity doesn't need to go into so much detail. It's already duplicated in the sentence immediately after. Is this "UNESCO NOC" issue to do with the repetition of the UN observers wikilink? Those need to be reduced and "explanatory function" as you so often cite is not an excuse and in fact violates WP:EGG. You'll have to find another way of "explaining"... Nightw 12:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

quotes don't duplicate the titles (I tried to remove these) - these that I add/restore are in addition to the titles. The redaction to your newly added OIC note also doesn't duplicate - it's one thing whether the OIC decision was taken with unanimity - and another thing whether each single state recognizes SoP. They can vote in favor of SoP OIC membership even if they don't recognize it themselves. number4 - yes, but if the editors looks at the subsequent tags and not the first one he won't find it. Israel link - consistency in not having links at the 'mission type' word, but having the link as footnote/reference. It's kind of unique mission type, so it's better distinguished and reflected by a footnote than a wikilink in the name.

I don't agree that the article has "too much wikilinks", but anyway - as long as you keep in mind the rule that 'later occurrence that is a long way from the first' can remain, OK (this is about the UNESCO NOC link and the Namibia/"SWAPO is a former UN observer" link - if you remove it you just invite people to add "citation needed" tag there). About the OPT link and note redaction - see above section where this is discussed. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The title is "General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus" and you want to quote "Other missions - General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus..." And you don't think this is a repetition? The OIC note states "the OIC had delivered explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions ... whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states is unclear." Adding ", and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine..." is completely superfluous. I don't see how you cannot see this. It's simple English.

Regarding point number 4: there is only one instance of the citation's markup; any editor looking into the source's reliability will have to go to the markup. There's no need to repeat things everywhere. That includes wikilinks ... or is this another attempt to substitute proper referencing with other Wikipedia articles? If that really be the case, just get a citation. Nightw 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

About the GD in Cyprus, OK. About OIC note - "unanimous view" is about the "explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions delivered by the OIC" (e.g. whether the decisions for these statements are taken with unanimity among the OIC members or not). The additional remark "whether each of them recognizes SoP" is about a different thing. OIC recognition of SoP is different from recognition of SoP by individual states. So, if you want to remove one of the questions then the question about individual recognitions should remain and the question about procedure of OIC recognition adoption (e.g. unanimity vs. majority) can be removed. About repeating hidden note - OK. About wikilinks - I added the wikilink, because the readers may be interested about this "former UN observer" thing. This is the first (only?) time it's mentioned on the page and I don't see anything wrong with linking to the appropriate article section. It happens that long way from this occurrence of the link there is another occurrence linking to the same article (but different section and different naming of the link). Even if they were named the same - no problem in keeping both links as they are long way from each other. I don't agree with your removal of the link. Alinor (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The note says the OIC recognised Palestine, and that whether this was a unanimous recognition from all states is unclear. Maybe you think it needs rewording, but there is only one issue that needs to be mentioned. I added a citation on SWAPO's former observer status. Readers might also be interested in how SWAPO "established" the state of Namibia; it doesn't mean we should link to it just because it fits nicely in the sentence on the word "established". It's more than about being repetitive, it's also linking to things completely unrelated to the subject. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the OIC note is to mention "only one issue", then it should be "it's unclear whether each of the OIC members recognizes SoP" - because this is different from "it's unclear whether the OIC decision to recognize SoP was taken with unanimity". Alinor (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I made some other changes that you seem to object (for example - relations column heading) and changed in turn to something third. I reverted to my variant (because I don't accept your third variant) - and explained why on the edit line. You put back your third variant without explanation. Please stop doing that - if you so much dislike my change, when you see that I don't accept your change - then revert to the initial variant, don't push for yours. If you insist on yours third variant - please raise the issue on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And on subject of relations - in the table heading we should list SoP/PLO/PNA so that it's clear relations with whom the column is about. If we leave it just "relations since" it implies that this is "SoP relations since" (the previous column is "recognition of SoP"). Alinor (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a clutter, but if you insist. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And if someone makes disruptive edits that is you by reverting to an arbitrary past version made by you (non-consensus) and not implementing the following unrelated-to-the-dispute changes, including minor technical corrections (such as clearing of duplicated sources - and maybe something else that I haven't noticed yet) This forces everyone to check again and again for the things you disregarded and to do the same corrections all over again and again. In contrast I aways take care of your "cite" into "Cite" and similar corrections and intermediate edits, regardless small and they are - I adopt them in the revisions of the page that I do, so that we are on the same track and hopefully converge into a single consensus version. Your editing just forks the article into two yours/mine versions. Alinor (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're an angel. If only we could all be more like you. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, please stop pushing for your edits - you don't agree with my changes, I don't agree with yours; if you insist you can revert to a version with NEITHER (such as [48]), not to a version with your changes that I don't agree. I put a revision that takes into account your Cyprus objection, the Eliko sources, and some other minor things - here. Please explain here what and why do you want to change in this version. Of course you can also restore to a version WITHOUT your changes and explain here what and why do you want to change in it. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the last stable version would be this version, which was stable for 5 days (with the exception of a minor IP vandal). I've objected to plenty more than "Cyprus", and you were perfectly aware of that. It was deliberately disruptive to repeat the edits that were previously reverted, since you hadn't gained a consensus to add them. And "the Eliko sources" (and the commentary attached) will never be accepted in this article without a clear consensus to do so beforehand. He can propose something here if he wishes to, and I will respond accordingly, but he has yet to do so. Nightw 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not "stable" version - it is just one of the back and forth edits between you and me. 5 days? You mean that the time I refrained from reverting your changes, because I was waiting for you to comment on the talk page on the numerous still open issues?

the last stable versions is the version that I linked - I object to your subsequent edits (those of them that aren't adopted in the subsequent versions that I made) and you object to some (or all) of my subsequent edits. I even listed most (maybe all) of the not-in-agreement changes one-by-one in some of my comments above. For example your newly added Uruguay and OIC notes are unacceptable to me without taking in account the issues I raised multiple times. I made several redactions to these non-consensus changes of yours - to try to make them acceptable - but you seem to reject all of these attempts (or you haven't even read these - maybe you just reverted to your version in a disruptive pushy way of edit-warring?).

plenty more than "Cyprus" - yes, I'm aware of that, but since I disagree with your versions of these "plenty more" I adopted at least what we both agreed - the removing of duplicating "general delegation" in the Cyprus reference.

"the Eliko sources" - he added these with the older format of the table with "Asia regional group" line - and since I don't object the inclusion of these sources I moved them to the note about Asia regional group (according to the new arrangement of the table that you and I agree with). There are two options here - either you object the inclusion of these sources in any location - so you have to discuss that with Eliko; or Eliko objects the new arrangement of the table (Asia regional group in a note) - then our (Night w and Alinor) agreement to put it in a note is disputed by him and all of us have to discuss it. I don't understand what's your problem with adding these two sources - I see nothing wrong in adding them to the note - but you really better discuss this with Eliko. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is under discussion at the OR noticeboard. Overriding that discussion before consensus can be achieved is a massive violation of policy, and an insult to every editor that is involved in trying to achieve a consensus there. Revert it. Nightw 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove these sources - do this yourself. I don't have the intention to do any reverts currently, we have more than enough AN/I already. I suggest that you and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes.

I also commented on the OR noticeboard. Alinor (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - first paragraphs

Night w, why do you object ordering the Bilateral relations first two paragraphs chronologically? Alinor (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If nobody objects I arrange it in the following way: "In states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and are often referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and their heads as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza." Alinor (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold, please. Nightw 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are a few problems with this. You've used examples to supposedly "prove" that this is the norm. That is synthesis, in my books. You need sources that state exactly what you do. Nightw 12:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you specify what part of the text you don't agree with? Alinor (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You've used examples as verification on the "Embassy of the State of Palestine". You've also done the same on "Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims. This isn't such a big deal, but the writing style is also quite difficult to read. And you've misused two sources. Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine, so, correct me if I'm wrong, that attribution is no longer valid. Nightw 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims - situation is the same in the version that you support, so I understand your "This isn't such a big deal," as agreement to do this for these two and also for "Embassy of the State of Palestine". If you insist we can add "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine".

Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine - but the sources show the situation before recognition decisions were taken. Anyway, if you insist these can be removed/replaced.

"writing style is also quite difficult to read." - any particular problems/proposals for change?

The problem with the status quo text is that it isn't ordered chronologically (e.g. PNA missions/relations came long time after PLO and SoP missions/relations - so these should be explained first) and in addition it doesn't explain well enough the situation (but if you think that in my attempt to reformulate the sentences the writing style has gotten worse - please specify in which parts, so that we can improve these). Alinor (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're using synthesis in the first point. You're putting two sources together (as examples) and using them to claim that this is the general rule. That's not okay, and I won't agree with that. If that kind of attribution is present in the article at the moment, it will need to be addressed. I certainly don't see "chronologically" as an issue, and I'm baffled at why you think it would be in such a context. Readability is far more important. On that note, there is an issue of subject-verb disagreement in your writing; such a simple thing is quite obvious to any reader. Lastly, I don't see any of this as an improvement to the current version, which reads quite fine in my opinion. Nightw 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"If that kind of attribution is present" - what do you think, is it present or not? And how do you propose to address it if you think it is?

This is not synth - the table is full of proofs. Anyway, what about this rephrasing: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine"."?

"issue of subject-verb disagreement" - could you give a quote?

"chronologically" is an issue in this context of course. For example the "network of missions and embassies" of the PLO exists since long time before the PNA "represented" by it. So, the natural way of describing is to start with PLO network of missions and embassies, the transformation of some of them into SoP embassies, the accreditation of non-resident ambassadors to SoP, the opening of representation offices to the PNA in Gaza and Ramallah. Of course if you find some grammatical/etc. mistakes in my text, let's correct them. Alinor (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Example-to-prove-the-rule style attribution should be removed, and replaced with appropriate sources. I don't see the point your alternative: how is that information. States that recognise the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have an "Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"; why would that need mentioning? That is generic information that should go in the articles embassy or diplomacy. Subject-verb agreement: "are often referred to as 'embass[ies]'", "their heads as 'ambassador'", "the PLO maintains [an] 'embassy'" ... I definitely don't see chronological presentation as an issue, but maybe it will read better when you fix the grammatical errors and get rid of the obvious information. Nightw 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The point in my alternative is that there is no example-to-prove-the-rule, since the alternative text doesn't include any rule.

"why would that need mentioning?" - because unlike Jordan (there is only one Jordan - the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) in the case of Palestine we have three (or more) Palestines - SoP, PLO, PNA, "a Palestinian state", etc. In some countries we have "Embassy of the State of Palestine" (SoP) and in other countries we have "Embassy of Palestine" (PLO). Countries that don't recognize SoP don't have "Embassy of the State of Palestine", but countries that recognize SoP may have either of the two.

So, what about: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains an "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and thus in such a country the PLO maintains a mission referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and its head as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza."? Alinor (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Weakly supported in the recognizers section

In light of the above two discussions I will list here the recognizers included in the first section, that are backed by "not-so-strong evidence":

• not backed at all
  • Georgia - propose to move it to "PLO/PNA relations" [49] moved. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Azerbaijan - backed by a dead link (also even if it was online it would be weak - not an official Azerbaijan government page). Has also official source for relations with "Palestine". Azerbaijan MFA - no SoP reference found

I found this. It seems (based on the translations I've done) that the date we have (15.4.1992) was the date of establishing relations with the PNA/PLO as opposed to the state. Fələstin Muxtariyyəti = Palestine autonomy = PNA? It would be nice to have a native speaker look at the doc. TDL (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems so, but of course in 1992 there was no PNA... As the text is written in 2007 or later - maybe PLO and PNA got mixed up. There are some abbreviations - maybe one of them is a translation of "PLO"? The more important question is - do you find anywhere in the text a word translated into "state" (to check for State of Palestine/independent state/etc.)? Anyway, we don't have any source showing SoP recognition/relations with Azerbaijan. The dead link that we have was about "SoP Embassy to Uzbekistan, Central Asia and Azerbaijan" and was not on the Azerbaijan MFA site. It is quite possible that SoP Embassy/Ambassador to Uzbekistan is also accredited as "Palestine/PLO Ambassador to Azerbaijan". If we don't find any SoP reference I propose that we move Azerbaijan to "inconclusive" (because we still use the Doebeller dubious generalizing claim that all OIC members recognize SoP as the single reason for keeping some states in the "inconclusive" section instead of moving them to "PLO/PNA relations" or "no SoP recognition"). Alinor (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• backed by UNESCO, but only by listing - without a date
  • Equatorial Guinea - nothing more than UNESCO without a date. MFA website?
  • Benin - embassy/ambassador source not mentioning SoP. Benin MFA
  • Gambia - embassy/ambassador source not mentioning SoP. MFA website?
  • Kenya - embassy/ambassador source not mentioning SoP. Kenya MFA
  • Lebanon - PLO representation/mission instead of SoP embassy (the only non-recent recognizer with mission type other than embassy - if we don't count Cyprus that is doubtful itself); potential reason for lack of SoP recognition - refugee camps. More backing needed. Lebanon MFA

    [50] from Nov 2008 quotes Lebanon minister saying "The cabinet has approved the establishment of diplomatic relations with the state of Palestine" (I don't have access to the rest of the article). [51] from Nov 2008 says the same and continues that the PLO office will be transformed into SoP embassy, but that the minister hasn't specified when this will happen. Alinor (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

    Recognition is unilateral act: "We, the government of XXX, today decide to recognize YYY as state". Establishment of diplomatic relations is bilateral act - XXX and YYY sign some documents, etc. (such as [52]). So, Lebanon decided in 2008 to establish relations with SoP, but has it implemented this decision already? Have they established bilateral relations, or this is still pending? The other question is whether Lebanon recognizes SoP since 1988/1989 - or back then it has issued only a statement of support and not about recognition? (similar to the Cyprus case). Alinor (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Syria is in the same situation as Lebanon (PLO mission instead of SoP embassy; refugee camps), but it isn't backed by any undisputed source (unlike Lebanon - Syria is not in the UNESCO list) - thus it should either stay in "inconclusive" or move to "PLO relations, no SoP recognition". MFA website?
• backed by UNESCO list with a date, but no diplomatic relations yet (or no source for the relations)
  • Madagascar - Madagascar MFA
  • Cape Verde - MFA website?
  • Togo - MFA website?
  • Sierra Leone - Sierra Leone MFA
  • Congo, Republic of - MFA website?
  • Gabon - MFA website?
  • Botswana - Botswana MFA
  • Nepal - Nepal MFA (bad link?)
  • Burundi - MFA website?
  • Central African Republic - MFA website?
  • Bhutan - Bhutan MFA
  • Rwanda - Rwanda MFA
• other doubts
  • Cyprus - backed by UNESCO with date, but recent claims about "Spain/France to be the first Western European recognizer" warrants additional backing. Cyprus office in Ramallah - PNA, Other missions - General delegation of Palestine (National day - January 1 - Revolution Day (1965) - typical PLO/PNA "national day" - instead of SoP day 15.11.1988). Very suspicious - not a single SoP mention and instead having PNA/PLO non-SoP references. The only other non-recent recognizer with mission type other than embassy is Lebanon (doubtful itself). Move to "inconclusive"? Cyprus MFA

    Following multiple news reports that Cyprus recently recognized SoP I found [53] on the Cyprus MFA. Quote of the minister words "I had the opportunity to be briefed on the difficulties that stand in the way of the process and, of course, to reiterate Cyprus’ support for the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, without accepting any changes to the pre-1967 borders unless otherwise agreed by the two parties..." No "Cyprus recognizes the State of Palestine" - he speaks about support for the eventual creation of such state. Having, this statement, in combination with all other marks from the MFA site above that Cyprus doesn't recognize SoP - I think we should move Cyprus to "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition". This also shows that we should not rely on unofficial interpretations (by journalists, bloggers, laweyrs, etc.) about the position of one or another state. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Malta - backed by UNESCO with date, but recent claims about "Spain/France to be the first Western European recognizer" warrants additional backing. Malta office in Ramallah, [54], [55], Embassy of Palestine - nowhere can I find "State of Palestine", but at least as National day they list 15 November (the 1988 Independence day). Still, more backing is needed. Malta MFA
  • Philippines - the only case we have of closed SoP embassy downgraded to Consulate General and then closed. Sources showing SoP (both official and unofficial), but the official sources are outdated (showing consulate-general, that is now closed) - no recent official source with SoP reference. More backing needed. Philippines MFA
  • Jordan - backed by UNESCO with date; better source needed because of Lebanon/Syria uncertainty; additional reason for non-recognition - former claim over West Bank, big Palestinian population. More backing needed. Found [56] Alinor (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Egypt - backed by UNESCO with date; better source needed because of Lebanon/Syria uncertainty (of all SoP neighbors so far we have confirmation only for Jordan); additional reason for non-recognition - former claim over Gaza Strip. More backing needed. Egypt MFA (no SoP reference found). --Alinor

    That's what I found [P - Palestine]--analitic114 (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    This shows "Palestine Embassy" - unclear if this is of the 'PLO, the UN observer entity designated "Palestine"' or of the "State of Palestine". In the other list of missions we have 2 offices serving "Palestinian Territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" - again, no SoP reference. Alinor (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • South Africa - SoP Embassy [57], but National day listed is 29 November instead of 15 November (at least it's not 1 January, the "national day" listed typically for PNA/PLO). More backing needed. More SoP references [58], [59] (description of relations) and even [60], [61]. Alinor (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • various more - backed by unofficial sources about SoP relations/recognition, official MFA page has no SoP reference - only "Palestine"/PLO/PNA or no Palestine reference at all. More backing needed.
    • Costa Rica (Costa Rica MFA), Argentina (Argentina MFA), Bolivia (Bolivia MFA), Suriname (MFA website?). Alinor (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • various more - backed by UNESCO with date plus "Embassy" by [62] (no SoP reference here - and this list is known to contradict official MFA pages of some host states about the mission name - embassy vs. general delegation/other; this is list maintained by the PLO/"Palestine" UN delegation - thus it maybe lists "Embassies of PLO/Palestine, the UN observer" and not "Embassies of SoP") - and nothing more. More backing needed.
    • Algeria[63], Bahrain[64], Indonesia[65] (UNESCO source is off by a day), Iraq[66], Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Somalia, Tunisia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Zambia, Albania, Djibouti, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Guinea, PRChina, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, North Korea, Niger, Maldives, Zimbabwe, Chad, Uganda, Angola, Mozambique, Oman, Ethiopia, Iran
  • various more - backed by UNESCO with date plus unofficial "SoP relations/embassy" source and "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine" on MFA page, but without SoP reference (thus this may be a reference to PLO/"Palestine, the UN observer"). More backing needed.
    • Belarus (Belarus MFA), Hungary (Hungary MFA)
  • various more - backed by UNESCO with date plus "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine" on MFA page, but without SoP reference (thus this may be a reference to PLO/"Palestine, the UN observer". More backing needed.
    • Afghanistan (Afghanistan MFA), Malaysia (dead link)[67], Ukraine (Ukraine MFA), Mali (MFA website?), Laos (MFA website?)
    • Poland - Poland MFA has no SoP reference; see below for email from Poland MFA that says "no recognition"
    • Brunei ("Ambassador of Palestine" resident in Malaysia mentioned in a dead link) Brunei MFA doesn't list SoP or other Palestine non-resident mission
    • Burkina Faso - Burkina Faso MFA has no SoP reference, but only "Palestine"; this jurisdiction list refers to "Palestinian territories" (responsibility of Cairo embassy)
  • various more - backed by UNESCO with date plus unofficial "SoP relations/embassy" source (especially weak if official MFA page doesn't include any Palestine references). More backing needed.
    • Bangladesh[68], Jordan[69], Pakistan[70], Sri Lanka[71], Romania[72], Tanzania[73]
    • UAE (MFA website?)
    • Ghana (MFA website?)
  • various more - backed by official announcements of recognition that seem like SoP recognition - statements about 'recognizing Palestine state', but in sounds vague and doesn't explicitly arrange in neither option1 nor option2 of 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment below. Maybe when/if the mission type is changed to embassy of SoP this will get additional support/clarification by the official MFA missions list mentionings.
    • Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru
  • mission types supported only by [74] - this is known to contain some incorrect namings (such as "embassy" instead of "delegation" or "delegation" instead of "office", etc.) Alinor (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • unsourced mission types - to be checked at the respective MFA pages
• In addition I agree that we change "There is no information available pertaining to the positions of:" into "The State of Palestine is not recognised by and the PLO and PNA have no official relations with:" (Night w has made such edits recently) Done. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should aim to get the above backed by additional sources explicitly mentioning SoP. I haven checked all MFA pages yet. In addition the recent recognizers with mission types other than SoP Embassy (e.g. delegation, PLO embassy, etc.) - Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Chile, Guyana - I expect that these would get SoP embassies sooner or later - MFA pages need to be checked and table to be updated (Guyana and Chile are hard, because they list 'embassy' for the 'PLO/"Palestine" embassies' even before SoP recognition). Alinor (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not weakly backed, but seem wrongly arranged (backed by official "SoP relations/embassy" source, but date of recognition and/or relations not specified)
  • Kyrgyzstan (if we don't use the Nov1995 information below - even if we use it we need a source). Kyrgyzstan MFA
  • Tajikistan (it seems to be 1994, but no source for that). Tajikistan MFA
  • Ivory Coast (arranged in "2008 or before" only because that is the timestamp on the MFA page about SoP) - we need to find better dates for these. Ivory Coast MFA

Night w, because you asked above about criteria - here is my opinion. The best evidence that XXX recognizes SoP is if its official website supports this claim. In the best case we would have A] the official document about "recognition of the State of Palestine as declared in 1988" or at least "recognition of the State of Palestine" (or establishing diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine) with date - plus B] a source from the recognizer MFA about "State of Palestine" embassy/ambassador/diplomatic relations/recognition. Less worthy is either A] or B] without the other - or instead of official document some official MFA press release/announcement. Even less - journalistic interpretation of MFA press release (because here we can't be sure about nuances such as "recognizes Palestine state right to exist", "supports the establishment of Palestine state and recognizes the PLO", etc. that could be interpreted wrongly as "recognizes SoP" - or "will recognize SoP in 2011" to be wrongly interpreted as "recognizes SoP"). Somewhere around this level is A] or B] with the other supported by generic "Palestine embassy/ambassador/relations/recognition" without reference to SoP - at least one of the two should have clear and specific reference to SoP - because "Embassy of Palestine" may refer to Palestine PLO/PNA instead of Palestine SoP. Somewhere around this level is UNESCO list (or other list from organization where all/most listed states are members - but we don't have such) dated state backed by generic "Palestine ..." (no SoP reference in the second source). UNESCO list dated state backed by second SoP source from XXX MFA is somewhere above "A] or B]", but below "A] and B]". Below UNESCO list dated state with second generic "Palestine ..." source is UNESCO dated state without any second source. Even less - UNESCO list non-dated state with second generic "Palestine ..." source. Even less - UNESCO list non-dated state with no second source (only Eq.Guinea). Of course we can't avoid some specific cases where more attention should be paid (e.g. we should climb up the ladder described here by finding sources closer to the "best case") for various reasons - see above - Lebanon, Cyprus, Malta, Philippines, etc.

In the inconclusive section can go states with conflicting sources of similar value (e.g. two journalistic reports), but if higher value source (e.g. official MFA page) is found it can resolve the issue. Here come also states backed ONLY by "just list" in some interpretative work (e.g. not document of organization where all/most listed states are members) of journalist/lawyer/analyst/blogger/etc. that draws its conclusions from unknown sources (of course an obscure blogger is less valuable than famous journalist - but still such source remains 'interpretative work just list'). Such "just list" sources that contradict official MFA pages or other sources of higher value or contain mistakes or self-contradictions (e.g. show lack of attention to detail, prone to have other unnoticed mistakes) go even lower - and IMHO should not be used as ONLY backing (even if we find a zillion of practically the same "just lists" interpretative works - this is still backing ONLY by such lists - without any higher value source) - even for the "inconclusive" section. If the "just list" has dates of recognition it is more valuable that one without dates (but we don't have such). Then we come again to the specific cases - the Lesotho obscure source and the Doebeler generalizing claim. I won't object moving Lesotho out, but it can also stay in "inconclusive" if you insist. About Doebeler generalizing claim you know my opinion - I didn't believe it from the start - it looks like easily thrown out statement - that is generally true, but not 100%. There is no explanation why it should be true given in the Doebeler source, no reference to AL/OIC rule that "all member states should recognize each other" or whatever. Anyway, it was proven wrong by Guyana - but I know you still try find a way to object that. I don't think that we should use the Doebeler source (because it contradicts Guyana official statement) - but also I think we should not use other generalizing statements (such as "All OIC/AL/Africa/Asia/Oceania/Caribbean/etc. states recognize SoP") if we find such - because it is so easy to miss some 'obscure' state when making such statement - recognizers should be at least mentioned by name. Alinor (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• reconizer states with no SoP mission yet - we should keep an eye on if those change to SoP embassies (this would also remove any doubts between option1 and option2 of 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment below):
  • Cyprus (general delegation) - Cyprus MFA
  • Lebanon (representation) - Lebanon MFA
  • Costa Rica (PLO embassy) - Costa Rica MFA
  • Venezuela (mission) - Venezuela MFA
  • Brazil (special delegation) - Brazil MFA
  • Argentina (ambassador mission) - Argentina MFA
  • Bolivia (none) - Bolivia MFA
  • Ecuador (delegation, non-resident) - Ecuador MFA
  • Chile (PLO embassy/representation) - Chile MFA
  • Guyana (PLO Embassy, non-resident) - Guyana MFA
  • Peru (special delegation) - Peru MFA
  • Suriname (none) - MFA website?

Having in mind controversies about the positions of Malta, Cyprus, Lebanon (see above in this section); Guyana pre-2011 ([75]) and this is related also to "generalizing statements"; Poland (see below and File:Answer of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.jpg); Vatican, Austria, Greece - commonly wrongly mentioned as recognizers; weakly-supported cases in this section; confirmed cases of "Embassy of Palestine"/"Ambassador of Palestine" that refer to PLO (as "Palestine, the UN observer entity") instead of SoP (pre-2011 for Chile and Guyana) - I think that we should strive for sources with highest possible quality - and try to find at least one official source (Government/MFA website or direct quote) with reference to "State of Palestine" for each state in the recognizers list. The sources should be capable of clearing any doubts about the state XXX position over SoP between the two options that commonly cause misunderstandings:

1. XXX recognizes SoP as state-in-exile, that is entitled to eventually control a territory/population, and until that moment it gets full diplomatic treatment as state, including embassies established in the name of the SoP GiE, etc. symptoms: references to "State of Palestine" in the embassies/ambassadors/relations/recognitions lists; National day: 15 November 1988 - Independence day
2. XXX recognizes Palestine state right to exist, its entitlement to eventually control a territory/population, but until that moment 1988-SoP is not recognized as state, the SoP GiE is not recognized as representative of the 'eventual Palestine state'. Until that moment XXX deals only with the PLO/"Palestine, the UN observer entity" and with the PNA established by it - but not with "PLO-as-1988-SoP-GiE". symptoms: references to "Palestine"/PLO/PNA/"Palestinian territories" in the embassies/ambassadors/relations/recognitions lists; missing any Palestine/SoP reference from these lists; non-embassy/consulate mission types: delegation, mission, office, representation; National day: 1 January 1965 - Revolution day or other non-15.11.1988 day Alinor (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is where to arrange official statements of "recognizes a Palestine state" (contrasted with "recognizes the State of Palestine" that go in option1). Because of the subtle difference between the two we should rely on official statements only (not on journalistic/other interpretations of these statements) and I think the best WP:V approach is to confirm recognition by finding a "Embassy/Ambassador of the State of Palestine" (not "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine (PLO)") listed somewhere on the official MFA/government website (or offline official documents) of the recognizer state. Alinor (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No recognition of SoP cases that may seem doubtful

• Non-MFA source ([76], [77]) about "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine" (interpreted as PLO/Palestine, the UN observer - but may be a reference to SoP)
  • Timor-Leste Timor-Leste MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
  • Papua New Guinea MFA website?
  • Eritrea MFA website? see also below. Alinor (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Eritrea does not recognise Palestine, that I know for sure. Nightw 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that, but I would like to add a source about it. Alinor (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Were present in older version of the article ([78]), without any source/note given (see previous discussion) - thus these maybe have only PLO/PNA relations - or recognize SoP - or nothing
  • Armenia Armenia MFA, full diplomatic directory - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
  • Myanmar Myanmar MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
  • Singapore Singapore MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found. Was colored here as "Special delegation" or "General delegation"
  • Haiti Haiti MFA - bad link? Is colored here as "Special delegation" (I assume non-resident).
  • Jamaica Jamaica MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found. Is colored here as "Special delegation" (I assume non-resident). Alinor (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

The original letter (in Russian) and a copy in English:

Брагину Василию

ana**@narod.ru

В ответ на Ваш запрос от 16 сентября 2010 года сообщаем, что дипломатические отношения между Государством Палестина и Кыргызской Республикой были установлены в ноябре 1995 года.

Vasiliy Bragin

ana**@narod.ru

In response to your request on September 16, 2010 to announce that diplomatic relations between the State of Palestine and the Kyrgyz Republic was established in November 1995.

--analitic114 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we have to decide whether we can use this "Nov.1995" information for the "diplomatic relations" column instead of . Anyone to share his opinion? Alinor (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is possible as the date of relations with the Palestinian Authority, until a reputable source (perhaps even re-recognition of independence after the re-proclamation of independence, which is possible in the summer of 2011 at the request of leaders of the PNA). --analitic114 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes are obvious - to change column recognition from "2010 or before" to "1995 or before" and to change diplomatic relations from "yes" to "1995-11". The question is whether we should do this without a source. Alinor (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent a letter to the Kyrgyz Foreign Ministry letter, if possible, that they have provided links to online resources or are located on the site this information. --analitic114 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Today it is only confirmation I have provided you with information without providing any links to online sources (from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan)

Here is the original letter and translation into English (as occurred to me, without any corrections)

Interesting one date indicated there

090/б-25 от 01.02.2011г.

Брагину Василию ana@yandex.ru

В дополнение к нашему исх. № 091/б-22 от 16.09.2011 г. сообщаем, что дипломатические отношения между Палестиной и Кыргызстаном были установлены в ноябре 1995 года.

090/b-25 from 01.02.2011.

Vasiliy Bragin ana@yandex.ru

In addition to our ref. № 091/b-22 from 16.09.2011, it was reported that diplomatic relations between Palestine and Kyrgyzstan were established in November 1995.--analitic114 (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it - what is "in addition" and what is the new date? They already said about "Nov 1995" in their previous email. The only other date that I see is "16.09.2011" but it is about the "ref. № 091/b-22 " - the registration number of your question. Obviously this is a typo - they most probably mean 16.09.2010 (the date of your initial inquiry). Alinor (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Namely, that they have only confirmed the date - November 1995, without specifying to any location where there is such information.

And in 2011 it was they were wrong, just funny - it comes out I wrote from the future!

So while all controversial, and where to look for another source is not clear!--analitic114 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest that on 16.09.2011 you better send them some email, or else no one knows what will happen... Alinor (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

no comment! :-D--analitic114 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

I do not see Indonesia, why you deleted it? These two links show the relationship with Indonesia and State of Palestine, with a full relationship with the State of Palestine and the date of recognition of independence from Indonesia: That [79] and [80] --analitic114 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't deleted it - I have moved it down to 1988-11-16 (as per the sources from Indonesia MFA page). Alinor (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A side note - you may be interested in Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority/Archive_2#Article_name discussion. The current name of this article seems wrong - it deals mostly with SoP, then PLO and the least with PNA relations. And since both SoP and PNA are represented abroad by the PLO I think that the appropriate name for the ru-wiki article would be the translation of Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suriname

There are some recent news reports about Suriname recognition of Palestine. But they are vague and don't give clear answer to whether Suriname falls into option1 or option2 of my 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment above. Do we have a link to the official announcement? Anybody to has a link to Suriname MFA or other government website?

It seems that this is another case of option1 - supporting Palestine state right to exist, but no recognition/relations yet with the already declared SoP. Please look at the weak recognizers section for other similar examples. Alinor (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dates of recognition for the Balkan states

Some of the dates of recognition used for the Balkan states seem dubious. For example, for Bosnia we state that recognition was on 27.05.92 and quote the source [81]. However, that source lists date of recognition OF Bosnia BY Palestine. We want the inverse of that. It's possible that both states recognized each other simultaneously, but obviously this need not be so. Same goes for Montenegro. Perhaps we should remove these dates until better sources show up? TDL (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What else do you need more reliable sources, if not the websites of the Foreign Ministries of the Balkan states? [82] Link to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia with the Embassy of Palestine in addition to you!--analitic114 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link shows Embassy of "State of Palestine" (in the English version). If it was "Embassy of Palestine" or general delegation or representation or whatever else - then we could argue that SoP is not recognized (because "Embassy of Palestine" is a common reference to "Embassy of PLO, the UN observer entity"), but for Bosnia we have clear source. Alinor (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

At the same time on the websites Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Montenegro are listed and the date of the beginning of diplomatic relations!--analitic114 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

TDL, I understand what you mean, but for both Bosnia and Montenegro we have official sources with clear "State of Palestine" references, so I don't see any reason to doubt their SoP recognition. Also, these are one of the few examples where we have a date of recognition on official source - I think we should use these dates. Also, I think that the issue you raised is one of the reasons for states to not participate in "recognition" anymore and to go straight to "establish diplomatic relations" (that are bilateral and simultaneous for both sides).

Finding better sources for Montenegro/Bosnia dates of recognition is not very likely, IMHO. And again - I think we have more serious WP:V issues with some of the states that we list as recognizer, but don't have substantial enough (or any at all) sources to back this (or worse - we have sources implying the opposite). Alinor (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait...maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not trying to suggest that Bosnia/Montenegro should be moved to the non-recognizers. I agree with you that the references to the "State of Palestine" on the MFA website are enough to include them in the list of recognizers. Nor am I questioning the "date of establishing relations" as per the MFA website. I'm just suggesting that the "date of recognition" should be listed as something more general such as "1992" since we don't actually know the specific date when Bosnia recognized Palestine. The dates we have are: 1) the date Palestine recognized Bosnia (1992-05-27) and 2) the date they established diplomatic relations with each other (1992-10-30). Clearly the recognition of Bosnia by Palestine predated the establishment of diplomatic relations by five months. Was this because Bosnia withheld recognition until 10-30? Or did Bosnia recognize sometime between 5-27 and 10-30 (or even before 5-27)? Without more sources it's not clear. TDL (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SoP is "older" than BiH, maybe that's why SoP recognized BiH and not vice versa. A similar situation is with Kosovo-Taiwan. Taiwan recognized Kosovo, but "Kosovo hasn't reciprocated". For BiH/Montenegro we don't have such "hasn't reciprocated"...

I suggest that we keep the dates for BiH/Montenegro and maybe add a footnote explaining that these are cases of "SoP recognition of XXX since" instead of the regular "SoP recognition by XXX since" (and the column heading is just "SoP recognition since"). Alinor (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I added "Lista zemalja koje su priznale Bosnu i Hercegovinu i datumi uspostavljanja diplomatskih odnosa" (quote from source) to Bosnia entry. For Montenegro the source doesn't have such sentence - it's unclear whether the dates are Montenegro->XXX or XXX->Montenegro. Alinor (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

News from Ireland

Here are some sources: [83] [84]

Maybe you can use them in the artice.

--Ahmetyal 23:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is already done. Alinor (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Нашёл интересный файл: [85]

1992 ci ilin 15 aprel tarixində Azərbaycan Respublikası ilə Fələstin Muxtariyyəti arasında diplomatik əlaqələrin yaradılması haqqında Protokol imzalanmısdır.

April 15, 1992 signed a protocol on establishing diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and the Palestinian Authority Of course, I just sent a letter to the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, but I think they will confirm this information!--analitic114 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In 1992 the PNA didn't existed, so this clearly is some mistake - they established relations either with the PLO (I assume so) or with SoP. Let's see what they will answer and whether it would arrange them clearly in option1 or option2 of 09:00, 22 January 2011 comment above. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer will have to wait, but you must also understand that the file was created as a minimum in 2008 (possibly later). I think they are just that, and point (for PNA), that file!--analitic114 (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as an example to quote his own words link to the website of the League of Arab States to sign some contracts, there is the State in Palestine, although in 1983 it was not yet!:

[86] Riyadh Arab Agreement on judicial cooperation (to amend article 69)

Approved by the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice, by its resolution No. (1) dated 04/06/1983 in the first session of the regular session. The agreement was signed on 06.04.1983, "Riyadh" by all member states except for each of the (Arab Republic of Egypt - Republic of the Comoros Federal Islamic). The Convention entered into force beginning from the date of 30.10.1985, and the application of the provisions of Article (67), of which Ratifying States: State of Palestine as of 28/11/1983 Republic of Iraq on 16/03/1984 Republic of Yemen Republic of Yemen People's Democratic Republic on 04/13/1984 Yemen Arab Republic on 11/06/1984 Republic of the Sudan as of 26/11/1984 Islamic Republic of Mauritania on 06/17/1985 Syrian Arab Republic on 30/09/1985 Somali Democratic Republic on 10/02/1985 Republic of Tunisia on 29/10/1985 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as of 01/17/1986 Kingdom of Morocco as of 03/30/1987 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on 06/01/1988 United Arab Emirates as of 05/11/1999 Sultanate of Oman as of 28/07/1999 State of Bahrain on 23/01/2000 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 05/11/2000 Democratic People's Republic of Algeria on 05/20/2001 According to Article (72), of which resolved the Convention for the States that ratified the place of the three conventions held in 1952 in the scope of the Arab League on each of the: declarations, letters rogatory and the implementation of the provisions, and extradition. Amendment of Article (69) of the Riyadh Arab Agreement on judicial cooperation - The Council of Arab Ministers of Justice to amend Article (69) of the "Riyadh Arab Agreement on judicial cooperation" agreement signed in 1983 and by its resolution No. (258) dated 26/11/1997 in the role of the ordinary session of the third century. So that the text of this article as follows: "This Convention is without prejudice to special agreements between some member states in case of conflict between the provisions of this Convention with the provisions of any special agreement shall apply the Convention to achieve the most for the extradition of accused and convicted and the achievement of security and judicial cooperation in other areas." - States have ratified the amendment: State of Palestine as of 09/15/1998 United Arab Emirates as of 05/11/1999 Republic of Tunisia on 05.25.1999 Sultanate of Oman as of 28/07/1999 State of Bahrain on 23/01/2000 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 05/11/2000 Democratic People's Republic of Algeria as of 05/20/2001 - Effective Date: This amendment shall enter into force 30 days after the date of deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of a third of member states in the university. --analitic114 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is different, because SoP succeeded the PLO seat in the Arab League (PLO is member there since 1976). The Azerbaijan document situation is something similar - I assume that they established relations with either the PLO or the SoP in 1992, and later (at the time of document writing) they also have established relations with the PNA and as PNA is represented abroad by the PLO - they say "PNA relations since 1992". The question is whether in 1992 relations were established with PLO only or with SoP. Alinor (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes and review

I've made a few changes to the unacceptable revision.

• I've made a slight copyedit to the note on the OIC. Please tell me whether this clears up the issue.
• I've removed an unsourced embassy in Jordan's section, which was tagged.
• A lot of my grammatical corrections seem to be persistently reverted. I've corrected them again. I don't see what the issue was with them. You put full-stops after sentences, and each word should be separated by a space. You can learn more about this at either WP:MOS or your local primary school.
• I've put back the stable version of the Uruguay note, since this changed whilst discussion (in a thread above) was still ongoing over the matter, with the last comment being only eight days ago. Consensus has not been achieved, and I'd ask editors to respect policy and wait for this.

There are a few problems still remaining:

• A group of sources, along with an unsourced commentary, have been reinstated in the article against consensus and whilst discussion is still ongoing. This is an insult to every editor that is trying to achieve consensus on this matter. It should be removed by the editor that added them immediately.
• A refnote now does not makes sense: "Currently, Palestine participates as an observer at UNESCO through its National Organizing Committee", with a link to a note saying "Such as listing without further clarification "Palestine" or something else..." The note shouldn't be linked from there, or it needs to be rewritten. I've removed it, considering the following:
• A note about the ambiguity of "Palestine" was in the process of being drafted in a thread above, with the last comment being only eight days ago. This should be reverted to the previous revision, or removed entirely, until a consensus can be achieved. I've removed it.
• Quotes:
  • I don't know why national days and foreign scripts are being included in quotes. Is this necessary? It was never justified when it was objected to.
  • The latter part of the quote, "...as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" is irrelevant, and doesn't need to be quoted.
• This "Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories" has no business in the footnotes, as it does not explain anything. It is simply a link to another article, which can be easily put on the word "Department".
• There's now a new footnote in the article, which has citations that are poorly-formatted. Nightw 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your version of the Uruguay note is NOT "the stable version", I already explained this above, please stop pushing that. I will look at the other of your changes later. Alinor (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with the arrangement of the note's content doesn't change the fact that the note has remained intact since it was added months ago. I only agreed to have it as a note in the current state. If you insist on tampering with it, I shall have to insist on it being put back in the main body of text, and a pending note to be put in the cell spacing. I've shown a considerable ability to compromise for your agenda, whereas you have not budged an inch and are now blocking further improvements to the article simply due to the fact that you'd like the note to be arranged "chronologically". Nightw 10:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"the note has remained intact since it was added months ago." - is this a joke? The Uruguay note was added by you and I immediately objected it. It has not remained intact - I objected/reworded it and you pushed back for your version. This was repeated multiple times. We can put some variant of the note in the main text, but I think we both agree that it's better as a footnote. I don't know what do you mean by "put back in the main body of text", because this (as edited by you) doesn't have such note in the main body of text. If you refer to some older version where Uruguay was mentioned in the main text - please propose the wording here so that we can discuss it.

And what do you have against chronological ordering of the events? Is there any reason to use a different event ordering?

I also think that I have made multiple compromises in order to accommodate your changes, let's not argue about who is not budging, etc. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had originally explained the situation with Uruguay in the main text, below the table. You objected, so I moved it to the notes, with a "Pending" clarifyer placed in the cellspace. You objected to that, so I agreed to remove it. You now object to the wording and arrangement of the note... I won't be accepting any change to that, since I've already compromised enough on that point. If need be, we can remove the note, and move Uruguay back to the "inconclusive" section. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I objected your newly added note in the main text too, don't you remember? This was never a consensus/stable version. If don't accept ordering events chronologically, then we should remove your newly added Uruguay note altogether (sources will remain linked at its line). If you insist we can keep it in the "conflicting" section, but I think both of us know that its place is in the "no SoP recognition" section. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with the facts presented, but you're willing to accept overlooking these facts (and presenting the situation as unclear) simply because said facts are not arranged chronologically. If this is the only reasoning, I can lodge an RfC to see what others think of the differences...? Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My last proposal was to just mention that Uruguay will recognize in March 2011. You then insisted that there is "conflict and confusion" in the sources that we should repeat in the article. I agreed, but insisted to present these events (various reports) in chronological order. You stubbornly refuses and pushes (without giving any reason) for your version that hops back and forth in time. This is bad writing style and doesn't help the reader.

I don't object RFC, if you word it in a neutral way. Something like: "For a Uruguay footnote two editors, Night w and Alinor, can't agree on the exact wording. Their versions are as follows:

1. ... - Night w prefers that because ...
2. ... - Alinor prefers that because it orders the events chronologically and doesn't hop back and forth in time. The final result is also more firmly underlined.

Also, we already have 3rd and 4th opinion, but I know you like to disregard these when they don't agree with you.

And finally - since the RFC lasts for 30 days - we should agree where Uruguay should stay during that time and with what footnote, if any. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't block further improvements - I block only some of the changes that you are pushing for - those that I don't see as improvement. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you... especially considering your literacy handicap. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask you kindly not to use personal qualifiers and insults. If I remember correctly one of our first arguments on this page was with you repeatedly saying to me "Alinor, you can't grasp the concept of dated information" (or something like this - and in addition using some not-so-polite qualifiers/statements/comparisons) and then eventually you understood that I was correct (about the particular issue back then). Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a progressive area of discussion, but, no, you were not "correct" about the dated information. I simply became exasperated trying to explain the concept. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the concept, and you stopped pushing that, because you realized that you weren't applying it properly and that I have already taken it into account in the edits I've made. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

About your OIC note redaction - no, it doesn't clear the issue. OIC decision (unanimous or not) is separate from individual state decisions. This should be made clear in the note. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And how does the current version not accomplish this? Do I need to dumb it down a bit further? Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About not-so-polite - see above; About the OIC note:

1. "However, whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states is unclear."
2. "However, whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states, and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine, is unclear."
3. "However, whether each of the member states recognizes the State of Palestine, is unclear."
4. "However, whether these decisions represented unanimous recognition by all member states is unclear."

I suggest that we use option2 or 3. These clearly decouple the OIC decisions from the SoP recognition by individual states. Options1 and 4 don't do this and imply that if the OIC decisions were taken unanimously then all OIC members recognize SoP. What do you have against options2 and 3? Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They're badly written. There also hasn't been any compelling argument that would warrant its change. Repeat: how does the current version not accomplish this? If you consent, I can take this to an RfC, or perhaps one of the content noticeboards, and see what others think. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Badly written - if you speak (again) about grammatical and such errors - correct them or be more specific where/what they are.

How does your versions not accomplish this? I explained that already above. I'll do it again. Your versions implies that if the decision "OIC to recognize SoP" was taken unanimously, then all OIC member states also recognize SoP. And these two things are not coupled. A state may vote in favour of "OIC to recognize SoP", but at the same time withhold its own recognition of SoP, because of not wanting to spoil its favourable bilateral relations with Israel, USA or some other reason. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Jordan - we don't have source showing neither Embassy nor Ramallah/Gaza office, that's why both remained (with 'citation needed' tags) - I suggest that we keep both until we have a source for one of these (otherwise we imply that Jordan has office and no embassy). Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

full stops/grammatical/etc. - of course I don't object these - I just haven't noticed them. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you should be more careful. Next time, instead of just reverting, just undo the changes you don't agree with. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If somebody is "just reverting" that should be you, but anyway - as I said - I didn't noticed these. Since you have now pointed these, there is no problem. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko sources - please resolve that with him. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you readded them. It is now on you to remove them. I'll bring it to ANI. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I readded them, just like I have done with any other edit between the two instances of "my" version. As I have explained to you multiple times at the moment I have no intention to do any edits to these two pages (and maybe it is impossible anyway). Even less so over these two sources - I don't understand your insistence to remove them, but in any case this is between you and Eliko. If you think that these should be removed - discuss this with him or remove them yourself. I would not argue with you about keeping the sources, because I expect that you will start with "citation not formatted correctly" and I have already done enough citation re-formattings because of you insisting on somebody else doing things that you want done. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is policy that insists, not I. See WP:A. Nightw 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What has WP:A to do with this? Anyway, I'm not the person you should speak with about these. Please contact whomever added them the last time. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Palestine ambiguity" note that you removed because it didn't perfectly match its second usage in the UNESCO section - OK, I agree that some rewriting is in order and that until we agree on it the stable version should be restored. You suggests these things in your comment above, but you did a different thing - removed the note altogether and put instead some text in one of the places where the note is needed. The text is neither the stable version of the footnote nor discussed and I have objections with it (it doesn't take into account the non-PLO/SoP/PNA Palestinian organizations, etc. - see section above where we discuss the footnote). Also, the UNESCO section needs ambiguity note too (ideally it needs a non-ambiguous source, but since we don't have such we should rely on the footnote). I will propose a reworded footnote in the section above where we discuss it. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"You suggest these things in your comment..." Not "suggests". Subject-verb agreement. Remember that was one of the things I tried to teach you earlier? But, more to the point, in my comment above (as you say), I've said "This should be reverted to the previous revision, or removed entirely, until a consensus can be achieved. I've removed it." How have I done differently? And what text have I replaced it with? I'm not seeing a difference, I just the removed the note, as I said I'd done... Maybe you can explain what you mean. But yes, a rewording can be discussed above. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About not-so-polite - see above. About the issue at hand - I didn't say you did something different, I say that while I support one of the options you give in your comment I don't support the one that you implemented. There is a difference between your text and both the stable and the changed-by-Alinor footnotes - as you say, your text is a rewording of the note. So, let's discuss it above. And let's keep it as footnote (unless you give another proposal about how to resolve the UNESCO/Palestine issue). Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

National days - yes, this shows whether the country in question deals with SoP or PLO/PNA. For example, in the case of Malta MFA site the only thing there implying that it recognizes SoP is the National day. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, and what about the quote in Arabic script? Is that necessary? Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary just like the other similar notes. I would put an English translation, but I remember somebody saying that policy requires quotes from sources should be in the original language. If you think this is not so - let's put the English translation. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I think the national days argument could be well interpreted as synthesis, but I'm willing to overlook this if you feel the quotes are necessary. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"...as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" - this is not irrelevant, it shows that the source is about PNA relations and not about SoP relations. If you want to shorten the note we can remove "Mahmoud Abbas" (as it is enough to have PNA President).

I see. That's fine. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories" - if you insist, OK, let's move the link to the "Department" word - but all other entries have their links/sources as references/footnotes. This will make the appearance inconsistent.

New footnote with poorly formatted citations - if this is about the Eliko sources - please work with him on that. I can reformat this as footnote and can even format the citations in the way you like them - but only after we reach consensus on our issues here, at the moment I have no intention to make edits. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this was referring to the citations in the note about government in exile status. They need to be formatted properly in line with the article's citation style. I won't be doing it for you anymore. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, I have implemented the 'cite web' template, just as you likes it after you complained about these the previous time. And also, if you don't like something you can change it - this is Wikipedia after all - I don't understand why do you expect for others to do what you wants to be done. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because policy requires it. See WP:A and WP:BURDEN. Nightw 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong in the re-formatted version or not? Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OIC generalizing source RS/N

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Foreign_relations_of_Palestine_-_generalizing_source. Alinor (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fairly lengthy post, even for you. Let's hope someone reads it. Nightw 05:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)