Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

what is this supposed to be

This isnt a template, why exactly is a copy of a portion of an article being placed in the template namespace? nableezy - 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there are two articles that include this information - and by using a template their edits can be synchronized (otherwise, over time, they start to contradict each other). Alinor (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The two articles are State of Palestine and Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this. This isn't a good use of the template namespace. This would only be used in Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. The State of Palestine article only needs to address recognition. It also creates problems with compatibility; you can see (at least I can from my resolution) that the template is wider than the article's width. Nightw 09:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be merged into the article, at least until a consensus concludes that a template should be used. Nightw 09:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently both articles include the same content - SoP recognitions, PLO/PNA relations, international organizations relations. They are contradicting each-other and using a template will synchronize them. If you want to remove content from the SoP page, OK (but I don't think this is a good idea) - but currently it is there, so we should avoid discrepancies between the two articles in some way (a template seems the most reliable solution).

Formatting (width) is a different issue and we can address it accordingly. What width (in pixels) do you think that will be OK? Alinor (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

To fit the page. I forget the parameter... width=comparable maybe? Nightw 11:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

various issues

Night w, you changed the table headings from "SoP recognition", "PLO/PNA relations", "Mission of SoP/PLO", "Mission to SoP/PNA" into "recognition since", "relations since", "mission of Palestine", "mission to Palestine". I don't see why the "since" are needed (isn't this obvious? At most a footnote, but why put this word in the heading?), but on the contrary - I disagree with the usage of the generic "Palestine" term - as it is unclear what this means - SoP, PLO, PNA or something else.

Why have you separated Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau from the rest? Alinor (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The headings can be changed, but as long as you avoid the "SoP" acronym that you made up, and as long as the date is put in context (like "establishment of...", or something similar to "since"), as it isn't all that obvious.

I separated those three because I doubt any editor is likely to challenge the claim made, so we'd be unlikely to require citations for them. Nightw 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What is not obvious if we have a column "recognition" with a date inside? Anyway, I have nothing against the "since" - I just want to avoid the table to become too wide.

What is the problem with the acronym? Any better idea for a short reference to the State of Palestine? Here again, I have nothing against writing the full text, but this will affect the width of the table.

Marshall/Palau/Micronesia. I'm not comfortable with separating those (or anyone other) from the rest unless we have a source. Why should Palau be treated differently from Nauru? We can't make such judgments. Voting in favor/against some UNGA resolution doesn't show whether they have relations/recognition/etc. Many states vote "against Israel" in such resolutions and they still maintain relations with it. It is "no infomation available" for both Palau and Kiribati.

The "at least"s that you added. Isn't it sufficient to have one 'general at least' for the 147? It is obvious that since if it is "at least 147", then all sub-groups of this may also increase. And if you don't agree - then why don't you put an 'at least' to the 36 states? Also the wording was "147 are known to ..." and now the "at least 147 are known to ..." seems very strange - if a 148th is known, then why isn't it added to the table? The meaning of the remark is to show that the table includes only the known cases, e.g. such that we have sources for. The total is 'at least 147' (e.g. it may be over 147), but the known cases are 147 and not more than this. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a better idea for an acronym, but policy prohibits us from inventing ones, or using ones that are extremely rare. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't use this class of table on a template, because it will always stretch past the page width. You need to use one where you specify the width, which means the length of words won't affect the column width anyway.

You can put the CFA states back with the others if you wish. I merely concluded that since a) they were small Pacific states with very limited foreign relations anyway, and b) they always vote with and adopt the same foreign policies as their benefactor, that their positions on the matter would be fine unreferenced for now. It's not a big deal. What we need is sources for each of the states in that section which confirms their position on Palestine. I think at least Ecuador, Singapore, Iceland and Bolivia will have made such statements since the 2009 resolution.\

I see what you're saying about the "at least" additions. I removed them. Nightw 08:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you removed the unsourced countries, but you haven't removed the unsourced international organzations. Also, why have you moved an 'observer organization' in the 'member organizations' list? Alinor (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Didn't see that. Fixed. Shall we work on getting the citations? Observer status should be easy to proove; if not, remove them. Nightw 08:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find a source confirming ITU observer status, etc., but it would be good if you check too. Alinor (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Same for Asian UN group membership (it is currently listed among observerships) - I can't find source for that; if we are going to delete states and organization observerships without any source/additional information - this should be deleted too (if you can't find such source too). Alinor (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the "do not recognize" category that doesn't have sources - I think that as sources should be found for Iceland so should we for Palau.

About the width/SoP. OK, I will put the full wording, but I'm unsure how it will affect the width. Alinor (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also added CI/Niue (at separate bullet, not along the pacific states) - remove them if you insist so much, but I think it is more reasonable for them to stay (either along the pacific states or separately), because they can recognize SoP and conduct relations with PNA/PLO as much as Vanuatu for example. They already do this with other states, why should SoP be an exception?

Another note - with your changes from "147 are known to ..." into "At least 147 states ..." and from "Palestine has no diplomatic or official relations with and the State of Palestine is not recognised by:" to "There is no infomation available pertaining to the positions of:" - it makes it look like all of these recognize SoP or have PLO/PNA relations, but we just don't have sources showing it. Anyway, if such implying is not bothering you, fine. If you share my worry - then I propose to change "at least 147" into "147 are known to" and the "no information available" to remain as you changed it. In this way it will be clear that: a) no-specific-list sources give a number of 127 recognizers (this is in the section above the table); b) specific-country-names sources give ("are known to") a number of 102/111 recognizers and 45/36 additionals with PLO relations/PNA relations without SoP recognition; c) the difference 127-102/111 is to be found in the cases below the table listed as "There is no infomation available pertaining to the positions of:" Alinor (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But "are known to" is a conclusive statement that is only true from our perspective. We don't know (yet), because we haven't looked at any sources. But it's not unknown whether they do or don't. Something about the "age of the universe", as you were saying... When we've properly sourced each entry, these attachments probably won't be necessary.

Other questions: 1) What's the purpose of having Tessler quoted without a direct link to a statement? If a sentence is included that he can be attributed to, then he can be cited, but don't leave references hidden in the text. There is already lots of hidden junk in there that will need to be cleaned out; it serves no purpose and creates mess in the form of empty kilobytes. 2) You can't attribute claims to examples. You need sources which explicitly show what you're trying to inform the reader (e.g., that "States that recognise the State of Palestine also accredit to the PLO ... non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries"; the reason why "delegations are also sometimes referred to as embassies") Nightw 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"are known to"/"at least". I agree if we had sources for each, then there will be no need for such additions. Actually, in regular cases such "at least" are also not needed, but because in this case we have a source-without-names/list stating 117/127, but only 102/111 states individually identified by other sources - we use this "are known to"/"at least" to show that there is a gap (missing countries). What I say is that it is better to use 127+"these are known to: list"+"there is no info for: list" - instead of 127+"at least: list"+"there is no info for: list". Anyway, that is a minor issue.

hidden Tessler quote - I didn't want to delete sources (and it is present in the current articles). Hidden kilobytes is not so big problem - all hidden text has much less size than the maps/pictures used anyway.

WP:RED doesn't say that all red-links should be deleted, on the contrary - if it is probable that an article will be created they should remain. I think that the Palestine Standarts Institute and UNESCO National Organizing Committees (Olympic Committees have both a general list and individual articles) are notable enough institutions - so that it's reasonable to expect that they will get pages in the future.

attribute claims to examples - what do you mean? We have sources showing 'non-resident ambassadors', what more do we need? OK, about the de facto embassy part, I will put a 'citation needed' flag after it. Alinor (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should write the article first. Whatever, you can add them back if you must. But sources used for general reference can be cited in a bibliography or further reading section at the bottom of the page. Hidden notes are useless, and they create mess. They're even more annoying than redlinks. Examples aren't adequate. Can't you find a source which simply states the same thing you did? Nightw 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would put it in 'external links' section(s), but it is an offline source - so there is no 'link' to put there... Alinor (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Examples aren't adequate. - but these sources show 'exactly' what is written (I speak about "states accredit non-resident ambassadors to the SoP/PLO", not about the paragraph clarified in the below section) - "non-resident ambassador". If you insist I can put a 'better source needed' tag after the sources. Alinor (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't commented on the misplaced/unsourced Asia UN group membership. Alinor (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to find the "better source" (i.e., one that says, not shows, what you've claimed) or it'll be removed. This includes that statement you attributed to an Argentinian embassy: see WP:BURDEN. Nightw 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• ITU
• WHO
• Asian Group Nightw 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources about the organizations are OK.

The non-resident ambassadors. WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with that (it only states that editor adding material should give a source if needed). We have enough sources showing exactly that - non-resident ambassador accredited. Do you question this fact? Wikipedia text does not need to be an exact quote of the source. So 'citation needed' tag is inappropriate in this case, but if you insist a 'better source needed' can be put there.

The Argentine delegation source (+some other sources). This is another thing - here the article text really includes some further deductions, that while highly probable are not directly derived from the source - that's why I propose to put both the sources we have and a 'citation needed' tag (see below section). Alinor (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Argentine delegation source other use (for the 'de facto ambassador') - I will place it accordingly and the 'citation needed' will remain at the end. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't just find a source that says the same thing you're claiming. The problem with what you've done is that you've used examples to show that this is the general rule. If it is, a source stating the general rule should be easy to find. Let's say that I do question this "fact" ... aren't you going to make an effort to make sure that it isn't removed for lack of adequate sourcing? Tags don't just sit there forever; they eventually get removed along with the content to which they're attached. Nightw 10:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags don't sit forever, but why hurry with the removal of the content? (this is more important for the content in the table, not for the text)

These sources 'say' exactly that, but if you think the text should be reworded to not imply that this is the general rule, OK, this can be done. I am not "claiming" anything - I am just describing what looks like a general rule, because most states in the table have such 'accredited non-resident' - the problem is that most of these are sourced from a currently inaccessible (moved?) webpage on the PNA/PLO MFA website - that is in Arabic and I can't find the new location of this list. Alinor (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do the sources say exactly that? Provide a quote. Currently, there's a major sourcing issue that's stopping this information from being added to the page. Nightw 11:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

this: "OTHER COUNTRIES -REPUBLIC OF SERBIA DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR MISSIONS ON NON - RESIDENTIAL BASIS: PALESTINE, EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA, ..., CAIRO ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT"

this: "Torres presented his letter of credence as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine"

So, if you like we can reword it not to imply "generally", but it's pretty clear that there are at least some cases of non-resident ambassadors. I told you about the dead link for 'generally'. Alinor (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't say that "States that recognise the State of Palestine also accredit to the PLO ... non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries", it says that Serbia and the Philippines have non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Neither does it say anything about "government-in-exile"; neither is the PLO mentioned, and in fact the second link instead refers to the PNA. So far, you've managed to write a statement of original research, and then attributed that statement to examples. What's the problem? Is your search engine down? The time you've spent arguing with me is probably time that you could've spent actually getting a proper source. Nightw 14:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you question the statement "PLO is the SoP government-in-exile" - I though (and was amazed) that you question the "states accredit non-resident ambassadors to SoP/PLO". OK, let's add a source for the GiE issue. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From State of Palestine: "The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was approved by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algiers on November 15, 1988, by a vote of 253 in favour 46 against and 10 abstentions. It was read by Yasser Arafat at the closing session of the 19th PNC to a standing ovation.[75] ... By the 1988 declaration, the PNC empowered its central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and called upon its executive committee to perform the duties of the government-in-exile until its establishment.[75]" - PNC is the 'legislative institution' of the PLO and [75] is "Sayigh, 1999, p. 624."

It continues: "...An analysis outlining the relationship between the PLO, the PNA (or PA), Palestine and Israel..." and "...accords the PA responsibility for local government and the PLO responsibility for representation of the Palestinian people in the international arena..." [88] "Dajani in Brownlie et al., 1999, p. 121." Alinor (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please include the quotes in the citations, and expand the citations to include the titles, isbn, etcetera. The article you got them from will have the full citations; can you bring them across. Nightw 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I already copied them from the SoP article - there is no ISBN/etc. mentioned there. Alinor (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you've just blindly (and incorrectly) cited a source without any idea what's in it? I'm removing them, and placing back the tags. And yes, they are listed there:

• Brownlie, Ian; Goodwin-Gill, Guy S.; Talmon, Stefan; Jennings, Robert (1999). The reality of international law: essays in honour of Ian Brownlie (Illustrated, reprint ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198268378, 9780198268376. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198296436, 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Look through them for a suitable quote that you can attribute your statements to, and attach the quote when you cite them. Nightw 02:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't put them "blindly" - I put them for those statements that are the same as the statements in the SoP article referenced with those two sources. Alinor (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done the first one for you. The second, however, does not claim that states regard the PLO or PNC as a "government-in-exile", it simply says: "The PNC also empowered the central council to form a GiE when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a GiE was established". Nightw 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so until another GiE is formed the PNC of PLO is acting as such and performs these functions. So, if you insist we can rephrase "its GiE" to "acting as its GiE" - and put the full quote in the footnote. Alinor (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But the question being raised is whether other states regard it as such. "States that recognise the State of Palestine also accredit to the PLO (as its government-in-exile)"... Otherwise it would be "the PLO (which considers itself the state's government-in-exile)". Nightw 07:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean if they regard it as such? Do other states regard the Government of the USA as its government? This is not for the other states to decide - if they recognize the SoP then obviously they recognize its government. And we have the source showing that PLO is conducting this function - and this was the decided by the same PNC that proclaimed the SoP itself. I think that the 'better source needed' is enough in this case. Alinor (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But the question being raised is whether other states regard it as such. "States that recognise the State of Palestine also accredit to the PLO (as its government-in-exile)"... Otherwise it would be "the PLO (which considers itself the state's government-in-exile)". Nightw 07:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked into a better source for this yet? I'm going to remove it otherwise, per WP:V. Nightw 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

"A non-resident ambassador is tasked with conducting non-diplomatic relations or a non-resident Head of delegation or office is diplomatically accredited as non-resident Ambassador - in cases, where one of the two third countries (non-resident host state and the receiving state) does not recognise the State of Palestine, but the other does recognise it." - you put a 'clarify' tag here, so I will try to explain what I mean. Let's say that Vanuatu recognizes SoP, but Australia and Timor-Leste don't. PLO maintains a delegation in Australia, that is responsible for both Australia and Vanuatu. In Australia it is non-diplomatic Head of delegation ('de facto ambassador') and the same person is accredited as regular non-resident ambassador to Vanuatu (e.g. the non-resident ambassador to Vanuatu is tasked with conducting non-diplomatic relations with Australia) and is tasked/responsible for relations of PLO/PNA with Timor-Leste (but it isn't 'accredited ambassador of SoP to Timor-Leste', because SoP is not recognized by Timor-Leste). The reverse is also possible. Let's now say that Australia recognizes SoP. The ambassador of SoP to Australia will be also accredited as non-resident ambassador to Vanuatu and this SoP ambassador to Australia will remain tasked/responsible for relations of PLO/PNA with Timor-Leste. This all comes from the fact that a single person/mission can be responsible for countries of both types (recognizing and non-recognizing SoP) - thus he is SoP ambassador for one state, but PLO/PNA representative for the other state. Maybe the wording is unclear, feel free to improve it. Alinor (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is original research. Please provide a source which states this. Nightw 14:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not OR - it is SYNTH at most - and it is partially backed by sources (the non-backed part is obvious/common sense anyway). If you don't agree with some of that - rephrase or remove. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove all of it at the moment. Nightw 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ready?

Are we ready to put the template in the articles? We will continue discussion/improvement of the issues in the above sections, but I think none of them is preventing us from already using the template. Alinor (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the table still screws up the resolution. Nightw 06:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that you already addressed that.

I opened it on a 1280x800 (pretty low resolution) and it fits nicely inside the screen - no need for horizontal scroll. What are your resolution&browser? Alinor (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1024 x 600, and it still goes over the side. But of course all this would be moot if we'd just skip this "template" and move the content to the article. The table itself is huge, even without all the other sections, and the State of Palestine article is long enough. As with any other country, we don't go into this much detail on foreign relations on the main article anyway. Most likely the lead summary will go in there, with a hatnote directing to Foreign relations of Palestine for the main details. Nightw 09:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This resolution is untypical (used only in some very small netbooks/tablets) and even unsupported by some standard Windows versions. I don't think we should aim for so low resolution. You get a problem not because this is a template - even if we put it in an article the result will be the same - the width would not became smaller if it isn't a template.

The problem with SoP/PNA Foreign affairs articles is that both include the content that is in this template - and naturally, over time, they start to contradict each other. We have to synchronize this content (or remove it from one of the articles, but this will be highly controversial). Alinor (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ACCESS. It should be viewable even on mobile phones. Not to mention that this is an improper usage of template space. It won't go in the article like this, and its content (except for maybe the first few paragraphs) will never go into the main country article. Nightw 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS - "without excessive horizontal scrolling." (emphasis mine) - aiming for such low resolution (1024/800x600) would inevitably need some horizontal scrolling. Not to mention on a mobile phone. On 1280x800 there is NO scrolling. On 1024x600 there is some, but it's not excessive.

Why do you think that synchronizing articles is improper usage of template space? I've seen that done on other occasions.

What "main country article" do you refer to? The SoP article? You propose to delete its sections on country recognitions and organizations membership (and just put links to PNA Foreign relations article)? Alinor (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, like any other main country article, the State of Palestine article should only contain brief summary sections, each with a hatnote directing to an article with further details. So yes, the Recognition section will contain a summary (and maybe a map), as it has now in the first part, and the rest should be deleted. Nightw 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that it will be OK to delete this content from SoP article and replace it with a link to Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (the name of this article is also not perfect - as it deals with PLO foreign relations and their subsets - as representative for SoP and for PNA, but anyway) - I don't object - but SoP editors may object. What I insist is that we don't have discrepancies between the two articles. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are only two main editors one needs to deal with at that article. I'm pretty confident they won't object. It's common convention anyway. Nightw 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing problems

1. What's happening with the TamilNet transcript? Are we removing it? It can't just sit there with a tag on it. My vote would be to get rid of it, given its numerous errors. Nightw 10:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that it's unreliable, let's put "failed=yes" (remove the '?') and keep 'unreliable' tag. After all this is the only firm number we have (besides the 102/111 specific names) - the previous is from 5 years ago and thus outdated. Alinor (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a solution. If it's unreliable, it gets removed. Another editor at the noticeboard has said this to you aswell. Nightw 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is if it's unreliable or not. There is no conclusion/consensus at the noticeboard over this. Also, what is the meaning of the 'unreliable-verification=failed' tag if it is to be removed immediately? Alinor (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That parameter was only added a few months ago, without a specified reason. But you're the one that slapped the tag on there in the first place, and the provider (me) is supporting its removal. Have you changed your stance on it? Consensus at the noticeboard was that it was either reliable (in which case the tag is removed), or not (in which case the source itself gets removed). Nightw 13:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is a valuable/notable addition - until we have something suitable to replace it with (e.g. another statement for the exact number of states recognizing SoP). So, I propose to keep it (with or without a tag, keeping the hidden note in both cases) until a more recent source is found (maybe one, where Boyle acknowledges Uruguay recognition - something along the lines of "Boyle: ... and now, with the recent recognition by Uruguay SoP has reached 128 recognitions...") Alinor (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In both cases? I hope you're not talking about the one attached to the other numbers quoted by Boyle. They need to go. It's also been surpassed by Boyle's quote in September "about 126", so it's possible it's outdated as well. Given the amount of spelling errors, and the discrepancy that you identified, I don't think keeping it there is the best idea. Especially since Boyle should not be viewed as an impartial authority on this subject. Nightw 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

By both cases I mean: with or without a tag.

Boyle's quote in September "about 126" is not "surpassing" its June quote "127" - both say the same thing and one of these is a firm number. If you want you can remove the 127 quote and replace it with "about 126", but then the questions comes - is 111 = about 126? That's why I prefer the 127 quote. Alinor (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We can leave it in if you wish, but not if it's going to sit there with a tag attached to it. Nightw 02:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the decision? Nightw 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait for the more experienced users of the noticeboard to give advice on this? Alinor (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Won't happen. It'll be archived without further comment unless you request it. My opinion is that it is unusable given its multiple errors. So it's up to you. If you want to leave it in, fine, but remove the tag. If not, remove the whole thing. Nightw 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the 'failed=yes' option of the tag template? Until we have a more reliable Boyle-exact-number-source. Alinor (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No. That is not a proper outcome, as was said by another editor on the noticeboard. Nightw 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Nightw 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Other recognitions

Swaziland, Cameroon, Vanuatu

Why have you removed Swaziland, Cameroon, and Vanuatu? They were some of the states that recognised the declaration of the State of Palestine in 1988 source. As far as I know, neither have withdrawn their recognition source. What's your source for disputing this?

The two sources you give (the first seems issued in December 2001 and the later in 2004) and that source (web page copyright 2000-2003) seem to copy from each other and some of them have contradictions as explained here.

The 2004 source says "Countries with which PLO maintains diplomatic relations include: ...Austria, Vatican, ..." and then "The following states while they do not recognize the State of Palestine allow PLO to maintain a regional office: ...Greece...". So, it is implied that the first group recognizes SoP while the second doesn't. The first group includes Vatican and Austria and this is in contradiction to the Vatican official website: The Holy See has relations of a special nature with the Palestine Liberation Organization - and to the Austria MFA site (see the top of 13 November section above). Having in mind this and the other problems of these sources (they don't list Slovakia, Georgia and other countries whose MFA websites show that they recognize SoP; etc.) makes these sources unreliable and thus we should use them only with great caution. I am well aware of that they list Swaziland, Vanuatu and Cameroon (and Philippines - for this, see below), but we don't have reliable source about these three.

Cameroon MFA - no SoP recognition here

Swaziland MFA - not finding diplomatic relations/missions page

Vanuatu MFA - not finding diplomatic relations/missions page

If you have a reliable source showing that Swaziland/Cameroon/Vanuatu recognizes SoP or has accepted the credentials of ambassador from SoP (resident or non-resident) - we can add them to "recognizing SoP". Otherwise at most we can put these in the "no clear indication of the relations type or recognition" list with the unreliable source(s) and a clarification tag. Alinor (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

what you think about this links:PM grants audience to special envoy from Palestine.(Cameroon) --analitic114 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire, Suriname, Turkmenistan, Syria

Cote d'Ivoire, Suriname, Turkmenistan, and Syria are members of the OIC. From this source: "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)." What's your source for saying that they don't?

Ivory Coast MFA - no SoP recognition here

Turkmenistan government - not finding diplomatic relations/missions page

Syria Ministry of Tourism - Syrian embassies list, no State of Palestine embassy - an unspecified PLO mission-type is listed instead

Suriname - not finding MFA website (maybe there is no English version?)

The source you give is stating some "generalizations", but this is highly unreliable. This is just an unofficial analysis by Curtis Doebbler. Do we have an official statement by the Arab League or the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that "all AL/OIC members recognize the State of Palestine" (not the right of Palestinians/PLO/PNA to establish their own state)? This is important, especially since we have Cameroon (see above), Ivory Coast, Azerbaijan (see below), Syria and TRNC (OIC member - TRNC MFA) - where we have MFA websites not showing such recognition. Alinor (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They collectively and publicly recognised the State of Palestine at the 18th Conference:

From here:

"The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers ... Recognizes the independent State of Palestine."

From here:

"The Conference declared its recognition of the independent Palestinian State, and supported the Declaration of Independence and the political program adopted by the Palestinian National Council at its 19th Extraordinary Session."

Whether each of these four have functioning diplomatic relations with Palestine, I don't know. But as members of the OIC, they recognise Palestine. Nightw 21:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources don't show that "all OIC members" recognize SoP, they don't even show that "all OIC members at the time of adoption of the decision" recognize SoP (some joined later). What is the procedure for taking decisions in OIC? Unanimity, majority? Even if it is unanimity the sources don't show that "OIC members recognize SoP" - the sources only show that the OIC itself recognizes SoP. (African Union recognizes Sahrawi Republic, but not all of its members recognize it). Alinor (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How did you get "no SoP recognition" for Cote d'Ivoire? Did you even look? Nightw 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

These links also don't show anything, please give the link where you found it. Alinor (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't get into the site, because this computer doesn't have flash or java or something. But the second url in the list, even from the Google preview I can see the words "Ambassade de la Palestine" and "Etat de Palestine". Can you get into it? Nightw 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems my browser had similar problems, but yes - on the bottom here is listed "AMBASSADE DE LA PALESTINE" that unhides "Chef de Mission : S.E.M. AWAD YAKHLOF N. ; Adresse : (Etat de Palestine)ABIDJAN Cocody II Plateaux 7ème tranche, villa n° 22505 B.P 1843 Abidjan 05". So, I will change the map&list. Alinor (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

Resolved

Venezuela is an obvious supporter of Palestine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Nightw 12:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is supporter of "Palestine" (beware who they refer to - PLO, PNA, SoP, Palestinian people, Palestinian cause, Palestinian rights, etc.).

It is already listed in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" with the following: Venezuela and the Palestinian Authority established formal diplomatic relations and announced the opening of a Palestinian embassy in Caracas 29.4.2009; Venezuela foreign minister said: "establishing official relations with the Palestinian National Authority, with the Palestinian state,"; article by James Suggett of Venezuelanalysis.com, clarification needed: The quote from the minister is about official relations with PNA, with a mention of "Palestinian state" (but unclear if it references to SoP or to the general notion that PNA should transform in a state). On the other hand the source writes (but this is James Sugget/journalist interpretation, not a quote of the minister words) about "formal diplomatic relations" and future/potential "opening of a Palestinian embassy in Caracas". So, we need an official Venezuela press release/announcement/etc. about "State of Palestine embassy/recognition/diplomatic relations" or about "Palestinian National Authority office/mission/delegation/official relations".

If you want you can add the additional sources too, no problem. Alinor (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But you don't have an up-to-date source that says that Venezuela doesn't recognise it. The establishment of ambassadorial relations means recognition, yes? Nightw 16:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I thought those sources were pretty obvious: here's another two (1, 2). Nightw 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on with whom has Venezuela established relations/embassy - State of Palestine (per 15.11.1988 Algiers unilateral declaration of independence) or Palestinian National Authority (per 1994 Oslo agreement between PLO and Israel). It seems that this and that refer to PNA, but this and maybe that (not explicit) refer to SoP.

In the source that explicitly refers to SoP is written that "Venezuela and Palestinian foreign ministers signed the Joint Communiqué ... in Castilian and English languages, both texts being equally authentic." - if we can find this (preferably its English variant) or find a list of embassies to Venezuela on the Venezuela MFA website - then it can be confirmed whether the relations are with SoP or with PNA. Otherwise this is clearly a situation of "no clear indication and inconclusive sources" (leaning in the SoP direction - but this is just an interpretation. The sources are inconclusive). Alinor (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of the state is "Palestine". That's it. That's it's official name, and that's what it is in the United Nations. The PNA is the representative of the state; they're inseparable. This one cites the communique itself: "La República Bolivariana de Venezuela y el Estado de Palestina ... Han decidido establecer relaciones diplomáticas desde el momento de la firma de este Comunicado Conjunto, sobre las bases de los principios y normas del derecho internacional consuetudinario que regulan las relaciones diplomáticas entre los Estados." You're clutching at straws here. Nightw 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that you're able to present the status of individual relationships as "unclear", but you've no problem presenting a number (which you concede could be wrong) as definite fact! Nightw 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do you found that "the official name is 'Palestine'"? See the link to its declaration of independence (in Greece subsection below) - it doesn't say so. Also, most (if not all) states that recognize SoP use the name "State of Palestine". Also, since the PLO designation in the UN is "Palestine" there should be extra care to distinguish between SoP and PLO/PNA - as each of these three is referred to as "Palestine" sometimes.

Yes, it is necessary to distinguish. That's why people use the term "State of Palestine" since Palestine is a geographic region, even the Israelis will say so. It's neutral to say "State of Palestine", since Israel is part of the region of Palestine. It's similar to the situation with Macedonia. But "Palestine" is the official name of the state. See the Constitution: the first one and the current one. Nightw 18:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

These are constitutions of PLO and of PNA. SoP is a different (albeit tightly related to PLO) entity. Alinor (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source here. Check the infobox at the topright of the State of Palestine article. Nightw 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case (where the potential for mix-up is high) it is better to use the primary source. Especially since the UN designation of PLO (the SoP and PNA 'representative'), is "Palestine" and thus many sources use the terms interchangeably. Alinor (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have suggested to put Venezuela in "recognizing SoP" instead of "inconclusive sources" - if there weren't references to the PNA in the sources. PNA is not representative of SoP. PLO is the representative of SoP. PNA is a provisional administrative authority established following the Oslo agreement between Israel and PLO (1994). SoP is a state established in exile by the adoption of a declaration of the PLO (1988). PNA has nothing to do with SoP, they are completely separate. The only common thing between PNA and SoP is that both are established by the PLO (the UN-recognized representative of the Palestinian people). Of course as PLO acts as both "government in exile" of SoP and as "representative abroad" of PNA - that's why there is an overlap in practice, but not de jure. That's why having relations with PNA or PLO does not necessarily imply recognition of SoP. Also, in many cases countries have relations with PLO/PNA and announce "support for a Palestinian state/Palestinian cause/Palestinian rights/Palestinian people", but this does not automatically mean "recognition of the SoP (per 1988 declaration)" - on the contrary - utilizing such vague wordings avoids the question of SoP recognition. Alinor (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this with you. Is the text of the communique plain enough for you? Nightw 18:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by itself it looks OK, clear, explicit and specific. But having all those PNA references around in the other sources lowers the confidence/reliability

OK, as I said - my interpretation is also that Venezuela recognizes SoP - but I was cautious to go ahead based solely on the single source showing that. If you also agree with this interpretation and if you are so confident that this does not constitute a too serious lowering of the WP:V criteria - I will change Venezuela accordingly (dark green & "recognizes SoP"). Maybe to put also a 'dubious' tag? Alinor (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then here's a different one! This is worse than pulling teeth! Nightw 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard, but I hope that in the end we will have a very well sourced content. Alinor (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

Resolved

Philippines is another (1). I don't know why you'd choose to remove these.

Philippines are already listed in "conflicting or inconclusive sources." with sources showing the same thing (Consulate-General - that your source shows) and also showing that Philippines MFA lists of embassies and consulates of/to the Philippines do not include any Palestinian mission. If you want you can add this additional source too, no problem. Alinor (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But you don't have an up-to-date source that says that the Philippines doesn't recognise it. All you're going on is the absence on a list. That's not a associable reference. Nightw 16:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have reliable source that says that the Philippines recognize SoP either. What we have are sources showing SoP Consulate-General in the Philippines. But these are in direct contradiction to the Official Philippines MFA list of "ACCREDITED CONSULATES AND HONORARY CONSULATES IN THE PHILIPPINES" dated 18 August 2010 that includes "Consulate General of the Republic of Albania" and many others, but no SoP mission at all (the embassies list, dated 27 April 2010 also doesn't include SoP mission). So, either the Philippines MFA pages are wrong or the other sources are wrong. That's why Philippines is listed in "conflicting or inconclusive sources." Alinor (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But this list does. And this one. And this one. It has a contact number, address, fax number, it obviously exists. I don't know how you could possibly dispute that. Nightw 17:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, if we don't apply strictly the WP:V verifiability criteria this one can be utilized to put Philippines in the "recognize SoP" list, but still, because the most natural, authoritative and reliable source - the Philippine MFA - doesn't list it - that's why I propose that we leave a 'dubious-discuss' tag - until someone finds a source showing "acceptance of accreditation letters of the Palestinian Consul-General" or another official Philippines government press release showing recognition of SoP (or ideally when the MFA also lists it). Alinor (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You want something like this? Nightw 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Palestine also appears on the main selective list, but I can't gain access to the site (via Google). Nightw 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Where to find the "main selective list"? I also can't open most of these google links - alas, the relevant ones such as this, but looking at the extract I see "11 Aug 2006 ... Consulate General of the State of Palestine" - so, obviously in 2006 the MFA was listing SoP Consulate-General, but now it isn't. That's bothering. And in addition the 2009 announcement source you found is referring to PNA, so it isn't clear if Philippines recognizes SoP or not.

What is clear for sure is that they have relations at least with the PNA, so they should be colored at least blue. (I will correct the map&lists shortly) Alinor (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says "Torres presented his letter of credence as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on 6 December 2009". You're clutching at straws now. Nightw 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In contrast to the Venezuela case we don't see any reference to SoP here - SoP is referred to only in the Consulate-General sources - and it is dubious if they are up-to-date - the 2006 MFA list has it, but the 2010 list doesn't. Alinor (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because the name of the State of Palestine is "Palestine". Nightw 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The press release clearly states that a new "Ambassador to Palestine" was appointed in 2009. You don't have a source to state that he's been dismissed, or that the embassy's been closed — and you can't rely on a discrepancy or mistake in one list to prove that, especially when it is listed in other lists. Nightw 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the non-'SoP Consulate-General' source (only one such?) refers to PNA.

The consulates source from the "city tour" page is even older than the google cache sources - "Last Update: Monday, 09 February 2004". Also, a "city tour" page is less reliable than a MFA page - especially since the MFA page is updated in 2010 and the "city tour" page - in 2004. Alinor (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: "Torres presented his letter of credence as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on 6 December 2009". Stop wasting my time. I'm putting it in. Nightw 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: it is not obvious from this source that it refers to the State of Palestine (resulting color: dark green) and not to Palestinian National Authority (resulting color: blue). Alinor (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does it day that he's the ambassador to the PNA? Quote. Nightw 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, what separates the PNA from the State? The PNA is the government of the State of Palestine. A state can't have appoint an ambassador if it only has a general delegation or mission. Nightw 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere that the ambassador is to the SoP, but only to "Palestine" and two letters after that the sentence continues with "PNA". SoP is not even mentioned in the source.

Ambassador. Yes, that's why Philippines is in the "inconclusive and contradictory sources" section. Also, Tores is Ambassador to Jordan, so maybe they just skipped parts of the description: "RP Ambassador to Jordan, and responsible for Palestine this and that". It would be good if we had a quote from these letters of credence - to clarify the issue.

No. The PNA is not the government of the State of Palestine - see my comment from 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC) in the Venezuela subsection - and the SoP, PLO, PNA articles. The PLO is the 'government in exile' of SoP (state defined by 1988 PLO unilateral declaration). The PNA is a totally different entity (interim administration defined by 1994 PLO-Israel agreement). PLO is also the 'representative abroad' of the PNA. Alinor (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've told you that the name of the State is "Palestine". Nightw 23:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if so, "Palestine" is also common name for PLO and PNA. We need to have a clear reference to SoP. Alinor (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just registered that the reason for the discrepancy between the lists of embassies in Manila are because, according to the press release, Palestine is "keen on re-opening its Embassy in Manila", which means that the "Consulate General of the State of Palestine" was closed sometime between 2007 and 2010. The Philippine embassy in Amman, however, is still accredited to Palestine, see here and here: "if you intend to stay in Jordan or Palestine..." Neither the PNA nor the PLO are countries, so we now know what's meant by "Palestine", and the (now-closed) consulate of the "State of Palestine" can be used as an additional source as well. Nightw 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with your interpretation, e.g. I think that Philippines recognizes SoP, has diplomatic relations, should be colored dark green, etc. The problem is that this is not obvious from the sources we have. None of the current sources (excluding these about the closed SoP Consulate-General) have reference to the "State of Palestine".

The first new source that you point above shows the same as one of the previous sources - about a meeting between Palestinian National Authority President and the Philippines ambassador. No clear reference to the State of Palestine here. Yes, I agree that "non-resident ambassador to Palestine" seems (and most probably is) a reference to SoP. If it weren't the remark "Palestinian National Authority" right after it - I wouldn't object. If it was written "... ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas." - we still wouldn't have a direct SoP reference, but at least there would be no argument against our interpretation that 'ambassador to Palestine' refers to SoP.

The second new source (from consular affairs) doesn't help either as it uses generic "Palestine" - and more importantly both Palestinian passports and administration on the ground are handled by the PNA, so this is not related to SoP.

Do the Embassy in Jordan have a section "about us", where it is described as "Embassy to the Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Palestine" or similar? I couldn't find such, but maybe you will. Alinor (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

But the previous lists show that there was an embassy of the "State of Palestine" in Manila. Which means that they did recognise the State, and we haven't a source to prove that that's been revoked. There's still evidence of ambassadorial relations with "Palestine" (the name of the state), and I agree that this is ambiguous, but that doesn't cancel out the previous reference. Nightw 09:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source of the ambassador before the embassy was closed: 1. Nightw 09:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this book, "The State of Palestine is recognized by over one hundred states including the Republic of the Philippines. In September 1989, diplomatic relations were established between the two governments leading to the opening of the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Manila, May 1990." Nightw 10:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both this and the photo from above show that there previously, SoP was recognized by the Philippines. That was shown also by other sources above too. The problem is that the current Philippines MFA pages don't list any embassy/consulate to/from SoP. Also, we have sources speaking about re-establishment of SoP embassy, so the current situation is unclear. That's why I asked about the Jordan embassy page (it seems that the ambassador there may be also ambassador to SoP) - can we find a current reference to SoP there? Alinor (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't open the book itself - does it have an exact number and/or list of SoP recognizers? To check if we are missing someone? Alinor (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't be an entry on the current list, since, as the press release shows, the embassy in Manila was closed sometime after 2007. But now, multiple sources (the book I quoted from, the previous list showing that there was an embassy of the State of Palestine, press release for Ambassador to Palestine) collectively and explicitly show that recognition was extended. If the embassy in Manila is closed, its details won't appear on the MFA website, but there isn't a source to claim that recognition has been withdrawn, so until a source is found to claim otherwise, the older sources remain undisputed. Nightw 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the hypotheses (that I don't find as probable, but that's irrelevant) that Philippines stopped recognizing SoP and currently deals only with the PNA and that the sources show that they intent to re-establish SoP relations/recognition, but currently still haven't done so. So, in this case we need a current reference to SoP. Alinor (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on speculations or hypotheses. We only show what the sources show, which is that the Philippines did recognise the State of Palestine, and has an "Ambassador to Palestine". And you haven't got a source to dispute that. So I'm putting it back in. Nightw 12:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am saying - I don't agree to implement your and mine "speculations or hypotheses" that these sources show SoP relations or recognition, when they don't include such reference. They have references to relations with the PNA President, and intentions for some future relations that we don't know what form will have, nothing more.

Do you have a source showing the currently Philippines recognizes SoP? Alinor (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"They don't include such reference"? A quote from a secondary source, which Wikipedia prefers, states "The State of Palestine is recognized by over one hundred states including the Republic of the Philippines. In September 1989, diplomatic relations were established between the two governments leading to the opening of the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Manila, May 1990." So that's the status quo, until someone can find a source which states that Philo has revoked recognition. Nightw 13:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the status quo is that in 2010 there is no Embassy of the State of Palestine in Manila. Until someone can find a source showing an Embassy of SoP after 27 April 2010 (or consulate/recognition/etc.). That's why Philippines have to remain in the "inconclusive sources".

And, please stop moving it without consensus. Alinor (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They closed an embassy. That means, in the image, it goes from dark green to light green, with the possibility of it being still dark green because of the "Ambassador to Palestine" in Amman. There's no source to show withdrawal of recognition, just the closing of an embassy. Nightw 13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ambassador to Palestine" link does not include reference to SoP. In speaks about PNA. Both are called "Palestine". I already said that I agree with your assumption, but we need a source for that. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've provided the book source. Nightw 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The source should be about the situation after 27 April 2010. Alinor (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because they closed an embassy? That has no impact on their mutual recognition. Stop wasting my time. Nightw 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We assume that they closed an embassy, but maybe Philippines canceled recognition of SoP and retained only relations with PLO/PNA. Alinor (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All that's apparent from the press release is that the embassy in Manila isn't open as of 2009. From the differences between the lists cited, we can see that there was an embassy of the State of Palestine, but now there isn't. That's to do with consular establishments. That's not enough to override what the book source has stated. Nightw 14:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to use our assumption, interpretation and deduction - we need to somehow notify this - maybe by placing a dubious tag linking here. Alinor (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What assumption? Reading the source, "The State of Palestine is recognized by over one hundred states including the Republic of the Philippines." That's explicit. You don't have anything to dispute that with. Nightw 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is that despite that there is no more SoP embassy and that such is expected to be re-established we assume that relations haven't been canceled along with the removal of the embassy. I agree with this assumption, but it still is just that - an assumption. A dubious tag will suffice in this case, IMHO. Alinor (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What sources have you got to that indicate that the closing of the embassy effected Filipino recognition of the State? Nightw 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have sources stating that the Embassy was closed (and relations remained) - we just deduce that from the fact there was an embassy before and that there isn't one currently. There are different explanations for this - one of them is that recognition was canceled. Alinor (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What sources have you got to that indicate that the closing whatever of the embassy effected Filipino recognition of the State? Nightw 15:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you post a direct link to the book showing that "Philippines and SoP established diplomatic relations, ..." Alinor (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Any idea of the origin of this list, published in the Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 1989. It lists the Philippines and Tanzania, whereas the UNESCO document does not. Nightw 10:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Tanzania is clearly listed in the UNESCO document - "86. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 24/11/1988".

Also, on closer inspection the list in the source you give has some errors - it lists Tanzania twice (at 79 and 89) and it lists North Korea twice (at 26 and 45). The person compiling this list obviously didn't pay any attention to detail - maybe he just got the UNESCO list (or some equivalent) and added three more states - Tanzania (with date), North Korea (without date), Philippines (without date) - without even looking if these are already present or not (or he didn't knew/understand that "United Republic of Tanzania" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" are the same as "Tanzania" and "Korea, North") - in any case this gives us very low credibility/confidence in the whole list. If the only meaningful addition - Philippines - had at least a date - then we could try to find out "what happened on that date", but without even this - I don't see anything that we can get out of this. Alinor (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so does the UNESCO source, where Kampuchea is listed twice. Nightw 11:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because in 1988 there were two governments fighting against each other. Both claimed to represent Cambodia/Kampuchea/whatever-name-they-used (such as PRC and RoC) - and both recognized the SoP. Only one Cambodia government emerged from the Cambodian–Vietnamese War, but both Democratic Kampuchea and People's Republic of Kampuchea recognized the State of Palestine on 18.11.1988 and 21.11.1988 respectively. Currently Embassy of the State of Palestine to Cambodia (non-resident), Cambodia MFA also shows SoP relations. Alinor (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The two Kampucheas and two Yemens (also in UNESCO source) were really two at that time - in contrast to Tanzania and North Korea (if the second entry was for South Korea it would be OK, but it isn't - both entries refer to North Korea). Alinor (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Resolved

Azerbaijan is represented through the Embassy of the State of Palestine to the Republic of Uzbekistan, Central Asia and Azerbaijani Republic, in Tashkent (see here). It's also a member of the OIC. What's your source for disputing these?

Azerbaijan MFA - no SoP recognition here; for OIC comment - see above.

The palestineuzbek.com (currently unaccessible) google cache source has only one reference to Azerbaijan: "Ambassador of the State of Palestine to the Republic of Uzbekistan, Central Asia and Azerbaijani Republic has delivered the credentials to the President of the Republic of Tadzhikistan". This does not confirm that Azerbaijan recognizes SoP - it just shows that the SoP ambassador to Uzbekistan (we already have Uzbek MFA link on this) is also responsible for Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and maybe also Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan (and whatever other states are included in "Central Asia" - Mongolia, Afghanistan?). For these countries he may be SoP ambassador or PLO/PNA representative (like here) - this isn't clear from this source. Anyway, we have the Tajik MFA source showing SoP recognition. Also, we have the Kazakh MFA source showing SoP recognition and different embassy/ambassador from the Uzbek one. But the Azerbaijan MFA source doesn't show SoP recognition/relations. And in the case of Azerbaijan it is important to have an extra reliable source - because of its "issue of NKR secession/self-determination". Alinor (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here. Nightw 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK.Alinor (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Greece

Resolved

Greece is another (see here). There's also the quote from Mark Tessler: "Within two weeks of the PNC meeting, at least fifty-five nations, including states as diverse as the Soviet Union, China, India, Greece, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Malta, and Zambia, had recognized the Palestinian state." What's your source for disputing these?

What "these" you mean? All of these are already marked as "recognizing SoP" - only Greece is marked as "relations with PLO/PNA, but not recognizing SoP" - the source you give doesn't dispute that - it shows Greece-PLO relations. Also here and Greek MFA show "General Delegation" and "Palestinian representation" - not "Embassy of the State of Palestine". Alinor (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also this, that and that sources (these three seem to copy from each other and some of them have contradictions as explained here) that you refer to also show that Greece falls into the category "PLO/PNA relations, but not recognizing SoP" and not in the category "recognizing SoP". Alinor (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note, it wouldn't be an "Embassy of the State of Palestine", since that's not its formal name. It'd be an Embassy of Palestine, or a Palestinian embassy. Nightw 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You can see in almost all of the MFA websites here that they refer to "Embassy of the State of Palestine", "Ambassador of the State of Palestine", etc. - why do you expect the Greek one to be different? This is important, because "Palestine" could also mean "Palestine Liberation Organization" and "Palestinian National Authority" - and dealing with these two doesn't imply recognition of the "State of Palestine" (per the 15.11.1988 declaration) - even if "establishment of Palestinian state is supported". See also here for usage of "State of Palestine" in its declaration of independence. Alinor (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kenya

Resolved

Kenya - one of the 5 cases listed as "recognizing SoP", but with no recognition date specified in the UNESCO source. Kenya is the only one of the UNESCO list (besides these that dissolved/merged) not listed in this, that and that. The two older sources (it seems that the newer two copy-paste from the oldest 2001 source) claim to list 94 states, but actually include only 93 - Kenya may be the 94th that's missing. Also, these sources include information proved to be wrong by the MFA pages of Vatican City and Austria (e.g. no SoP recognition - only PLO/PNA relations). Kenya MFA doesn't show mission to/from SoP, but this doesn't exclude the possibility of recognizing it. In summary: the most reliable source (Kenya MFA) has no clear indication, the unreliable pseudo-94-lists don't include it (but it may be the missing 94th entry), the UNESCO source includes it, but contrary to most of its entries - doesn't give a date of recognition. So far we don't have source contradicting the UNESCO list and thus Kenya is still in "recognizing SoP", but in this particular case some additional confirmation would be welcome. Alinor (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Kenya needs to be dark green on the map (source). Nightw 19:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Alinor (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lesotho

According to the U.S. government, "Lesotho also recognizes Palestine as a state". The Prime Minister referred to the "State of Palestine" in his address to the UN General Assembly. Nightw 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lesotho MFA - no SoP recognition/relations found. Also, each of the two sources you give by itself would not be very compelling (US page speaking about 'Lesotho recognizes Palestine as a state' - not exactly a SoP 1988 refernce; Lesotho statement that speaks about "plight of SoP" - this implies recognition, but it isn't written in the source that "Lesotho recognizes SoP") - but having both may be sufficient to add Lesotho to the "conflicting and inconclusive sources" list. What do you think? Alinor (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs deals with relations. I don't know any tiny African government that publishes a list of states that it recognises. Nightw 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes. What I asked was "is having both sources that you gave sufficient to add Lesotho to the 'inconclusive' list?" Alinor (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's sufficient to add it to the list of recognising states, since we don't have any source to dispute what these (particularly the U.S. government source) claim. Nightw 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your insistence to lower the level of WP:V. For such controversial topic we should use only the most straightforward and explicit sources coming from the most reliable places, etc. To claim that Lesotho recognizes 1988 SoP it is best to have some statement/press release from Lesotho government institution about that. Using some US website with country profiles is much less reliable than that. If the Lesotho source included wordings like "... and we already recognized the State of Palestine, ...", OK, but it uses an equivocal wording.

So, let's add it to 'inconclusive' list until we find a better source. Alinor (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that such a statement would probably not exist, and that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (this one, to boot, being from a source with an outwardly contrary point of view)? Nightw 10:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As we see all around here, there are plenty of similar sources for other states, why should Lesotho be an exception?

POV of the source owner is one thing, but correct information is another. We can't just rely on people writing US sites to be "so opposed to SoP, that they could not make a mistake when writing that some country recognizes it".

Secondary sources are preferred in general, but in this particular case, where even the primary sources sometimes use equivocal wordings, secondary sources just add a layer of vagueness or false conclusiveness. Recognition between states is best sourced from their official websites. Alinor (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and it's not backed up by policy unfortunately. Nightw 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURO. In this particular case it is better to use primary sources. Alinor (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Still your opinion. I'll be adding it shortly. Nightw

No consensus for this. It will be reverted. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Europe

A summary of a UN meeting in March 2010 of the Civil Society describes the actions of Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine at the United Nations: "There was a need to find ways to convince the 25 European countries that had not yet done so to recognize the State of Palestine, he stressed."

The same individual, in an international meeting on Israeli-Palestinian peace process, was reported to have said "He went on to note that the Prime Minister’s plan contained diplomatic dimensions. That was critical because more than 100 nations recognized the State of Palestine, including some 25 in Western Europe, as well as in Latin America and Asia, among others. Palestinians had strong representation in those countries and it was time for those Governments to reaffirm their recognition." Nightw 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see in the source above this Western Europe comment - is it from some other source? Anyway, I haven't counted them, but does Western Europe include so much states regardless of their SoP recognition? (what definition of "Western" Europe does he use??) - let alone the sources that show some these as non-recognizing SoP, but having some official relations/general delegations/etc. with PLO/PNA. Alinor (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you added the source, but I don't find it helpful, are there so many states in Western Europe in the first place, let alone such recognizing SoP? Alinor (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

12/03/10. I'd add it but I screw up list format. Sol (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

Recognition of the State of Palestine. I changed the list, but couldn't change the picture and other related articles.

Poland

According to official list of countries published by Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography (established in consultation with the minister of foreign affairs) [1] Palestine is not listed as "country" but as "territory wit undetermined status". On the website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Palestine is listed with Israel as "Izrael i obszar podległy Palestyńskiej Władzy Narodowej" (Israel and area subordinated to the Palestinian National Authority) [2], and Polish offial mission is "to the Palestinian National Authority" (Przedstawiciel Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej przy Palestyńskiej Władzy Narodowej – Representation of the Republic of Poland to the Palestinian National Authority), not "to the State of Palestine" or "to Plaestine" [3]. There no official Polish documents in which Palestine is treated as independent or sovereign country/state, becouse Poland didn't recognize Palestine. Aotearoa (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All this does not contradict with Poland recognizing the State of Palestine as government-in-exile (it is "in exile", because its claimed territory is still 'occupied'/'with undetermined status' - as shown in these sources) - just like all other states recognizing it (that's why embassies to SoP are aways non-resident accredited from elsewhere).

Of course the Polish mission/office/representation in Ramallah is not "Embassy to SoP"- the Ramallah missions of all countries are to the PNA, not to SoP - but having PNA relations is no indication about SoP recognition - these are separate issues. A country can have PNA relations and recognize SoP; a country can have no PNA relations and recognize SoP; a country can have PNA relations and not recognize SoP; a country can have no PNA relations and not recognize SoP.

Looking here: [4], [5] we see "EMBASSY OF PALESTINE" - unfortunately using the generic "Palestine" term that does not specify explicitly "State of Palestine", PLO or PNA. The common practice is that countries that don't recognize SoP host PLO missions/delegations/representations - in contrast to countries recognizing SoP that host embassies/consulates. So this is an 'indication' of SoP recognition (a weak one, but still).

At the Poland MFA site there is a LIST OF STATES WITH WHICH POLAND MAINTAINS DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (PNA is listed), but I can't find a "list of countries recognized by Poland", so again - we have neither denial nor confirmation. Maybe some statement by Polish/Palestinian MFA or president about SoP recognition can be found?

So, in summary, so far there is no source showing that Poland does not recognize SoP and contradicting the source that we have that lists Poland as SoP recognizer state. Alinor (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

UNESCO source is not reliable source for showing official Polish statements (and this unoficial UNESCO document is only note submitted by few countries without any confirmation of facts showing in it – this document is not official statement of UNESCO nor Poland, this is only point of view of Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Yemen), so far there is no official Polish source showing that Poland does recognize State of Palestine. Aotearoa (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Official Polish government list of country names as of 2006 [[6]] presented in UN forum [7] – Palestine is not listed as a country; the Polish government list Names of Countries, Their Capitals and Inhabitants (3 ed., 2007) – Palestine (not State of Palestine) is listed in the "Appendix 1: Non-self-governing territories or territories with undetermined status" (on page 60) with remark "ostateczny status polityczny nieustalony" ("the final political status unidentified"). The name "Państwo Palestyna" (State of Palestine) is not used in any Polish official document. Aotearoa (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see consensus for changes after they are reverted - WP:BRD.

As explained above - this doesn't show that Poland doesn't recognize SoP (we would need something like this to check it - showing countries recognized by Poland) - it only shows that the territory it claims is still with "final status undetermined" - and this is to be expected because SoP is in exile. Also, there is an "Embassy of Palestine" in Poland - can you find the some official accreditation documents/press release about new ambassador/etc. - to see if this is 'Embassy of SoP/PLO' or some 'PNA/PLO mission'? Alinor (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About the Tel Aviv consular section dealing with PNA entry/visas - this does not mean that Tel Aviv embassy is accredited to SoP/PNA/PLO - it just means that the Ramallah 'office to PNA' doesn't deal with these issues. Alinor (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this subject, I hope that they respond. Aotearoa (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, let's hope they give a straight answer. Alinor (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning to both of you: Note that this page is under Arbcom sanctions now. At least one of you violated the 1RR in the last 24 hours. Be careful. Nightw 10:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay

This malaysianews article generally claims that Uruguay "had recognized the Palestinian State". I assume that this refers to the SoP as declared in 1988, but it is not explicitly clear from the source itself. Parts of the source that are inconclusive:

• "relationship with the Palestinian government and has indicated it will be represented at a mission in Ramallah." - this means PNA relations. Missions in Ramallah are not embassies to SoP.
• "president Mujica’s announcement only made official what was signed last April by the Foreign Affairs ministers from Uruguay and the Palestinian Authority to formalise "existing friendly relations between both sides." " - again, PNA relations, no SoP reference.

So, the strongest almost-SoP reference is:

• "President Jose Mujica confirmed that Uruguay had recognized the Palestinian State and said bilateral relations were now in place.", but unfortunately it is not a direct quote of Mujica words, but an interpretation by the malaysianews writer.

A press release from Uruguay will be better, especially if it includes direct quote of Mujica words and/or link to the official documents signed.

We need a source showing that Uruguay recognizes the State of Palestine - in contrast to Uruguay having relations with Palestinian Authority government and recognizing Palestinian state right to exist. Alinor (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The first article states "Jose Mujica confirmed that Uruguay had recognized the Palestinian State". Another article referenced, which is entitled "Uruguay announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Palestinian State", states "He [Mujica] announced that the first quarter of 2011, the State of Palestine to establish embassy in Montevideo."

If you'd like more, there are thousands of Google hits in Spanish, 1, 2. Nightw 05:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A source showing relations with/recognition of/embassy of the State of Palestine (not "Palestinian State") would be welcome. The source above that speaks about 2011 embassy is OK - but it is for 2011, not for now. We need to have a source that shows the following theory is not true: "In 2010 Uruguay recognized the Palestine State right to exist. They already have relations with the Palestinian Authority non-state entity and they announced that such will be also established with the State of Palestine when its embassy is ready in 2011." Alinor (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I must ask, why the repeated objections to Uruguay? Cited, a headline reads "Uruguay reconoció al Estado de Palestina". Another article reads: "the State of Palestine to establish embassy in Montevideo". What's the problem? Are we going to have another Philippines tantrum? Nightw 08:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Because this is just a headline in a blog, thus it is just an interpretation of the writer. Do we have a source showing official document/announcement for 'State of Palestine' recognition/relations? We have such for Venezuela (the joint communique). As I explained above - the current sources do not indisputably show SoP recognition - when the embassy opens it would be more clear - until then we would need a better source that some news report/blog interpretation. Maybe there are intentions to recognize SoP, but currently it is at the stage of PLO/PNA relations + Palestine state right to exist recognition/support (I don't think so and I agree with your interpretation, but our assumptions/interpretations are insufficient here). Alinor (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification about "resolved" mark - we still don't have the "explicit source", but I didn't object Night w moving Uruguay because of fellow MERCOSUR Brazil and Argentina recognitions following Uruguay announcement. If somebody else doesn't find all these as sufficient - Uruguay should be moved back to "inconclusive sources" section. Alinor (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Two recently added sources - [8] and [9] - show that the Nov 2010 announcement was about intention to recognize in 2011, not that it already recognized SoP - see my comment from 09:32, 28 November 2010 - it turns out that both you and I were wrong. Alinor (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs further investigation. A large number of articles also state that Uruguay recognised Palestine with Argentina on 6 December (e.g., see JWeekly, AFP via Google News, YNet, UK News, FDL).

But, as earlier reports provided show, it was in September that Mujica announced that his government would recognise Palestine. But the recognition was possibly extended early, in November, as it was reported at the time. An embassy in Ramallah is scheduled to open early next year. A good article is included in a government report here, which basically states what you do, but is also quite contradictory. Perhaps the situation is unclear...? Apparently we'll probably only need to wait for a month anyway. Nightw 12:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I moved it to "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section - until we have a perfectly clear official source in either direction. Alinor (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No recognition of SoP plus no PLO/PNA relations

In this section (sharing the gray color with the "inconclusive or conflicting sources" cases where the contradiction is between "no recognition and no relations" and some of the other types - blue/light green/dark green) are listed "the remaining" entities - where we don't have any source showing recognition or any kind of official relations.

The following states are listed here (gray), but appear here - unfortunately without any source or comment. I don't know an easy way to check when they were added - maybe there are sources in the edit-description-line:

• Armenia Armenia MFA, full diplomatic directory - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
• Eritrea MFA website? some sources found; moved to "inconclusive sources"; see below. Alinor (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Moldova Moldova MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found (source found, no recognition) Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Myanmar Myanmar MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
• New Zealand New Zealand MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found; many statements about Palestine problems, I assume that it has some official relations with PLO/PNA and doesn't recognize the SoP - but I found no clear indication on this. Confirmation later found. Alinor (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Timor-Leste Timor-Leste MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found (source found, no recognition) Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Uruguay Uruguay MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found; this speaks about future/potential "recognition of Palestine". This maybe means 'recognizing SoP' (in the future), but it is unclear if currently Uruguay has official relations with PLO/PNA without recognizing SoP - or it doesn't have any relations with SoP/PLO/PNA. Alinor (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay will need to be updated after recent developments. Its representative is currently in Dubai, according to the articles. Nightw 10:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. Alinor (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC}

Moved here Alinor (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Other states that were listed as without any source given [10] (thus unclear if they recognize SoP or have PLO/PNA relations):

• Paraguay Paraguay MFA - non-resident SoP embassy found. This is an example why uncited content should not be removed without first making at least minimal effort to check - in this case somebody added Paraguay without giving a source, I put a citation needed flag, Night w deleted the content, I didn't oppose its deletion. Night w and I obviously applied WP:BURDEN and this is fine, but is it so hard to check a few MFA pages before deleting? (added to list) Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ecuador Ecuador MFA - PNA non-resident representation found recognized in 2010. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Bolivia Bolivia MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found recognized in 2010. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bolivia Recognized Palestine today so that's one of them solved. Sol (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Singapore Singapore MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found
• Haiti Haiti MFA - bad link?
• Jamaica Jamaica MFA - no SoP/PLO/PNA recognition/relations found Alinor (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why have you changed Jamaica in the image then? Nightw 13:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it so hard to find sources for the multiple uncited statements you've added? Is it so hard to conform with the very simple citation style adopted in the article? Apparently. Nightw 10:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamaica. What do you think that its color should be? Alinor (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You changed it to blue, but left it in the "no known information" section. So which is it? Nightw 10:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it was left blue by mistake - recently I just corrected it to be the same as the text of the article (e.g. gray). Currently I don't see any source about it, so it should be gray. If we find a source we will change it accordingly. Alinor (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

About Haiti, Jamaica, Caribbean - [11] - "2005: The representative of Guyana said that the countries of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) had always supported the cause of the Palestinian people and had consistently called for the establishment of a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders." - such statements of "almost recognition" are quite common and maybe that's why somebody added Haiti and Jamaica - bu as shown below Guyana recognized as late as 2011 and not with these earlier 'support statements'. Alinor (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

About Haiti, Jamaica - I think that they were included in the old table together with coloring them in File:Palestine-recognition-map.png as "Special delegation" (I assume non-resident). Alinor (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization —

Actually the article deals with the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization and these include all three aspects: relations of the PLO itself, relations of PLO as State of Palestine representative and relations of PLO as Palestinian National Authority representative. Should we change the name accordingly (move&redirect)? Relisting since the move template was only added on 2 December. Jafeluv (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to lodge a WP:RM for this. Nightw 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is if others agree with this. What do you think? Alinor (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care either way. The differences between the organs are trivial. Nightw 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Added the move proposal template. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support This article covers the Palestine Liberation Organization's foreign relations prior to the creation of the Palestinian National Authority. The Celestial City (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Nightw 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Nightw 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. Nightw 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not! The Palestinian National Authority is not equivalent to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PNA represents only the Palestinians resident in (part of) the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, while the PLO purports to represent all Palestinians regardless of their location or possible other legal status or citizenship. Although there is clearly a strong link between them, they are still officially entirely separate bodies, wit separate institutions and structures. If there is any confusion between these in this article, it should be rectified, and if necessary a second article should be created. But to rename this one would merely compound any errors currently in the article. RolandR (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Foreign relations of Palestine? Are there any controversy issues with that name? Ambiguity issues, certainly, but perhaps ambiguity is required in this case? Nightw 12:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, PNA is not equivalent of PLO, yes. The problem is that the current article deals mostly with PLO relations (this is understandable since the PLO represents all "Palestinian entities" abroad - the PLO itself, the SoP and the PNA) so the current name of the article is misleading. If a separate Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is made it will get most of the content of this article.

Night w, we should refrain from using the generic "Palestine" term as it is not clear what it refers to - PLO, PNA, SoP or a some mix of these.

1. Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - for Palestine Liberation Organization that has established and represents abroad also the SoP and the PNA
2. Foreign relations of the State of Palestine - for State of Palestine only
3. Foreign relations of Palestine - unclear; PLO as UN observer is referred to as "Palestine"
4. Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority - for Palestinian National Authority only

Since PLO has established (and represents) both the SoP and the PNA - Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization seems the most appropriate one of the options. Alinor (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per RolandR. I would, however, support a move to the broader title Foreign relations of Palestine, since it covers both organs. Nightw 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What does "Palestine" in Foreign relations of Palestine mean? PLO, SoP, PNA or something else? All three of these conduct foreign relations trough the PLO, so obviously Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is more suitable. In any case the current article includes many information that is not related to its name (e.g. foreign relations unrelated to the PNA). Alinor (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's a better title. Because it's broader; not so restrictive. Nightw 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not broader - it's undefined. This is unacceptable for an article title.

Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is also broader than the current one as it encompasses PLO itself, SoP, PNA (and nothing else). Alinor (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, "Foreign relations of Palestine" would be the better option (as SoP/PLO is represented as Palestine in various international bodies). However, a common compromise at Wikipedia is to have the naming "Palestinian" instead, in this case it would be "Palestinian foreign relations". --Soman (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using just "Palestine" is that using this terms implies that these are the relations of the 'State of Palestine', but SoP doesn't have any relations separate from PLO (as SoP is in exile it's the PLO that represents it). PNA is also represented abroad by PLO and has been established by the PLO. In this case I don't see why we should avoid mentioning the PLO? And it is no coincidence that PLO is the UN observer entity. Not the SoP and not the PNA, but the PLO holds the UN seat referred to as "Palestine". Alinor (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean Foreign relations of the State of Palestine, NIGHTW? Palestine currently refers to a region, and you want to keep it that way. If SoP does stay and is not renamed to Palestine, then it should be Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. This is why I think SoP should be moved; thats a mouthfull and that is not the common name. Int21h (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support The PNA is not independent of the PLO, the PNA was created by and is subordinate to the PLO. That is the "strong link". The PLO is the sole representative of the Palestinian people as per UN resolution, it does mention location or other qualifiers. The PNA does not represent anyone, it is merely a government created by the PLO. Yes, this is weird. Usually a state is recognized with the government recognized as its representative, but in this case the PLO was recognized as the Palestinian representative, without a state being acknowledged. A UN resolution even had to be passed so that the UN could just say "Palestine" instead of the PLO when referring to the PLO (so everytime the UN says "Palestine", they are really saying "PLO"), since it is not a normal situation. But in any event, its the PLO doing the foreign relations, not the PNA. Int21h (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The PNA is certainly not subordinate to the PLO. This is, in fact, why increasing numbers of Palestinian activists are calling for the abolition of the PNA. The PLO may once have been recognised as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" (though not officially, as far as I recall, by the UN); unfortunately, this is no longer generally accepted. The PNA was not created by the PLO, but as a result of an agreement between the PLO and Israel, which has at least as much control over its decisions and operations. Nor does the PNA represent, or even purport to represent, ALL Palestinians, but merely those living in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 (while Israel still does not recognise the PNA's right to represent Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem). It certainly does not represent the million and a half Palestinians living in the state of Israel, nor the five million plus refugees.

I will have no time for the next week to hunt out the relevant documents on this, but there is ample evidence that the PLO and the PNA are indeed separate bodies, with different purposes, different (and sometimes conflicting) agendas, separate structures, and separate networks of relationships across the world. RolandR (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"activists are calling for the abolition of the PNA." - I don't question this, but it will be good to back it up by source - because there are many different reasons for such call.

"unfortunately, this is no longer generally accepted." - any source to back this up? For the opposite check [12], here, [13], [14], Madiha Rashid al Madfai, Jordan, the United States and the Middle East Peace Process, 1974-1991, Cambridge Middle East Library, Cambridge University Press (1993). ISBN 0521415233, [15].

Israel has no control over the PNA other than their general control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip (e.g. if Israel dislikes some PNA decision it can overrule it by force - but PNA institutions are in no way related to Israel institutions).

PNA was created by the PLO and currently it works on the ground independently of the PLO (thus I agree that it's not "subordinate"), but representation abroad is done by the PLO or in some cases jointly by PLO/PNA.

In the UN the observer entity representative of Palestine is the PLO, not the PNA. PLO is referred to as "Palestine", not the PNA. [16]

"Palestinians living in the state of Israel" or Arab citizens of Israel is an issue unrelated to the PLO/PNA/SoP triangle.

"the PLO and the PNA are indeed separate bodies" - yes, nobody claims the opposite. The problem (I explained it multiple times above) is that the current article deals mostly with SoP/PLO relations - not with PNA relations - thus its title is wrong. As the easiest way to correct this I propose to rename it to Foreign relations of the PLO - and you can make a separate Foreign relations of the PNA article, if you like. But because of the link between PLO and PNA I don't think that a separate Foreign relations of the PNA article (with much smaller content than the current one, e.g. with removed all PLO/SoP content) is needed - the small PNA content can be explained on the Foreign relations of the PLO page. If we don't rename the current article then we have to move the PLO/SoP content to a Foreign relations of the PLO article. Alinor (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pages 44-49 of the written statement submitted by Palestine, 29 January 2004, in the International Court of Justice Advisory Proceedings on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, referred to the court by U.N. General Assembly resolution A/RES/ES-10/14 (A/ES-10/L.16) adopted on 8 December 2003 at the 23rd Meeting of the Resumed Tenth Emergency Special Session:

The PA was made accountable to the PL0 Executive Committee.

The PA remains responsible for the negotiations with the State of Israel, but its ultimate authority is the PLO.

Take it as you will. Int21h (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Int21h. PNA is accountable to PLO, is established by PLO, is represented abroad by the PLO. Also, we should not forget that the article content is mostly about SoP/PLO and not about PNA. The current title is simply misleading. The opposing opinion above states "If there is any confusion between these in this article, it should be rectified, and if necessary a second article should be created." - if a second article is to be created it should be about the PNA, because the current article is about PLO/SoP. So, we should rename the current article in order to reflect its content - and later a separate article about PNA may be created - if somebody wants to do this. Alinor (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unsure. Both names, and several others, seem equally acceptable, and equally problematical. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Western Sahara

How about relations with SADR? http://www.spsrasd.info/sps-e111104.html seems to indicate at least recognition of behalf of SADR. --Soman (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't show recognition of SoP or that there are relations established (with SoP/PNA/PLO), but at most shows SADR 'sympathy' for the Palestine people and the PNA government. I think that falls into the category of states without PNA/PLO relations and not recognizing SoP, but recognizing the Palestinian people right to self-determination, etc. - and this seems to include all not in the 147 list (at least I haven't seen a source showing the opposite). Alinor (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template merge

Regarding this edit and this template AfD. There are two references that user Eliko wants added to the table of international organizations membership:

• 126 General Assembly Resolution 52/250 of 1998 (mentioned again by a WHO document of May 2000); UNCTAD document of 2002.
• 127 Palestine/PLO (being a UN observer only) is not included in the current official list of "Members of the General Assembly, arranged in current regional groups"; Further, a recent document of UN-HABITAT (2007) - which classifies countries by explicit lists according to the "United Nations Regional Groups" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, pp. 329-330), along with a more recent document of UN-AIDS (2010) - which classifies countries by explicit lists according to the "Regional Groups that are used by the UN General Assembly" (See: UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, pp. 28-29), do not include Palestine/PLO in any Regional Group, but instead indicate (when referring to the explicit lists of Regional Groups): "All members of the United Nations General Assembly [are] arranged in Regional Groups... By General Assembly Resolution 52/250 (1998), the General Assembly conferred upon Palestine, in its capacity as observer, additional rights and privileges of participation. These included the right to participation in the general debate of the General Assembly, but did not include the rights to vote or put forward candidates" (See: UN-HABITAT's Global Report on Human Settlements, 2007, p. 335, 2nd footnote; UNAIDS, The Governance Handbook, January 2010, p. 29, 4th footnote). Additionally, a Resolution of General Assembly (p. 7, sec. 25) of May 2009, determines that Palestine's status (in round-table sessions) is identical to that of a member state which is not a member of any Regional Group. Alinor (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Alinor. This is what should have been done from the beginning. There's an obvious difference between what these sources actually say, and the conclusion that this editor is making from them. It's being discussed at WP:RS. Nightw 08:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, note that these footnotes gives clear sources. 126th footnote is probably undisputed. As far as 127th footnote is concerned, it gives clear quotations rather than "conclusion" (the last source doesn't give a quotation but rather a short summary of the qutation, however I don't mind to replace this summary by a quotation of sec. 25, from p. 7 in that last source). Eliko (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not going to re-add it again - I already added it and Night w reverted. I would like to hear his reasons for the removal of these sources - and I can participate in the discussion along you two, but it's up to you and him to reach a consensus (or apply some other relevant policy such as WP:BRD, WP:3RR, mediation or something else). Alinor (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've crossposted the discussion to WP:OR/N. Because the issue deals with what's being taken from the source, as opposed to the reliability, the discussion is more relevant to that noticeboard. Nightw 11:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the "UN Asia regional group" dubious tag links here I would like to copy one comment from the WP:OR/N discussion: "Do we have any official source listing PLO as member in UN Regional group Asia? Or even listing any UN non-member as member in any UN Regional group? Lacking such is very suspicious and unexplainable. That's why I propose leaving UN regional group in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section for the time being - until we find a proper source." Alinor (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The UN Asia regional group is not an international organization, but a grouping inside UN (and it's even informal). Also, it deals with issues not related to non-members (such as voting, etc.), so it's not clear what is a "membership" of UN non-member in this group (if there is such thing in the first place, e.g. if this is not a mistake mixing up 'UN ECS for Western Asia' with the voting group).

Even if PLO has some relation to the UN regional groups (for some procedural issue arising from its observer privileges at the UNGA) and it is grouped with the rest of the Asia states (given its location this is expectable) this doesn't make these groupings an "international organization". They are just technical arrangement in the UNGA workings and procedures. We already have mentioned that PLO is UN observer, so there is no point in additional related mentions of the same thing.

I propose that we remove the line for "UN Asia group" and instead to put a footnote on the UN line with something like "PLO participates in the UN Asia regional group since 2 April 1986" Alinor (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's fairly significant seeing as it's not a member of the GA. Nightw 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

?? Of course it's not member of the UNGA. The issue is that "UN Asia group" is not international organization. PLO participation in the UN Asia group (if it participates there at all - depending on the consensus of the discussion between you and Eliko) is because of its UN observer status - so if we are to mention UN Asia group somehow - it has to be as footnote on the UN line. Alinor (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, adding Eliko's edits and hiding them as "merging" is not helpful. There's no consensus for those edits. Nightw 12:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hiding them - I just pointed to this discussion.

UN Asia group is not an international organization, so it can't have its own line in the list - it's just a issue related to PLO UN participation. Alinor (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Columbia

I can't open the links Night w added - is this some temporal problem with the site or what? Alinor (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The links are working fine for me. And it's spelled "Colombia". Nightw 08:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are fine. Alinor (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious tags

Resolved

User:Alinor, you've just violated the 1RR (again). Provide a source that conflicts with Doebbler's statement, or remove the tags. If not, the revert was disruptive, and it'll need to be reported at the ArbCom discussion. Nightw 09:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly make changes without consensus (not only on this article) and when the previous version is restored you push back your changes without using the talk page. I suggest that we all apply the concept of WP:BRD.

In this particular case I'm not tagging anything (as you claim in your edit line comments) - I'm restoring tags that you removed without consensus. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a policy. Have you are source, or anything of substance to dispute Doebbler, or am I reporting your disruptive behaviour? Nightw 09:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is just a civil way of editing that you obviously don't want to apply. I haven't said that it's a policy.

The source that you want to use as "general waiver" for OIC members is unsuitable in this case - it is an interpretation of an announcement made by international organization about its decision (what procedures are used to take this decision, unanimity or majority? Does the decision say what you want to use it to claim or does it say something like it, but not exactly that such as "All OIC members recognize the right of Palestine state to exist"?) and it's not advisable to rely solely on it in such special case as "state XXX recognizes the State of Palestine as declared in 1988 by the PLO".

Also, if you want to remove the tags or to make any other changes - you can use the relevant sections of the talk page above or open a new section. Discussing the sources you like and anything else is not related to the 1RR. Alinor (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is the user that adds the tag that is supposed to open a discussion, say why he/she added the tags, and then continue with the discussion until the issue is resolved. Otherwise it is classified as "drive-by tagging". But you didn't do this. And you also didn't provide a source that conflicts the statement made by a reliable and reputable source.

The quote is "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."

That's it. You don't know that it is "an interpretation of an announcement made". That's not backed up by anthing. That's your opinion. You don't know where he got the information from. All you have is a plain, explicit statement. So unless you have anything of substance to dispute Doebbler's statement—i.e., not just talk—then the tags are misplaced, and will be removed. Nightw 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The tags were there already [17] until you recently removed them. They were added in the process of our joint discussion of the issue, that is actually linked by the tags themselves - this one. Back then, I agreed with you to move Turkmenistan, Suriname, etc., but we need the tag so that the readers are informed that we don't have proper source to back it up.

"You don't know where he got the information from." - yes, that's the problem - a blanked statement is not useful in this case. Most of the OIC members do recognize it and we have source specifically mentioning each of them. But does Syria recognize SoP? And what about Suriname, Turkmenistan, Cameroon, Guyana? My personal opinion is that they do, but your and mine opinions are irrelevant. Alinor (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But none of that is related to Doebbler's accuracy. We don't have a source to even suggest his accuracy might be faulty, so there's no justification for tagging. Nightw 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I moved the tags so that this is clear. Alinor (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this will do. Nightw 13:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what are these tags for? The items are in the "Conflicting sources" section. How is their inclusion here dubious? Nightw 08:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The section is "Conflicting or inconclusive sources regarding the recognition of the State of Palestine declared in 1988" - the sources are clearly inconclusive - if they weren't the state in question would be moved in the respective section. The dubious tags lead to the sections on the talk page, where the question is discussed. Alinor (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Greece and Austria

According to image in the article, Greece and Austria recognize state of Palestine, but according to text, they don't. Which is true then? 89.76.147.225 (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You refer to an older not updated image (above the table). For updated map see the other image below the table. Alinor (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bolivia

Apparently Bolivia just jumped on board: [18] 67.4.173.200 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Done. Alinor (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Norway

This article from the website of the Mission of Palestine in France says that Norway has granted the Palestinian General Delegation in Oslo full embassy status.[19] (in French) - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Delegations are commonly called "embassies" and may have such rank, privileges, etc. but they are still PLO delegations and not SoP embassies. The link that you gave speaks about "Norway has decided to grant more favourable to the Palestinian diplomatic representation status as early as 2011." (announcement for future action) and "These steps are undertaken for a policy to recognize the existence of an "independent Palestinian State"" (so currently Norway doesn't recognize SoP as seen also from [20], [21] - it may do so in the future or it may not). Alinor (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the current table should be modified to create a separate section for these. It looks like there are more to come. Without analysis, ambassadorial offices are certainly different from special delegations. Nightw 07:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, these are just adjustments of the naming (and possibly status and privileges) of the delegations. As already discussed multiple times above - we need something more than journalistic/blog reports. If we are going to suggest that there is a third category of states (the current two are: "recognizing SoP" (regardless of having or not having relations with PLO/PNA) and "having relations with PLO/PNA") we need to define it more clearly than "European states where 'PLO general delegations' are still referred to as such in official documents, but in news reports/press releases the words 'embassy/ambassador' are also commonly utilized"

If Norway recognizes SoP in 2011 this is one thing. If it gives a more regular-state-embassy-like status to the PLO delegation - this is another thing. Currently the official Norway diplomatic list clearly distinguishes between state missions and PLO mission. Alinor (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What does all this mean? We're waiting for them to update their list? Have you read WP:RS? News reports (i.e., secondary sources) all saying the same thing will be fine. Unless I need to take that to the noticeboard as well (for another waste of everyone's time). Nightw 09:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The news reports that we have so far are about the intention of Norway to do something in 2011. Also, in this case journalistic/blog interpretations are not sufficient - often these speak about embassy/ambassador (using this instead of delegation/head of delegation), but that does not aways mean "recognition of SoP". We would need confirmation from official source (MFA of the country in question or similar) so that it's clear what is actually the situation - because news reports mix up the different entities (PLO, PNA, SoP) and also do not make proper distinguishing between delegation/embassy, between relations, recognition, support announced, etc. We need explicit and specific sources, not vague announcements like "Norway will make something that is related with Palestinian institutions".

I don't see anything in the sources provided that warrants a change to the article. Do you propose some change or not? Alinor (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly two separate categories of delegations, as is illustrated in the original relations map: 1) diplomatic delegations, and 2) general delegations. There needs to be a split in the table. Nightw 10:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The map has "special delegations" and "general delegations" - no "diplomatic delegations" as you claim (also I think that the "general delegations" are the "diplomatic" ones, not the "special delegations" as your statement implies - but maybe it's vice-versa).

I agree that there are different types of delegations - and the source you gave (and the other source about Norway, and the other about USA, etc.) shows that some countries have recently given additional privileges to the PLO delegation they host.

Actually the situation is that there could be multiple types of PLO missions (in states that don't recognize SoP):

1. mission/office of entirely unofficial type, e.g. without any special privileges/acknowledgement by the host state - treated just like a property of foreign individuals/organization
2. delegation, in the context of representation of 'PLO, the UN observer entity', e.g. with some acknowledgement by the host state (special or general delegation?)
3. delegation, in the context of representation of 'PLO, the UN observer entity', e.g. with some acknowledgement by the host state; additional privileges (making it more similar to state embassy) granted by the host state (special or general delegation?)
4. delegation, in the context of representation of 'PLO, the UN observer entity', e.g. with some acknowledgement by the host state; many more additional privileges (making it very similar to state embassy) granted by the host state (special or general delegation?), commonly called "Embassy" (such as "Embassy of the Representation of Palestine", "Embassy of PLO", "Embassy of Palestine") or diplomatic delegation/mission.

I agree that it will beneficial if we distinguish between these 3-4 types, but because of the high potential for mix-up errors (the differences are too fine/detailed) we can't rely on journalistic reports/blogs and we would need some official documents or other sources of similar quality to check what exactly is the type. This will be hard to accomplish - even harder than the "recognize SoP/don't recognize SoP". Alinor (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll split the tables shortly. You can take a look at the sources if you wish to verify them, but remember that secondary sources are preferred in Wikipedia. Nightw 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with splitting the table further. We can mention the difference in delegation without splitting - just use "General Delegarion", "Special Delegation" or whatever it is in the appropriate column.

For such specific and detailed issue secondary sources are not preferable - per common sense and WP:IAR - in this case we need to present the official position of the host states, not the interpretation of some secondary source author. Even press releases by MFAs are on the border of acceptable (if they don't include direct quotes of the official documents).

Also, journalistic reports/blogs are highly influenced by each other and most of these just repeat previous information (but we don't know where it's gathered) - there are some unofficial "list of Palestine missions" pages on the Internet and it's no clear what their source is either. An example of journalistic report seemingly influenced by Wikipedia can be seen below. Alinor (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Read over your own comment. This isn't ignoring rules, this is making up your own rules and imposing them on other editors. If you wish to challenge the usability of certain types of sources, you'll have to do so on the WP:RS/N. Unless they directly contradict primary sources, media articles are sanctioned by policy. Nightw 12:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is when we can't find official source about something and then we have only some journalistic interpretation.

Anyway, I don't agree with further splitting the table - if you think that some PLO mission is currently mentioned with inappropriate name - you can change only the name, no need to create new sections in the table. And it will be good if you first propose the changes at the talk page. Alinor (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but don't expect me to abide by your made up rules. I think there should be two separate tables: one for those that recognise the state, another for those that don't. Combining them makes no sense, especially with sortability enabled. Nightw 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You were the one that wanted the numbering of the "not recognizing SoP" to continue from the previous part of the table, so I aways thought that you want the table combined. Also, the current table succeeded a previous table that was common (including both recognizer and non-recognizers) - maybe the editors who made had some reasons in mind back then.

I'm not against separating the "recognizing" and "non-recognizing" states in two tables (but where will the "conflicting and inconclusive sources" section go?), but I don't see any benefit it splitting either of the two in further sub-sections (such as "recognizing and relations", "recognizing and no relations"; "non-recognizing and general delegation", "non-recognizing and special delegation") - the more detailed differences are already represented by the different columns we have. Alinor (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In a third table in between. Nightw 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's see what you propose. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

...That was it. Make those three colspans into section headings, thus separating the table into three. Nightw 15:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the benefit of separate tables? A single table allows to use sort for alphabetic listing of all states, for sorting by mission type or by organisation membership. If we split the table we will lose this functionality. Alinor (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Chile

According to some sources PLO mission in Chile is called "Embassy of the Representation of Palestine". Unfortunately I can't find a "list of diplomatic missions in Chile" on the Chile MFA page. So far we have a Chilean press release about "Palestinian ambassador". Having this "representation" word shows that this is not regular state embassy, that's why I propose that in the table we use "Representation" instead of "Embassy of Representation" (as it is currently). If Chile follows Argentina and the others in recognizing SoP then this will become a moot point/irrelevant, but for the time being using "embassy" in the section "Not reconizing SoP" is confusing. Alinor (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The press release is of the Foreign Ministry and in all sources about Palestine, the Chilean FM uses "Embassy" and "Ambassador", so saying just "Representative" is misleading. In fact, the head of the Chilean mission in Ramallah is also an "ambassador" according to the Chilean FM [22] [23]. Chile hasn't recognized the State of Palestine as such but has the highest level of diplomatic relations possible with the representation of the Palestinian government. --B1mbo (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the words "embassy/ambassador" are often associated with "of the state XXX". The PLO/PNA missions may be referred to as such and may have such privileges, but I doubt that in official documents they are called so. And even if they are - we need to make clear for the reader the main point - Chile doesn't recognize SoP (yet?). Anyway, I hope that using the full term "Embassy of the Representation" is clear enough for everyone. If Chile follows its neighbors this will become a moot point anyway. Alinor (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See also below. Alinor (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador just recognised Palestine (JPost). Nightw 05:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved. Done. Alinor (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)