Misplaced Pages

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 12 April 2011 (→Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:34, 12 April 2011 by Harlan wilkerson (talk | contribs) (→Requested move)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Attribution for content merged from Template:Palestine foreign relations. Do not archive.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2111 (UTC) 

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

Citations and footnotes

Alinor, please familiarise yourself with Citation style.

  • When providing links to online addresses, the link to the book's preview on Google books is only ever provided for the title. Don't link to book pages within the page parameter. Don't include wordsearch in the URL. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't provide online links to documents like constitutions, legal charters, treaties, etcetera. Cite the name of the document, followed by the date. Identify a specific article or chapter where applicable.
  • Where citations are duplicated, the first instance of the citation should include the information. All subsequent citations of the same name should be empty.
  • When multiple citations provided all say the same thing, select two or three in order to reduce clutter.
  • Footnotes that need to include citations must use the {{#tag:ref||group="note"}} markup. Since this page does not use that template for its footnotes, information that needs to be sourced cannot be added in the form of a footnote and must be instead added within the main text. Footnotes in <ref> format should not include Citation templates if that is not the adopted citation style. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And where to provide the direct source to the page used? About wordsearch in the URL - why? Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs.
  • Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents?
  • OK about duplications. This is related to last bullet.
  • OK about that - but I would suggest keeping the rest as hidden text - in case some of the "selected three" becomes a dead link.
  • I agree with arranging footnotes and references separately - maybe we should do over the whole article. Also it needs a bibliography section for some of the references. I would try to arrange that. Would you care to "properly format" citations about who you added the second tag-template on top? Alinor (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. Please stop adding these incorrect citations to the article when I've asked you not to. At least educate yourself on how to properly cite sources first. Please discuss any issues you have first. Nightw 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
And if you're reverting my change to Uruguay, revert it. But you're not, you're making your own edit, which will need to be discussed. Nightw 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Night w, please don't make incorrect edit-line descriptions of your edits.
Would you answer the two questions above? (bullets 1&2) - and comment on bullet4
"you are making your own edit" - I just tried to preserve as much as possible from YOUR undiscussed edit. And it's not only about Uruguay, but the whole new section you added. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be patient, I'll get to your questions when I have a chance. And we should both refrain from reverting anything for another 24 hours... Nightw 07:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So, I made 3 reverts here and you - 4 - and now we should stop? Before we stop, should I do a 4th like you did? And the same at State of Palestine - you've done 2 reverts and I - 1. Before we stop, should I do a 2nd there like you did? When you revert something you should explain why. Should I open WP:3RR/1RR notifications in order to understand what you don't like in the things you reverted? Alinor (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? I only count 2 reverts here, and 1 at the State of Palestine. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
, , , ; , . Mine reverts follow yours with the exception of the last at each article. Alinor (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This, this, and this are not reverts. Nightw 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not argue about that, what's the point? Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In response to the "why" questions, this is just the way things are done. For basic law documents (such as the Arab League Charter or any national constitution), the reference is kept simple. An online link to the text is inappropriate, and the use of abbreviations and symbols is preferred (see here). Also see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and Misplaced Pages:Citation templates. I definitely agree about splitting footnotes and references. You can see here for an example of where references are included within footnotes. A bibliography is also a good idea. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you mention the List of monarchs - what about this question? Alinor (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't find such rules there, would you specify/quote them?
  • Where to provide the direct source to the page used if not where the page number is mentioned?
  • About wordsearch in the URL. Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs. Why should we remove it?
  • Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents? Alinor (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, it disperses a section which described discrepancies between sources into random areas. If you can set up footnotes using the ref template, then I can move the section about Uruguay into a footnote, and link directly to it from the table. But it can't go in a citation as is without skipping WP:V requirements. And the section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations was moved to a section on Palestine's representation within the OIC... which left me confused. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations - that is one of the new, still under discussion, additions - was moved to section "Relations with international organisations", subsection "OIC". I find this as suitable place for this content and could agree to put it as footnote in the "Background" section after the OIC statement - but using this as content for a new "No relations" section is inappropriate and misleading.
So, I propose that we restore this, move "Doebbler and the OIC declarations" as footnote on OIC in the "Background" section - and then start sorting footnotes and references in separate lists using the ref template (thus correcting the Uruguay links issue). The other linking/citation style issues to be changed according to opinions in the below comments. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As for the referencing questions, you can link to a specific page, just not on the page parameter. Use the url parameter, which places the link on the title only. This avoids confusion with readers and problems with Checklinks on the Toolserver. Online versions of any old document are fine, just not basic law documents. I don't know why that is the case, it's just the way it's done. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
But you reverted when I put the link to the specific page at the url parameter. That's why I moved it to the page parameter. So, you now agree to have link to the page at the url parameter?
Charter of the AL is not "basic law". Also, I still don't see what policy prohibits linking to it.
Anyway, if you agree on the above restoration - we can temporary remove the AL (and/or page) links - until we reach consensus on these. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
...Am I supposed to answer these questions? Am I supposed to agree or disagree, as you've asked me to do? I'm unsure because you've actually gone ahead with your "proposal", even the parts of it that you said you'd wait for consensus to determine. And in your edit summary, you give the description "restore version prior Uruguay move; just moving Uruguay without other changes; the other things - to be discussed - see talk...". So, was that a mistake, or ...? Either way, I'll provide my answer below, and if you care to read it you're most welcome. Otherwise, I'm not sure how this "discussion" would continue... Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my additions, "Relations with international organisations" is not a suitable place to discuss recognition by individual states. When you're able to split the Notes and References properly, I will change this section to a footnote, which can be linked to from each entry that it affects (e.g., Turkmenistan, etc). Similarly, when you're able to split the refs, I can put the Uruguay section into a footnote, and link to it from that state's entry. Until this split occurs, however, we cannot include references within other references, and we cannot skip WP:V requirements. It needs to be set up before a footnote is created. I can help you with the formatting if you like.
I've corrected the formatting on that book source. The Charter of the Arab League is indeed Basic Law (?), and while I don't know whether WP policy prohibits links to online texts, it is conventional not to, especially if the original is not in English. Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think AL charter is "basic law"? And where should we put a link to it if it is? In the future Bibliography section?
Doebeler OIC generalizing claim is not about individual states - it's a generalizing statement about "OIC members". But OK, let's use a footnote for this.
Night w, the changes I made to the pre-Uruguay-move version were to simply move the Uruguay line in the below section - as we agreed - what do you object in that? (no ref inside ref, etc. - I had just copy-pasted the line - as it was in the status quo - eg. if there is ref-in-a-ref it was there since long time) It is a compromise until we decide how/where to describe the situation. I don't agree with your current version with new sections - but I agree with moving that in some way/form to footnotes. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, and one last thing - the "44 to 40" vs. "48 to 40" - the first number should be lowered, because some of the "inconclusive" states have no relations (e.g. 4 of them or something like that). Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to the moving of Uruguay to the bottom section, but you didn't do "simply" or "just" that as you claimed (and still claim, apparently), you made a whole bunch of other changes aswell that you said you'd hold out on. And, in addition, you added some hidden notes regarding WP:CIRCULAR that went clearly against consensus on a noticeboard discussion. If the confusion is not explained properly, then Uruguay needs to remain in the middle section. So we'll wait for you to split the Reflist, and then this bickering can end.
Any written constitution is a basic legal document. Did you read this? See also here. If you want to persist with this, you can add, "available at {{Cite web|title=|url=|accessdate=}}, and that will be acceptable. Nightw 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What "other changes"?? This is the comparision (between pre-Uruguay move and my edit of yesterday) - besides "just" moving Uruguay the other changes are pretty minor (missing letters, reference names that YOU added after the Uruguay move - and I did care to restore, etc.) - if you argue about the hidden text or some other even more minor change (these came because they were in the pre-Uruguay-move version - but yes, it was also my edit, so maybe you object some of these) - fine, why haven't you just removed these (they are really minor and easy to remove) - instead of pushing back your version with new sections, that I clearly said that don't agree with. If you want to restore Uruguay to the middle section - then, OK again - you can restore to the pre-Uruguay-move - but not, you pushed your edits. So, in order that you don't accuse me again for some minor grammatical edit or hidden text - would you restore back to some commonly agreeable version, so that we can continue from there? (for example with the minor changes - remove hidden text and something else if needed)
Is the AL charter a "constitution"? Are constitutions of international organizations "Basic law"? Anyway, I don't mind having the link after the description - as you propose, so we can just make it that way. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Night w, I see that you are active here - since you haven't restored to the version prior to your addition of new sections, and haven't said anything about the proposal for interim solution right above - I will implement it. Alinor (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is me reverting IP vandalism. What of it? Nightw 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I mean that you are active, but haven't restored - but now I see that you at least removed the additional sections. I still haven't got time to look into the other changes you've made recently (the Uruguay/OIC notes, etc.) Alinor (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, at the last I had looked at this thread, you had said you would organise splitting the footnotes and references, so that I could move my new sections to the footnotes. I had been waiting for you to finish that, but returned this evening to see that you had perhaps forgotten, and were talking about something else. I presumed that you were still okay with this initial motion, and so I did the footnotes for you. I haven't removed the additional sections, I've moved them to the footnotes. That was what we had agreed? Do you remember now? Nightw 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems there was a misunderstanding. I asked you to restore to no-additional-sections version so that I can start dealing with the footnotes. You didn't do this, I was waiting (because the previous time you accused me of making more changes than 'restoring and just moving Uruguay') for you to restore - before I start with the footnotes. Currently I see that you removed the new sections (as I said before - putting these into footnotes is OK, but I will have to check what's written in these notes). You also made some changes that I still haven't looked into. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, because moving a whole paragraph into a footnote was a bit much to ask of you...that's why you couldn't start on it? I should've known... Luckily, I seem to have mustered the energy. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So, you changed the description of the no relations/recognition section:
  1. There is no information available pertaining to the positions of:
  2. The Palestinian administration has not established diplomatic relations with the following states:
  3. The State of Palestine is not recognised by and the PLO and PNA have not established relations with:
The initial version is 1. You changed to 2 (but it's incorrect - some of the recognizers also don't have established diplomatic relations yet; also "Palestinian administration" - what does this mean? Something like "Palestine" maybe? We need to be more specific and careful here). I propose as version3. Alinor (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't read right. "The PNA has not established diplomatic relations with the following states, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine" would be better. Citations are still need, of course, but the dubious tag can be removed. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This leaves ambiguity about PLO relations. What about "The PLO and the PNA have no official relations with the following states and entities, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine:"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, mention them as well, that's fine. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, you removed the FRG link with explanation "doesn't support the claim". This is the only source we have in the table about that. Do you suggest that we move FRG to "inconclusive" section or what? Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
FRG? Federal Republic of Germany? Where in the source does it state that Germany does not recognise the State of Palestine? I may have missed it... Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If so, should we move it to "inconclusive"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know...(?) That's a separate matter. I removed the ref from that statement, because said ref did not support said statement. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And what's this obsession with removing links? Your recent removals include:
I see that both point to articles linked somewhere else, but these two links are labeled differently from the other occasions - and one of them directs to a specific/different section. I restored the links and made slight amendments - variants3. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know! Could it possibly be that repeating links is discouraged by policy? Or that linking to disambiguation pages within article space is similarly discouraged? Oh, that must be it! It doesn't matter what they're labelled as; if this was up for FA they'd be the first thing to go, no excuses. That observer page is already linked to twice in the article. I'm of half a mind to remove the second instance aswell. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:REPEATLINK doesn't say that ALL duplicates should be removed. In these particular cases (I already agreed with you on many more) I explained above why we should retain the links. No change needed here.
The Palestine (disambiguation) link points exactly to the article needed - it is about the "inconclusiveness" and "unclarified reference". This is one rare example where exactly the ambiguity of the term is what we want to show. The disambiguation page shows exactly this ambiguity. Of course, if you insist (but why would you?), my addition of Palestine (disambiguation) link can be reverted. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do insist, and I do remeber something about "otherwise" and clarification, but these are not excuses for repetitive linking. You can easily explain within the text what you mean. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, removed Palestine (disambiguation) link. I think it's the best way to show the ambiguity.
What about "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."? Alinor (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not where you add the link, it's the simple fact that a dab link is present in the article. Nightw 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But that's the article we need to link to (and DAB links are present in articles, when there is need to link to them - for example at Palestine top). Otherwise what can we do? List the first section of the DAB page in the footnote? Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Dab links are not to be present in articles. That's a hatnote in the Palestine article. These are picked up by the toolserver, as an issue that should be fixed. See WP:INTDABLINK. Nightw 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The toolserver doesn't prevent us from keeping the DAB link if we decide that it's useful. Do you have another idea how to explain the ambiguity without repeating the Common meanings section? Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, but policy does, and the toolserver picks up on instances where policy has been disregarded. Another idea? Yes: a citation linking to a reliable source on the ambiguity of the term "Palestine". Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"toolserver picks up on instances..." - yes, and a bot places a tag on the talk page. That's it. And we have a good reason to link there - we want to show the ambiguity.
What about:
  1. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification.
  2. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
  3. "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification." Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No. There isn't a good reason to link it, no matter what style you do it in. If you want to explain the ambiguity of the term, add a lexicographic source. And "Occupied Palestinian Territory" won't be linked either, as it's a redirect to a page that has already been linked to. If you have problems with our Manual of Style, take it up on a community talk page. Nightw 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." - the case with this OPT link (and the other of the links that you strive to remove) is of occurrence a long way from the other occurrence - even in a different section. What about:
"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It isn't "a long way from the other occurrence", and it isn't "even in a different section". They're both in the "Relations with international organisations" section, and in fact, the other "occurrence" is exactly halfway between where that footnote is written, and where it's linked from. In my current resolution, would you believe, they even fall in the same screenshot. So stop making things up. And you won't get any of those links in that new version you're drafting either.
My proposal: "Such as referring to "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory", without further clarification, which can be understood to mean a number of things." Cite a dictionary or something similar at the end, listing the multiple meanings. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The other occurrence is in "United Nations representation" section. And additionally the OPT occurrence we speak about is in a footnote. And also the other occurrence is not shown-in-the-same-way.
A dictionary? What a good joke.
What problems do you see in the 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal above? "you won't get any of those links" - why? are they linked nearby, in the same way, or what? Alinor (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you're going to need to cite something, be it a dictionary or another kind of lexicographic source. If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be included to begin with. The problem with your version is that it is badly arranged and badly written. You won't get any links in there because none of those will be their first instance. Sorry. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What isn't sourced? The Palestine (disambiguation) content? Please, stop wasting my time. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If you feel your time is being wasted, feel free to edit another article. I'm afraid you'll be here for a while if you're trying to push through unsourced edits. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
'There's nothing wrong with having the simple clarification based on Palestine (disambiguation), instead of leaving the reader wondering what this means (since you object just putting a link to the DAB page), especially when the situation is unique.' Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with adding a source either. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a so obvious issue - "Palestine can be a reference to different things" - I don't understand your objection here, I propose that we just copy the relevant common meanings from the DAB page. Even wikipedia Palestine page is about the Palestine (region). Regions do not participate in organizations - some organization/entity/government/etc. from that region or representing that region can participate, but not the region/territory itself. And my proposal is to mention the three entities that are know to participate in some organizations - plus to mention the possibility that some other entity from the region/territory participates (as we already have such examples - associations for Red Crescent/Football/Olympic/Trade unions/etc.) Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

IMHO of the things mentioned in my 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal only "PLO-is-referred-to-as-Palestine" is not obvious, but all of the other are pretty obvious. And for PLO we have a source - the UN resolution. About the obvious - we also have for PNA (Baroud source) and you think that we have such also for SoP (the Bissio source) - but anyway, both are obvious. Sources showing that in some organizations other entities related to the region/territory are listed under "Palestine": , , . Alinor (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It will not be obvious to a first-time reader. It may be obvious to you and I, but this is a detailed political subject where most will not have the prior knowledge necessary. To most people, "Palestine" simply means the Holy Land. So where you are making the claim that an organisation (PLO) or government (PNA) or state, you need to back up the claim. So, with inline citations included, what is your proposal? Nightw 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory."
If you think that it's needed we can also put there the links to ITUC, IFRC, FIFA examples of 'other entities representing Palestine territories/region/holy land'. Alinor (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Do any of those sources use "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three? and do we have sources for them? Nightw 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about OPT - we can write '"Palestine" or something else' instead of '"Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine"'.
"What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three?" - of these that we have in the table - /. I assume that these ISO/ITUC/IFRC/FIFA entities are actually somehow related to the PNA - but unless we have a source showing such link we can't be sure. Anyway, the reason for this note is not in the cases that we have sources for, but for those that we don't - IPU, NAM, G77, ESCWA, UNWTO, WIPO (and any other organization that we haven't listed yet, if any). Alinor (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of "something else" and "or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory" - these should remain, because while we have identified the Red Crescent as PLO-affiliated we still don't know about the Standards Institution, sports associations, etc. Alinor (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The note is about vagueness in sources. There's nothing vague about "something else" if you don't know what that is. Nightw 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The note is about inconclusiveness in sources that manifests itself in not specifying what entity is represented at the organization in question. "something else"/"some different entity" are there, because we can be exhaustive in listing all possible references/entities - this is just a general remark note. If you remove these you imply that the only reference used is "Palestine" and the only entities are PLO/PNA/SoP. Both assumptions are incorrect (instead of Palestine we have also other references such as "Palestine standards institution"/etc. - see sources above; instead of PLO/PNA/SoP we have also other entities - such as Palestinian trade union federation). Alinor (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

"Palestine standards institution" is ambiguous because it's not clear whether it's established/sanctioned by PLO, SoP or PNA. And it shows why we need to have "something else" besides "Palestine" - just sharing one word in the caption is not enough.
"Palestinian trade union federation" shows why we should have "some different entity" for Palestine region/territory - it's not established/sanctioned by PLO/SoP/PNA, but is a different entity - established by private organizations. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
What word would need to be replaced in order to make "Palestine standards institution" unambiguous? Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And it's obviously related to the PNA since its website uses the domain .gov.ps. The PLO doesn't use that; it uses .plo.ps or .org. Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "what word"? The 'clarify' tag in the table PSI line can be removed if we find a source showing that PSI is a PNA institution. I share your assumption that because they use the same domain most probably this is the case, but we need a source for that. We can't add as reference "Night w and Alinor think, that because PSI website is at gov.ps it is related to the PNA". Alinor (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What ... word? If "Palestine Standards Institution" instead read as "Palestinian National Authority Standards Institution", there wouldn't be any ambiguity, would there? The ambiguity lies exclusively with the word "Palestine", does it not? Anyway, here is your source. Nightw 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This source seems fine, we should add it to the article. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Following your insistence to remove the UN#Palestine link from the UNESCO section I tried to find a compromise solution by utilizing the ambiguity note there. You are right, that it doesn't match perfectly both locations where it's used, that's why I propose the following wording: "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or something else that can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN), the PNA, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless you want a tag in there, "something else" and "some different entity" are not going to stick. Why is it necessary to mention the region and territory at the end? You're also using examples again. Using a dictionary would just make this so much easier... but if you must avoid the most reliable sort of source when it comes to terminology, you should find a source that at least describes the ambiguity of the term. Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
'Specify' tag where? "Something else" and "some different entity" are there, because we can't be exhaustive in the footnote. If the only possibilities were "Palestine" (and not "Palestinian Red Crescent", "Occupied Palestinian Territory", "Palestinian territories", "University of Arabs in Palestine" or whatever "something else" - this note is about all ambiguous names that we don't have sources showing their affiliation) and PLO/SoP/PNA (and not different entities from the region/territory - the trade association is just one example of what we have found so far, there are other such situations - sports associations, etc.) - then there would have been no need for these. But this is not the case - we already know for sure that in addition to PLO/SoP/PNA there are other, unrelated to these three, "some different entities" from the region/territory - trade association for sure, but maybe also some of the sports associations, etc.
I don't know of a dictionary that deals with such legal issues like "list of entities from the Palestine region/territory that represent it in international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the names these entities are referred to at these organizations". The closes thing that comes to mind is Palestine (disambiguation), but you rejected all suggestions on that. Alinor (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"Something else" and "some different entity" are weasel words, and would be marked with or . I'm fine with adding a note, but there's no justification for lack of specificity, especially since the ambiguity in all of the names you've cited can be attributed to the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian", and thus unspecified weasel words are uncalled for. The disambiguation page is not an acceptable reference as that is WP:CIRCULAR, and one in which there are no cited sources. Nightw 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case we need exactly weasel words, because "Palestine" is a weasel word. And nobody can 'specify' these weasel words - they represent unknown-to-editors organizations and names. If we knew all we wouldn't need such words in the first place. Are you sure that each entity member in international organization as "Palestine" is from PLO/SoP/PNA? Of course you aren't - we already have the trade association and also there is possibility that the sports associations are also "separate" from these three.
Disambiguation page would not be used as "source", so WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant. The link to the disambiguation page can be used as link to description of the "Palestine" ambiguity (because you object of describing all of its aspects in the footnote itself). And sources for the disambiguation page can be easily added (there are here in the proposal above), weren't this not forbidden by policy. If you want we can retain these sources in the footnote instead, after the disambiguation link. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
? Ah, no we can't since disambiguation pages are not allowed in articlespace. We've already discussed that. Wait for the RfC. Nightw 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't propose to put wikilink to the DAB page, but other kind of link, that isn't disallowed. See 15:36, 22 January 2011 examples above (these can be reworded, but the type of link is this). Alinor (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how you style the link, you're still linking to a dab page. Nightw 14:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is it written that we can't have hyperlinks (not wikilinks) to DAB pages? In this case we want to show exactly the ambiguity of the term, so we need to link somehow to the DAB page (or some dictionary if you know such that includes this explanation). If you don't want to hyperlink to the DAB page, then we have to basically copy its relevant parts in the footnote - and that includes mentioning Palestine region/territory - because of the non-PLO/SoP/PNA entities. Alinor (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

No, because the source is not easily inaccessible. Austria, Germany should also be seen, along with lacking Kenya, Namibia, etc. - that's why the whole list is show. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Negatory. If you want to attribute this source to a particular claim about Kenya, Namibia, etcetera, then it becomes relevant. Until then, only the relevant portions need be quoted. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to attribute it to claim about Kenya, etc. We need to show these, because in that shows the problems with this source, not to attribute it to something. Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If you insist, you can add the problematic areas aswell, but including the entire quote including the irrelevant areas is unnecessary. Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But two of the problems are with missing states - what area to show? alphabetical around them? And with so many 'areas' isn't it better to just include the full quote? Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No. It's unnecessary and it wastes space. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, we can use smaller font for the list. Or button? Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how that would work. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
How about
  1. "The Middle East and North Africa, 1995". Europa Publications. 1995. p. 113. ISBN 9780946653997.: "By July 1991 the following states had recognized the independent State of Palestine, and more than 70 states had accorded Palestinian representatives full diplomatic status.
    • Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Korea (Dem. People's Rep.), Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome e Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, USSR, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe."

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

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

And again

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

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

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

Instead of making threats here you better start discussing the changes you want to make. Alinor (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
They're discussed above; haven't you been following. I don't know what this new section is for. They're all the same changes you're trying to make. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What you don't know? Have you looked at : "Don't agree with this; to be either date or dash; El Salvador, Mexico and others are also potentially pending - Uruguay pending is already in described in the note"; : "rephrasing newly added note - clarifying Palestine reference; chronological ordering of events"; : "this has to be linked, otherwise we imply that "State of Palestine participates at UNESCO through its National Organizing Committee.", etc.? Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This section is about the "pending", the wording of the newly added (by you) Uruguay note, etc. new changes.
I propose that we put back , implement these of your changes that are acceptable to both (citation formating on Belarus, Sri Lanka, India; Quigley link/formatting). And then continue to discuss other changes. I also have some new mission links, but can't add them during this edit-warring. Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No. While recognition from El Salvador and Mexico is speculated, Uruguay's decision to recognise has been made, and they've publicly announced when it will happen (see here). Nightw 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, until it happens it hasn't happened yet. No need for new special marks only for this - it is already explained in the note in the same column. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
We already do the same for future embassies - dash/old type + footnote/source - no "pending" marks. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there is a need for it, because reliable sources show genuine confusion over this. The recognition has been announced, and the formalisation of the declaration is scheduled. The alternative is to add "See note" in the column, rather than "Pending". Nightw 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The confusion shown by some of the sources just shows that they are not so reliable. These are just reports/announcements wrongly interpreting the official decision.
What more "see note" note do you want than the "" already there? Alinor (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I ask what note you want and you go back in circles. The fact that "the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration" is already mentioned in the footnote. There is no need for any additional notes. Alinor (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There is, because Uruguay's situation is unlike any other's. And it avoids the same confusion demonstrated in reliable sources by summarising the point quickly. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Everybody that is confused about why there is a — instead of date will click on the note and read all he needs. No need for special marks here. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't predict what "everybody" will do. There's nothing wrong with having a simple clarifying word instead of a — , especially when the situation is unique. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
what if make the — itself a link to the note? (I'm not sure if this can be done, but I will try if you accept such solution). Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to let it slide, as I doubt it will matter for much longer. We can just stick with the note. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Also, I checked if the dash can be made a link to the note - it works. Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into that, but it's not an improvement to have it that way. The reftag sitting right next to it already links there. Nightw 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Will you like it more if we put only a without a mdash;? Alinor (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider it a big deal. Nightw 07:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

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

Yes, that was resolved prior to your revert. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
My revert of your undiscussed changes about Uruguay. Let's hope we move on soon. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there any other issues to resolve before restoring this version? Nightw 14:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I will have to check it against the combination of the versions cited in 13:43, 22 January 2011 comment above - and we also have to implement the multiple changes we agreed above. You can do a temporary sandbox if you want. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
...It's not that big of a deal. Take a look at the current version and the changes that were made. If I've left anything out, feel free to add it. Otherwise, everything I've done was agreed to beforehand. Nightw 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
And why have you again put up that "Pending" mark and other things I clearly said are disagreed? I assume (haven't readed it yet) that you also again put your initial Uruguay note wording without taking into account my subsequent redactions. I don't insist on you discussing this, if you accept my redaction - if you don't, then please discuss the whole note addition first. I will restore the text you added in the version redacted by me. If you don't like my redaction - then remove the whole note you added, don't revert to a version with your initial undiscussed text.
I will also check the rest of the changes. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I completely forgot about the "pending" thing. I don't know what "redactions" you're referring to actually. Is there an issue with the wording? Nightw 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, redactions/issue with the wording - I speak about the Uruguay note. I can accept the following redaction of your newly added note: "In April 2010, Uruguayan Foreign Affairs Minister Luis Almagro and PNA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki signed a joint communiqué formalising relations. In September Uruguayan President José Mujica announced his intentions to recognise the Palestinian state in 2011. In November, it was reported that he had announced his government's recognition of the Palestinian state during the sixteenth conference of the Federation of Arab-American Entities (Ferab), held in Montevideo that month. However, later reports have shown that Mujica is actually expected to make these arrangements in March 2011, in line with the previous announcement for recognition in 2011. Mujica indicated that his government will establish a representation at Ramallah, and that the State of Palestine will establish an embassy in Montevideo within the first half of 2011." Alinor (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a difference. Is there one? Nightw 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's not big - just a minor rewording/rearrangement. If you find this OK we can use it. Alinor (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't. It's very poorly arranged, which makes it difficult to read. I'm not seeing any rewording. If you don't mind, there's nothing wrong with the note as it is, so please leave it. Nightw 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no "note as it is" - there is the initial text that you added and there is my redaction of it shown here above. I made the redaction in order to clarify and properly order your newly added texts. What is bothering you in the latest version shown in the 09:28, 29 January 2011 comment? Alinor (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's poorly arranged. I just said that. Did you miss it? Nightw 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No, yours is poorly arranged as I just said. Your version jumps around the events and doesn't present them in the order they happened. Alinor (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We're not in kindergarten, are we? Putting things as a plain rehash of events ("he did this, and then he did this, and then this happened...") demostrates extremely simple writing style and, frankly, a poorly-educated author. In either case the differences are de minimis, but consistenly blocking the addition of a note simply because you disagree with the arrangement of words is the very definition of disruptive. Nightw 12:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What's important in that note is to show that early announcement of intention to recognize in the future was made, later an erroneous reports were made that this has already happened, and finally these reports were disproved by subsequent reiteration of intention to recognize in the future. What redaction would you propose that makes all this clear?
Also, we don't need this long note - we can just mention the most recent announcement for expected recognition in March 2011 (unreliability of unofficial/interpretative sources can be discussed at the talk page). Alinor (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

OK, I don't object having the long note. But about its exact wording - I think that we should describe November events after we described the September events, not before. Why do you object this? You added the note (bold), I made slight re-arrangement/rewording. If you want to change my redaction, please be so kind to explain what you don't like in it. Alinor (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
As I've said twice before now: it's poorly arranged. I know you didn't miss it both times. It's fine the way it is. Nightw 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What is poorly arranged? The chronological order? If you have some other objection, such as grammatical/punctuation/repeat-of-content or something else - be specific and we can correct it. But the ordering of events should be chronological. no way for your back-and-forth hops in time to stick. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, because recounting events must be done in a straight line. Just stick to the RfC discussion. I'm certainly not going to debate style and grammar with an editor who stuggles with spelling and diction. Nightw 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what your straight line is, but it hops back-and-forth in time. And I don't "debate" grammar - I asked you whether the problems are of this kind or something else. Alinor (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And again again

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

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

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

  1. Pure citation formatting and some other things that I agree - I will adopt these in the revision that I will do shortly.
  2. Citation formatting where deletion of relevant quotes is involved - I don't agree to remove the quotes.
  3. UNESCO NOC link removal - I already explained that I don't agree - see my comment 13:43, 22 January 2011 above. No rely from you.
  4. OPT link removal (from footnote about ambiguous/non-specific membership lists) - we are discussing the whole note above - last comment is mine from 17:54, 28 January 2011. I will put a revised version of this note. Feel free to restore the status quo if you don't like it. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. Night w, please continue the list with the other changes you propose to make
I can't really see anything worth discussion here. They all seem to be minor technical details. The quotes you attached to Cyprus citations simply duplicate the titles, as your "redaction" to the OIC note also does the sentence before it. Point number 4 is unnecessary, as an editor will need to look for the source's markup anyway. Point number 5 is interesting, since I had previously removed this link, then you put it back, then I removed it again, and then you put it as a footnote; then I moved it back to a link, and now you want it as a footnote. It links to the actual subject being described, it's not an egg link, so if it must be included, it shouldn't be put as a footnote. I'm also puzzled about this "consistency" issue you've raised. What other notes and references are about specific consular offices? I can't see any... As for the last point: yes, there are too many wikilinks in the article. I'm working on reducing them. An article on Quigley certainly doesn't need to be linked twice.
That footnote about ambiguity doesn't need to go into so much detail. It's already duplicated in the sentence immediately after. Is this "UNESCO NOC" issue to do with the repetition of the UN observers wikilink? Those need to be reduced and "explanatory function" as you so often cite is not an excuse and in fact violates WP:EGG. You'll have to find another way of "explaining"... Nightw 12:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
quotes don't duplicate the titles (I tried to remove these) - these that I add/restore are in addition to the titles. The redaction to your newly added OIC note also doesn't duplicate - it's one thing whether the OIC decision was taken with unanimity - and another thing whether each single state recognizes SoP. They can vote in favor of SoP OIC membership even if they don't recognize it themselves. number4 - yes, but if the editors looks at the subsequent tags and not the first one he won't find it. Israel link - consistency in not having links at the 'mission type' word, but having the link as footnote/reference. It's kind of unique mission type, so it's better distinguished and reflected by a footnote than a wikilink in the name.
I don't agree that the article has "too much wikilinks", but anyway - as long as you keep in mind the rule that 'later occurrence that is a long way from the first' can remain, OK (this is about the UNESCO NOC link and the Namibia/"SWAPO is a former UN observer" link - if you remove it you just invite people to add "citation needed" tag there). About the OPT link and note redaction - see above section where this is discussed. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The title is "General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus" and you want to quote "Other missions - General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus..." And you don't think this is a repetition? The OIC note states "the OIC had delivered explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions ... whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states is unclear." Adding ", and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine..." is completely superfluous. I don't see how you cannot see this. It's simple English.
Regarding point number 4: there is only one instance of the citation's markup; any editor looking into the source's reliability will have to go to the markup. There's no need to repeat things everywhere. That includes wikilinks ... or is this another attempt to substitute proper referencing with other Misplaced Pages articles? If that really be the case, just get a citation. Nightw 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
About the GD in Cyprus, OK. About OIC note - "unanimous view" is about the "explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions delivered by the OIC" (e.g. whether the decisions for these statements are taken with unanimity among the OIC members or not). The additional remark "whether each of them recognizes SoP" is about a different thing. OIC recognition of SoP is different from recognition of SoP by individual states. So, if you want to remove one of the questions then the question about individual recognitions should remain and the question about procedure of OIC recognition adoption (e.g. unanimity vs. majority) can be removed. About repeating hidden note - OK. About wikilinks - I added the wikilink, because the readers may be interested about this "former UN observer" thing. This is the first (only?) time it's mentioned on the page and I don't see anything wrong with linking to the appropriate article section. It happens that long way from this occurrence of the link there is another occurrence linking to the same article (but different section and different naming of the link). Even if they were named the same - no problem in keeping both links as they are long way from each other. I don't agree with your removal of the link. Alinor (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The note says the OIC recognised Palestine, and that whether this was a unanimous recognition from all states is unclear. Maybe you think it needs rewording, but there is only one issue that needs to be mentioned. I added a citation on SWAPO's former observer status. Readers might also be interested in how SWAPO "established" the state of Namibia; it doesn't mean we should link to it just because it fits nicely in the sentence on the word "established". It's more than about being repetitive, it's also linking to things completely unrelated to the subject. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If the OIC note is to mention "only one issue", then it should be "it's unclear whether each of the OIC members recognizes SoP" - because this is different from "it's unclear whether the OIC decision to recognize SoP was taken with unanimity". Alinor (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Night w, I made some other changes that you seem to object (for example - relations column heading) and changed in turn to something third. I reverted to my variant (because I don't accept your third variant) - and explained why on the edit line. You put back your third variant without explanation. Please stop doing that - if you so much dislike my change, when you see that I don't accept your change - then revert to the initial variant, don't push for yours. If you insist on yours third variant - please raise the issue on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And on subject of relations - in the table heading we should list SoP/PLO/PNA so that it's clear relations with whom the column is about. If we leave it just "relations since" it implies that this is "SoP relations since" (the previous column is "recognition of SoP"). Alinor (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a clutter, but if you insist. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
And if someone makes disruptive edits that is you by reverting to an arbitrary past version made by you (non-consensus) and not implementing the following unrelated-to-the-dispute changes, including minor technical corrections (such as clearing of duplicated sources - and maybe something else that I haven't noticed yet) This forces everyone to check again and again for the things you disregarded and to do the same corrections all over again and again. In contrast I aways take care of your "cite" into "Cite" and similar corrections and intermediate edits, regardless small and they are - I adopt them in the revisions of the page that I do, so that we are on the same track and hopefully converge into a single consensus version. Your editing just forks the article into two yours/mine versions. Alinor (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're an angel. If only we could all be more like you. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually the last stable version would be this version, which was stable for 5 days (with the exception of a minor IP vandal). I've objected to plenty more than "Cyprus", and you were perfectly aware of that. It was deliberately disruptive to repeat the edits that were previously reverted, since you hadn't gained a consensus to add them. And "the Eliko sources" (and the commentary attached) will never be accepted in this article without a clear consensus to do so beforehand. He can propose something here if he wishes to, and I will respond accordingly, but he has yet to do so. Nightw 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not "stable" version - it is just one of the back and forth edits between you and me. 5 days? You mean that the time I refrained from reverting your changes, because I was waiting for you to comment on the talk page on the numerous still open issues?
the last stable versions is the version that I linked - I object to your subsequent edits (those of them that aren't adopted in the subsequent versions that I made) and you object to some (or all) of my subsequent edits. I even listed most (maybe all) of the not-in-agreement changes one-by-one in some of my comments above. For example your newly added Uruguay and OIC notes are unacceptable to me without taking in account the issues I raised multiple times. I made several redactions to these non-consensus changes of yours - to try to make them acceptable - but you seem to reject all of these attempts (or you haven't even read these - maybe you just reverted to your version in a disruptive pushy way of edit-warring?).
plenty more than "Cyprus" - yes, I'm aware of that, but since I disagree with your versions of these "plenty more" I adopted at least what we both agreed - the removing of duplicating "general delegation" in the Cyprus reference.
"the Eliko sources" - he added these with the older format of the table with "Asia regional group" line - and since I don't object the inclusion of these sources I moved them to the note about Asia regional group (according to the new arrangement of the table that you and I agree with). There are two options here - either you object the inclusion of these sources in any location - so you have to discuss that with Eliko; or Eliko objects the new arrangement of the table (Asia regional group in a note) - then our (Night w and Alinor) agreement to put it in a note is disputed by him and all of us have to discuss it. I don't understand what's your problem with adding these two sources - I see nothing wrong in adding them to the note - but you really better discuss this with Eliko. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is under discussion at the OR noticeboard. Overriding that discussion before consensus can be achieved is a massive violation of policy, and an insult to every editor that is involved in trying to achieve a consensus there. Revert it. Nightw 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to remove these sources - do this yourself. I don't have the intention to do any reverts currently, we have more than enough AN/I already. I suggest that you and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes.
I also commented on the OR noticeboard. Alinor (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - first paragraphs

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

If nobody objects I arrange it in the following way: "In states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and are often referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and their heads as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza." Alinor (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hold, please. Nightw 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are a few problems with this. You've used examples to supposedly "prove" that this is the norm. That is synthesis, in my books. You need sources that state exactly what you do. Nightw 12:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you specify what part of the text you don't agree with? Alinor (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure. You've used examples as verification on the "Embassy of the State of Palestine". You've also done the same on "Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims. This isn't such a big deal, but the writing style is also quite difficult to read. And you've misused two sources. Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine, so, correct me if I'm wrong, that attribution is no longer valid. Nightw 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims - situation is the same in the version that you support, so I understand your "This isn't such a big deal," as agreement to do this for these two and also for "Embassy of the State of Palestine". If you insist we can add "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine".
Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine - but the sources show the situation before recognition decisions were taken. Anyway, if you insist these can be removed/replaced.
"writing style is also quite difficult to read." - any particular problems/proposals for change?
The problem with the status quo text is that it isn't ordered chronologically (e.g. PNA missions/relations came long time after PLO and SoP missions/relations - so these should be explained first) and in addition it doesn't explain well enough the situation (but if you think that in my attempt to reformulate the sentences the writing style has gotten worse - please specify in which parts, so that we can improve these). Alinor (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You're using synthesis in the first point. You're putting two sources together (as examples) and using them to claim that this is the general rule. That's not okay, and I won't agree with that. If that kind of attribution is present in the article at the moment, it will need to be addressed. I certainly don't see "chronologically" as an issue, and I'm baffled at why you think it would be in such a context. Readability is far more important. On that note, there is an issue of subject-verb disagreement in your writing; such a simple thing is quite obvious to any reader. Lastly, I don't see any of this as an improvement to the current version, which reads quite fine in my opinion. Nightw 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"If that kind of attribution is present" - what do you think, is it present or not? And how do you propose to address it if you think it is?
This is not synth - the table is full of proofs. Anyway, what about this rephrasing: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine"."?
"issue of subject-verb disagreement" - could you give a quote?
"chronologically" is an issue in this context of course. For example the "network of missions and embassies" of the PLO exists since long time before the PNA "represented" by it. So, the natural way of describing is to start with PLO network of missions and embassies, the transformation of some of them into SoP embassies, the accreditation of non-resident ambassadors to SoP, the opening of representation offices to the PNA in Gaza and Ramallah. Of course if you find some grammatical/etc. mistakes in my text, let's correct them. Alinor (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Example-to-prove-the-rule style attribution should be removed, and replaced with appropriate sources. I don't see the point your alternative: how is that information. States that recognise the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have an "Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"; why would that need mentioning? That is generic information that should go in the articles embassy or diplomacy. Subject-verb agreement: "are often referred to as 'embass'", "their heads as 'ambassador'", "the PLO maintains 'embassy'" ... I definitely don't see chronological presentation as an issue, but maybe it will read better when you fix the grammatical errors and get rid of the obvious information. Nightw 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The point in my alternative is that there is no example-to-prove-the-rule, since the alternative text doesn't include any rule.
"why would that need mentioning?" - because unlike Jordan (there is only one Jordan - the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) in the case of Palestine we have three (or more) Palestines - SoP, PLO, PNA, "a Palestinian state", etc. In some countries we have "Embassy of the State of Palestine" (SoP) and in other countries we have "Embassy of Palestine" (PLO). Countries that don't recognize SoP don't have "Embassy of the State of Palestine", but countries that recognize SoP may have either of the two.
So, what about: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains an "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and thus in such a country the PLO maintains a mission referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and its head as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza."? Alinor (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any of this as an improvement. I'm fine with the current text. Nightw 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a reason to object sourced content. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It is when you're attempting to change content and add something that wouldn't be an improvement. This is stating the obvious. Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I explained the reasons why this change is useful, you raised some objections (not against the main argument, but against some issues with the resulting variant) that were taken into account and afterwards you resorted to "I don't like it". Yes, it's easier to say that than to give arguments, but we work trough are arguments. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 3 April 20RF11 (UTC)
Your "main argument" was that the text wasn't arranged "chronologically". My argument isn't "I don't like it", it's "I like the current version instead". Your issues with arrangement are baffling and your proposals are not improvements in my view. I objected to your example-to-prove-the-rule sourcing, and you addressed it by simply quantifying the subject, which negates the usefulness for the information. Get outside opinions if you wish to push it further. Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So, please don't remove the 'do not archive' tags (or restore these if you already had removed them). Alinor (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About recognition of the independence of Palestine

Dear Alinor!

I propose to discuss the following list of States, recognition on the part of which is specified in the list of UNESCO and do not have any other more or less authoritative sources:

№ State 0Date of recognition0 Notes
1. Somali 15-11-1988
2. Afganistan 16-11-1988
3. Zambia 16-11-1988
4. Madagaskar 16-11-1988
5. Djibouti 17-11-1988
6. Guinea-Bissau 21-11-1988
7. Cape Verde 24-11-1988
8. Niger 24-11-1988
9. Togo 29-11-1988
10. Chad 1-12-1988
11. Sierra Leone 3-12-1988
12. Uganda 3-12-1988
13. Republic of the Congo 5-12-1988
14. Democratic Republic of the Congo 10-12-1988
15. São Tomé and Príncipe 10-12-1988
16. Gabon 12-12-1988
17. Botswana 19-12-1988
18. Nepal 19-12-1988
19. Burundi 22-12-1988
20. Central African Republic 23-12-1988
21. Bhutan 25-12-1988
22. Benin 1988 or 1989
23. Equatorial Guinea 1988 or 1989
24. Ruanda 2-01-1989

I suggest, if not there will be some new sources and information about these countries, I suggest to them to create a separate section, where it will be a table with non-recognized state of Palestine in exile in 1988-89, but now do with the PNA or the SOP neither policy neither diplomatic relations and bilateral meetings + required for this text--analitic114 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ UNGA resolution A/RES/43/177 about PLO designation as "Palestine"
  2. Baroud in Page, 2004, p. 161.
  3. Cite error: The named reference res177 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Baroud, Ramzy (2004), "Palestine", in Page, Kogan (ed.), Middle East Review, Kogan Page Publishers, p. 161
  5. Cite error: The named reference uruguay was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ MercoPress (18 September 2010). "Uruguay could recognize Palestine next year; confirms solid ties with Iran". MercoPress. Montevideo. Retrieved 2010-11-15.
  7. Williams, Dan (7 December 2010). "Israel says S.American "Palestine" nods hurt peace". Reuters. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  8. Malaysia News (15 November 2010). "Uruguay to begin bilateral relations with Palestinian state". Malaysia News. Montevideo. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
  9. Waked, Ali (7 December 2010). "Argentina, Uruguay recognize Palestinian state". Israel News. Yedioth Internet. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  10. Staff writers (6 December 2010). "Argentina, Uruguay Recognize Palestine As An Independent State". All Headline News. Retrieved 2010-12-07.
  11. Template:Es icon Gama Cero (13 November 2010). "Uruguay reconoció al Estado de Palestina". Blogger.com. Retrieved 2010-11-21.
  12. Template:Es icon Comité Central Israelita del Uruguay (15 November 2010). "Mujica piensa viajar a Palestina". Retrieved 2010-11-21.
  13. Lim, Sean (7 December 2010). "More Latin America Nations Recognize Independent Palestine State". Arirang. The Korea International Broadcasting Foundation. Retrieved 2010-12-11.
  14. China Daily (13 November 2010). "Uruguay announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Palestinian State". China Daily. Montevideo. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference turkey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference yemen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Talmon, 1998, p. 158, footnote #236: "It is of interest to note that most States that have recognized the 'State of Palestine' after its proclamation on 15 Nov. 1988 have elevated the PLO office in their country to the status of embassy."
  18. Template:Es icon Diplomatic Mission of Palestine in Argentina. "Qué es la Misión Diplomática de Palestina en la Argentina". Palestinian National Authority. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference chileemb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Irelandupg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. Stiftung, Konrad Adenauer (August 2010). "Palestine Liberation Organization (structure)" (PDF). Auslandsbüro Palästinensische Autonomiegebiete. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
  22. 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. p. 121. ISBN 9780198268376. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "The PLO, which has been recognized to possess an interpendent international personality as representative of the Palestinian people, has been delegated the power to act on behalf of the PA in the international arena with regard to specific substantive areas."
  23. ^ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Executive Board (12 May 1989). "Hundred and thirty-first Session: Item 9.4 of the provisional agenda, Request for the Admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO as a Member State" (PDF). United Nations. pp. 18, Annex II. Retrieved 2010-11-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link): "A government-in-exile, having no effective control in the territory and not having had previous control, ..."
  24. Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established."
  25. PLO Executive Committee: "The Executive Committee of the PLO, in practice the "government in exile" of the State of Palestine"
  26. PLO picks new leaders at landmark meeting
  27. PLO parliament elects new members.
  28. Palestinian affairs.
  29. Palestinian President Abbas attends a PLO executive committee meeting in Ramallah
  30. Palestinian PM: Declaration of statehood just a formality: "The Palestinians already declared independence unilaterally on Nov. 15, 1988. The declaration was recognized by dozens of countries, but never implemented on the ground."
  31. Top Ten Governments Currently In Exile:"The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988, but in exile. A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declaration was ignored, and eventually rejected, by the State of Israel. Israel controls the territories since 1967 Six-Day War when it captured them from Egypt and Jordan. Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government. The PNA, however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988. Enough said."
  32. Palestinians 'may declare state':"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence,"
  33. ^ Government of Serbia. "Republic Of Serbia Diplomatic And Consular Missions On Non - Residential Basis". Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference phamman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. Template:Es icon Diplomatic Mission of Palestine in Argentina. "Qué es la Misión Diplomática de Palestina en la Argentina". Palestinian National Authority. Retrieved 2010-12-05.
  36. Stiftung, Konrad Adenauer (August 2010). "Palestine Liberation Organization (structure)" (PDF). Auslandsbüro Palästinensische Autonomiegebiete. Retrieved 2011-01-29.
  37. 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. p. 121. ISBN 9780198268376. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "The PLO, which has been recognized to possess an interpendent international personality as representative of the Palestinian people, has been delegated the power to act on behalf of the PA in the international arena with regard to specific substantive areas."
  38. Sayigh, Yezid (1999). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949–1993 (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780198296430. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "The Palestinian National Council also empowered the central council to form a government-in-exile when appropriate, and the executive committee to perform the functions of government until such such time as a government-in-exile was established."
  39. PLO Executive Committee: "The Executive Committee of the PLO, in practice the "government in exile" of the State of Palestine"
  40. PLO picks new leaders at landmark meeting
  41. PLO parliament elects new members.
  42. Palestinian affairs.
  43. Palestinian President Abbas attends a PLO executive committee meeting in Ramallah
  44. Palestinian PM: Declaration of statehood just a formality: "The Palestinians already declared independence unilaterally on Nov. 15, 1988. The declaration was recognized by dozens of countries, but never implemented on the ground."
  45. Top Ten Governments Currently In Exile:"The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988, but in exile. A declaration of a "State of Palestine" was approved on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declaration was ignored, and eventually rejected, by the State of Israel. Israel controls the territories since 1967 Six-Day War when it captured them from Egypt and Jordan. Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government. The PNA, however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988."
  46. Palestinians 'may declare state':"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence,"
  47. ^ "Request for the admission of the State of Palestine to Unesco as a Member State, submitted by Algeria, Indonesia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal" (PDF). 12 May 1989. Retrieved 2010-11-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |description= ignored (help)
  48. Foreign relations of CAR
Yes, these are some of the #Weakly supported in the recognizers section.
Here these are colored khaki for "no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine".
I agree with moving these to "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section (or to some new section), but I don't know if Night w (and others) agrees or not.
And what should we do with the dark gray colored states - those where we have official statements, but with ambiguous wording? Alinor (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I think that no new sources in these countries they should be excluded from the analysis (about the theme that I suggested), and only then handle the rest.
Just Permanent Mission of Palestine to the UN with a list of embassies I personally have little confidence, sometimes the information there might be erroneous.
That will happen without bringing me into this table about 93-96 (maybe more) of countries, many of which information is confirmed.--analitic114 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The list of "missions of Palestine" at the PLO UN delegation site is not about countries recognizing the State of Palestine or about "Embassies of the State of Palestine". And yes, it also has some inaccuracies. It is used as a source only for "Mission of PLO at XXX", not for "recognition of SoP" - so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what you say. I already said (and shown here) that I agree with separating cases with "no official source confirming recognition of the State of Palestine" from the rest that have official source confirming the recognition.
There are three cases here:
  1. officially confirmed recognition of the State of Palestine (light gray color in the table; section1) ~60
  2. official source with ambiguous wording (dark gray color in the table; section1&2) ~15
  3. only unofficial sources about State of Palestine recognition (khaki color in the table; section1&2) ~40
In addition there are:
  • conflicting or inconclusive sources about State of Palestine recognition (section2) ~5
  • PLO/PNA relations, but no State of Palestine recognition (section3) ~40
  • No information about recognition/relations - list below the table ~50
I understand your proposal as "move case3 to section2" (this seems OK for me) or as "move case3 to a new separate section" (I think less sections is better). Is this correct?
And my other question is whether we should do "move case2 to section2" or "move case2 to a new separate section". Alinor (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"move case3 to a new separate section" (I think less sections is better)." -I agree with this (if no any new sourses), and for this (And my other question is whether we should do "move case2 to section2" or "move case2 to a new separate section".) i think as long as is necessary to look more sources (but if you prefer, you can move into the new section).
What about my statements about the Palestinian diplomatic mission (on the UN website) - just as sometimes the time I use the Embassy of Palestine (that is the existence of diplomatic relations - that is, and the recognition of an independent state)--analitic114 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you OK with "move case3 to section2" (section2 is "conflicting or inconclusive sources")?
"Embassy of Palestine" is about "Embassy of PLO" and not about "Embassy of the State of Palestine". PLO is designated "Palestine" at the UN - that's why in countries having diplomatic relations with the PLO and giving its mission embassy status these PLO missions are called "Embassy of Palestine". These are no indication of State of Palestine recognition or relations. Alinor (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
With the first statement (on transfer) agree (OK)! As to the second (of embassies) - if the given name of Palestine Embassy of the State (Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, website of the government or the president of the country) - this is the recognition of independence (ie as it is the existence of diplomatic relations). It seems it?--analitic114 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Embassies. Yes - if it's a "Embassy of the State of Palestine" mentioned on the MFA website of country XXX this shows that XXX recognizes SoP. What I said is that PLO UN delegation list about "Embassy of Palestine" is different and can't be used to show SoP recognition. Alinor (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I suggest that in addition to the "move case3 to section2" discussed above we also do:

  1. "move case2 to a separate section".
  2. add case2 coloring to File:Palestine recognitions only.png (currently it has colors for case1 and section2).
  3. change coloring of File:Palestine relations.png to show 'recognition explicit official source+relations' (dark green), 'recognition ambiguous official source+relations' (light green), 'recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source+relations' (khaki/dark orange), 'recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source, no relations' (light orange), 'no recognition, relations only' (blue). Alinor (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If Nigth W not against, OK!--analitic114 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

analitic114, see here for maps colored per above points. The table is not yet arranged per case1/case2/case3. Alinor (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Night w is interfering (see below) - use the sandbox instead until this is settled. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid the answer is, quite bluntly, no. We're not listing unofficial acts of recognition; quite simply, if a state doesn't officially recognise, then it won't be listed in that section. Here, "officially confirmed" apparently means confirmed by a handful Misplaced Pages editors. The second point: "official source with ambiguous wording" shouldn't exist, seeing as that would imply that we are making our own deductions, rather than relying on those of third-party publications. For example, in one map Argentina is represented as "recognition conflicting/inconclusive/unofficial source+relations" when a simple news search will conclude that this is false, since almost every article you'll read will quote the statement from the Foreign ministry: "The Argentine government recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state within the borders defined in 1967". If a metaphorical avalanche of secondary sources make the exact same claim, it amounts to WP:POINT to imply that this is perhaps less than factual. See WP:BURO and WP:FROG for this kind of thing. Nightw 10:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some issues that your comment disregards:
  1. The table doesn't list 'recognizes Palestine as a free and independent state', 'recognizes a Palestinian state'("a" - some potential future free, independent and sovereign Palestinian state, maybe build upon the PNA structures or declared/established by these structures - as envisioned by the 1993 Oslo Accord), 'recognizes Palestine state right to exist', etc. (these positions are called 'ambiguous') Instead the table lists "recognizes the State of Palestine" ("the" state already declared in 1988).
    these are: Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina (moved here after official source was found)
  2. Some official sources include circumstantial references to SoP (such as congratulations note signed by 'SoP leader, PLO leader, PNA leader' - contrasted with similar congratulations notes for states that don't recognize SoP that are signed by 'PLO leader, PNA leader' only) as week as mentioning of "Nov 15 - national day" (and nothing more) - those are also colored as 'ambiguous', because we refrain from making an interpretation ourselves that publishing such note or listing Nov 15 as national day amounts to SoP recognition.
    these are: Kuwait, Malta, Qatar, Brunei, Sudan, Gambia, Philippines, Cameroon, Georgia
  3. Strange as it is - despite the efforts of analitic114, me and others - we couldn't find official sources confirming SoP recognition by some states. This should be noted somehow (khaki color, separate section or otherwise). For example Argentina - it's "Unofficial ... sources about recognition of the State of Palestine". Not "unofficial recognition" (that I see mentioned in your comment), but "unofficial sources about recognition". What is false here? So far we don't have an official source.
    these are: Tunisia, Afghanistan, Madagascar, Zambia, Djibouti, Cyprus, Egypt, Ukraine, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Cape Verde, Niger, Ghana, Togo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Laos, Sierra Leone, Uganda, RCongo, DRCongo, Angola, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon, Oman, Poland (we have the letter from Poland MFA that they DON'T recognize SoP), Botswana, Nepal, Burundi, Bhutan, Rwanda, Central African Republic, Iran, Benin, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Lebanon, Argentina, Bolivia, Suriname, Swaziland, Vanuatu, Lesotho
For additional details see #Weakly supported in the recognizers section and other discussions above.
Please note also, that for some of these cases the available official sources point in the direction that the state in question is highly supportive of the Palestinian cause, but nevertheless doesn't yet recognize 1988 SoP as a state and instead deals with the PLO and the PNA and would welcome a future establishment of "real" Palestinian state ASAP. But because of the strong unconditional support these are often misreported as recognizing the SoP. On a side note - I think it would be a valuable addition if we add a column or make a list mentioning states that support "1967 borders" - regardless if they recognize "the SoP", "a Palestine state" or use language about "two-state solution pending Israeli-Palestinian talks".
I would be happy if you can find sources for those that we couldn't, but I wouldn't like that we apply WP:V in a sloppy way and simply disregard the issues above. Alinor (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And to summarize the proposal above - I don't like multiplying the sections, but unfortunately this seems the best solution - to have the following sections: "explicit official source for SoP recognition", "ambiguous/inconclusive official source", "unofficial source for SoP recognition/conflicting unofficial sources", "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition". Alinor (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Your attempt to differentiate between the "State of Palestine" and "an independent Palestinian state" is not reflective of secondary sources. The letter was sent to Abbas and the ambassador is now accredited to the "State of Palestine", yet you're attempting to imply that the Fernandez government might not have actually recognised this State of Palestine, but rather another, unnamed one. Not even the pro-Serbian editors at International recognition of Kosovo have come up with such crap to over-complicate things for the reader. What of the countless media reports that have come to a different conclusion? Are they simply disregarded, along with Misplaced Pages:Secondary sources? Absurd. Nightw 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Fernandez government might not have actually recognised this State of Palestine, but rather another, unnamed one." - I say the same thing - if it's another one and not 1988 SoP, then this should be reflected in the table. Kosovo situation is much more clear - a state either recognizes Republic of Kosovo or doesn't. But in our case here it's more complicated, because we have recognitions of: 1988 SoP, 1994 PNA that aims to establish a state, Palestine cause/Palestine state right to exist in general (could be related to SoP, to PNA-potential-state, to both, to neither/another-third-option). Secondary sources are not disregarded, but are just distinguished from official sources (by khaki color).
"the ambassador is now accredited to the "State of Palestine" " - if we have such link, then it's fine - but so far I haven't seen such. Alinor (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So, should we proceed with the following sections: "explicit official source for SoP recognition", "ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive official source for SoP recognition", "only unofficial source for SoP recognition", "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition"? Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought my answers above were pretty clear. Try reading the first sentence again. Nightw 09:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is not reflective of what? Of random journalistic reports? Even those that contradict official government websites? We should not reflect those.
Recognition of "an independent Palestinian state" of the PNA means support for the PNA initiative to attain statehood and independence (we already have sources pointing to an expected Sep2011 PNA event as potential declaration of statehood/independence). Recognition of "the State of Palestine" means diplomatic recognition (in most cases coming along establishment of diplomatic relations) of the state declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO. One doesn't preclude the other (as both SoP and PNA are related to the PLO who deals with foreign governments) and in addition some states issue vague statements where it isn't easy to distinguish whether its one or the other.
Anyway, various examples provided by Analitic114 below and above show that we need to separate at least the khaki (SoP recognition mentioned only in unofficial sources) from the rest (official sources either showing explicit SoP recognition or ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive) that includes these two 'recognition options' described in the previous sentence.
PЄTЄRS position on the noticeboard was even more radical - not to use unofficial sources at all (and I agree with that too).
I think that besides unofficial vs. official we should also have separate sections for 'explicit official' vs. 'ambiguous/conflicting/inconclusive official'. Alinor (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:V, we should definitely reflect what published secondary sources report, whether you agree with them or not. Ignoring what the vast majority of sources claim and calling official documents "vague" is original research: you're relying on your own interpretation of the official source for verification, rather than what reliable sources claim.
And your interpretation, it seems, depends purely on the presence of a single phrase: "Recognition of "an independent Palestinian state" of the PNA means support for the PNA initiative to attain statehood and independence ... Recognition of "the State of Palestine" means diplomatic recognition ... of the state declared in 1988 by the PNC of the PLO". This is original research, pure and simple. Separating entries because they don't fit your homemade checklist is POV. You have an agenda here, Alinor, and you would do well to realise it. Tread carefully; you've already been banned from one topic. Nightw 10:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Night w, trying to mix reliable source with unreliable ones will not help you in any way. Nobody is ignoring anything, but a random journalistic texts and similar can't be used to contradict official government MFA websites. And some official documents are vague/ambiguous - this is even stated in one of your preferred sources.
Separating sources according to what they state is not OR in any way. The topic we have at hand here is not so clear cut - so lumping together sources stating different things is OR. And as you see it's not only me who says so.
I don't have any agenda other than presenting the available information in a way compliant with NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. The same agenda that I had at the topic that I was temporary banned. And as you can see the edits/arrangement that I made/supported are the ones currently established as status quo. I wasn't banned because I have an agenda, bad intentions or anything like this - I was banned because POVed editors that had an agenda were willing to engage in edit-wars to enforce their non-consensus POV and as result some of my edits have gone over 3RR. And as you know both of us have gone over 3RR/1RR here - so far none of us has requested the other one to be banned because of this - but at the other topic they obviously didn't want anybody hampering their attempts to enforce their POV. So, my ban was the price needed to be paid in order for these articles to become NPOV. And now they are. Alinor (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The mass media has not been deemed a "unreliable source" by Misplaced Pages. Whether you think it is, I care not. The only thing being "contradicted" is your own criteria that you've made up. I'll repeat it again: you can't use this to define the status of anything. That would be original research. Official statements are primary sources. How it is interpreted (and subsequently presented here) is up to published reliable sources, not your made-up criteria based on the presence/absence of choice phrasing. Read: "We only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves ... Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)". Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In general you are correct, but in this specific case you aren't - we are dealing with very subtle differences here, such that are often overlooked/reworded in journalistic interpretations. We don't do any OR, we just copy what we find in the sources. But if there is a contradiction between a journalistic report and an official MFA website - we use the more reliable of the two, the MFA website. Especially in cases where the MFA website includes full quote of a statement or even scanned copy of an official document. And also, because of the subtle details in covering the issue at hand, we should clearly show to the reader whether the information we present comes from an official source or an unofficial source. It's not the same if we have a Russia MFA statement that they recognize SoP and if we have an unofficial yellow-pages like directory site listing locations of foreign embassies that mentions SoP. Alinor (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Often overlooked/reworded in journalistic interpretations..." This is an unverified claim. If the vast majority of reliable media sources report the same thing, that has to be represented as the majority view (see WP:WEIGHT). It's your misunderstanding of (or ignorance of) WP:V that's the issue here. Interpretations of sources can only be done by reliable secondary sources. Even if there's a scanned copy of an official document that says quite clearly recognition has been granted, it still needs to be cited alongside a secondary source that verifies the interpretation that recognition was, indeed, granted, and that we therefore have a right to portray the information in that way. As for your last sentence, of course it isn't: which entry is relying on a directory? Again you're misunderstanding WP:RS. Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can give you examples of overlooked/reworded/wrong journalistic/bloggers/experts/etc. interpretations over these details of the subject here. And for entries relying on directory - see UAE, Hunagry, Ukraine, Poland, etc. - they rely on unofficial yellow pages, online directories, etc. (and on the submittal-to-UNESCO-prepared-by-few-states, where we already found some contradictions - the Indonesia date, the Poland MFA letter denying recognition, etc.)
Anyway, I don't suggest that we automatically disregard "all" unofficial sources. I suggest that we are extra cautious and strive for better WP:V and WP:RS adherence (primary or secondary - the sources should be as reliable as possible). And the problem we have is not when there is official source about SoP recognition, but the unofficial sources haven't got it yet. The problem is the opposite - when there is no official source about SoP recognition, but some unofficial sources appear to claim that there is such recognition. And what I and Analitic114 suggested is we that entries that are supported only by unofficial sources are somehow distinguished from those that are supported by official sources (initially I suggested colors - in the later revisions of sandboxA; later I implemented separate sections - following discussion above and Analitic114 efforts at the Russian Misplaced Pages - see sandboxB). These proposals do not disregard the unofficial sources - they just distinguish them from the official sources. And on the noticeboard there were opinions expressed by another editor that we should be even more radical and disregard unofficial sources. I propose that we don't go to this extreme. Alinor (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
See for example these - , - obviously they don't refer to 'recognitions of the State of Palestine', but to 'recognitions of a Palestinian state, to be established later by the PNA'. The 22Jan2011 article speaks about "Russian ... statement of recognition of an independent Palestinian state on Tuesday" (we have source showing Russia SoP recognition since much earlier). There is also "...and Uruguay have all formally recognized Palestinian independence." (error - we have sources showing that this wasn't so until Mar2011 Uruguay statement). Then "The Palestinian Authority said that Paraguay, Peru, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic are expected to announce their support soon." (we have sources showing SoP recognition by Paraguay, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic from 2005/2008/2009 already). So this single sources shows both things - that journalists make mistakes in reporting the subtle differences in often ambiguous government statements and that recognition of SoP is different from recognition of a Palestine state as an idea. Alinor (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated content

related to this

Big part of the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority article content is related to the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the foreign relations and recognition of the State of Palestine that is unrelated to the PNA and that was established by the PLO and whose government functions are executed by the PLO Executive Committee. Thus this content should be removed from the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority article. Alinor (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated content as of a couple of hours ago, you mean? As of your copy-paste rehash of this article into another version of questionable content with no respect for attribution or policy. There's a collapsible box at the top of this talk page thanks to your crummy editing skills; it seems you intend to rack up more of them. The article here can be renamed if necessary. There won't be any removal of anything. Nightw 05:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree on rename? Because if you don't, then refrain from deleting the PLO relations article. This is a notable topic. Relation to the current article is shown by the edit-line discussion link. If needed additional explanation can be placed at the talk page. I will wait some time for you to answer if you agree on rename and if you don't answer or don't agree I will revert to the RohilPCS version of the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization article. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree to rename to "Foreign relations of Palestine", as long as you do a proper move request. Nightw 08:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not to Foreign relations of Palestine - this is vague, unclear and unacceptable for article name. If you don't agree to rename to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization, then the PLO article will be restored - dealing with the foreign relations of PLO, the UN observer entity officially designated "Palestine". Then we will have to reduce content duplication. Alinor (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No. They should be covered in the same article. The ambiguity of the name "Palestine" is exactly what is needed as it refers to all institutions associated with the PLO and the PNA together. Nightw 09:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And I regret (not really) to inform you that the PLO article will not be restored unless there's a consensus for it. If you think you can evade the obligations imposed on you at AE by simply creating another article of the same content, then I'm afraid you've become delusional. Nightw 09:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I remind you (again) that the AE procedure was opened by a third party over your actions and applies to you too.
I don't think that your deletion of the PLO foreign relations article has a consensus and I will take appropriate actions at its place/talk page and elsewhere.
No, the name "Palestine" is ambiguous/vague/unclear and thus "Foreign relations of Palestine" is unacceptable for article name. And since PLO is the entity that conducts the foreign relations of PLO, SoP and PNA the most appropriate name for the article is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. A few users objected moving this article there - IMHO without giving sensible reasons - so Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority will remain, but this doesn't mean that Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization will not exist - in fact, this topic is more notable and bigger part of the content deals with it. Alinor (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see. So this is basically you spitting the dummy and throwing your toys out of the stroller then? You didn't get your RM approved, so you've copy-pasted this article's content under another name and are now claiming this article to be "duplicated content". Quite amusing. Nightw 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I said that PLO relations article will have to be created if this one isn't moved back then at the move discussion (see the comment timestamp in the PLO relations edit-line). What I claim is that Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is a notable topic and we should have an article about it. That's why I created such article. Yes, content from this article here was copied there - because it's about the topic of Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. If you don't agree to redirect Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority there, then fine, Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority can remain as a separate article covering only the PNA relations.
IMHO since the PLO relations include PLO relations, SoP relations and PNA relations we can use Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization for all of these, but if you insist we can have both it and a smaller scope Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Alinor (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Pray tell: exactly which parts of the current article were not included in this article? That is, IF this indeed was an attempt to appropriately fork the content, what parts of this article were not subsequently rendered as "duplicated content"? Nightw 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
All were included, because I didn't want to start the article with a controversy. And about what parts will remain here - the paragraphs/sentences discussing PNA (in many of the sections there are such), information on the missions to the PNA located in Ramallah/Gaza, on treaties applied by the PNA, on PNA member/observer status at international organizations, maybe something else that I forget currently. Of course some rewording/re-arrangement will be needed. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
See here. Alinor (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
About the main table - following the establishment Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization the column "SoP recognition" can be replaced (and moved to the right) with a column about 'recognizes PNA right to establish a Palestinian state' and a column added about '1967 borders'. OK? Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition I will implement changes mentioned in the 15:04, 20 February 2011 comment above. Alinor (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I've already stated my objection to the changes. Please, stop repeating the request. Nightw 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You asked a question about content arrangement and I replied. Would you comment on that? Or do you prefer the content to remain duplicated? Alinor (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this about the addition of new columns? Could you draft a single entry so I can get an idea? Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is about a way of focusing the article on PNA relations and not on SoP relations as it currently is. You still haven't commented on any of the sandboxes for Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization unlike what you said, so I'm afraid there is no point in making additional proposals just to be ignored by you. I explain above about one possible solution to the duplication issue. If you don't like it you can propose something else. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Aren't we discussing the sandbox proposal below (the last comment at 08:16, 3 April 2011)? Or is that another proposal? Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The section where we were to discuss the sandbox was archived (you are aware of the archiving, right?). This sections is about what to do with the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority after the establishment of an article for the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. And anyway, in the sandbox there are no new columns added, so I don't see how the sandbox is connected to your 11:38, 2 April 2011 comment. Alinor (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Foreign relations of the State of Palestine be renamed and moved to Foreign relations of Palestine.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → Foreign relations of Palestine — This article covers foreign relations conducted by both the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as those conducted on behalf of the State of Palestine. The name "Palestine" would incorporate all of these and more effectively establish the context. Nightw 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right... and "Israel" is not just Israel, but also the Kingdom of Israel. And "Egypt" is not just Egypt, but also Ancient Egypt. And "India" is not just India, but also British India. It would be extremely difficult to do such a split and not entirely practical or effective either. Nightw 05:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that currently there is no other Israel than the State of Israel, no other India than the Republic of India, no other Egypt than the Arab Republic of Egypt.
In the case of Palestine (disambiguation) we have three current entities commonly associated with the term "Palestine" - the Palestine Liberation Organization, the State of Palestine, the Palestinian National Authority.
So, I object move to Foreign relations of Palestine - using only "Palestine" in the article name is vague and undefined/ambiguous (thus inappropriate for article name). The "Palestine" that conducts international relations at the UN is the PLO and also the PLO represents abroad the PNA. In addition the PLO-EC performs the functions of SoP government. So, IMHO, a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is better - because PLO relations cover also PNA relations and SoP relations. Alinor (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There isn't a problem since all organs can (and are, currently) covered on the same article. A split would also be impractical, as I've said, since the lines between the organs are often blurred. Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a problem - if we are going to lump all of these together, then it should be at Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization, because the PLO is the "common link" between these entities. But, if this isn't done, then there is no problem with making a split of Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority - in any case the second should cover only issues related to the PNA (its in its article name after all). Alinor (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You're claiming that the name "Palestine Liberation Organization" will effectively cover everything, but that "Palestine" will not? If I remember correctly, your attempt to move it there was opposed by multiple editors. This is a better alternative. Nightw 12:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, PLO covers all three (PLO, SoP, PNA), because it represents abroad the PNA and PLO-EC executes the functions of SoP government. And my previous proposal to move the article there was supported by 3 editors (me and another 2) and opposed by 2 editors (you and another one). If we don't agree to move to Foreign relations of PLO, then a split remains as viable solution. Alinor (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
And "Palestine" means Palestine, regardless of the institution -- it covers all three. It's not a viable solution at all. Or if it is you certainly haven't proved it to be one. It's highly impractical. Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"Palestine" is a region and there are four entities related to this region that conduct international relations - Israel, PLO, SoP, PNA. The PNA and SoP are established by the PLO. In international relations the PLO represents itself and the PNA. The PLO-EC also executes the functions of SoP government (and the main/only activity of SoP are the international relations). So, Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is the most suitable place for the international relations of the PLO, SoP and PNA (and not Israel). Anyway, a split is also viable. Alinor (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Both of these sandboxes are the same, are they not? Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, they are different. Alinor (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Contributors to previous discussions, The Celestial City, RolandR, Soman, Int21h, Andrewa, Harlan, Uriber, Ziansh, Avraham, Oncenawhile, Metallurgist, Greyshark09, Arielkoiman, Malik Shabazz, NickCT, Frederico1234, Cptnono, Brewcrewer, Dreamertan, Passionless and Cobaltcigs have been notified of this thread. Nightw 11:36, 7 April 2011, 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Night w, would you give link to a comment/edit by Harlan at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority or Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority? Alinor (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Night w, what is your criteria to select what editors to inform about this discussion? Alinor (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
? responded on your talk page. Nightw 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Foreign relations of Palestine. A majority of UN member states have recognized Palestine, and thus I think it is safe to use that wording in Misplaced Pages. Likewise there are a number of states not recognizing the State of Israel (just slightly less than non-recognizers of Palestine), but that doesn't mean we should move Foreign relations of Israel to Foreign relations of the Zionist Entity for NPOV. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
    Some corrections of facts. Almost all states (more than simply "majority" - in fact I haven't seen a single source about a state that opposes) recognize "a Palestine state" and the right of PNA to establish such state in the future (the PNA foreign minister announced their intention to do so in Sep2011 ). The number of recognizers of the already declared in 1988 State of Palestine is different - 60 to 74 to 117 (depending on which sources you use see here). The number of states that don't recognize Israel is between 21 and 23 (we don't have sources for 2 of these). So it's wrong to claim that recognition of Israel is as disputed as the recognition of "a Palestine state" or of the State of Palestine (two different concepts). The idea that the PNA will establish "a Palestine state" is (almost?) universally recognized, the State of Israel has "wide" recognition (with only ~11% in opposition), the 1988 declared State of Palestine has "some" recognition (30% to 60%).
    The State of Israel is the only political entity representing "Zionist people", governing the territory controlled by the State of Israel, etc. - it contrast "Palestine" is a geographical region, where for territory outside Israel we have the PLO representing the Palestinian people abroad, the PNA as local administration (with the goal to establish a state) and the State of Palestine (declared in 1988 and conducting diplomatic relations with states that recognize it even without having control over any territory). The State of Israel is the only Israeli entity conducting foreign relations. In contrast we have three Palestinian entities. And of these, the PLO is the one that represents abroad both the PLO and the PNA and whose Executive Committee (the PLO-EC) functions as SoP government. That's why I support either a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization or a split of it.
    So, the issue is not about NPOV - it's about vagueness and having the correct article title. Palestine (the geographical region) doesn't conduct foreign relations. The PLO, SoP and PNA (political entities) conduct such. Alinor (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • This type of semantic games is akin to stating that it is not the Unites States managing the foreign relations of the United States of America, but the State Department. PNA is not a state, and the process of coverting PNA to an independent state proved a dead-end. PNA remains an administration under the PLO. The PLO conducts foreign relations on behalf of Palestine, and has wide recognition in international bodies as the legitimate representative of Palestine. Thus all these relations, of SoP, PLO and the day-to-day contact the PNA administration has with foreign governments all neatly fall under the umbrella of 'Foreign relations of Palestine'. --Soman (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    "The PLO conducts foreign relations on behalf of Palestine" - no, it conducts foreign relations on behalf of itself and the PNA and represents Palestinian people and is consulted by the UN on matters concerning the Palestinian territories. In addition the PLO-EC functions as government of the State of Palestine (that has no control over any territory - thus is akin to a government-in-exile, albeit the physical location of the PLO-EC is in Ramallah). That's why I support a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. But "Palestine" is a term used as reference to three different entities and is not suitable for article title. Titles should be specific, not vague and undefined. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    'Palestine' is quite specific (i.e. a country), and not as ambigous as Alinor tries to portray it. IRL, it is a commonly used wording. Not universally used, but neither is Israel. During WWI, 'France' was not under a single unified administration. There was the fully occupied north, the south Vichy and the Free French in exile. However, France did not disappear as a geographic concept and political entity. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The U.N. has recognized the PLO, the creator of the PNA, by the name "Palestine" and as the "representative of the Palestinian people". Let's keep it simple guys (and gals.) Int21h (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to have a page about PLO relations it should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. What the UN uses to refer to it is a separate issue. We can lump together the foreign relations of PLO, SoP and PNA in the PLO relations article, but it's article name shouldn't be Foreign relations of Palestine - see Palestine - in the article name we should use the name of a political entity, not a geographical region. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not think "what the UN uses" is a separate issue. In my opinion, the PNA is subordinate to the PLO, and hence speaking of either is speaking of the other, and this proves my point. The Hamas-Fatah conflict is also a good example of this. Most international relations are with the PNA through the PLO, so when there was a split in the PNA, most nations went with what the PLO said, which was Fatah, even though the PNA under commonly accepted democratic principles should be Hamas controlled. (I could be wrong...) As for naming, "state", "republic", etc. are just syntax sugar, and are usually ignored in common usage, unless it is ambiguous as to which political entity you are referring, eg. North v. South Korea. But there is no other Palestine, so the "State of" is superfluous. Here, they are largely synonymous, but land that is either controlled or claimed by the State of Palestine, not the historical region, is most likely meant where I come from (the United States), not any different land/region. But, I believe I already made this argument and many of the Misplaced Pages community did not agree with me. :( So... Int21h (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, there's no confusion with the region here. Foreign relations is purely a political topic. Readers aren't confusing Foreign relations of Mongolia with the region of Mongolia. To imply this is different would be more than POINTy. Nightw 07:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
"what the UN uses" is a separate issue. - because the article name should show the actual entity performing the relations (e.g. PLO) - not a designation utilized for it by some third party (be it the UN or somebody else). Especially when the same designation is also utilized for other entities.
"state", "republic", etc. are just syntax - no, because we have different entities here. State of Palestine is a specific political entity - it's different from the PNA and the PLO (PLO-EC only performs the functions of SoP government - but the PLO continues its separate activities, in addition to SoP. The PNA is a prime example of a PLO initiative separate from SoP).
We should not use in the article name a wording that doesn't make the topic obvious. Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is OK, Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority is OK, Foreign relations of the State of Palestine is OK, Foreign relations of Palestine is not OK because it's open to interpretation whether it covers international relations of the PLO or SoP or PNA or some combination of these (it can be redirected/disambiguated, but should not be the place of this article). Alinor (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate !vote cast, no additional arguments.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yes, that was clear from your first !vote. Nightw 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Support The political entity Palestine is represented at the United Nations under the name Palestine. This name is the most common name for the state-to-be and country-in-exile that the Palestinnian people claim as their own. State of Palestine should be called by its offical name, simply "Palestine", and for Wiki purposes Palestine (state), as disambiguated from Palestine (region). In any case, the State of Palestine page does make what the official name and we should be naming pages accordingly. Beginning with this one, let's do so, and bring or pages in line with reality. To Alinor: it is untrue to say that everything could be covered under a FR of the PLO page, and splitting between the PA and PLO is not feasible, since there is much overlap and the distinctions are sometimes unclear. As noted in the state of Palestine article, it is Palestine that is best described as a transitional association between the PA and PLO (and not the PLO which is the main body encompassing the PA and Palestine as you have erroneously asserted). Tiamut 19:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be impractical to separate the institutions, since the lines are so blurred. For example, many bilateral documents signed by Abbas use more than one of his titles, directly mixing the institutions. It's confusing for the reader to separate them. Nightw 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no political entity "Palestine". The UN observer is the entity PLO and the UN uses the designation "Palestine" for it.. The entities SoP and PNA are related to the PLO, but they are separate.
The SoP official name is not "Palestine", but "State of Palestine" - for sources see here.
I don't assert anywhere that "PLO which is the main body encompassing the PA and Palestine". I said that since PLO represents abroad the PNA we can use FR of PLO page for all, or use FR of PNA page only for List of diplomatic missions to the Palestinian National Authority.
"It'd be impractical to separate the institutions, since the lines are so blurred." - maybe it's not easy to do, but we should do our best. We should not lump together separate political entities, just because a few Misplaced Pages editors find it easier to call everything "simply Palestine".
Abbas signing documents with his 3 titles (related to SoP, PLO, PNA) instead of "simply Palestine" shows the importance of the distinction between these three entities. Because as you know some documents are signed with only some of these titles. That's because the separation between these titles has practical importance and is not merely decorative. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"There is no political entity 'Palestine'" = plainly OR + POV. And your repeated attempts to verify the State of Palestine's official name as anything other than "Palestine" have so far failed. And "Palestine" is the PLO's official designation at the UN, so I must profess utter confusion at what you're trying to argue. Even if it weren't "Palestine", there's no political entity officially called "North Korea" or "Laos" either, but the folks over at those articles don't seem to have an issue. That's because WP practise is to use the common, English name. In this case, the common name linking these three institutions would be "Palestine". Nightw 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary. I proved that "Palestine" is not the official name of the State of Palestine - see here (e.g. I showed to you that there is no source supporting your claim and that the sources that we have about the State of Palestine use "State of Palestine" - should I give you links to all official documents that include this official name?). The political entities are PLO, SoP and PNA. All of these are sometimes referred to as "Palestine" by the UN, by the general public, or by somebody else. Nobody questions that. The problem is that this is unsuitable to be part of a foreign relations of X article name. About common name see my comment below. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure you did... Much less than "proving", you didn't even convince any of the editors involved in that discussion. This is irrelevant anyway, since this article is not exclusively about the State of Palestine, and even if it weren't the official name of the state proclaimed, it's still the common name. Maybe you should cast another !vote. What is it you're up to? Four? Nightw 08:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"any of the editors" - this means "only Night w". The only other comment is by Tiamut where he gave one link about PNA and not SoP. Do you have some new source or what? Alinor (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The articles should be merged. The PNC declared that the PLO is the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine after the Rabat Conference. It reiterated that in the text of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. General Assembly resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system. So, there is no "1988 SoP" that is separate from the PLO. The General Assembly resolution which granted "Palestine" its current UN privileges noted that it is a full member of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, the Group of Asian States, and the League of Arab States. The General Assembly resolution also noted that general democratic Palestinian elections were held on 20 January 1996 and that the Palestinian Authority was established on part of the occupied Palestinian territory. Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) says

    “full powers” means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty;

Palestine has deposited full powers with several treaty organizations including the UN, OIC, and League of Arab States agreeing to be bound to treaties on diplomatic immunity, extradition, transportation, and economic development. Here are links to some of the UN deposit notices: Those full powers for the signature of agreements on behalf of Palestine are issued by the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority.

Several of the written statements submitted to the ICC Prosecutor by legal scholars noted that the Oslo Accords were: never fully implemented; violated by both sides; and lapsed in 2000. See for example the memo of ICC visiting scholar Errol Mendes and the Al Haq position paper The latter explains that the PNA and PLO have always had overlapping functions in foreign relations (per Geoffrey R. Watson, "The Oslo Accords International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements", ISBN13: 9780198298915, page 245) and they no longer bother to observe the division of labor in foreign relations. It mentions for example that the PLO representative to the Arab League in Cairo is also designated as the PNA representative. The Jewish Daily Forward reports the PNA is seeking recognition from other countries and that Costa Rica had signed a bilateral agreement recognizing the State of Palestine with the representative of the PNA at the UN. The Foreign Minister of Palestine is an official of the PNA. President Abbas has confirmed the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to appealing to the UN Security Council for a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, with Arab support. The PNA and PLO both conduct foreign relations on behalf of "Palestine" and the "State of Palestine". harlan (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • harlan, as usual you give lengthy post with links to issues that nobody disputes. And by using generic "Palestine" instead of the specific names PLO, PNA or SoP in your comment you are not proving that they are all one and the same. Also, throwing some personal OR between multiple links to sources and quotations doesn't make it less of an OR. For example your "The PNA and PLO both conduct foreign relations on behalf of "Palestine" and the "State of Palestine" - could you give me a source showing that "PNA conducts relations on behalf of the State of Palestine"? Not about "Palestine", not about "PNA is entitled to establish a Palestine state". I haven't seen such source so far. On the contrary, sources that we have show that PNA will declare a state in Sep2011. It's not yet known whether it will be a successor to the SoP declared in 1988 or it will be a separate one. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again Alinor, I'd appreciate it if you would provide published citations instead of making-up ad hoc arguments out of thin air. Here is one more long explanation. On page 194-196 of John Quigley, "The Statehood of Palestine: International Law and the Middle East Conflict", Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 0521151651 the Mashreq transportation treaties that I listed above are discussed at length. The author says (a) that the treaties were only open for signature by states (page 194); (b) that the practice of the Secretary General, as the Legal Affairs section of the Secretariat has explained, is to decline instruments of adherence to multilateral treaties from entities that the Secretary General determines not to be states (page 195); (c) that the Secretary General notified the other parties that Palestine had become a party (194 & 195); (d) that the Secretary may append a historical note to his notification of receipt in the annual "Multilateral Treaties Deposited With The Secretary-General" explaining the basis for the decision that the entity is a state, and that he did so (page 195); (e) that the rules of the ESCWA only allowed states to be members of the commission and the PLO was originally admitted as a state; (f) on page 213 the author explains that many treaties have been concluded for Palestine, and while some have been concluded in the name of the PLO or PNA, these three treaties were concluded in the name of Palestine. The ESCWA decided in 2007 to harmonize its transportation treaties with the League of Arab States (LAS). The PNA Minister of Transportation is Palestine's representative on the LAS Council of Arab Ministers of Transport. This article incorrectly states that the PLO and PNA are joint parties to the treaties. The deposit notice actually names Palestine as the party. The historical note cites a document emanating from the competent authorities of the State i.e. the Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian National Authority, who designated the person or persons to sign the instruments for the State.
  • On pages 3, & 197-200 the Quigley says that declaration was sent to the International Criminal Court on PNA Letterhead invoking a clause in the name of Palestine that allows a non-member state to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. He notes that despite its name the Rome Statute is a multinational treaty. The Justice Minister and Foreign Minister of the PNA deposited a "declaration in conformity with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute" on behalf of the "Government of Palestine" "for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of crimes committed on the territory of Palestine" with the International Criminal Court in the Hague (a foreign intergovernmental treaty organization). Here is a link from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) the the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which discusses that PNA declaration and explains that Article 12(3) "allows a State which is not party to the Statute to accept the jurisdiction of the Court." See page 2 of 5 of the pdf file
  • The Ministers specifically explained that they themselves had (a) submitted documents to ICC Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo that proved "Palestine" was a legal state; (b) delivered a set of documents that shows that "Palestine" as a state has the ability to present a case to the court and to ask for an investigation into crimes committed by the Israeli army; and (c) provided proof that "Palestine" was recognized as a state by 67 countries and had formal bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe. . *Note they did NOT say Palestine was only recognized by 67 countries, they said they had provided proof for 67. Misplaced Pages editors have wasted mega-bytes on WP:Synth analysis. The ICC's jurisdiction is strictly limited to those cases where a "State" is either unwilling or unable, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of the national judicial system, to investigate and prosecute the responsible individuals (for example Hamas war crimes). See Article 17 of the Rome Statute.
  • The Registrar of the Court responded directly to the Justice Minister of the PNA, informing him that pending a judicial determination, "a declaration under article 12 paragraph 3 has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of relevance to the situation and the application of the provisions of Part 9 and any rules thereunder, concerning States Parties, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence." Territorial jurisdiction over Gaza and personal jurisdiction over Palestinian terrorist groups was transferred to the Palestinian Authority under the terms of Annex III Protocol Concerning Legal Matters, of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994). The Palestinian Authority is cooperating with the ICC OTP and an international commission of independent experts appointed by the 13th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Agenda item 7, on the Human rights situation in "Palestine" to follow-up on the investigation of the UN fact finding mission report on Gaza in accordance with HRC/RES/13/9. See paragraphs 49-59 of the report .
  • I've gave you links to Dr Michael Kearney's Al Haq position paper which demonstrates that the PA can legitimately prosecute individuals responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC and that the PA has the ability to enter into international agreements on behalf of Palestine. It concludes by asserting that "the ICC may validly consider Palestine to be a state for the purposes of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute and may accept the transfer of jurisdiction from the PA to the Court in line with the Statute and the principles of international law." Kearney also cited "Geoffrey R. Watson, The Oslo Accords International Law and the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreements", ISBN13: 9780198298915, page 245 in that connection and stated that "this PLO-PA ‘division of labour’ with regards to foreign relations seems difficult to enforce given the overlap between the two organizations."
  • I supplied you with a link to an article which explained that the PNA is seeking recognition from other countries and that Costa Rica had signed a bilateral agreement with Riyad Mansour, "the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief" recognizing the "State of Palestine". You have never acknowledged that. Here is an article about "Palestine’s Ambassador to the UN" which says "In 2005 the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, appointed him to succeed Nasser al-Qudwa as Permanent Observer." Here is a press release which says Ambassador Riyad Mansour, is the permanent observer of the Palestine Authority to the United Nations. Here is a link to General Assembly resolution 61/23 1 December 2006 which instructs the Secretary General and the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat to continue to develop and expand the documents collection of the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL), and to continue to provide an annual training program on its operation for the staff of the Palestinian Authority; Here is an annual report from the Special Rapporteur of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People which, among other things discusses UNISPAL and the annual training provided for the staff of the Palestinian Authority. Do you have a published source which says that the Palestinian Authority staff is not an integral part of the permanent observer delegation staff? harlan (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — Per reasons explained above, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also per WP:NOT#BATTLE, we should attempt to avoid turning article titles into places where we prove whether or not "Palestine" or "Israel" is a "real" entity. Note that Foreign relations of Libya is not Foreign relations of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor is there any real difficulty in discussing the Kingdom of Libya's foreign relations there. We can accommodate PLO/PoS/PNA together, and nearly all readers (no matter how focused) trying to understand the topic will understand more rather than less because we do so.--Carwil (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on COMMONNAME. Article names should be specific, non-ambiguous and not vague and undefined. For the regular "Foreign relations of X" articles there is no ambiguity in using the short form name of the state. But in our case here we have three entities that conduct international relations and each of them is commonly referred to as "Palestine". That is clearly shown at Palestine (disambiguation). As you can see "Palestine" is not exclusively associated with neither of these three entities. That's why Foreign relations of Palestine is unsuitable as article name. The argument that the UN uses "Palestine" as reference to the PLO and that the PLO represents the PNA abroad and the PLO-EC functions as SoP government (e.g. the PLO is related to all three of these entities) only shows us that we should either move the article to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization or do such a split. E.g. if the article will be about relations of "Palestine that is a UN non-state observer entity and that established the other entities", then we should use in the article title the name of this entity in a specific non-ambiguous way, e.g. PLO. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    So, per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME we should not move this page to Foreign Relations of Palestine. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — per WP:COMMONNAME. also, I support moving to "Foreign Relations of Palestine", since the article itself houses the declarations from the nations who has recognized palestine as an independent nation; and not as an organization. - ℤiαηsh✍ 08:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    On the same policy page see WP:PRECISE. "Palestine" is common name for three entities - PLO, SoP, PNA - and non of these is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - see Palestine (disambiguation). In such case the article name should be specific instead of vague and ambiguous - it should be 'FR of PLO' or 'FR of PNA' or 'FR of SoP'. Of these 'FR of PLO' can cover all three entities, but if needed we can have separate articles for some of them. Of these Also, if the article is going to be about "recognition of PNA right to establish a Palestine state" then again Foreign relations of Palestine is unsuitable as such topic includes many more issues and activities. See also Foreign relations of Korea - albeit "Korea" is a common name for Republic of Korea, but since it's also for DPRK that's why neither of these is located at 'FR of Korea'. Yes, RoK and DPRK are "opponents" unlike PLO/SoP/PNA where there are certain "close relations" among them (PLO-SoP and PLO-PNA, but no SoP-PNA) - but the issue here is about the ambiguous meaning of "FR of Palestine" and that it's not a suitable article name per WP:PRECISE/WP:COMMONNAME. Alinor (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You argue that none of these is primary topic, but collectively, under the unambiguous political prefix "Foreign relations of...", they undoubtedly are. That you think "FR of PLO" can effectively cover all 3 institutions but that "FR of Palestine" cannot shows how incredibly flawed your reasoning is. North and South Korea are two wholly distinct entities—separation of the PNA, the PLO and the State of Palestine in the subject of foreign relations is hardly as defined as those of the Korean governments. Stop wasting people's time with crummy analogies. Nightw 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"FR of PLO" is specific and shows the entity whose relations are described in the article. "FR of Palestine" is ambiguous. Yes, under some interpretations both can have the same meaning. This irrelevant to WP:PRECISE/WP:COMMONNAME - we should use the specific reference in the article name, not the ambiguous one. That's why currently 'FR of Palestine' is a redirect page (to 'FR of PNA'). If we make a split with 'FR of PLO', then 'FR of Palestine' will become a diambiguation page.
You and I may be not aware of or confused by "separation of the PNA, the PLO and the State of Palestine in the subject of foreign relations", but as sources show this is strictly followed in the real world - should I point you to sources showing these distinctions? Alinor (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, let's leave ROK and DPRK out of this since there's only a state of war between them.
WP:PRECISE only suggests that we should not use FRofSoP when we mean FRofPNA. As shown with Libya above, FRof/Name of Geographic entitity/ seems to be perfectly precise in describing an article that covers the state entities associated with that name.
So, at root the issue is not just naming conventions but the idea that FRofSoP, FRofPNA, and FRofPLO ought to be in separate articles. Could you please explain your reasoning for that?--Carwil (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not about war or common origin. It's about using a term in an article name that has multiple meanings. It's about two entities with the same common name - and how none of them gets the common name in its FR of X article.
WP:PRECISE says that in ambiguous cases (such as Palestine (disambiguation) with three political entities participating in international relations) the specific names should be used in the article titles.
I don't say that FRofSoP, FRofPNA, and FRofPLO should be in separate articles. I said that all of them or some can be in one article ('FR of PLO' -or- 'FR of PLO' and separate 'FR of PNA' -or- ...). If they are combined in a single article there should be a reason for that (for combining in 'FR of PLO' the reason is that PLO represents PNA abroad and PLO-EC functions as SoP government - both of these statements are supported by sources). They should not be combined simply because we would like it that way or because it's easier to do. In any case, combined or separate articles, the titles of the articles should use the specific name of the entity whose relations the article covers. Not the name of the geographical region that the entity is associated with - a region that the other entities are also associated with. I support moving the article to 'FR of PLO' and I don't see what is wrong with that - in addition to the specific reasons why PLO relations can cover also SoP relations and PNA relations - the PLO is the originator of both SoP and PNA and is observer at the UN. Does editors here assume that PLO is not important or what? Because the states around the world clearly consider PLO important enough to allow it to establish embassies, etc. Alinor (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, way to advocate WP:NPOV with such an impartial statement.</sarcasm> Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that a majority of the world's states recognise the State of Palestine (and that is WP:V'd), this article really isn't about the State of Palestine; it instead discusses foreign relations conducted by both the PNA and the PLO. How do foreign relations of the PLO come under the heading "Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority"? The move request is a way to broaden the title to include both institutions. It's not an attempt to legitimise Palestinian statehood. And to ignore the common English name in order to do the opposite is more than pointy. Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I accept the WP:COMMONNAME argument made above, but I'm a little worried about this move for a number of reasons. 1) Obviously, the proposed new name would seem to make "Palestine" seem like more of a "state" than the current name does. The fact is, Palestine is probably less of a "state" than when this article was created, given the West Bank-Gaza split. 2) I dislike these POV, "It is a state"/"It isn't a state" wars. Can't we all just acknowledge it's a quasi-state, and come up with some accepted terminology which acknowledges that fact (i.e. Palestinian territories)? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
On the first point, I think that largely depends on one's predisposition with regards to the subject. To me "Palestine" is a nation—it may not be a properly functioning state yet, but it's a separate polity with its own governmental institutions (all of which, not just the PNA, are currently outlined under this article). But people who are either pro- or anti-Palestine will no doubt see this move as an attempt to portray it as a country like any other. The purpose of WP:COMMONNAME is to uphold NPOV by allowing us to ignore multiple conflicting POVs and relying instead on what name the reader will most commonly look for. So us deliberately avoiding the use of the common name (under the pretext of WP:NPOV) is actually contrary to our very intent. Nightw 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
And "Palestinian territories" is no good, since neither the State nor the PLO have anything to do with that entity. Nightw 20:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite the fantasies of the PA and their allies, there is no functioning state of palestine in any meaning of the word. There are two entities that have separate "foreign relations", which themselves split part of the land claimed by each of them (I cant even say "claimed by palestine" or "claimed by the palestinians" it just doesnt make sense). The PLO was recognized as the "legitimate representative of the palestinian people" NOT of palestine. So you cant say that its akin to the State Dept. Until they establish a functioning state (If ever), it should remain FRPNA. Also, concur with greyshark and nickct. Metallurgist (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about the State. The article describes foreign relations of three largely integrated but officially separate institutions, only one of which fits under the title FRPNA. "Palestine" is the name commonly used for all three and the name commonly and effectively linking all three. Nightw 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that the PLO/PNA/SoP distinction is made even clearer in the lead. Whatever the labyrinthine technicalities of the correct definitions, Palestine is used very widely as the wp:commonname - we should not get lost in the detail. It is much more readable to have one article to encapsulate all the forms of Palestine which explains these definitional issues to people - and which will act as a good place to summarise all the smart points that Alinor makes. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis on that it is recognized as state by a majority of countries, nations and people in the world. They can vary in extent and degree, but they recoginize it nevertheless. Also, if I am looking information up, I am looking for "Palestine" and not PNA. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's remember that the "State of Palestine" makes up a very small portion of this article's subject. This is one of three Palestinian institutions with foreign relations. The legitimacy of Palestinian statehood isn't really relevant here. Nightw 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not see how we can justify lumping in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank together. They have different governments. There is even a small possibility of a Three-state solution. Not how that wikilink addresses the first point (the two different are different at least leadership wise). Furthermore, "Palestine National Authority" and its relations deserve their own article. So this may need to be split up but a rename doesn't fix anything. So procedural oppose since it is not the actual solution we are looking for. Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Categories: