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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

what is this supposed to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

various issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sources about the organizations are OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

Other issues

"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)

Ready?

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

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

I thought that you already addressed that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixing problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other recognitions

Venezuela

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippines

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azerbaijan

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Greece

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Kenya

Resolved

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

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

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

Europe

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

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

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

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

Brazil

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

Argentina

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