Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Lots of unnecessary duplication

Right now there is significant duplication of material in the following three articles:

  1. State of Palestine
  2. Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
  3. Diplomatic_missions_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority

I'm going to think about this for a bit and read a bit about how other countries handle such a situation before deciding on a course of action. --Abnn 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Focus

This article should be more about the substantive political history of the foreign relations with specific states over the last 13 years or so, and less about a list of embassies (information which is contained on other pages). AnonMoos 11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Syria

The list included a number of states for which no reference was given (Montenegro, Serbia, Syria and Australia). Whereas I could provide one for Montenegro, Serbia and Australia, I don't find a reference for the recognition of Palestine as a State by Syria. I therefore removed it for the list, but naturally someone who does find a reference may add it again. MaartenVidal (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

States granting special diplomatic status

Can someone who know explains what the difference between the different types of diplomatic status is particularly between a General Delegation of Palestine and a General Palestinian Delegation. --Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem - overlap

I have been adding refs to the list of countries which recognize the State of Palestine. It just occurred to me however that this information should not even be here really since it is covered in List of diplomatic missions of Palestine. Further, the PA is not the representative of the Palestinian people in the international arena, the PLO is. The PA is merely an interim administration which is charged with local government under the Oslo accords. I think we whould remove the entire section to List of diplomatic missions of Palestine. I'm not sure this article should even exist given that the PA has no authority to represent the Palestinian people in the international arena. Perhaps an AfD is in order? Tiamuttalk 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the list is problematic because it implies that it is a list of countries that recognize the PLO-declared State of Palestine (1988), which apparently Pedir did mistake it for. It should be removed from this article, and a new list should be created if a source is found for states that recognize the State of Palestine. Media sources say anywhere from 67 to 'about 100' states recognize Palestine. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The list is problematic because it misrepresents the status of the Palestinian Authority - i.e. in that it gives it authority in the international arena, which it actually does not have. I've removed the list, and merged its content here. The sources cited there make clear that 107 states recognize the State of Palestine, with an additional 25 falling short of statehood recognition, but maintaining diplomatic relations nonetheless. The list has 132 entries once the two were merged which accurately reflects the source cited.
Regarding the other issue I raised, which is that the PA is not authorized to represent Palestine in the international arena, don't you think this article should be deleted? Tiamuttalk 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And following up on that idea, if the article is to be kept, should it not be renamed to Foreign relations of the State of Palestine? Tiamuttalk 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNESCO":

  • From Zimbabwe: "HIV Prevalence Rates Fall in Zimbabwe". UNESCO. Retrieved 2007-12-03.
  • From State of Palestine: "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State" (PDF). UNESCO. 12 May 1989. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
  • From Berlin: "World Heritage Site Museumsinsel". UNESCO. Retrieved 2008-08-18.
  • From Colombia: UNESCO Institute for Statistics Colombia Profile
  • From Palestine: "Introducing Young People to the Protection of Heritage Sites and Historic Cities" (PDF). UNESCO. 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-14.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Maps?

The map currently being used here is:

thumb|300px|center

The map currently being used on Palestinian National Authority, Proposals for a Palestinian state and State of Palestine is:

Which one is more correct? Are both of them partially right? Should the two be combined?--189.33.2.165 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just have one and get rid of the other. As far as I know, they're both inaccurate. Different articles also use varying figures regarding the number of states giving recognition, see more on this talk page. The top map is definitely outdated, and the creator also seems to have shaded Honduras instead of Nicaragua (a mix up?). The bottom one may be more accurate, but there are certain countries shaded that might need checking again. Night w (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PNA and PLO, diplomatic recognition, State of Palestine?

It seems that there is some mix-up at different levels:

  • whether the third country has relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian National Authority
    • if it is with the PLO: wheter the third country recongises its declaration of independence and thus as the State of Palestine (here I am assuming that recognition of the declaration means also full diplomatic relations, but maybe this is a second question?)
    • if it is with the PNA: wheter the third country and PNA have full diplomatic relations, or some different/special relations

So, it seems there are multiple cases for third country/organization-Palestine relations:

  1. No recognition/relations with neighter PLO nor PNA
    1. Neighter PLO nor PNA recognises the third country (eg. some from the List of states with limited recognition), but the third country recognises PLO or PNA
    2. The third country recognises neighter PLO nor PNA, but PLO or PNA recognises the third country (I assume here are all UN members that currently have no relations with PLO/PNA)
    3. Both ways no recognition
  2. Third country has relations with PLO
    1. full diplomatic relations (declaration of independence recognised), embassy/consulate (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PLO in third country)
    2. special relations (declaration of independence not recognised), office/mission/delegation (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PLO in third country) - the UN falls in this category
  3. Third country has relations with PNA
    1. full diplomatic relations, embassy/consulate (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PNA in third country) - are there such cases?
    2. special relations, office/mission/delegation (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PNA in third country)

The no relations cases should be easy to sort out. If there is some list with date of establishment of relations - all made before 1994 will be with the PLO. After 1994 it would be more complicated to distinguish (as many such lists include only "Palestine" without PLO/PNA reference). Additional hurdle here would be cases, where the third country has switched relations from PLO to PNA or vice versa (if there are such). Also, maybe there are cases where the third country maintains relations with both PLO and PNA (maybe Israel is such a case?). Regarding the full/special relations some clue can be the type of mission (in, of) - if it is embassy/consulate or some other type of office/mission/delegation. Here maybe there are complications with the possibility of different types of the in and of missions (eg. Embassy of Palestine in X, but Special Office of X in Palestine - or vice versa). Also, in the lists of missions articles there is no mention of Israel-Palestine (wheter PLO or PNA) missions - but in practice there is much interaction (at least Israel-PNA), so there should be some offices/"West Bank section in ministry X of Israel"/"Israel-relations commitee in ministry X of PNA"?

As far as I can tell the international organizations (AL, OIC, UN - as Palestine joined/became observer much before PNA establishment) deal with the PLO, but maybe there are other organizations/treaties where the PNA has entered after 1994?

I think that in order to make a proper map of international relations we should sort out these facts first? Alinor (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The confusion here is far more complex. For example, a vote in favour of Palestinian observer status is not recognition of Palestine itself. I have not been able to find any reliable source to sort out the true position. And, what is a general delegation and a special delegation? Ewawer (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The mixup remains, but it seems that the above questions are not formulated correctly.

  • the PLO is the entity, recognized by the UN as "representative of the Palestinian people" since 1974.
  • the PLO has declared the State of Palestine in 1988. (as government-in-exile?)
  • the PNA is a 'interim administration' established in 1994 by the PLO (after the Oslo agreement with Israel) with limited (by Israel) control over the West Bank and Gaza (let's put the Hamas dispute aside).
  • 'interim', because the PLO and Israel agreed to start negotiations on various issues (settlements, borders, etc.) until final agreement is reached.

So, basically the PNA is the internal government and the PLO is the entity conducting international relations. Somebody made the comparison with the Vatican City State and the Holy See. Governments-in-exile do a similar thing, but without having the PNA-like 'not-in-exile' units. There are the following possibilities:

  1. XXX state does not recognize the PLO as representative of the palestinian people (any examples?)
  2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people
    1. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people; recognizes the PLO as "State of Palestine" (the 1988 declaration);
      1. possible PLO embassy/consulate in XXX;
      2. possible PLO diplomatic non-resident accrediation to XXX of some third-country embassy/delegation/office of PLO/SoP
      3. possible diplomatic non-resident accrediation to PLO/SoP of some third-country embassy/consulate of country XXX;
      4. possible non-diplomatic office/delegation of country XXX in Gaza/West Bank; (here I assume that no diplomatic/embassy/consulates of XXX in West Bank/Gaza are possible, because Israel would not allow, regardless if XXX has relations with Israel or not. But is this so?)
      5. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for PLO/SoP relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of country XXX
    2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people; does not recognize the SoP 1988 declaration;
      1. possible PLO non-diplomatic office/delegation/etc. in XXX
      2. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for XXX relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of PLO
      3. possible non-diplomatic office/delegation of country XXX in Gaza/West Bank;
      4. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for PLO relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of country XXX

In all of the cases, if country XXX recognizes the PNA as the limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza - the respective embassy/delegation/office/relations-responsibility will deal with PNA relations too. (any examples of country not recognizing the PNA as the limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza?)

Then, comes the question on the nature of the PLO-PNA link (this should be defined in the PNA founding documents or constitution if there is such). The above examples assume that there is such link (both de-jure and de-facto), so that agreements for aid supplied to the PNA could be negotiatied at the embassy/office/delegation of PLO in some third-country, for example. What If the PNA is not unit of PLO, but entirely separate/independent-from-PLO entity, and the PNA establishment was only agreed by the PLO and Israel, but the PNA is "controlled" by voting of west bank/gaza population and the PNA no formal links to the PLO? Then there are the following possibilities (and the hypothetical question of "switching relations between PLO/PNA"):

  1. XXX state does not recognize the PLO as representative of the palestinian people (any examples?);
    1. XXX recognizes the PNA as limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza (and as representative of the palestinian people?)
      1. possible PNA offices/delegations to XXX; non-resident responsibilities for XXX relations
      2. possible XXX offices/delegations in West Bank/Gaza; non-resident responsibilities for PNA relations
  2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people
    1. Same as the above list with assumed PLO-PNA link 5+9 possibilities, but since here we assume no PLO-PNA link, there should be clear distinction if a office/delegation/relations-responsibility is related to PNA or PLO

Anyway, I hope that someone could clear this issue (eg. - show source explaining the PLO-PNA de-jure link) and if this "no-link" assumption is wrong - then things would be less complicated (eg. PNA external relations are done exclusively by the PLO).

And, finally, Israel. Does Israel have some representation/office/delegation/etc. to the PNA or PLO and vice versa - offices of PNA or PLO to Israel? Or some special department(s) in PNA/Israeli governments? The PNA and Israel governments do communicate somehow after all... (also, Israel and PLO negotiate agreements of the Oslo magnitude). See also the same topic here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Alinor (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented a list that was as much verifiable as possible with the present sources - [1] on 23.10.2010.

Night w, you made edits to this article on 3.11.2010 [2] - without changing anything in the list from above, but later, following our debate on another article (here) you repeatedly deleted it, even after I asked you to use this section here before removing sourced content. If you have sources showing that some state from this revision should be moved to another section of the overview - OK, just move it - but else - please do not delete the sourced content. Alinor (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also you removed a valid clarify tag without any reason given. Alinor (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I've tagged the section for improvement and update. Nightw 17:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow. So much tags. Are all of these really necessary?
"needs additional citations for verification" - this is duplicated - already present on the top of the article.
"may be confusing or unclear to readers." - what may be confusing/unclear?
[vague]-tag after 'the states with limited recognition' wikilink - what is vague - they are already listed in the linked article. I think it is better to show them in this way than to just list "the 10" - and then to have everybody starting edit-wars over "but Kosovo is a province of Serbia", etc.
You removed CI/Niue - why? We already have a consensus that they are sovereign states (only the issue WHERE to put them in the List of sovereign states is still in debate), and anyway they conduct their own foreign relations and establish diplomatic relations in their own name - so they are no less notable than Andorra and Nauru.
You removed SMOM - why? It establishes diplomatic relations in its own name. I understand that this may be related to our other debate, but I think the situation here is different - SMOM and SoP/PLO/PNA have no diplomatic or official relations between themselves (and both have such with other entities), that's why SMOM is listed in the "no diplomatic or official relations" section - what is the problem? Alinor (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The section is confusing because a) it presents outdated information as current, rather than past (although nobody could possibly know what as of what year it is relevant, as it doesn't cite any dated sources); b) it displays data which differs significantly from data shown elsewhere on the page, and from (sourced) data shown in related pages; c) it uses a map which differs significantly from the data displayed in both the same section and in other sections of the article, as well as from (sourced) maps displayed in related articles. All of these, of course, can be put down to the fact that the information is outdated.
But things get even more foggy when one identifies that the information displayed is not relevant to any one period. For example, it shows the establishment of a recent relationship (Costa Rica), but then fails to show the establishment of a different relationship established in roughly the same period (Venezuela). This clearly means that you have not, in fact, pasted this information from a "single list", as you say, but have instead done your own counting, and displayed your total as the total (i.e., fact; we both know that you're guilty of this elsewhere), either missing or deliberately omitting key relationships. You have clearly overlooked a list maintained on a related page, which is well-sourced and whose entries recently went through rigorous review, one-by-one.
This means that instead of stating that the number is unknown, and listing the individual relationships that we have sources for, as we should do, the article now presents a figure as fact—overriding any number cited by a legal professional—, and to boot, that figure is based on counting by a Wikipedia editor, which amounts to original research.
If the section is not removed or if no efforts are made to improve it shortly, I will take the matter to WP:OR/N.
I'll be brief on the other questions, as they'll prove redundant in the long-run: 1) I'm baffled as to how you could possibly claim consensus on the Cook Islands and Niue discussion; please, don't insult my intelligence. 2) You're free to put something about the SMOM under the "Organisations" section, which is where it's relevant.
You don't comment on the duplicated tag and on the vague-tag, so I will remove these, OK?
There are already "factual accuracy disputed" and "outdated" flags - the "confusing" flag doesn't refer to anything additional to these two, so I will remove it, OK?
The tag stating "This section's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information." covers both factual accuracy and outdated, so I will remove the "outdated", OK?
What has SMOM to do in the "Organizations" section? SMOM is not an international organization. SMOM has no member states, no member organizations, etc. - so SoP/PNA/PLO can not join SMOM. The "organizations" section is for the membership of SoP/PLO/PNA in international organizations. And as you see the EU is not there, but in the "official relations" list. The only relevant place for SMOM is along the entities that have not yet recognized SoP, not established diplomatic or official relations with SoP/PLO/PNA. Do you disagree that currently SMOM has no relations with SoP/PLO/PNA?
CI/Niue. Yes, there is consensus - that they should be included in the list of sovereign states. The only disagreement is in what of its sections these should be listed. Or at least that was the situation when the current debate (a side note - we haven't done anything recently on that one) about the general criteria for sorting the list of sovereign states article started. But there is no debate on the inclusion criteria - and CI/Niue satisfy these. Anyway, they have established diplomatic relations with many states. It is up to bilateral decision between SoP/PLO/PNA and CI, and between SoP/PLO/PNA and Niue - to decide if they recognize or establish some type of relations between each other. Do you disagree that currently SoP/PLO/PNA have no relations neither with CI nor with Niue?
"confusing":
outdated information - the lead section of the article says 94 (with a source from 2003) - so 97 is not outdated (it is not based ONLY on the 1988 - I tried to add the next recognitions too - by looking at the List of diplomatic missions articles for countries with "Embassy of SoP" and with "non-resident embassy accredited to SoP". If you see someone misplaced (and have a source) - just put it in the relevant section (I will later update the map if you don't want to do this).
"differs significantly from data shown elsewhere on the page," (lists/maps) - the page has figures for recognition ranging from 94 to "about 130". 97 is inside this range. Not to mention that it is not clear what some of the figures (e.g. the 117, and the non-number "about 130") show - diplomatic recognition, diplomatic relations, diplomatic relations and official relations, diplomatic recognition and official relations - or how reliable they are.
"differs from (sourced) data shown in related pages;" - if you refer to the SoP page - I don't know how it "recently went through rigorous review, one-by-one." - after I found the 1989 UNESCO list, officially submitted at an UN specialized agency, including not only number, but names of the countries and in most cases date of recognition - I wanted to take account of the recognitions coming after that date and I tried to use the SoP page, but when I clicked on some of these references (for countries outside of the UNESCO list) they were mostly bad links, or generalized statements like "All OIC member states recognize SoP". I used only those who were specific.
"outdated"(again) - as I said - I agree that there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state, but the 97 figure is not outdated - as I explained above (and see also below) - it is based on the 1989 UNESCO list, but adds 6 more states which I found on the SoP and diplomatic missions articles. If you have a source showing a misplaced country - let's correct it. The Venezuela example you gives uses a sources that doesn't open currently - so I can't check what is written there (maybe some "intention" to establish diplomatic relations or "official relations", but without diplomatic relations/recognition?). For explanation why not all states listed on SoP article are well-sourced and rigorously reviewed - see below. I haven't overlooked the SoP list - on the contrary - I used it to find "states other than the UNESCO 91"
Generally, I added the map&lists, because my intention is to bring up the quality of the article - because as you see above currently it mixes different types of relations, uses non-explicit sources, etc. That's why I put a WP:V pledge (as comment - please read it if you haven't already) in the Overview section. I was "restrictive" when I compiled the lists - e.g. included a state in the 97 number only if I found a source showing explicitly "recognition of SoP". Now I expect that if someone has a source showing that a particular state is misplaced - he would just move it to the appropriate list. In the end - we will achieve a list that is much better sourced that the other lists about SoP/PLO/PNA around Wikipedia (in fact that is the problem of most of these - they mixup the three).
I don't find as good quality the current situation of an open-ended range ("94 to about 130") and using questionable sources. I think that we should aim to an exact list of states (not "just number") with date of recognition by each one. Because it is easy to say (in a paper, interview, etc.) "vague-term is vague-term by about 130 states" or "vague-term is vague-term by a couple of dozens states", it is a degree harder to say "vague-term is recognized by ..." (e.g. to specify what relationship you speak about - diplomatic recognition, diplomatic relations, official relations, etc.), it is a degree harder to say "SoP is recognized by..." (e.g. specify about what are these positions expressed - SoP/PLO/PNA/Palestinian right to have a state/Palestinian right of self-determination), it is a degree harder to list the states, it is a degree harder to give exact dates. So, a source making only the first step is much less reliable that a source making all the steps. Also, more recent date of the source does not mean that it is more reliable. For example the 94 number utilized in the lead gives a list of "countries have recognized the State of Palestine" (with (c) 2000-2003 by seemingly authoritative author - the PNA itself) - but this list includes Austria. As we see in the embassy pages, SoP page, etc. Austria does not recognize SoP - it only has a PLO delegation like many other states that currently don't recognize SoP. Looking at the UNESCO link we even understand why the person at the PNA writing the webpage made this mistake - Austria is one of the 92 states mentioned in the Annex II, but afterwards the signatories of the request (Algeria, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and Yemen) have issued a "corrigendum" that Austria should be deleted. Apparently the PNA civil servant writing the webpage has missed this corrigendum. So, we have an "official webpage" (I put quotes as I can't open the www.pna.gov.ps currently) with wrong data; we have also an official communication in an international organization with a mistake (albeit rectified later). What this example shows, IMHO, is that it is not only the date or only the author what determines the quality of the source - we should look at all aspects. The existence of this corrigendum note (plus the dates of recognition) in the UNESCO link shows that it was not prepared "lightly" by just throwing some numbers and names around - as is to be expected from an official communication between states - and I assume that if a state was wrongly listed it would have objected and get removed as Austria. That's why it is a very sound foundation for our list here - but we should have as good as possible sources for each additional (after its 91) state.
I regret that you got involved into this only because of our debate on another page/topic - so you maybe approach the issue with "resentment" and the result is that you want to delete it outright instead of improve it (if necessary).
The other way (but I find it more controversial) to improve these lists is to outright delete states without specific sources from the PNA/SoP/etc. pages.
Currently the 97 number is sourced by the UNESCO link and the Embassy articles - maybe we should put right after the number, as hidden comment, the UNESCO link plus the names and explicit sources for the 6 additional states (after 1989). If someone moves a misplaced country as 98th, 99th, etc. - we would add the source there.
Alternatively we can rework the table above the overview - by adding proper sources and dates of recognition - but this will require the deletion of some unsourced/badly sourced states (or to move them to an "unclear" section). What do you think? Alinor (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes and added more sources. See also here. Alinor (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is what the lead section states (I've added emphasis to help you get through it successfully this time):

"In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms. The Palestinian National Authority publicly acknowledged the recognition of 94 other states.^ Since then, other states have publicly extended recognition..."

It cites a list of states that the PNA "publicly acknowledged" as having "recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988." Austria later withdrew its recognition, so it won't appear in later lists. Unlike your material, however, the lead correctly portrays this information as dated. It is not "wrong", it is dated (relevant to a specified time). Do you understand?
If you agree that "there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state", then you cannot portray the number 97 as a total. I don't know how you can't understand this. I'm starting to think you might still be in school... There are six spiders under the rug, but I can only find five. If I have others telling me that there are more, and I realise that they may be right, then I cannot state with confidence (let alone claim as fact) how many spiders there were to begin with. I can only state how many I've found. Is this making any sense?
You, in this case, cannot state that there are 97 recognitions, because you are claiming a number that a) isn't supported by a reliable source, b) disagrees with professional legal sources, and most importantly c) is conclusive, where no conclusion is apparent. You can only state (in this case, list) what you've found. Otherwise, you consciously risk publishing wrong information. Do you understand this?
You can "aim" for the highest level of "quality" you wish, but as long as things remain "vague" and there are reputable authorities which disagree, then we cannot state that we know the answer, especially not by using synthesis (or counting) of two or more sources.
Delete the section, and merge whatever information is relevant into the table.
I haven't replied to your other questions because I've addressed more pressing questions first. I don't have the time (or the will) to sit at a computer all day and type, and then read your mammoth theses, which I've had to skim through. I apologise if I've missed anything. My time is precious to me. If you wish to persist with this, I'll contact Tiamut (talk · contribs), one of the other editors that was involved in the previous review of individual recognitions, and we can go through things again. Nightw 14:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
All template tags besides the "This section's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information." are superfluous as their meaning is duplicated (or at least that's what your explanations above show). Why don't we remove them?
I changed "the states with limited recognition" to "the rest of states with limited recognition" (e.g. without Cyprus/Armenia/China/Israel/Koreas that are listed before this line). Alternatively we can write "the [states with limited recognition] not members of the UN" - but this will be true only until some of the 10 others recognizes SoP, so put the other variant.
The lead section. So, if I take your stance I should declare the lead section to be a OR/SYNTH violation. It uses one source (PNA website (c) 2000-2003) that says "International Recognition of the State of Palestine - The following 94 countries have recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988: ...'list'..." and another source about the 2008 establishment of relations between SoP and Costa Rica - and 'draws conclusion' along the lines that 'since there is one example of a state establishing relations/recognition of SoP after the 94-list-source 2000/2003 date - the 2008 Costa Rica, then "other states have publicly extended recognition" too.' Also you additionally imply that the 2000/2003 source is not a list of states recognizing SoP in 2000/2003, but a list of states that have in some period recognized SoP, but later kept or withdrew this recognition. This is a very slippery logic and is not obvious by the quote from the source. Also, we don't know if Austria withdrew its recognition or it had never recognized SoP - the "Austria corrigendum" doesn't give explanation it simply states "Austria should be deleted from the list of countries that have recognized the State of Palestine".
Outdated. The overview section and its sources are not outdated - they are the most recent ones. The section is relevant to the current moment, not to 1989 or some other "specified time" as you say. If you have additional sources - add their information, but if you don't have additional sources - how could you claim that the sourced information is outdated/incorrect?
I agree that "there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state" - this is true not only for Palestine, but for every state - any information in Wikipedia may be outdated and any list may be missing some entries - there is aways the possibility that some events happened after the date of issue of the sources used or that some events were not taken into account by the people writing the sources used. What if some state had recognized SoP yesterday? What if it did it 2 months ago? What if it did it in 1988, but for some reason is missing from all sources that we use (e.g. a "corrigendum" is needed or even issued, but we don't have a source showing this). There is aways such possibility - for any information in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is as correct as the sources used. So, if you have a source showing a misplaced country - let's correct it.
I don't claim that the 96 number is "eternal truth" or something like this. I just listed the states that we have sources for. Then I listed a section for the states where we have conflicting sources (plus it has a "list incomplete" tag). So, this is not a TOTAL, but just a list of states recognizing SoP - going as far as our sources provide information for. It is not "conclusive where no conclusion is apparent" (your point c) - it just shows what the RELIABLE sources show (contrary to your claim in point a) - which of the sources is unreliable in your opinion?
"b) disagrees with professional legal sources" - what sources do you mean? The 114/117/about-130 numbers - from offline sources, some of them even without a ISBN mentioned, with no quotes in the article (so, is the text before the footnotes an exact quote from the offline sources or some interpretation by the wikipedia editor that added the information?), without any list or dates of recognition and the last one actually is not even giving a number (what is this "about 130" supposed to mean - maybe "more than the 114 reported previously")? By looking at the numbers I don't see how we can get to 130 without counting the ~30 "official relations/delegations" so this number probably includes some of these countries. The 114/117 seems more plausible - but still, unless we have a reliable sources showing recognition by specific additional states we can't be sure.
Or by "professional sources" you mean the PNA webpage 94-states-list that is currently inaccessible and that includes Austria (maybe recognized SoP for a brief period in 1988/1989 - or never) and the Vatican (never recognized SoP - see here - it has only "special relations with PLO"). I think that it is a copy-paste from (or vice-versa) this 2001 list of the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation (as far as I can tell this is a non-governmental organization) - so the reliability of this list is very questionable - it has a remark "Note that one of them, Austria is a member of the European Union." that is obviously incorrect (according to both the Austria MFA page and to UNESCO source) - assumingly because the writers of the list missed the UNESCO Austria deletion corrigendum. Also, if the copy-paste is from institute to PNA page - then a page seemingly to be a PNA official page, currently unaccessible and copy-pasting SoP recognition list from a foreign unofficial source - this doesn't increase confidence either.
"thigs remain vague" - that's what I aim to avoid trough the rigorous WP:V policy application in the overview section. While for the above table is acceptable to include information even without any source (recently some embassies were added only with an explanation "found on the PNA page") or to use some source with vague wording or entirely non-specific generalizations - in the "SoP is recognized by ..." part of overview section all sources are specific&explicit and come from most authoritative places - official intergovernmental communication (at UNESCO) and websites of governments.
The vagueness remains only in the "There is no clear indication" part (much smaller - the first part already contains more than 130 states). That way the user can see what the sources show as undisputable and what as inconclusive/vague.
If we try to merge the overview and the table, then either many of the entries in the table should be deleted (as they are not backed up by sources or use bad-links or conflicting or inconclusive sources) - or the table should be divided into three parts ("recognizing SoP", "official relations with PLO/PNA", "unclear/conflicting/inconclusive sources"). That's why I refrained from copying the whole UNESCO source list - in order to keep the overview section short - so that I don't have to delete content from table or to reformat it (as I assume that more involved editors here have made the table).
I would welcome participation of anyone with constructive attitude, especially if he can fish-out some reliable source that we don't have currently. Alinor (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the list of states limited recognition OK as footnote? Also, I see that you removed some of the tags, but "confusing or unclear" is still there - what is confusing or unclear, but not out-of-date or factual accuracy compromised? Alinor (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just go through each point one-by-one until you understand what I mean, then I'll go back and address the rest?
This list from the PA government website, which you're referring to, is the list of states that the PNA publicly acknowledged as having "recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988." It's relevant to the time of the declaration, as is specified. Here's another quote to help you:

"...the PLO’s 1988 declaration of independence (See Algiers Declaration) was recognized by 94 states..." — Act of Recognition of Statehood, The Reut Institute.

What has happened since that time (withdrawals of recognition, additional recognitions) is irrelevant to that timestamp. It's simply a list of those states that recognised the State at that moment in time. The list wasn't compiled in 2003; that's the copyright term of the website.
If you understand this, let me know and I'll move on to your next point. If not, I'll continue with this one. Nightw 11:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If it's easier for you to go one-by-one instead of all-at-once, OK, fine by me.
"It's relevant to the time of the declaration" - No. It is relevant to the time of writing the source (between 2000 and 2003, most probably 2001) - 'The following 94 countries have recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation ... in November 1988' So this is list of countries that have recognized SoP between 1988 and 2000-or-2001-or-2003 This should be obvious, isn't it? Anyway, we already have the exact dates for many of these 94 - some are in January 1989 and later.
"What has happened since that time (withdrawals of recognition, additional recognitions) is irrelevant to that timestamp." The timestamp is "after November 1988", so anything happening between 1988 and 2000/2001/2003 is relevant (such as Ethiopia recognition in 1989 - Ethiopia is in the 94-list too).
You can still argue that the source is showing only recognitions and not withdrawals (I don't agree with that - this is very twisted logic and highly unlikely and also is contrary to the purpose of the list - but since the source doesn't specify if it shows or doesn't show withdrawals - let's assume that it doesn't) - the 94-list includes Austria and the Vatican City. Currently they are not recognizing SoP (per their MFA websites). In what periods of time did Austria or the Vatican City recognize SoP? When had they withdrawled this recognition? And the opposite question - why isn't the source listing Slovakia - one of the recognizers (per its MFA site)? All these contradictions show that this list is unreliable.
Not to mention that instead of 94 as it claims it lists only 93. (excuse me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I see). I assume that the 94th that they 'had in mind, but missed it because of a typo' is Kenya. Anyway, highly unreliable.
"The list wasn't compiled in 2003; that's the copyright term of the website." Yes, the list is most probably compiled in December 2001 by a non-PNA/PLO/SoP non-governmental institute. Anyway what are the initial date and the end date of the "that moment in time" that you speak of? (the Palestinian Declaration of Independence is dated 15.11.1988) - and how did you deduce that from the source wording?
Also, the 94-list (or 93?) includes states not mentioned in the UNESCO source - so supposedly it covers wider time period than the UNESCO source. Alinor (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm clearly going to need further assistance to explain this to you. I'll post something on the WP:OR/N by tomorrow. Nightw 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, in the meantime I will return the 'unreliable' tags for this so-called-94 list. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Side note: I see you have no problem with labelling the status of individual relationships "unclear" when it suits you, but you're still pretty okay with displaying that number as fact. Nightw 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this and the note behind the number shows that this is not the case. Alinor (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
... You mean the note that you just added then? That's a step in the right direction, but it still needs further clarification as to why this differs from what the lead section says (i.e. that the number is unknown). Nightw 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
? the note is right after the number and is stating that the number is not full/total - I think this makes everything obvious (it is even without the note - if the reader looks at the "inconclusive sources" section. Also, the number is not unknown (such as the age of the universe is unknown) - it is only that we or a particular outside person (who is giving the quoted "unknown" statement) doesn't know it.
Also, having this note - and all sources below - makes the "citation needed" flag very strange there - right below, in the list itself, are placed many many sources. Alinor (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, what more "clarification is needed" and what is "confusing or unclear" that isn't already "factual accuracy compromised because of out-of-date information"? Alinor (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"The exact number of states recognising the State of Palestine is unclear, as reliable sources are in disagreement." ...would be preferable. Avoid any statement of a number. Especially since you don't have a single (one) source to back that up. Nightw 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, what about "... by XXX states (the number does not include states, for whom the sources are conflicting or inconclusive) [footnote: sources who don't list the recognizer states report the number as 114/link1 and 127/link2], ..."?
"you don't have a single (one) source" - yes. We have 19 reliable sources that show us 102 specific states that recognize SoP. I don't see any reason to disregard these 19 sources. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I mean. You've used multiple (total 19) sources, not a single source that will back up the number. And no, the sentence needs to be clear that sources are in disagreement. There can't be any reference to a number. Nightw 09:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's not mix different issues.
It is one thing that the 117/127 sources contradict each other - we don't have a quotation from the 117 source, so we don't know what it counts. Also it is unclear what is counted in the 127 number - recognition of SoP or recognition of PLO/PNA/Palestinians right to have a state? The quote is "... Both struggles are labelled as terrorism, illegal occupation. Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine. President Obama has recently said that an independent Palestine should be allowed to exist without security threats." Is the Obama statement one of the 127 or not? Also, we have the issue of the 127 source is wrongly counting the UN members up to 195, so it is debatable how much weight we should give to its 127 number. Also it is highly probable that both sources refer to different moments in time (so maybe there were 117 at the time of source1, but 127 at the time of source2 - or vice versa) - "concept of dated information" as you say.
It is another thing that the 19 specific&explicit sources that we have so far do not go as high as the 117/127 numbers. Here, again, we don't know what's behind the 117/127 number (SoP-as-declared-in-1988 recognition as the 19 sources or recognition of "Palestine" including PLO, PNA, Palestinian state right to exist, etc.) - so maybe there is no contradiction - at least no contradiction is obvious from the sources as presented - you can assume that there is such contradiction based on your interpretation of the sources - and I may agree with you - but this will be only our assumption.
In is not SYNTH/OR to just count - if "the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources" (WP:CALC) - thus, there is no "the number" to back up - we just reflect the 19 sources - they are all right below; and the note+footnote additionally emphasis exactly that - the number before them is nothing more than count of the states listed after it per the sources present there - the note+footnote explain that there may be additional states not included - depending on the conflicting/inconclusive sources further below and on the non-specific number-only-without-conclusive-description-or-list 117/127 sources of the footnote.
If you challenge the validity of some of the 19 sources, OK, but if not - there is no reason to disregard these sources. Alinor (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
So, you didn't answer here, but reverted.
I ask again - what more "clarification is needed" and what is "confusing or unclear" that isn't already "factual accuracy compromised because of out-of-date information"? (e.g. why should we have both tags there - I propose to leave only the "factual accuracy compromised because of out-of-date information" tag) Alinor (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm drafting a message for the WP:OR/N, as I said I'd do. And proper wikiettiquete is not to remove maintenence tags until it is agreed on the talk page that the issue has been resolved, which you know is not the case. Nightw 13:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You didn't reply to my question above, so that it looked like there is no such thing that 'needs more clarification and is confusing or unclear' and isn't "factual accuracy compromised because of out-of-date information". That's why I removed this tag. And you still don't explain what is this thing that requires this tag. Alinor (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have, in one of my first replies. You haven't addressed all the concerns raised here, so unless you plan on rectifying that, you need to sit and wait for the noticeboard discussion to get consensus to remove the tags. Okay? Nightw 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This reply doesn't answer the question I ask above. Also would you tell me what of the issues in that reply are not already addressed - because as I go trough it I see such things that were addressed (some of them jointly and I thank you for the help). Alinor (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, "It displays data which differs significantly from data shown elsewhere on the page, and from (sourced) data shown in related pages". An example would be the conflicting phrases "The exact number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown" and "the State of Palestine is recognised by 103 states". Regardless of what disclaimers you've added in parentheses, the conclusiveness of this statement is confusing. Another: "In total 152 countries are known to currently have some form of relations with either the Palestinian Authority or the 1988-proclaimed State of Palestine" and the figures reported in the lower section don't add up.
The number 103 directly overrides any number cited by a legal professional, and isn't cited by any one source, it's instead calculated from multiple sources. And before you reply, if you disagree I'd implore you to just wait for the noticeboard discussion. Nightw 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The disclaimers note put after the 103 clearly shows that it is not "conclusive", but just shows what the currently available sources show.
The "152 total" includes multiple unsourced countries (see File_talk:Palestine_relations.png) and contradicts lists at State of Palestine (that also include unsourced countries).
The 103 number doesn't claim to be conclusive - it just represents the available sources and this is clearly noted. So, there is no contradiction with the 117 source from legal professional. And this is the only number-without-a-list that we have - the only other such number, the 127 is clearly unreliable - even if we accept your explanation that the 195 UN members error is by typo - how could we rely on the 127 number in the same source? Alinor (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 13 update

The map was based mostly on [3], 2, 3, but after discussion here I re-checked the states outside of the UNESCO source. The results were the following:

Please, feel free to move states to another category if you find appropriate source, but be cautious as some sources are vague or unreliable. Alinor (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Guyana, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan; Estonia

Added to "recognizing, diplomatic relations":

Added to "official relations" (blue):

addition of weasel tag

Night w, you added a {{Weasel}} [4] breaking into the text:

First about style - in the future I would suggest that you use {{Weasel-inline}} for in-line tags instead of the section/article tag that you utilized.

On substance - your argumentation for adding it was ' "states with limited recognition" is not a legal term or a category for anything; you need to get rid of it' - Wikipedia is not a law, this phrase is part of the article name it is linking to: List of states with limited recognition. I don't agree that we get rid of this article, because its name is not a legal term - and also that it should be removed from the current article for the same reason.

Anyway, if you think that it should be removed - you can just reformat the text to:

No need to add any tags. Anyway I think a compromise solution will be better - if your intention is that the states are listed in the text and not in a footnote:

  1. the rest of the states with limited recognition: Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria
  2. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria (the rest of the states with limited recognition)
  3. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria {footnote: the rest of the states with limited recognition } Alinor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer to go with the top option and not use "categorisation". Nightw 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyle sources for State of Palestine recognition number

There was a reference pointing to an offline source where Boyle (Professor Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois) allegedly stated that 'about 130' countries recognize SoP. Night w recently added a source showing that later Boyle specified the number to be 127 - this is the source. There it is written: "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine."

UN members are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine. That's why I added a 'unreliable source' tag.

As a side note - I assume that Boyle is having in mind 192+Cook Islands+Holy See+Niue = the 195 states according to the "All States" formula applied by the UN Secretary General (that are also members of the Vienna list organizations). Alinor (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a tag to the previous number by Boyle too (114) for the same reason - we can expect that the correct number is "around 114" - as UN members are in fact "around 195", but not exactly 195. Alinor (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this; your issue is with his reference to "127" members, not 114. Nightw
No, the issue is that we can't rely on "hard numbers" for SoP recognizers issued by Boyle as he wrongly counts the much more obvious number of UN members to 195. So, while his statements are notable (that's why we include it in the article) - they are not entirely reliable, that's why we should put such tag after them. Alinor (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, "over 114" and "about 130" are not "hard numbers". Nightw 12:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The 130 has no tag - the tag is about the 127 source right before it.
"over 114" is giving a "hard number" for the lower end of the range - 114.
The Boyle numbers are notable only as far as to give a "general impression", but not as exact/specific numbers. That's why if we are going to report what he said "over 114", "about 130", "127" - we should add a tag to point out that the firm numbers should not be taken literally. Alinor (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are disputing the reliability of Francis Boyle, probably the most authoritative source on Palestinian legal affairs there is, then you need to do so at WP:RS/N. However, I should warn you that basing your doubts about his ability to crunch numbers purely on a discrepancy in a translated transcript of an interview (that also makes a considerable amount of spelling and grammatical errors) is unlikely to yield any results... Nightw 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't question his "general reliability" - I only question "exact numbers" that he gives. And also, as it appeared - we don't have too much hard numbers from him: "over 114" (only bottom of the range specified), "about 130" (no hard number), "127 of 195 UN members" (an obvious number reported wrongly).
Also, it appeared that I am right to request quotations from these offline inaccessible sources - you corrected [5] the wording from "Boyle reported in 1990 that the number was 114 states." to "Boyle reported in 1990 that the number was over 114 states." Alinor (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because you can't be arsed to get to a library, doesn't make them "inaccessible". So are you going to post a discussion at the noticeboard, because it looks like it's just you and me otherwise. Tags shouldn't just sit there; we need others to determine whether the ref should be removed. Nightw 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, after the tags for "quotation needed" were put you provided such and this is admirable.
And yes, about the "unreliable?" - it is up to others to determine, that's why they should stay (with the ?-marks) - so that others will see the tags and state their opinion. Alinor (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But you can't apply it to all numbers quoted by Boyle simply because of a minor discrepancy in an obviously poorly-transcribed interview. You're free to attach it to the source in question, but you can't go around tagging every number with Boyle's name on it just because of an issue with one quotation. Unless you want to bring his name up on the noticeboard. Nightw 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Francis A Boyle. Nightw 15:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so don't remove the tags with question mark until there is a consensus there. Alinor (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Recognition plus diplomatic relations

The above section deals with "Recognizing SoP" (both light green and dark green colors), but a subset of these states additionally to recognition of SoP has established diplomatic relations with the 'PLO as the SoP government-in-exile' (this is to be distinguished from relations with the 'PLO as the PNA representative abroad'). The dark green color is for such states that both recognize SoP and have diplomatic relations with SoP/PLO. No state is colored dark green unless there is a clear reliable source showing that it recognizes SoP (see the above sections for those), but any state listed as having embassy (not delegation/mission/etc.) here, here, here, here was changed from light-green to dark-green - without re-checking individually every source (some of them may lack any). We don't have a "bulk source" with a "list of embassies and general/special delegations to/from" or similar (so that we don't have to list 72 individual sources) - but maybe there is such at the Palestine MFA (some edits to the pages were made with explanation "I found it out in the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry website.") - unfortunately there is no English version. If somebody finds a direct URL to such lists (if there are such on this site) we can use some translator to read it.

Also, this is partially covered by some (most?) of the sources that we have for the above sections ("recognizing SoP") - because they show "embassy" and/or "established diplomatic relations". Alinor (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Djibouti - User:PNA record recently added "Embassy" for its entry with the explanation "I found it out in the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry website." - I assume that he refers to this, so maybe we should contact him and ask for the URL. Alinor (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Djibouti MFA? - relevant pages are "under construction" Alinor (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Other relations (with PLO/PNA, but without SoP recognition)

The general delegation in Helsinki is also the diplomatic office for Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (see 1, 2, 3). Nightw 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like most of Luxembourg's diplomatic offices, the general delegation for Palestine is in Brussels (see 1). Nightw 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Luxembourg? It is already colored as "official relations" (blue).
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - I checked their MFA websites and only the Estonia website included such information (it is already colored appropriately). I will update (you could also do this) Lithuania and Latvia according to this source 1 you provided (this seems like official delegation site, but I can't access http://www.palestinegd.fi/). Alinor (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Only 7 of the 40 countries colored blue have sources in their section. The rest are from here, here, here, here (looking for 'delegation/mission' instead of 'embassy') - without re-checking individually every source (some of them may lack any). We don't have a "bulk source" with a "list of embassies and general/special delegations to/from" or similar (so that we don't have to list 40 individual sources) - but maybe there is such at the Palestine MFA (some edits to the pages were made with explanation "I found it out in the Palestinian Authority Foreign Ministry website.") - unfortunately there is no English version. If somebody finds a direct URL to such lists (if there are such on this site) we can use some translator to read it. Alinor (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

general note on "ambassador"

here it is written: "Diplomatic Mission of Palestine in Argentina has all the immunities and obligations of an embassy and represents the Palestinian Authority and the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (PLO) to the Argentine government and people. Ie it represents the Palestinian people and their government in occupied Palestine and the Palestinian people in the diaspora, defending its national interests and disseminating their reality and their demands. The Palestinian representative in Argentina holds the rank of ambassador, as in all Latin American and European countries have official Palestinian representation. This represents a de facto recognition of the Palestinian nation with all its inherent attributes, there is not yet formally established a Palestinian state with all its legal attributes of the land of Palestine. Palestinian ambassadors are appointed by the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and reported to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Palestinian government, now Mr. Riad El Malki."

So, we should be extra careful with sources using wordings like "Palestine Ambassador" and "Palestine Embassy" without "State of Palestine" - such may refer to 'de facto' ambassador/embassy, but de jure PLO/PNA delegation/mission. Alinor (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

According to one author, by 1988, more than 100 countries had recognised the State of Palestine.

This contradicts both the UNESCO source (less than 92 states by the end of 1988) and the PLO 94 number given after 1988. Alinor (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And? It's already noted that sources are in disagreement... Nightw 14:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope that if someone adds a quote from the source itself it may clarify the issue. Alinor (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Were the ' symbols around 'state' that you placed in the quote part of the original source? Alinor (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Nightw 14:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippines

For debate of recognition of the State of Palestine by the Philippines see here. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

resume:

  • one side claims the sources that we already have clearly show that currently Philippines recognizes SoP specifically - this is different from having relations with PNA/PLO - that are also called "Palestine".
  • another side claims that a source is needed that specifically shows SoP recognition/relations for the current moment - because the Philippine MFA page doesn't show such.

Please discuss not here, but at the link - so that we don't split the debate. Alinor (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems that Night w is very presistent - while leaving the debate on the subject at the other page I would ask for other opinions here on the question: should we put a 'dubious' tag after the Philippines - until we have a source showing that currently SoP is recognized by it?
My opinion is - yes. Night w opinion is - no. Other opinions? Alinor (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, as Night w moved Philippines already I will later add the tag unless there is a consensus that it is not needed. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyle "about 130"

Night w, regarding your edit [6].

The quote of the source is: "Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." (emphasis mine).

The edit you reverted was: "In 2010 Boyle reported that 127 countries had recognised the State of Palestine, that is in line with his previous prediction that recognition would reach "about 130 states" "

Your version is: "In 2009, Boyle reported that about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine."

The question is - what has Boyle reported in 2009 - that at some time he had predicted that "Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." (as shown in the reference footnote) or that in 2009 already "about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine." (your version)? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the quote: "As I had [retrospective tense] predicted to the PLO, the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success. [Full stop; end of sentence] Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. The only regional hold-out was Europe and this was because of massive political pressure applied by the United States Government." If you have an issue, take it up at WP:RS/N. Don't just tag it with the intention of leaving the tag there without discussion (as you've done in other instances). Nightw 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not about the source reliability. The issue is that what is written in your version is not reflected by the source - the source says "would eventually", your version says "had".
I ask again - has Boyle said - in any moment in time - that "about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine."?
The quotation given in the footnote does not include such statement. Alinor (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The "prediction" ends at the full stop. Do you want me to post another noticeboard discussion on your behalf? Nightw 13:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What does the "would eventually" mean? And for the third time - where has "Boyle reported that about 130 countries had recognised the State of Palestine."? Alinor (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If we put there "In 2009, Boyle reported that Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." it will be correct, but your version is not that. Alinor (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Conflicting interpretations of a source Nightw 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
New to this article, but spotted the query on the noticeboard. It seems quite clear to me that the writer is not making any prediction about the number of states recognising Palestine. He is using the term would because, at the time of the creation of the Palestinian state, the recognition by 130 others was still in the future; but he is certainly asserting that figure of approx. 130 as fact, not as a prediction or possibility. Barnabypage (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But there is no indication of then-current (2009) SoP recognizers nowhere in this statement - he just repeated his previous prediction - and this should be reflected in the article. Especially, since we have a more recent statement from the same author - where he gives current exact number of 127. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is obvious that Boyle is speaking about a prediction that he made in the past, that "the creation of a Palestinian State [would be] an instantaneous success". He then goes on to give evidence for that success, i.e. that Palestine eventually achieved de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. That is not a prediction, nor is it in his original prediction, as it quite obvious by the tense. Since, as you agree, at that time of Boyles's statement Palestine had indeed been recognised by 127 states, it is obvious that he is not making a prediction, but instead giving evidence that his prediction was correct.
Whether that statement should be used in lieu of a later statement is another question altogether. Since these numbers are matters of fact and not opinion, I don't understand why they are sourced in text instead of in line. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You say "Palestine eventually achieved", but the source says "Palestine would eventually achieve". So it is clear that he is repeating his past prediction. And yes, it is implied that the prediction was fulfilled, but this isn't what "Boyle reported".
What's wrong with the following wording? "In 2010 Boyle reported that 127 countries had recognised the State of Palestine, that is in line with his previous prediction that recognition would reach "about 130 states" " - I think that this is backed by the two sources, is more specific and more clear and doesn't put in Boyle's mouth words he didn't used. Alinor (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be cute or insulting, but is English your native tongue? Because you're having a problem with a construction that most native speakers flat wouldn't have. Your conclusion is in error. "Would" in this sense is used to talk about the future in the past. "As my mother predicted, when I was at university I would meet the woman of my dreams." Tom Reedy (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
His language doesn't support the reading that the "130 states" point was part of the earlier prediction. He would have had to write something like As I had predicted to the PLO, the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success, and Palestine eventually received de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. Barnabypage (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But the source says "Palestine would eventually achieve" instead of "Palestine eventually achieved" - so clearly this sentence is related to the previous one. Alinor (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
He's talking about something that in the past was in the future (IYSWIM), hence the would. It's the same usage as in this sentence: I met Barack Obama in 1990, but little did I know that that young man would grow up to be the President. Indeed, Boyle's English would be incorrect if he meant to intimate that it was part of the prediction. Barnabypage (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Night that the statement isn't a prediction. He's clearly using the ~130 recognitions as evidence that his earlier prediction was correct. That being said, do we really need this source? We have a statement by the same person from the same time period with an exact number (127). Given the discussion over the reliability of this particular source (given translation/typo issues) and the fact that it doesn't add any new info (127 IS ~130) why not just use the "exact" numbers from Boyle? If it was a statement by someone different, or a newer source, it would provide a different perspective. But I don't see what added info this statement conveys. TDL (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh wait, I missunderstood the dispute. It seems that the issue is with the source saying 127, not ~130. In that case, I'd say just drop the 127 source if there are questions over it's reliability. Apparently TamilNet just republished the interview which was originally published in Vikatan. It would be interesting to find the original to see if the wording is the same. TDL (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the whole statement is the following: As Boyle had previously predicted the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success. He then adds what else he had predicted - that Palestine would eventually achieve about 130 recognitions. - I understand that all this implies that 'because the first prediction was fulfilled ("As I had predicted to the PLO") it is implied that the second also was fulfilled (e.g. Palestine eventually achieved about 130 recognitions)' - but this is my/our interpretation, this is not written in the source. In the source it is not elaborate whether or not the second prediction was fulfilled. This is like saying: "As I predicted X became famous. I also predicted that he will move to Canada." - this means: X became famous; it is not stated whether he already moved to Canada or not - this is like "He has already a house in Canada (big number of recognitions), but we are yet to see when he will finally move there (reach about 130) - thus fulfilling the second prediction".

Of course all of this is going moot - since we have the more recent and exact number by the same person (regardless of this issue) - so it's clear that the second prediction is fulfilled (127 = about 130). I just raise the point the "about 130" source doesn't say Palestine eventually achieved, but would eventually achieve.

I proposed a wording that adheres to both sources (and mentions both "127"/2010 and "about 130"/2009) and nobody has given any reason not to use that variant. I understand that Night w is opposed to it, but mainly because of various disagreements that we have lately. Alinor (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm opposed to it because you described it as a "previous prediction", when it takes quite a mental leap to get that from the quoted text. Here's another article written by Boyle in 2010: The Impending Collapse of Israel in Palestine, in which he writes "Today the State of Palestine is bilaterally recognized de jure by about 130 states." So not only is your understanding of the quote extremely irregular, this article makes it clear that it was also incorrect. I can cite this article alongside his book if it clears up the issue. Nightw 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the source with wording "Today ... by about 130" will be OK (but then you have to change the year to 2010). But we should also mention (in the text, not in a footnote) the exact number given by Boyle - 127, because it is much more informative than "about 130". Later it may be removed or some disclaimer note may be added, but until such decision is taken it should remain (along with the tag). Alinor (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's added. We'll move the cite of 127 to the main text if and when the noticeboard reaches a decision. Nightw 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Other issues

Conflicting sources

Moved the following hidden notes from article to here, so that we can address them:

  • States that don't maintain official relations with Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority and with conflicting indications on their position on the recognition of the State of Palestine:
    • Kenya is one of the 5 cases with no recognition date specified in the UNESCO source. Not listed in Europa book (2004), PNA webpage? ((c) 2000-2003), Other list (2001), but these three lists include information which conflicts with MFA pages of Austria and the Vatican City (1, 2). Also two of these sources claim to list 94 states, but actually include only 93 - Kenya may be the 94th that's missing.
    • Cameroon, Swaziland, Vanuatu - these are listed as "recognising SoP" in the two above sources that contradict official MFA pages
Night w, don't add Cameroon/Swaziland/Vanuatu to "conflicting or inconclusive sources" unless we have a source for these. The above sources are self-contradictory (93 vs. 94) and/or contradict official MFA pages. Alinor (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Cameroon MFA, Swaziland MFA, Vanuatu MFA - no mention of SoP recognition or relations. Alinor (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Should also mention that none of these contain of list of states that it recognises, and the Swaziland website doesn't even include a list of consular offices that I can see. Nightw 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OIC members

Relevant comment from here: "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) 11:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Night w, don't add these in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" - we don't have a source for Turkmenistan/Suriname. Syria is already included. For Cameroon see above subsection. Alinor (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This needs discussing further. The declaration of recognition from the OIC was in March 1989. The reaffirmation came in May 2003. No additional memberships have been approved since that date. Then, we have Curtis Doebbler stating (in 2009) that the "other 56 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference" all recognise Palestine. So what's the issue here? Do we have an explicit statement from an OIC member not recognising Palestine? Nightw 16:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't have official announcement by OIC about "all OIC members recognize SoP". I agreed to move the states without a source showing they recognize SoP to the "conflicting and inconclusive" section - based solely on a blanked statement we have, but that's as far as we can go without a better source. Also, there is the case of Syria (AL/OIC member) where there is PLO mission, but no SoP embassy - yes, I know this does not necessarily mean that Syria doesn't recognize SoP, but at least it is very suspicious - having in mind the great involvement of Syria in Arab-Israeli conflict, their own problem with Golan, etc. To keep high WP:V standard we need a better sources here naming the states, referring to SoP and if possible also showing the date of recognition. Alinor (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You're quite one-sided on this "high WP:V standard" that you purport. You're indignance on me getting more explicit sources verges on being anal, but you're quite happy to leave [citation needed] tags on your additions, with no apparent intent on addressing them later. Nightw 09:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when we deal with "recognize SoP" we need to apply very strictly WP:V, because this is a very controversial issue, depends on great attention to small detail, and very often it is reported wrongly by various sources, so we can't rely on blog posts, journalistic reports and similar. The things that I added with 'citation needed' tag were for much more minor issues - and you have already removed them. Also, I agreed to use your addition (to add Turkmenistan, Suriname, etc.) - but by putting "dubious" tag. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, stop being disruptive. The OIC statement is quoted directly from the text: "The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers ... Recognizes the independent State of Palestine", "The Conference declared its recognition of the independent Palestinian State". Replace what you've removed. Further vandalism will not be tolerated. Nightw 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The OIC recognizes SoP. Nobody disputes this. What we dispute is who of the OIC members recognize SoP. Consider this similar situation: the AU recognizes SADR. Not all AU members recognize SADR. Alinor (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
That's great, but irrelevant. You removed a statement which said the OIC issued a statement of recognition, which was sourced by a document you've personally inspected before. That's being disruptive and pushing a POV. Nightw 10:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not pushing any POV. I couldn't find "OIC unanimously recognizes SoP, that's why I removed the two words "unanimous recognition". I don't object using the source for "OIC unanimously supports and shows solidarity with" and I don't object stating "OIC recognizes SoP". Alinor (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So if I'm to assume good faith, then, why did you remove the word "recognition" from the sentence, and not just the word "unanimous"? Nightw 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Because in the end same sentence it is written that SoP gained membership in AL and OIC, so leaving additional mention of "OIC recognizes SoP" without the "unanimous" word is redundant, isn't it? Alinor (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. The statement of recognition came after it gained membership. Nightw 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The current wording places the statement first and the membership afterwards. Anyway, what wording do you propose? Alinor (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Guyana

Things are acceptable with Guyana. I don't know why it's listed in the conflicting section. We have the statements from the OIC above, and the accredited ambassador to Palestine cited in the article. Also take a look at this article about Guyana and Palestine. Nightw 18:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides the OIC issue we don't have clear indication of recognition of SoP. The Guyana MFA link gives us a "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine", but in another cases discussed here we saw that sometimes delegations/Heads of delagations are called emabassies/ambassadors. And after another editor contested Poland recognition (its MFA also lists "Embassy/Ambassador of Palestine" without specifying PLO/SoP/PNA) I placed it here along with Suriname and other OIC members without additional source (for Poland we have another source that is specifying SoP). Alinor (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
In the article you gave above I didn't find anything about recognition of SoP, could you give the page number? Alinor (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Palestine is verified and specified in this secondary source as the State. Nightw 08:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The source only says that Imad Nabil Jada'to was non-resident ambassador to Guyana, but doesn't specify if Guyana recognizes SoP or only has relations with the PLO. Alinor (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It says that Imad Nabil Jada'to was "ambassador of PLO and SoP to Havana", but doesn't specify PLO, SoP or both when referring to Guyana. Alinor (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

SMOM

Resolved

Please provide a source which states that the SMOM practises, and has the capacity to practise, recognition and non-recognition of states. The Government of Montenegro doesn't explicitly state this. Can you get a better source? ...I'm of course overlooking (for the moment) that you'll also need a source which verifies that the SMOM (as well as the others listed) does indeed not recognise the State of Palestine... Nightw 19:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually never mind about the first one. Just a source stating that it does not recognise the State of Palestine will answer both questions. Nightw 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tags and suggestions

Resolved

I've added and replaced a few tags. I replaced the {{Outdated}} with a {{Disputed}} one, because we're no longer relying solely on outdated information, but the factual accuracy of the section is still under dispute. This includes

  • the numbers used (e.g., "103", "39", "74", the first of which I've tagged with {{Citation needed}} as it's fairly poor for such a conclusive statement to remain unreferenced, regardless of how many disclaimers qare added),
  • the corresponding indications on the map shown
  • unsourced entries on the bottom list (whereas the top part has individual citations given, there are no such citations given to verify that "no diplomatic or official relations with and the State of Palestine is not recognised by ..."

For this last point, I've added {{Disputed-list}}, since many of its entries have been challenged and are under discussion.

I've also added {{Citation style}}, since most of the citations in that section merely point to urls with no attached information. I will endeavour to clean this up myself in the coming days.

One question for User:Alinor: What is the significance for keeping the top section, where it states that "the recognising states since before 1989 are 89 ...", and that "the later recognising states are ..." Can we merge this information into the main table?

Maybe the main table could be split into two, with recognising states in the first, and then those with delegations in the second? We can add more information that we've found, like Date of recognition, Date of establishment of relations, and a Refs column would be useful. Nightw 13:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same lines - to split the table in two and combine it with the recognizer/relations parts of the overview (the "no relations" list to remain as list - no need to have columns for the countries that don't have relations yet). The columns should be: #, name (XXX), recognition of SoP (yes/no + dates if available), relations with PLO/PNA (yes/no + date where available, maybe + PLO or PNA or PLO/PNA if available/applicable), mission to X, mission from X, notes.
I see that you made a lot of changes, I will go trough them later. Alinor (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
When you reformat the source please be careful to not delete the current text (currently it is used as link descriptor - you could move it as a note after the other source descriptions like author, date, etc.) Alinor (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you insist on discussing trough the edit-line comments? Alinor (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes that sounds fine. If I format the citations, will you do the table?
Please don't remove maintenance tags. The reasons have been provided above quite clearly. If you dispute the necessity to have them, please do so here on the talk page. Nightw 07:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will do the table.
Your recent edits removed some wikilinks and made other changes (unrelated to our disputes above) without discussion here - have you readed my edit-line comments? Have you just reverted all my edits at once and not looked at each of them? Anyway, I will restore these again and if you still want to change them - use the talk page first. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You are adding that MFA websites are contradicting that these are "States that don't maintain official relations with Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority"... They don't. Nightw 09:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Not all of the things you delete are related to your comment above.
Also, the MFA links are in a hidden note, just for quick reference by editors and in the hidden notes are not written things that you mention in your comment here. Alinor (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not what hidden notes are used for. It just adds empty kilobytes to the edit page. It is better to direct to a discussion on the talk page. See Help:Hidden text. Nightw 09:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I did the table overhaul. I preserved the embassies/delegations as they were, but many of them were without sources. Maybe such can be found in Lists of diplomatic missions. Alinor (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See below. Alinor (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Number unknown

Resolved

In the lead it is written "In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms" and then in the first section it is written "The exact number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment."

Both statements are sourced by this where the relevant quote is "This Declaration was quite widely recognized by states, although often in equivocal terms."

So, the source shows that the 1988 declaration was 'often recognized in equivocal terms', but not that the 'number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown'. The source only shows that extra care should be applied when looking at "recognitions", because some of them are in equivocal terms. This means that it should be distinguished between 'recognizing SoP as declared in 1988' and 'recognizing PLO/PNA/Palestine state right to exist/etc. statements in support of the main aim of the 1988 declaration - to establish a state for the Palestinian people'. But we don't have a source showing that the number is unknown/unclear or that legal authorities disagree on the number. This is just a conclusion reached by Wikipedia editors - thus failing WP:OR/SYNTH.

Adding a 'not in citation given' tag, but could also be reworded similarly to the lead section. Alinor (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Night w removed the tag with the explanation "it's a statement made necessary by conflicting sources". It is not clear if they disagree, we just have sources from different moments in time (and also, as some of the source do not give exact numbers, but a range they don't contradict the other sources regardless of the timing). Boyle "over 114" (1990) doesn't disagree with Anat Kurz 117 (2005). Boyle "about 130" from 2009 and the Boyle 127 from 2010 doesn't disagree. Boyle "over 114" doesn't disagree with Boyle "about 130"/127. So the only potential disagreement is between Anat Kurz 117 (2005) and Boyle 127 (2010) - but maybe 10 additional states recognized for these 5 years - the sources we have neither confirm nor deny that. Alinor (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the number is not "unknown"/"unclear" - it is unknown/unclear only to us, the Wikipedia users - because we have inconclusive sources. An example for "unknown number" is the Age of the universe, but the number of SoP recognitions is not unknown/unclear - it is only that we don't have simultaneously reliable+exact+specific+recent sources about it. The SoP itself (PLO as its government in exile) should know it pretty well (does it have a website?). Alinor (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed "unknown" to "unclear". Does this solve the issue? Nightw 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the same. It is unknown/unclear only to us, and only because we lack proper sources. The number itself can not be unclear/unknown. Alinor (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not? If many of the official statements, as the source says, were "equivocal"... Nightw 12:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I posted a inquiry at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#When sources disagree. It's just a discussion to enable us to find an answer as to whether or not this is okay. Nightw 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Austria

Resolved

The UNESCO source that we have doesn't specify why Austria was deleted from the list of SoP recognizers. It may be because it withdrawed recognition - or it may be because it never recognized SoP and the countries compiling the list put it there by mistake (that's why there are corrigendums, right?). Alinor (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. So "Austria was later removed" ... ? Nightw 12:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I rephrased it to more closely resemble the original in the source. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Table overhaul

Night w, what are your proposals for improvement of this version (you removed the Template:Palestine foreign relations with the explanation "badly written")? See also here. Alinor (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial round of recognition - notable groups

"Shortly after its 1988 declaration SoP was recognized by most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (...), by most states formerly under Soviet influence, by other decolonized states mostly in Africa and Asia and by few other states. More recently it gains recognition among ALBA members." was changed to "Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (...), and by most countries in Africa and Asia." - why? Also your redaction doesn't include many countries that recognized SoP shortly after the 1988 declaration (non-AL/OIC/Asia/Africa countries in Europe and Latin America). Alinor (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance behind mentioning "Soviet influence" or "decolonized states". Are there sources that draw these connections? It's not associated with ALBA either, and only 3 out of 8 members recognise it. We don't need to cover every area, it's just a general description. Nightw 12:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The relevance is the same as for the AL/OIC remark - that were the 4 groups of states recognizing SoP in 1988/1989 - Arab, Muslim, Soviet influenced, former colonies. In fact the only exceptions ("a few others") that I see are Nepal and Bhutan. It is strange to mention only two of these groups. This is just stating a fact (what types of states have recognized SoP back then) - what is different between stating "most countries in Asia"/"most Muslim(OIC) countries" and "most countries formerly under Soviet influence"/"most countries formerly being a colony"? Alinor (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
...Because they're not related to the subject? What's the connection? There's an obvious association with the OIC (religion), and Asia (geography). What's the connection to Soviet influence, or decolonised states, or ALBA? Nightw 14:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the connection to Africa (and Asia besides geography) that you also mention? The 'struggle' for independence from foreign rule and self-determination. It is no coincidence that SWAPO and PLO 'shared' some UN resolutions (for granting observer status/rights/support statements/etc.)
And for Soviet support of Palestine you can read here: 1, 2.
Also, some of the OIC members (including current members that weren't members back then) support for Palestine is more founded in Soviet influence and/or shared-struggle-for-independence, than in religion. Why do you think that religion is more related to state recognition/political issues than Soviet political influence and independence struggles of former colonies? Alinor (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Same for geography - do you think that Mongolia support for Palestine was more influenced by the fact that they both are in Asia or by the Soviet influence over Mongolia? Alinor (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, should I put these two groups back in? Alinor (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they're pretty irrelevant. Nightw 14:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
If decolonization & soviet influence are irrelevant, then religion & geography should be removed too - leaving only the Arab League as relevant factor. Alinor (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And the OIC, of course. Since it became recognised by both organisations. I don't really see an issue with removing the Asia and Africa mention. Nightw 17:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
So, you propose to disregard more than half of the countries recognizing SoP in 1988/1989? Because the AL/OIC members are only ~40 of ~90 (both figures are for 1988-1989). And you do that by arbitrary selecting AL/OIC as notable and Soviet influence/decolonization as irrelevant. This is especially relevant for some OIC members that supported SoP mostly because of solidarity for fellow nation with 'independence struggle' and no because of religious affiliations. Alinor (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
They're not disregarded. They're listed in the table... It's just a general statement about the major blocs that extended recognition—we don't need to cover every patch of the globe. There's no association to Soviet influence in this context. That's like saying "and most of the former Yugoslav republics", or "most of the Sinosphere", or even "Communist states", or "countries where Black people are predominant". It's completely irrelevant. By all means, if you can show a source that makes the connection in this context, it might have some bearing, but until then, I'm not seeing any relevance to decolonisation—pretty much all of the Americas and Oceania not recognising it makes such a connection seem a little confusing. Nightw 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not so sure that OIC is a "major block" or that it had a coherent/common decision on the issue back then or that this influenced the decisions of the states. I would say a "group of states" instead of "major block", but anyway - the rest is also doubtful.
Americas and Oceania. It was not stated "most of the decolonized countries", but "decolonized countries in Africa and Asia". Alinor (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

December

Night w implemented the following version:

  • Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Both of these organisations later published statements of unanimous recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums.[1][2][3]

Night w removed the following changes and source:

  • Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, by other decolonized states in Africa and Asia, by most states formerly under Soviet influence,[4] and by few other states. The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference later published statements of unanimous recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums.[same refs as above]

I propose the following revision:

  • Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, by other decolonized states in Africa and Asia,[5] by most states formerly under Soviet influence,[4] and by few other states. The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference later published statements of unanimous support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both organisations.[same refs as above]

Explanations:

  1. "OIC unanimous recognition of the State of Palestine" - removed - couldn't find such in the links given - please give more specific guidance where to find it.
  2. "Soviet influence" - added - quote from source1: "Most of those that have already recognized the state are Muslim countries, African nations or Eastern European countries whose recognition of “Palestine” came while they were still under Soviet domination." - if needed we can replace "Soviet influence" with "Soviet domination".
  3. "decolonized states in Africa and Asia" - added - quote from source2: "The Guyana/Palestinian fraternal relationship dates back to the 1950s during the height of the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa."

General note - as discussed previously above the whole paragraph mentioning the groups of states that recognized SoP in the first few months after the 1988 declaration is debatable as we didn't have a source making such description of the groups (e.g. we could be accused of OR/SYNTH). Now we have such a source (source1) and it lists the following groups: Muslim, African, East European under Soviet domination. We add Asian together with the decolonization remark for Africa because of source2. We replace Muslim with OIC (reasonable?), we add Arab by ourselves(?). Alinor (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The first source doesn't say that "Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by ... most states formerly under Soviet influence". Instead, it says that "most of those that have already recognized the state are ... Eastern European countries whose recognition of 'Palestine' came while they were still under Soviet domination". It doesn't state anything about the 1988 declaration, and your numbers are in disagreement (check your placement of "most" against the source's). The source is also The Jerusalem Post, which has a conflict of interest with the subject, and shouldn't be used in this context.
The second source doesn't say that "Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by ... other decolonized states in Africa and Asia". It says, instead, that "the Guyana/Palestinian fraternal relationship dates back to the 1950s during the height of the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa." Do you see how these are completely different claims? Furthermore, it might have been a viable reference had it not been exclusively attributed to a single state (Guyana) that might not (according to you) recognise Palestine. You're twisting sources to your advantage, again. Just read what they say.
And, to be clear: verifiability was one of the concerns raised about these additions. Notability was the other. Read the earlier discussion again. Nightw 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Night w, excuse me, but you are the one trying to twist sources to serve your POV. For example you gave the Guyana source as example of source showing that "Guyana recognizes SoP" and when I asked where this is written you didn't reply. And please note that I don't say that Guyana doesn't recognize SoP - I think that it does, but I say that none of the sources we have is showing this unambiguously. That's why it's tagged and moved to "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section.
source1. If I understand correctly you have 3 objections here:
  • the source is not about 'shortly after 1988 declaration', but about 'since 1988 declaration till present time'. I think this is a moot point since ~80% of the SoP recognitions are from 1988/89. Anyway, we can reword it if needed.
  • placement of "most" word in the source vs. the article. I think this is a moot point since ~80% of the SoP recognitions are from 1988/89, over 90% of AL/OIC members recognize SoP (both in 1989 and currently), over 90% of the states formerly under Soviet influence recognize SoP (both in 1989 and currently - if we count USSR successor states, etc.). Wherever a "most" is put will be correct. Anyway, we can reword it if needed.
  • "the source is from The Jerusalem Post which has a conflict of interest with the subject, and shouldn't be used in this context." No, its potential conflict of interest doesn't make it unsuitable to use in this context, because the context is "what notable groups of states recognized SoP" - we need a source in order to back up our assumptions what groups are notable/relevant for the subject of SoP recognition. If we used the JP source do diminish the importance of SoP recognition/declaration/relations or to back up some claim that SoP is "illegal" or that SoP recognition/relations are minor or otherwise inferior in comparision with Israel recognition/relations or that SoP/PLO position over some issue is somehow inferior to that of Israel - those are examples where there is a conflict of interest. But using the JP source only to find what the notable groups are doesn't bring any conflict of interest.
source2. Yes it doesn't say exactly what I propose to write in the article, but it's very obvious in the first place (even just by looking at the list of states that recognize SoP) and also - we would use it only to give context for the "Africa" group of source1 (otherwise it's unclear what is the relation between SoP and Africa). Alinor (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Notability. Yes, read what I said above - previously we didn't have a source showing the notable groups, but now we have a source showing such: Muslim, African, East European under Soviet domination. Alinor (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Your accusations against me are baseless. I didn't give that source as example of source showing that "Guyana recognizes SoP". Where are you quoting from there? Those certainly aren't my words... All I said was that it was an article "about Palestine and Guyana"...correct me if I'm wrong? That is you, again, twisting what you've read into something else. Bad habit, that one.
Still not notable. There's no association between Palestine and the Soviets. Decolonisation there is, but this doesn't change the fact that the source you're citing is attributed to only a single state and that state is still in the "maybe" box. You can't use a document that says one thing to claim something completely different. And the JPost is not a neutral publication; please, don't insult my intelligence. It's verging on an opinion piece. Sorry. You need better sources. Nightw 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Both sources were provided by you. The Guyana source was provided in the above discussion about whether or not it recognizes SoP. That's the context, but of course the exact sentence where you gave the source doesn't say this.
Having "Guyana" in the category of states with ambiguous sources about recognition of SoP has nothing to do with the usage of source2. What if Guyana was in the category "recognize SoP"? I don't think this changes anything.
What's the problem in using JPost to see what are the notable groups? Where is the Israeli POV in the quote we use?
And for Soviet support of Palestine you can read here: 1, 2 - USSR was big supporter of the PLO and of course rushed to recognize it after the 1988 declaration - of course bringing along the states under its influence. As you can see even currently almost all European states that recognize SoP are former communist countries. And you call all this irrelevant and not notable. Alinor (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Night w, do you still oppose using the sources provided? Alinor (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Nightw 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Please explain what you don't agree with in the 15:40, 14 December 2010 comment, so it isn't just 'I don't like it'. Alinor (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not. You're using unrelated sources in both instances, one of which has a conflict of interest. If you're going to be completely ridiculous when it comes to sourcing recognitions, then I don't see why this should be any different, especially with such a politically-charged association. Get better sources. If the association is so notable, it shouldn't be hard. Nightw 07:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Both sources were provided by you. And I ask again - Where is the Israeli POV in the quote we use from the source that you find to has conflict of interest?
We don't have any other source listing the 'notable groups' of initial recognizer states. So, the whole paragraph should be removed by your logic. Should we delete it? Alinor (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, no we don't, not for the Arab League at least. I'll add an online source now. The POV in the JPost is clear by its mere mention of the Soviet Union as an association, when most people probably wouldn't make the connection. Nightw 10:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
We need links showing the "what is the common thing among the initial states that recognized SoP, what are the notable groups of such initial recognizers". We don't need individual links showing that AL "supported SoP", that OIC "supported SoP", etc. The JPost is the only useful source that we have so far.
It's not a POV to show that Soviet union&influenced states recognized SoP in 1988 - see comment from 15:40, 14 December 2010 above. This is obvious for anyone looking at the table. The support by decolonized states in Africa/Asia is also obvious. The four groups are also obvious - AL, OIC, Africa/Asia decolonized states, Soviet influence. But of course we don't work by "obvious" - we need sources - and the source you found, as expected, show what is obvious. And you agree for three of the groups - AL/OIC/decolonized, but object Soviet influence. This seems to me like your POV - you don't want SoP connected with the USSR or what?
Also, here is another source - [7] "The establishment of a 'state of Palestine' was proclaimed with the Algiers Declaration of 15 November 1988 and it was recognised by many former communist states and developing countries which entered into diplomatic relations with representatives of this state." Alinor (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"[F]ormer communist states" ≠ "states under Soviet influence". Try again. Nightw 07:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, we can use 'communist' instead of 'soviet'. Agreed? Alinor (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Depends. What's the relevance of communism? Nightw 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have explained the relevance above. In short - communist states were one of the major group of states that recognized SoP in 1988.
The relevance is that it's one of the two groups mentioned in the last source and one of the 4 groups in the source you don't like. You don't expect that you and I will judge relevance, this is OK, that's why we should use what the sources find as relevant. Alinor (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Using Hillier as a source, what is your proposed addition then? Nightw 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

Also, the 2nd and 3rd largest factions, along with some others in the PLO are (or were back then) communist. Alinor (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Stick to the source. It says "former communist states". And the Guyana source will never be valid. You'll need to get a different one. Nightw 04:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I put "communist states of the time" instead of "former communist states", so that it's more clear. Both current and former communist states recognize SoP - the source is provided only because you questioned notability of communism - so we don't need to copy it word by word, but OK. And problem do you see in the Guyana source?
So what about these:
  1. Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League (AL) and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), by other developing[7] states in Africa and Asia, by most former communist[7] states, and by few other states. The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference later published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both organisations.[12][13][14][15]
  2. Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League (AL) and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), by other developing[7] and decolonized[16] states in Africa and Asia, by most former communist[7] states, and by few other states. The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference later published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both organisations.[17][18][19][20]
  3. Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League (AL) and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), by other developing[7] and decolonized[21] states in Africa and Asia, by most communist[7] states of the time, and by few other states. The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference later published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both organisations.[22][23][24][25] Alinor (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are there snarky hidden notes within each of these proposals? You're sabotaging your own efforts, Alinor... Nightw 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a single addition to the end of the paragraph: "Shortly after its 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by most members of the Arab League (AL) and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Both of these organisations later published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums. It was also recognised by many former communist states and developing countries in Africa and Asia.[7]" Nightw 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The hidden text is there, because that source (that you provided) is still the only one that lists these recognition groups in a single place (thus showing their notability).
Your version is artificially separating some of the groups (AL, OIC) from the other (communist/soviet, decolonized/developing) - we either list all 4 or none. Otherwise we have to choose what sentence to be the first sentence in the paragraph. Alinor (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That's proper prose. It's called "flow". You don't address one subject, then mention a different one, and then go back to the first all in the same paragraph. That's bad form, and it'll be corrected by any grammarian passing through. That's also not how sourcing works. If a source is deemed as bad, it isn't used. It's not inserted secretly with a comment to editors about why it wasn't used, and then just left there. Nightw 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem - your version interrupts the flow. The subject that is addressed is "what notable groups of states recognized SoP in 1988" - and you break this subject with "SoP gained membership in this and that organization". Alinor (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My reading of the sentence is on the contrary. Nightw 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I arranged it in reverse, so that both flows are preserved. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is acceptable. Nightw 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
  1. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Resolutions on Political, Legal and Information Affairs". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  2. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Final Communique". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  3. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (28–30 May 2003). "Resolutions on Palestine Affairs". The Thirtieth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Unity and Dignity). United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  4. ^ a b Keinon, Herb (10 December 2010). "More S. American countries may recognize 'Palestine'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
  5. ^ Guyana and the Islamic World, 1948-2008, R. Chickrie, p.11
  6. ^ Guyana and the Islamic World, 1948-2008, R. Chickrie, p.11
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h [8], Hillier: "The establishment of a 'state of Palestine' was proclaimed with the Algiers Declaration of 15 November 1988 and it was recognised by many former communist states and developing countries which entered into diplomatic relations with representatives of this state."
  8. ^ Shashaa, Esam. "The state of Palestine". Palestine History. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
  9. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Resolutions on Political, Legal and Information Affairs". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  10. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Final Communique". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  11. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (28–30 May 2003). "Resolutions on Palestine Affairs". The Thirtieth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Unity and Dignity). United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  12. ^ Shashaa, Esam. "The state of Palestine". Palestine History. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
  13. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Resolutions on Political, Legal and Information Affairs". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  14. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Final Communique". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  15. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (28–30 May 2003). "Resolutions on Palestine Affairs". The Thirtieth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Unity and Dignity). United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  16. ^ Guyana and the Islamic World, 1948-2008, R. Chickrie, p.11
  17. ^ Shashaa, Esam. "The state of Palestine". Palestine History. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
  18. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Resolutions on Political, Legal and Information Affairs". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  19. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Final Communique". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  20. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (28–30 May 2003). "Resolutions on Palestine Affairs". The Thirtieth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Unity and Dignity). United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  21. ^ Guyana and the Islamic World, 1948-2008, R. Chickrie, p.11
  22. ^ Shashaa, Esam. "The state of Palestine". Palestine History. Retrieved 2010-12-28.
  23. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Resolutions on Political, Legal and Information Affairs". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  24. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (13–16 March 1989). "Final Communique". The Eighteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Islamic Fraternity and Solidarity). Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  25. ^ Organisation of the Islamic Conference (28–30 May 2003). "Resolutions on Palestine Affairs". The Thirtieth Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Unity and Dignity). United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_State_of_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1136277975"