Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Two maps

Continued from here.

I think we should remove this map (as it confuses the readers). The only information in the map that isn't already present in the article is the designations of some delegations as general/special. I propose that we add these (Night w already added some) and then remove the older map. Alinor (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. Nightw 12:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The only cases left are:

• Ecuador ("delegation" without special/general - it most probably is special delegation or representation - like the neighboring Peru/Chile/Columbia), but it already recognized SoP so it most probably would get changed to embassy/consulate.
• South Korea (no mission/dash - in the old map it's shown as "special delegation")
• Croatia (no mission/dash) Alinor (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the only thing that is left not transferred from the old map is the South Korea "special delegation", but since we don't have sources for such mission (and don't list it in the table) I suggest that we remove the old map from the article. Alinor (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We still need to discuss whether it's required for the new map to also reflect this information, thereby fully replacing the old one. And we haven't quite established the differences between the types of delegations. Nightw 15:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the new map has already enough different colors, we don't want to make it look like a rainbow, right? Presenting the mission types in the table is enough IMHO. A map only with mission types may be appropriate for List of diplomatic missions of Palestine, but I don't think we need this as a map here (in addition to the table).

I agree that it would be good if we have a paragraph describing the differences between the different mission types - such as below and including "office", "mission", "special delegation", "representation", "general delegation", "embassy" - but I don't know of source describing the differences. Alinor (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"We still need to discuss whether" - so what's your opinion? Alinor (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you object to remove the old map? Alinor (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The old map has also other shortcomings - such as showing mission types only for countries that don't recognize SoP, but not for the others. Alinor (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"the maps still haven't been merged" - yes, as I explained above the information from the old map is already in the table and it's better to be presented there than to add more colors to the new map. A map showing the different mission types may be placed at List of diplomatic missions of Palestine, but it has to cover all countries - not only those that don't recognize SoP. Alinor (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If more than 3 colours on one map is too much, then why don't you just update the older map with the new information? Nightw 12:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we really combine the "missions map" with the "relations/recognition map"? How many colors do you propose to use? For "relations/recognition map" we need 4: no relations/recognition, recognition-as-state only without relations, recognition-as-state and relations, relations without recognition-as-state. For "missions map" we need more than 5: no mission, embassy, general delegation, special delegation, representation, mission, special mission, department and maybe also 'non-resident embassy', 'non-resident general delegation', 'non-resident special delegation' - of course some of these could be combined in a single color (and open a debate why-exactly-those). For a combined map we would need ~12 or more: no relations/recognition/mission, recognition-as-state only without relations/mission, recognition-as-state and relations with the multiple mission options, relations without recognition-as-state with the multiple mission options. This seems neither practical nor useful.

The older map has various shortcomings:

• doesn't show the diplomatic missions in all cases, but only in some
• doesn't show all diplomatic missions types
• has legend inside of it (some editors complain about these)

Also, I don't think we need a map of diplomatic missions on this page - but even if we do - it should represent all missions, not only some as the old map does. Alinor (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So why don't we swap the information over? Have one map that just shows recognition (only one shade needed, two if you want to be neutral with the unconfirmed cases), and another that shows diplomatic representation of Palestine abroad (with different shading for embassy, special delegations, general delegations, and other). So move the information about representation to the newer map, and update the older map with the new information regarding recognition... Nightw 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The older map is a mixture - it partially shows recognition/relations and partially shows missions. At it doesn't show all mission types.

I think that the new map is already OK in representing recognition/relations (if you insist we could add additional color for "inconclusive" - or even better - I will put some other mark on these states to see how it looks).

If we really need here another map representing the mission types (but are we? why not put it at List of diplomatic missions of Palestine instead?) - I can make one if we decide what types it should show and how, for example:

1. no mission - gray
2. embassy - dark green
3. general delegation - dark blue
4. special delegation - light blue?
5. representation - light blue?
6. mission - light blue?
7. special mission - light blue?
8. department - light blue?
9. 'non-resident embassy' - light green?
10. 'non-resident general delegation' - light blue?
11. 'non-resident special delegation' - light blue?

Those are just proposals and please don't ask "why-exactly-those and those have the same color" (as I said above such debates are inevitable) - if you have a better proposal - let's see it, but please refrain from increasing the number of colors too much. Alinor (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather see recognition and relations separately. One map for each. Nightw 15:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And a third map for the missions? Alinor (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems too much. What have you against one map for missions and one map for recognitions+relations?

Also the current "new map" and "old map" are about 'recognitions+relations' and 'inconsistent mix of recognitions and missions', not about 'recognitions' and 'relations' as you say you prefer. Alinor (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've quite understood. I'm against mixing the separate issues of recognition and relations. It's confusing. I prefer a simple Recognition map (i.e., yes, no, maybe—max 2 colours). The second map would show diplomatic representation. It would not be a yes/no map; it would instead go into further detail, showing the type of representation they have in each country (ambassador, special delegate, general delegate —like you've shown in your earlier comment). A map just showing whether relations are established or not would be made redundant by a missions type map. Nightw 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not be made redundant, because there are cases of relations without mission. Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See a version of the new map with "colored marks" for the 'conflicting and inconclusive' cases Alinor (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm... I'm not keen on this. The little dots seem to indicate that there might be these little microstates that I didn't know about before. Nightw 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will make one other map with the missions, but I made a omission above - how should we distinguish between "embassy where SoP is recognized" vs. "embassy where SoP isn't recognized" (same for delegation/representation/mission/etc.)? Alinor (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you add the maps here first please, so that editors can discuss whether they are less or more suitable for the article? Thanks. Nightw 05:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that such maps are needed here - I made these as personal gift to you. I think these are more suitable for this and that articles and are prone to questions like "why are special delegations colored the same as special missions?"

In any case the map File:Palestine-recognition-map.png has multiple flaws (i.e. 13:13, 13 January 2011 comment above) - and also some states are colored wrong - that's why this section was opened (but there are more wrong colored examples than these mentioned here) and this is highly confusing.

Anyway, here: File:Palestine missions.png, File:Palestine host.png, here they are with the legends: [4]. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll leave off the missions type information, mostly because I don't have the energy to look into what the differences are. In my mind, I'd prefer to see the whole table split into two: those that have relations in its capacity as the State of Palestine, and those that just deal with it as the PLO. Each section would have its own map for relations, with a simple "yes" or "no" shading for both.

Alternatively, if we are just to have a single table and a single map, I'd prefer the colouring in your map to use a neutral colour (e.g., khaki or brown) for unclear cases, covering the whole area of the country. Nightw 06:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We were discussing the single table with three sections vs. three tables below. Now you say two tables. Where will the "inconclusive" go? Also what about the other disadvantages of splitting the table mentioned in that discussion?

We can have separate map for SoP recognition and/or separate map for PLO/PNA relations regardless of how we make the table. I will prepare such new maps.

About the missions maps - I find the color separation in the recently uploaded maps reasonable - if you also find it OK I propose that we put them in - and let's see what others will think of them. If someone later objects over some aspect of the color separation - maybe he will have more information/sources that we do - and the issue will be clarified. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I object to the use of those maps, because there hasn't been (and I'm assuming this) a sufficient amount of research regarding what the differences are. I had assumed that the "special delegations" were the ones with diplomatic status, but I think you thought otherwise. It just brings in a whole lot of other complications that I don't really have the time for —you might, but as long as you can demonstrate that the applicable research and sourcing has been done. I think, as you said before, they belong at the diplomatic missions articles, where I (as a reader) would expect to find a paragraph explaining to me what I'm looking at. Nightw 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think "special delegation" has lesser status than "general delegation" - but as you said - we don't have source explaining the differences.

I don't see a problem in using the maps - they just show the mission types - without stating who are "diplomatic" and who aren't. But if you think they are better suited for the list of missions articles - we can put them there or not use these at all.

So, should we remove the old map that is of some mixed recognition/mission type? Alinor (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, have you finished those two new maps? I was under the impression that you were preparing separate maps for states that recognise the State, and those that have relations with the PLO. Nightw 10:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't made these yet. But this is not related to the removal of the old mixed map - it is neither about relations, nor about missions nor about recognition.

In any case the combined recognition/relations map should stay (maybe in addition to some of the others) - because it gives "at a glance" overview of the all three cases - recognition only, recognition+relations, relations-only. Alinor (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose the removal of the old map until we have something to replace it with. Nightw 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently we have two maps. A] "old": A map showing a mixture of recognitions and mission types (not for all countries) B] "new": A map showing recognitions+relations. What do you mean "I oppose removal of A] until we have something to replace it with"? Do you want another mixture map or what? The A] map is confusing and with other shortcomings. It doesn't add anything to the article.

• Why should we keep it? Alinor (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And what type of map do you want to replace it? You already said that you don't want mission maps. I already said that I oppose removing the recognitions+relations map (B]). So, do you want to have B] + C] recognitions-only map? or B] + D] relations-only map? Alinor (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude with this question; I'm genuinely curious: Do you suffer from short-term memory loss? Whatever the answer may be, can you recall the following statement you made about four days ago?

"We can have separate map for SoP recognition and/or separate map for PLO/PNA relations ... I will prepare such new maps."

I'm curious because over the past week we've discussed this (as well as other matters) to death, and I described my proposal for replacing the old map on Sunday. You agreed (or seemed to agree) with my proposal for the new maps, and wrote that you would prepare them. But now, four days later, you seem genuninely ignorant of our initial discussion... Can you make these new maps, or not? I'm afraid I'm no good with them myself, but I know another editor with whom I normally lodge similar requests. Nightw 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You put my quote out of context - it was in reference to your suggestion to split the table 'in order to have two maps'. I just said that splitting the table is unrelated to splitting the map. And I can prepare the maps - as example. But I don't agree to remove the B] map. I agree to have B] + other map, even B] + two other maps if you insist. That's what I ask - what do you prefer:

1. B] + missions map(s)
2. B] + relations-only map
3. B] + recognitions-only map
4. B] + relations-only map + recognitions-only map 07:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that'd be great if you could make those maps, and if these are the only four options you'll agree to, then I'll take the last one, providing the colouring on the mixed map is improved. Nightw 10:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Improved coloring - what do you mean? Any specific RGB values for the colors? Alinor (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I referred to colouring in my comment on Sunday. Remember? You can still see it above. Nightw 14:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it so hard to just copy the timestamp instead of referring to the comment as "from Sunday". It's easier to find it that way.

So, you want special coloring for "inconclusive" cases? This will bring the colors to too much - currently they are 4 (recognition-only, relations-only, recognition+relations, none). Adding special coloring for "inconclusive" will add at least 2 more (relations-only, but maybe also recognition; none, but maybe also recognition; other combinations theoretically possible, but we don't have such currently).

What about adding the "inconclusive" coloring only in the "relations-only map" and "recognitions-only map" (there this will give a total of 3 colors - instead of 6 or more) - and leaving the recognition+relations map as it is currently (4 colors, restrictive coloring of the inconclusive)? Alinor (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well they need to be presented as inconclusive in all maps. Either colour them something different, or colour them grey like the ones with no data. Colouring them as blue means that they don't recognise the State, as it says in the legend. I didn't realise there was a maximum amount of colours you could add to the image? Is this right? If it is only a guideline, I think that neutrality is a valid reason for exception. Nightw 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can add many more colors, but the guideline is to keep them as few as possible. There are many reasons for this, but of course if we really need to we can have more colors.

But if I color them gray, then we will be inconsistent in showing the relations (it would look like these don't have relations). And in order to have a separate colors for the "inconclusive" we have to add two more colors (no relations +inconclusive recognition; relations+inconclusive recognition). And after all, this "inconclusive" section should be only temporary - we should aim to find good sources for these and move them either up or down. Alinor (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is temporary. All I am saying is that until then, we cannot apply one or the other. By colouring them blue, it shows that they don't recognise the State, as it says in the legend, which introduces a contradiction with the table. So it needs to be changed. I'll leave it up to you. Nightw 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here. File:Palestine recognitions only.png, File:Palestine relations only.png. Alinor (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay these are good, but isn't it better to present them in different colour schemes? To avoid confusion. Nightw 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See updated colors. Alinor (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The second is good, although I preferred the original scheme for the recognitions map. I apologise if I seem picky. Nightw 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In the second case two of the colors match the colors in the relations+recognitions map. Would it be better if I change the "inconclusive" to dark yellow for example? Or we can just revert the map to its first colors. Alinor (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I liked it better the first time. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The old map can be replaced once these two are in order. Nightw 21:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

John V. Whitbeck source

This source was recently used by User:Night w to make two changes:

1. move Thailand from "There is no infomation available pertaining to the positions of: ... Thailand ..." to "Not recognizing SoP: ..."
2. add statement that "one reporter claimed ... no more than 106 states [recognize SoP]" (at the time of Bolivia announcement, before Ecuador announcement)

On the first point my opinion is that there is no need to distinguish between "no information" and "no recognition" in the first place, but if we are going to do this we would need sources for the second part. On the second point my opinion is that unless we know who/when recognized SoP between 107th and "more than 130th" it's better to stick with 107 (e.g. the source is supporting my opinion), but again - if we are to claim that "XXX claims that 106/107 states recognize SoP" we need a source for that claim.

The problem here is that I think this particular source can't be used because of WP:CIRCULAR: "editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia" - by reading the source I have the impression that it is based mostly on this very article here (it can't be a coincidence that the number 106 is used - I would expect from non-influenced-by-Wikipedia source to take into account at least one of the 9 "conflicting or inconclusive sources" cases). This is flattering for Wikipedia and also I congratulate John V. Whitbeck that he didn't blindly copied "about/over 130" number (as many other sources do), but tried to figure out who these 130 are.

The problem is that we can't use this source to back up the 106/107 number - or to distinguish Thailand from the rest of "no information" cases - IMHO Thailand is mentioned in this source only because it's one of the 20 most populous states and it's mentioned as "not recognizing SoP" because it's not in the first section of the table. Obviously the source author agrees with my opinion that those states that we don't have information about don't recognize SoP - so we either combine the two (I support this and it seems the source author supports this) or we leave Thailand in the "no information" list. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You're seriously presuming that a qualified international lawyer and a contact of the PNA is using Wikipedia as a reference for his work? Seriously? You don't think that maybe he studied proper reference work somewhere in his education? And you're basing this assumption on a similarity in numbers, and expect us to cite WP:CIRCULAR to disqualify him as a source ... based on assumptions? Seriously? Nightw 08:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh! And you've gone and accused sources of "blindly copying" others without any proof provided. Or is that an assumption as well? Reminder: this page is not a forum for you to make speculations and announce your opinions. Nightw 08:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Yes, this is only my opinion - that's why I posted it here and didn't remove the source immediately, but maybe I will add a dubious tag at least on the Thailand usage.

I already have experience with reputable source using Wikipedia work (initially they didn't mentioned Wikipedia, but later they acknowledged using it), so this is not surprising me.

"studied proper reference work somewhere in his education" - and what will be this reference work that includes events of 2010 such as the 104th and 105th recognitions? Where is this curriculum that is so often updated (daily)?

As I said - this source supports my opinions, but this doesn't make it more suitable to use, since it still highly probable that this is a WP:CIRCULAR breach.

About the other sources that maybe do blindly copy - of course this is my assumption (if I have a source stating that I would have provided it). Do you really think that every text you find on the web or in the news is checked thoughtfully and that there aren't journalists that simply report what they have readed/heard somewhere? Especially for such detail (number of states recognizing SoP) that is very hard to check (if it was easy then we would already have found a proper list of these) and is commonly confused even by reputable experts (by your description) in this field (one or both of Whitbeck and Boyle).

You can't simultaneously claim that both Whitbeck and Boyle are total experts on the matter, have some divine knowledge about it, do not make any mistakes/are aways right, etc. - when they give contradictionary figures for SoP recognitions ("106/107" vs. "about 130"). They can't be both right. And there is also the coincidence between Whitbeck number and the number in this Wikipedia article.

So, if you think that the number 106 (107 with the subsequent Ecuador) is coming from "study of proper reference work somewhere in the education of qualified international lawyer that is contact of the PNA" - then let's move Cameroon, Syria, Guyana, Swaziland, Vanuatu, Suriname, Turkmenistan, Lesotho, Uruguay to the "not recognizing SoP" section. Alinor (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, WP:NOTAFORUM. Stop wasting everyone's time with your lengthy ponderings and speculations. If you have a problem with a particular source, take it to WP:RS/N. Nightw 14:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. See also below. Alinor (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, you have found one more source that seems to be WP:CIRCULAR - this by QUIGLEY. It gives the number of SoP recognitions as "With recognitions in recent weeks by Brazil and Argentina, some 105 states now formally recognize Palestine at the diplomatic level." - I think that it gets this number from the Wikipedia page as edited after Brazil and Argentina - for example this (Argentina is 105th). Of course we now know that it was really the 106th (because of Dominican Republic that you found later). The other arguments are as for the Whitbeck source. Alinor (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I opened this discussion. Alinor (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was inconclusive and advised to use other sources if we can - we already have plenty of other sources (including for the same period in time - end of 2010 after the recent recognitions - "over 130") - that's why I added to the 105/106 sources discussed here 'unreliable source?' tags and hidden text pointing to this discussion. Night w, any reason to remove these tags? Alinor (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not "inconclusive". You had three editors telling you that your assumptions are not enough. If you disagree with what was said, recall the thread from the archives and ask for further opinions. Otherwise, step down. Any unilateral tagging of these sources against community consensus is disruptive. Nightw 05:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

One of these 3 editors was you, and in fact you are the only one, who knows the background of how the article became what it is now, etc. The 4th editor am I think these two figures are WP:CIRCULAR. The second editor is stating the general principles, etc. - but this case is not your regular "use google to find the figure" case where these general principle apply without problems. The third editor suggested to find "similarly reliable source that disagrees with Whitbeck and Quigley" (when I gave these sources below nobody responded. And while I don't find Boyle as more reliable than the Johns - at least his number is bigger - and thus MAYBE is correct - unlike the Johns numbers. You object to move some state from the "inconclusive" to "no recognition" section, but if you find the Johns reliable we should move all of the states from the "inconclusive" section). Alinor (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with what the editors have said in the noticeboard, or whether their points were valid, it doesn't change the fact that you had two editors telling you not to assume. It's important for you to realise that we are not using (and cannot use, given the disagreement between sources) these sources as a basis for any claim: the sentence merely says that "lawyer a says this, and lawyer b says that". And that is a fact. Whether they are reliable, where they got their information from, whether they got it right ... let the reader decide. Nightw 06:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So, in order to let the reader decide we have to inform him about the potential WP:CIRCULAR usage. That's why I put the tags - do you have other suggestion how to do this? Alinor (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

? Maintenance tags are for editors, to fix a problem, not a wink to readers that one editor thinks there might be something wrong. Especially when nobody seems to share that editor's opinion. Can you imagine the amount of silly tags everywhere if that was allowed? Nightw 07:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody removed the link to one of the Johns. Why? While I'm against using these two sources - if we are going to use them I don't see why we should remove the link. Alinor (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving - Night w

Night w, this edit seems to delete parts of past discussion without moving them to an archive page. Please check if this is a repeat of this situation, correct if needed, be careful in the feature.

Excuse me if there is no problem and I just can't find were you moved the content. Alinor (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think it's better that still unresolved issues are not archived. Alinor (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

America

Dominican Republic recognised the State of Palestine on 11 July 2009. Accredited embassy is in Cairo. (Sources 1, 2).

There's a possibility that Saint Kitts and Nevis also recognises it (Source).

Belize has an accredited special delegation in Mexico (Source).

Colombia, Chile, Peru, and Mexico also have special delegations. Canada and the United States have general delegations. Nightw 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Republic. Nice catch! Looking at the source I don't see 11 July 2009, but 15 July 2009. Otherwise - we should add this.

Saint Kitts and Nevis. This is a list of "countries/territories" requiring visa. The special cases I see listed are SoP, TRNC, PRC and "Western Sahara" (not SADR). Also, it's not clear if unlisted states are those without relations/recognition or just they don't need a visa. Taiwan ROC is not listed, but is recognized by St.Kitts (even the webpage is sponsored by it). Israel and Cyprus are not listed. Since PRC is listed (it's unrecognized by St.Kitts) I don't think that listing SoP is any indication of recognition. In summary - I don't see how we can use this list and if it's relevant in our question here (SoP recognition). Alinor (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Saint Kitts source can come in handy for Visa policy of Saint Kitts and Nevis of Template:Visa policy by country. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A side note - so it seems that Whitbeck was wrong, because with this 2009 or earlier recognition Bolivia becomes the 107th, not the 106th as stated in the Whitbeck source. But we should not blame him - instead he can blame us, because Wikipedia is the source that gave him the wrong information in the first place (I think). Alinor (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. These have been added. Nightw 09:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you update the map for DR, Belize, Brunei, and Burkina Faso? Nightw 09:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And for Lao, when you get a chance please. Nightw 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Night w, would you care to discuss some other changes you are making (see my edit-line comments). For example - I don't see in the DR sources a date of SoP recognition. Neither is the PLO Israel-relations Gaza department inside Israel. Etc. Etc. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See below, please. You're going to need to give me more than 147 seconds to respond. Nightw 13:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dominican Republic: The recognition came upon the same date as the signing of the communique. "El presidente del Estado palestino manifestó su satisfacción por el reconocimiento de República Dominicana, al tiempo de expresar su seguridad de que el liderazgo del presidente Fernández servirá para la búsqueda de la paz con Israel, en el Medio Oriente." Nightw 04:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. As a side note - I don't think that the dates are different (14th vs. 15th) - most probably the source from 14th is just an announcement for the imminent recognition+relations establishment whose paperwork was done a day later. Alinor (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dashes, other things

• Dashes are similar to "N/A". They imply a negative in the field in which they're present. We should leave the fields blank unless it's confirmed that no embassy is present. Nightw 13:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Chilean delegation is an "embassy". It's not an implication of recognition. That's just what the status of the delegation is. It's the same with Guyana and Palestine, Ethiopia and Somaliland. Nightw 13:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies for the edit conflict. I've fixed some of the edits I'd overridden. Nightw 13:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ups, it seems I edited over older variant (but got no warrning of edit-conflict!) Alinor (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK about the dashes, if you so much insist.

We don't have source with the official accreditation (or similar) document for the Chilean delegation, so I don't know how it's official name. The "Embassy of Representation of Palestine", the UN observer entity seems logical. And "Embassy of Palestine" is the short name of this. Alinor (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean. What do you need for me to change the Chilean type to "embassy"? Nightw 04:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what we have for Chile. First it doesn't recognize SoP. See also above. Then we have:

• [5] - "Embassy of Palestine in Chile"
• [6] - "Embassy of Representation of Palestine"
• [7] - "Representation office of Palestine"
• we don't have source with the official accreditation (or similar) document for the Chilean delegation, so we don't know what is its official name.

So, I propose to keep it as "Embassy of Representation of Palestine" until we have a document that shows the full official name of the mission (similar to this for example). Alinor (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The Greek delegation was cited as "Diplomatic representation", and we just listed it as "representation". Why not the same for Chile? Why not just stick to one word: "Representation"? Nightw 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's change Chile to "Representation office" or "Representation". Alinor (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. Why is it okay in your view to use simply "Representation", but not simply "Embassy"? Especially given your reasoning above: "we don't have source with the official accreditation (or similar) document for the Chilean delegation, so I don't know how it's official name". Why would this not also affect the use of "Representation"? Nightw 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with your suggestion to put "Representation", now you don't want to. What do you propose? Alinor (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a serious suggestion. But now I'd like to know why you haven't applied the same reasoning as you did to "embassy". You said, "we don't have source with the official accreditation (or similar) document for the Chilean delegation, so I don't know how it's official name". Why would this not also affect the use of "Representation"? Nightw 11:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what are you proposing, because if you don't want to make any changes I don't see why we should continue this discussion. Alinor (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I see that you sneaked a change on this among other edits without even mentioning it in the edit line. The recent Chile recognition of SoP doesn't change the status of the mission there - so the discussion above still applies. Only if we had some recent source about a change in the status of the mission it would be OK. Alinor (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The "discussion" above is a farce. You applied basic WP:V logic in order to disqualify one term that you weren't satisfied with, but then when presented with a term you were seemingly okay with, but which wasn't any higher in terms of verifiability, you apparently ignored that same reasoning. So I'm still waiting to here what happened... Nightw 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless - I find it strange that you complain about "hidden text" notes to editors (that don't have any influence on the article text), but at the same time you do sneak changes along other edits without mentioning them in the edit line comment - when you know that the issue is discussed at length on the talk page (regardless if you think my arguments are "farce" or not). Alinor (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think out disagreement here boils down to that - I want that the reader is informed whether the mission is to PLO or SoP. You are fine with using "Palestine" or "Embassy" instead of specifying exactly what it refers to. Alinor (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify - the mission in Chile is "Embassy of PLO (called "Palestine" per UN designation)"/"Embassy of the Representation of PLO/Palestine", "Representation of PLO/Palestine". It is not "Embassy of SoP". Chile recognized SoP just recently, much later than the establishment of the mission.

Of course now we have a different problem - is it already changed to "Embassy of SoP", or some additional paperwork is needed for this? Alinor (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Africa

Alinor, can you please update the map for Zambia, Benin, Seychelles, and Mauritius ...when you get a chance? Nightw 11:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Europe

Alinor, can you update the map for Iceland and Moldova when you get a chance please? Also, while I was looking at delegation types in Europe, I had trouble with France, United Kingdom, and Norway. These three have recently upgraded the status of their delegations. Whether it's in effect yet, I'm not sure. I'll have to look into it further later, but they can't be called "General delegations" anymore. Nightw 15:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK about the map.

about "upgraded" cases - such upgrades do not necessarily mean that the official mission type changes from "general delegation" into something else - the privileges/status of PLO mission may be upgraded without changing its official name. So, I propose that we keep the name as used at the France/UK/Norway MFA pages. The opposite case also happens - for example Brazil recognized SoP, but this doesn't automatically mean that the "special delegation" becomes an embassy. For example Lebanon recognizes SoP, but has PLO office instead of SoP embassy.

General source for delegation types. This list includes many of the countries. The problem is that it has self-contradictions ("New Zealand embassy from Australia embassy", but when you look at Australia up in the list you see "general delegation" and not "embassy" - just like the other sources that we already have for Australia) and contradicts official MFA pages (Austria/Greece/Syria - "embassy" in this list vs. "representation/mission" in the official MFA pages). Thus I propose that we use it only when it doesn't contradict other sources (it can fill many of the cases already identified as delegations with special/general adjectives). Alinor (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just updated some (all?) entries according to this list and the suggestion above. Alinor (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, it seems that this source can be added to some of the currently "citation needed" missions. Alinor (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea

Following the above (it was listed without source as recognizing SoP before the last overhaul of the list) and the sources found ([8] showing relations with it; [9] showing shared non-resident ambassador with Djibouti, Comoros, Somalia - for these three there are other sources showing the recognize SoP) and our listing of Guyana into "conflicting or inconclusive sources" - because although there is a source mentioning "Embassy of Palestine" (non-resident, shared with Cuba) to Guyana it's without direct reference to SoP - I will move Eritrea also to "conflicting or inconclusive sources". Alinor (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for Guyana we additionally have the dubious generalized OIC/AL reference. We don't have such for Eritrea. Alinor (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved it back, for consistency with Papua New Guinea and East Timor - see below. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Guyana Recognizes

Guyana offically recognized palestine today, [[10]]XavierGreen (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also find this official Guyana MFA press release: "Statement by the Government of Guyana in Recognition of the State of Palestine - The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine as a free, independent, and sovereign state, based on its 1967 borders. ... January 13, 2011 - Ministry of Foreign Affairs". I will move it accordingly. Alinor (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There was some previous announcement that OIC members Guyana and Suriname will work in the Caribbean Community for a common decision for all Caricom members to recognize SoP. Anybody got something on this? Alinor (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Suriname

Continuing past OIC members discussion. Currently we keep Suriname in the "inconclusive" section, because of the single source with the generalizing statement that "all OIC members recognise Palestine as a state" - we already have seen that this is not true (e.g. Guyana recognized yesterday instead of years ago as the 'generalizing source' claims) - and we have also this recent news: "Suriname, another South American country and Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member, is expected to recognize Palestine within the coming days. Suriname is also a member of the OIC." - should we move Suriname to "not recognizing" (yet)? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do this shortly. Nightw 10:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

As in the case for Suriname - we keep it in the "inconclusive" section because of a single source - the 'generalizing source'. As shown above it is inaccurate. Should we move Turkmenistan to "not recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Nightw 10:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Syria

As in the case for Suriname - we keep it in the "inconclusive" section because of a single source - the 'generalizing source'. As shown above it is inaccurate. Should we move Syria to "not recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not have been inaccurate. Curtis Doebbler is still considered a reputable source on the subject, and we can only go off what the sources say. Whether Guyana and Suriname joined the motion to recognise the State of Palestine when it took place is not known. Guyana's recognition may simply be the first formal statement it has made. In the case of Syria, there was also its membership in the Arab League cited as a reason for having recognised. So this needs further investigation. Nightw 10:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "Guyana's recognition may simply be the first formal statement it has made"? The Guyana MFA statement is "The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine..." - so they took the decision in 2011, not years before as Curtis Doebbler claims. Guyana has supported the Palestinian cause since long time - see [11] ("...consistently called for the establishment of a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders") - and thus most probably supported SoP OIC membership - and all this may confuse somebody into thinking that Guyana recognizes SoP. But the 2011 Guyana MFA statement clearly shows that the recognition was made in 2011, not before. So we should no more use this particular source (I don't say that we don't use Curtis Doebbler in general).

AL or OIC the generalizing source, statement and arguments are the same. We removed the Boyle source with "127 recognizers" figure because of his wrong "195 UN members" claim. The case here is the same - OIC generalizing statement is proven wrong and we can't use the same analogous AL generalizing statement from the same source. Alinor (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cameroon

Cameroon is kept in the "inconclusive" section because of two sources - the 'generalizing source' that is shown above to be wrong and the '94 list' source that is also shown to be wrong (here and here). Should we move Cameroon to "not recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Nightw 10:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

UN Palestinian Delegation

I recently email the Palestinian delegation to the UN. They will kindly email a list of recognizing nations (I know its not credible based on my words). Based on what I was sent Syria does recognize Palestine. The following are not on the delegations list: Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Paraguay, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu. Thought I'd at least try and mention this even though it probably won't be considered.69.203.217.91 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the email that you can upload here? Nightw 06:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What have they send you? This "delegations list" or a list of states that recognize the State of Palestine? Both lists are not the same and maybe that's why there is a discrepancy. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a regular list of states that recognize Palestine along the 67 borders that they complied for me. It was from Mid-December so it doesn't reflect the states that recently recognized. I don;t know how to upload filed on to Wiki so let me figure that out or anyone one of you can gladly email for an updated copy here - palestine@un.int 69.203.217.91 (talk)

Could you copy and paste the text of the email here, please?

As you can see below (and above and in the archives) - when we speak about "Palestine" no list is "regular", we need to be extra careful and to find sources that specify what they refer to, etc.

If the list that they send to you doesn't include Paraguay and Kyrgyzstan as "State of Palestine" recognizers it will be in contradiction with the official MFA pages of these countries. Thus, IMHO the credibility of such list suffers. The page I gave you above (also coming from Palestinian UN delegation) misses these two - thus I would assume that your list is something similar to it and maybe doesn't list countries that officially recognize the State of Palestine as declared in 1988 - but lists something else: countries having established diplomatic relations with the PLO/PNA or "Palestine, a reference to the PLO, the UN observer entity", countries recognizing Palestine state right to exist in the 1967 borders (or some other support statement like [12] - that doesn't go as far as "official 1988-SoP recognition"), etc. Alinor (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The other type of "regular" list found is [13] or [14] (and problems with these lists are discussed here/here and above about PLO diplomatic relations). - and we should keep in mind that the email is coming from "Palestine Delegation" is PLO Delegation and not "Palestine Delegation". Alinor (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Palestine News Network

A recent article (published 11 January) from the Palestine News Network reported some very interesting information regarding recognition, including a map of recognising states published by the network.

Their source is Foreign Minister al-Malki. The minister reportedly claimed the figure to be "at least 110", which included 49 out of the 53 African states (exceptions being Eritrea, Liberia, Malawi, Lesotho), and all but three of Asia's 53 states (exceptions Israel, Japan, South Korea). The map, in its most notable differences from our own, shows recognition by Turkmenistan, Thailand, Myanmar, Syria, Cameroon, Swaziland, and the Vatican; it also shows no recognition by Georgia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and East Timor. It is also interesting to note that all OIC members are accounted for, including Suriname and Guyana, and that the article was published prior to Guyana's recent statment. It also shows recognition from Uruguay, but given the confusion surrounding that and the fact that recognition has been given, just not formalised, I don't think this can discredit anything.

The minister stated that Abbas had set a two-year deadline for Palestinian statehood in September 2009, and that focus is now on achieving recognition from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and the Caribbean. On the European Union, the minister said "There are preparations underway with the European Union to recognize a Palestinian State on the first of September. The Spanish Foreign Minister has told me that the European Union will recognize a Palestinian state by the beginning of September, and if it doesn’t, Spain will be the first European country to announce its recognition." Norway has also announced that it will be ready to recognise the state in September.

Another quote that may interest Alinor regarding a previous discussion: "When we began our diplomatic plans for international recognition, we found that the majority of countries that had recognized Palestine in 1988 were from Asia and Africa."

I think we need to reconsider what warrants inclusion in this "Conflicting sources" section, as there appears to be claims every which way when it comes to some countries. The difficult aspect of this source is that it uses a primary referee (the minister). If we take unverified sources (Ali Kazak, that IP with the email above) into weak consideration also, new reports affect the positions of the following states:

• Thailand, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Syria.
• Lesotho, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Swaziland.
• Georgia, Holy See.
• Paraguay, Suriname, Dominican Republic.
• Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, East Timor.

Feel free to add others that you can see. I think we should refrain from making any judgement calls about any of these until we've decided the WP:V requirements for each of the three sections ("Yes", "Maybe", "No"). One last thing, another list of states witholding recognition was published by Press TV (8 December). Nightw 06:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it the task becomes more complicated, but let's hope we can manage that.

Let's first discuss what we have in the PNN article:

• direct quotes of the Foreign minister
• PNN writer interpretations (when it is not a direct quote)
• a map whose origin seems to be "PNN Images" (I don't see GFDL attribution about using blank Wikipedia map and this is maybe a copyright violation, but anyway - at least ) - I assume that the map is PNN writer interpretation and not supplied by the Foreign minister - IMHO Foreign ministers don't bring such maps along to interviews (anybody to disagree? after all, this whole issue is not a regular foreign policy topic and maybe the minister did bring that map after all). Where did you find the link to the bigger version?

There are different problems with each of these three types of information - foreign minister quotes should be reliable, but he is a POVed/primary source; I don't see PNN writer interpretations as more reliable (because, in their core, they are rewording of the foreign minister words), but maybe some of you might think otherwise; the map is difficult to evaluate because its origin is unknown - it can be either direct from Foreign minister or based on PNN writer interpretation of additional sources (including Wikipedia, as obviously the blank map used is coming from there - but I don't accuse this map as WP:CIRCULAR because it doesn't match any of the Wikipedia lists/maps that I know).

The text and map include some self-contradictions such as:

• "Spain will be the first European country to announce its recognition." - this text is of type direct quote, in fact a quote inside a quote (Foreign minister quoting another Foreign minister) - we already have sources and the map shows many other 'European countries' that recognize SoP; maybe it should be only Western Europe in the political sense of "European, not former communist states"?)
• "... recognize the Palestinian state, as do all but three of Asia’s 53 countries—Japan, South Korea, and Israel being the key holdouts." - this text is of type PNN writer interpretation - I don't know how they count Asia countries to be 53 (Asia gives this number if we include all entities from the table there - Hong Kong, Macau; borderline cases of Turkey, Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, East Timor and mentioned directly below the table Egypt; Taiwan); three countries are listed as "key holdouts" (this implies that there are more, non-key, holdouts/non-recognizers) - but at the same time it is said "all but three [recognize the Palestinian state]" (this implies that there are only three) - in addition to the three mentioned "holdouts" the map shows as non-recognizer Singapore, Georgia, Armenia, Taiwan (Georgia and Armenia are maybe disregarded as non-Asian, and Taiwan is maybe disregarded because of its disputed status - but then the 53 number will not match) - so, maybe the Foreign minister said "Some asian countries still don't recognize SoP and among these are the three key holdouts of Japan, South Korea, and Israel" - and the PNN writer slightly misreported it ("all but three" instead of "at least/more than 3") and combined it with the Wikipedia Asia page 53 list (and having in mind that the blank map used is also from Wikipedia I think that the map is made by the PNN writer and not by the Foreign minister). In this case the problem is who are the "more than 3rd holdouts" (the map, in contradiction to the text even if do the "disregards" I mentioned, gives at least one - Singapore - but having all this contradictions just show that maybe there are a few more. If the minister really said "all but three", then this contradicts the map showing Singapore as non-recognizer.
• "added al-Malki, saying that a representative from Paraguay had assured Abbas that the South American nation would recognize Palestine in the coming weeks, as would Uruguay." - this text is of type PNN writer interpretation - we have sources showing that Uruguay will recognize in 2011 (this matches the text) and will an Embassy would be established. We have source showing that Paraguay already recognizes SoP (contradicting the text) and currently there isn't hosting SoP Embassy. Maybe the al-Maliki words were not exactly as the PNN writer interpreted them - maybe al-Maliki said something like "A SoP embassies will be established soon in Paraguay and Uruguay, who will recognize Palestine". Yes, I know we are not here to rewrite the sources, but having in mind the other self-contradictions I wouldn't exclude the possibility of mistakes there. Also - this text contradicts the map (Uruguay is shown as recognizer). And if we are going to assume that the map shows unofficial instead of official recognitions (e.g. al-Maliki says "Uruguay doesn't yet recognize" and the map shows "Uruguay recognizes") - then we can't use it.
• map showing France as non-recognizer and French Guiana as recognizer. This is obviously incorrect and shows only lack of attention by the person coloring the map. This makes the rest of the coloring doubtful.

So, because of all said above, I don't think we can just copy what the text/map say/shows - we should apply extra care.

The source includes also this:

• "Al-Malki said at least 110 nations currently recognize Palestine as a state with ambassador-level representation, according to Yasser Arafat’s November 15, 1988 Declaration of Independence" - a PNN writer interpretation. After the "at least 110" it mentions "recognize Palestine as a state", "ambassador-level representation", "according to ... 1988 declaration". I could construct various examples, where this interpretation is allegedly not correctly reporting Al-Maliki words (e.g. that this number is not about "SoP recognitions") - similar to the "all but three" vs. "key holdouts" - but having in mind the whole text this seems unlikely. So, for what is wroth, I think we can use this "at least 110" in the Background section along the other similar figures.
• "Forty-nine of Africa’s 53 countries recognize the Palestinian state ..." - PNN writer interpretation - I think that this is just counting what is shown here (it obviously disregards Western Sahara/SADR - Africa 53 total number includes only 2 of SADR, Morocco, Somaliland and Somalia, and if we are going to take the 49 recognizers from the map - SADR/Somaliland have to be the non-included).
• The map legend is "Recognizes Palestine ('67)" (I assume '67 refers to 1967 borders) and "No recognition". If it was "Recognizes Palestine ('88)" or "Recognizes the State of Palestine" I would be more confident in it, because this "Palestine '67" could also mean "Recognizes Palestine state right to exist in the 1967 borders before Israel occupation of the West Bank/Gaza Strip" (e.g. statement of support, but not yet recognition of SoP - like the many similar statements made in the last 30-40 years). What it means depends on who made the map and how he interpreted the sources he used to color it.

Anyway, let's put aside the 'primary source', 'self-contradictions', 'map-legend uncertainty', 'map-origin uncertainty' issues - let's assume for the moment that the map shows 'recognition of 1988-SoP'/the text deals with the same thing - and let's see where the text/map contradicts what we currently have in the article (or what they show about our "inconclusive" section):

• Paraguay. PNN writer interpration (and map) showing as non-recognizer. I think that we should not use such contradiction of Paraguay MFA page (see above).
• Dominican Republic. PNN map showing as non-recognizer. I think that we should not use such contradiction of Dominican Republic (and State of Palestine) official document [15]
• Guyana. Map showing as recognizer for time before 2011-01-13. I think that we should not use such contradiction of Guyana government decision [16].
• Uruguay. Map showing as recognizer. Contradicts the text (of PNN writer interpration type). I think that we should not use such contradiction of various sources we have (see above) that clearly show some people misreported Uruguay as recognizer in 2010.
• Suriname. Map showing as recognizer. Contradicts another source (see above - albeit it is also just a news report writer interpretation at least there are no self-contradictions or contradictions with official sources in it). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Cameroon. Map showing as recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Swaziland. Map showing as recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Lesotho. Map showing as non-recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Vanuatu. Map showing as non-recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Syria. Map showing as recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Turkmenistan. Map showing as recognizer (vs. inconclusive). Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Myanmar. Map showing as recognizer. Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Thailand. Map showing as recognizer. Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use the map.
• Vatican City. Map showing as recognizer. Having in mind all self-contradictions, doubtful interpretations and coloring mistake - I think we should not use such contradiction of the Vatican MFA page.
• Equatorial Guinea. Map showing as recognizer. Mentioned because of IP email missing it. I think it's missing from the IP email delegations or recognitions or relations list, because it hasn't established relations (thus doesn't have even a non-resident mission) yet. Eq.Guinea is a small country and it has small network of diplomatic relations, so this is not untypical or strange. I think we should not use this contradiction of the UNESCO source, but it doesn't give a date of recognition, so this is a weak 'maybe move to "inconclusive"'.
• Kyrgyzstan. Map showing as recognizer. Mentioned because of IP email missing it. I think it's missing from the IP email delegations or recognitions or relations list, because it is missing from [17], but I think we should not use such contradiction of the Kyrgyz MFA page.
• Georgia. Map showing as non-recognizer. This is the only case where I agree to take action - it seems that the Georgia source somehow avoided the detailed WP:V scrutiny we applied for all entities in the table - its inclusion into "recognizer" section is backed by [18], but it says only "Diplomatic relations between Georgia and Palestine were established on April 25, 1992" and I think that doesn't mean "State of Palestine", but "Palestine, a reference to the PLO, the UN observer entity". This only shows how careful we should be - and applies also to Eritrea, Guyana (pre-13Jan2011), Chile (pre-7Jan2011), Timor-Leste, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Austria, Greece, Holy See/Vatican City, Syria - all of these are mentioned in one or another source showing diplomatic relations, emabssies, ambassadors - from "Palestine" (without reference to SoP). Another notable feature of the Georgia source is that it includes a map that has inside a text about Oslo Accords and how Palestine status is undetermined (e.g. this contradicts the assumption of SoP recognition) - of course this map seems like taken from the CIA WorldFactbook (USA, SoP non-recognizer) - so maybe this isn't worth very much.

Having gone trough the whole text and map I want to make one final comment. While the map is not WP:CIRCULAR, I think that it is based on File:Palestine-recognition-map.png with slight changes (most probably based on interpretations of some unknown sources by the PNN writer - but also maybe by some people in the staff of the Foreign minister): all non-dark-green are colored as "non-recognizers" (instead of showing the different types of non-SoP missions/relations); Austria and Greece are colored as non-recognizers (per the text Spain-related part - see Western Europe explanation above; also an IP commented on the map discussion page that these two are "non-recognizers") - related is Vatican that remained unchanged as recognizer (e.g. sloppiness/mistake); Myanmar and Thailand are colored as recognizers (per the text "all but 3 - Israel, Japan, South Korea - but of course this PNN writer interpretation is doubtful for the reasons explained above) - related is Singapore that remained unchanged as non-recognizer (Singapore contradicts the text - e.g. sloppiness/mistake); Uruguay and French Guiana are colored as "recognizers" (this contradicts the text, so I don't see any logical reason - e.g. sloppiness/mistake). Alinor (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

About the second source you found - Press TV - it says "UPDATE: French officials told American news web site Politico that the Press TV report upon which this report draws was "highly inaccurate" and that France will recognize Palestine as a result of negotiations, as per a 1999 European Council resolution.", so if this part is inaccurate I don't think we can assume that others are more accurate, but anyway, lets see. It deals with "first Western European country" and Uruguay correctly. But then it says: "One-hundred thirty countries currently recognize the state of Palestine. The countries that either extend special diplomatic status (but not recognition) or no form of recognition at all are: ..." (This "130" exact number seems as inaccurate simplification of Boyle "about 130" or the related IMHO "over 130" statements after 2009 Latin American recognitions - and looking at the other parts of the text Argentina and Brazil recognitions are taken into account by Press TV). The list that follows seems based on File:Palestine-recognition-map.png (but older version before Bolivia and Ecuador recognitions got shown - the text is date 8.12.2010, thus matches this assumption), but seems inaccurate because it includes French Guiana (I assume that they would have listed New Caledonia too - if it wasn't for the unspecified "several Pacific Island states"); includes Taiwan, but not Western Sahara (other limited recognition states are not depicted on this map); includes North Korea instead of South Korea (or at least this is my interpretation - that this is by mistake/sloppiness - if it is on purpose then it contradicts many other sources). Singapore is maybe represented as non-recognizer by the "several Pacific Island states" (OK, I'm joking). Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein are not listed as "non-recognizers" (despite shown as such on the map and the presence of Andorra - again because of sloppiness?). I don't think we can use this source for anything. Alinor (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I know you don't like my interpretations and assumptions - but these sources are full of contradictions and in my opinion rely too much on File:Palestine-recognition-map.png. They are not WP:CIRCULAR - partly because of genuine modifications (but having in mind the mistakes and contradictions - I don't think that PNN/Press TV writer interpretations are more reliable than this discussion page), but also because of sloppiness/mistakes. We can't rely on such sources. Alinor (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:TLDR? That could've been summarised in a few sentences. You're free to announce your interpretations and assumptions, but they won't have any bearing on the discussion. I'd appreciate the time-saver if they were left out, but I've also learned to deal with them well enough. Apart from any of that, I will add the minister's reported figures to the background section. Nightw 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, the point is - both sources are almost unusable (why - please read above) - we can only give some confidence to the "at least 110" Foreign minister quote. Alinor (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ali Kazak

The following is an excerpt from the article on Ali Kazak, who was, according to Arab News, the delegate of Palestine to Australia and New Zealand, and ambassador of Palestine to Vanuatu and East Timor. The article has been tagged as being autobiographical, but that's not to say it may not be factual. The references don't appear to be very helpful, as they don't include links. They do, however, have dates, so they should be fairly easy to verify. With this, we may be able to move Vanuatu out of limbo.

Kazak was the first Arab official to visit the South Pacific countries in 1985. He has been received by consecutive heads of governments, prime ministers and foreign ministers in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific region.

His efforts were crucial in gaining recognition by the Republic of Vanuatu (1985), Papua New Guinea (1994) and East Timor (2004) of the State of Palestine and the establishment of full diplomatic relations with these countries. Kazak presented his credentials as the non-resident Ambassador of Palestine to the Republic of Vanuatu on 19 October 1989 and to the Democratic Republic of East Timor on 2 March 2004. He was also Ambassador-designate to Papua New Guinea (1994–2006).

References

I've added url links where I can find them. The office is currently held by one Izzat Abdulhadi (Sources: 1, 2). Nightw 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, but I'm not sure we can use the offline sources without 'need quotation to verify' tags and thus these will go into the middle section at most.

The PDF about Australia recognitions of the 1990s is good, but unfortunately it just confirms Australia non-recognition and doesn't say anything about East Timor, Vanuautu, Papua New Guinea.

Looking at this I assume that Australia/New Zealand don't recognize SoP and East Timor/Vanuautu/Papua New Guinea recognize SoP (because of "ambassador") - but the Australia PDF states that "The Australian Government representatives maintain contacts with the PLO up to and including ambassadorial level." - as in other cases (Guyana, etc.) a more specific source about SoP recognition than a reference about "Palestine ambassador" would be needed.

• East Timor. We have this about East Timor stating "... establishing diplomatic relations with Palestine at the ambassadorial level. ... we hope that the Palestinian people can achieve the rights that they are fighting for." - again, inconclusive, but the lack of SoP reference [19] or even [20] - and also [21] "We would like to reiterate our support for the @road map@ and reaffirm our position of the right of the people of Palestine to self determination and independence and the establishment of an independent and sovereign State." ('support for establishment' doesn't seem the same as 'recognition of 1988-declared SoP') - points in the direction of no SoP recognition yet.
• Papua New Guinea. We have the "ambassador" link from above. We have a references with 1989 offline sources about PLO relations and another "ambassador". Do you find a Papua New Guinea MFA page?
• Vanuatu. We have the "ambassador" link from above. We have also (in the article already) one source containing conflicting statements (wrong number, wrongly included states) and one offline source without quotation (Taylor & Francis Group (2004). Europa World Year Book. Europa Publications. p. 3325. ISBN 9781857432558 - can you find this?) that maybe duplicates the other source. Here (Vanuatu MFA page?) nothing is found, but the content is not very useful for this question anyway. Then we have above two offline sources - about PLO recognition (not mentioning SoP - but maybe it is - we don't have quotation) and about relations (but unclear if with PLO or SoP - we lack quotation to check).

So, the Wikipedia article states "His efforts were crucial in gaining recognition by the Republic of Vanuatu (1985), Papua New Guinea (1994) and East Timor (2004) of the State of Palestine and the establishment of full diplomatic relations with these countries." and gives sources (some offline without quotations) about the establishment of relations (unclear if with PLO or SoP) and one about "PLO recognition" - but we don't have anything on "SoP recognition" (maybe there is inside the offline sources?).

So, I don't see what we can do unless we find quotations from these offline sources or something new at the MFA pages or elsewhere. At most we can move East Timor/Papua New Guinea to the middle section - we would base this solely on "ambassador" reference - like in case of Eritrea - but maybe we should instead move Eritrea back below? - we already have examples of semi-official references to PLO mission in a country not recognizing SoP as "embassy" (Chile pre-2011) and its head as "ambassador" (various) or relations as "ambassador level" (Australia PDF, various) - so "Palestine embassy/ambassador" is clearly not enough to show SoP recogntion. Alinor (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu

I see that you have already found one of the sources I ask above - the 2004 source that lists Vanuatu - here - it includes it in a "Countries with which the PLO maintains diplomatic relations: ...Vanuautu..." and the next paragraph is "The following states, while they do not recognize the State of Palestine, allow the PLO to maintain a regional office: ..." While this arrangement may imply that the first list contains states that do recognize SoP - this is not written in the source (it writes about PLO diplomatic relations - and as we have multiple examples, including the above Australia source, this isn't the same as to recognize SoP). Also the list of states that 'PLO maintains diplomatic relations with' includes Austria and Vatican City - and we have sources showing that these don't recognize SoP (see here and here) - so we should not just assume that the first paragraph lists states that recognize SoP - this isn't written in the source itself and contradicts the Austria and Vatican City MFA pages. In addition the two offline sources from the article on Ali Kazak show "PLO recognition" and "relations" (that matches the '2004 relations list source') and nothing about SoP. Should we move Vanuatu to "not recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Swaziland

Swaziland is kept in the "inconclusive" section because of two sources - the '2004 relations list source' (same as Vanuatu above; doesn't show "SoP recognition") and the '94 list source' (same as for Vanuatu and Cameroon below; contains inaccuracies and contradictions). Should we move Swaziland to "not recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The sources provided, while they may contain "inaccuracies and contradictions", are still both reputable and numerous enough to be considered accurate until directly disproven on these concerning topics (i.e., Swaziland and Vanuatu). Especially with Vanuatu, I would oppose any action being taken until I can locate the documents cited in the Ali Kazak article. Nightw 10:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "numerous" - there are only 2 - this that doesn't show SoP recognition, but PLO relations and the '94 list' that contradicts itself and wrongly includes at least 2 states (so we can't rely on this source for the other states too). Alinor (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also this book. Nightw 07:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The link you gave shows the list only partially (not reaching to 'S' to check for Swaziland, but let's assume it's there). The list includes Austria and I assume that it includes the Vatican City (like we assumed for Swaziland). So this list data obviously comes from the same place where the numerous '94 list' copy-one-from-another sources came from - together with their wrong inclusion of Austria and Vatican City.

Anyway, do you have a full quote of this source in order to see whether Swaziland is included (and how) and what other relevant things are said? Alinor (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"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.

… Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania ...". And no, it does not include the Vatican. Nightw 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And what is written in the paragraph after the list? Also, it would be good if we can have a look at the whole list - maybe there are more unaccounted for states there. OK, so it still includes Austria - and it doesn't include Vatican, because PLO relations with it (not SoP recognition) are established in 1994. [22]: "On October 25, 1994, the Holy See announced that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Holy See will exchange representations to be “open channels for continuing the development of mutual relations, understanding and cooperation. … It was decided to give to the already long-existing and fruitful working contacts a permanent and official character. The Palestine Liberation Organization will, therefore, open an office of representation at the Holy See, with its own director. The apostolic nuncio in Tunisia will be responsible for contacts with the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization.”". It seems that these '94-list'-like lists are listing in the first sections states maintaining "full"/"ambassador-level"/"state-like" diplomatic relations with PLO (but including cases of both SoP recognizers and SoP non-recognizers - and here goes the group of "recognizing the right for a Palestine state in 1967 border" that is different from already "recognizing the 1988 declared State of Palestine" - like the Guyana case) and the next sections include the states maintaining lesser levels of diplomatic or official relations with the PLO (and those are SoP non-recognizers only). Alinor (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the whole list:

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."

I can't see what's written afterwards. Nightw 03:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if we know what's written afterwards - maybe something about other states with "special delegation", "general delegation", etc.

Anyway, this source is slightly better than the '94 list' and '2004 PLO relations list'. This source gives a date about when it does apply (July 1991) and is specific about what it lists (recognized the independent State of Palestine). Unfortunately it still contains contradictions with official MFA pages (Austria, Germany - I assume the writer didn't took into account Austria removal and the German reunification) and with UNESCO list (Kenya, Namibia are missing - about Kenya I don't know - it is one of the weakly backed states - without a date or other source with SoP reference; Namibia - it seems that along German reunification the other not noted event is the Namibia independence). This list is the 'same' with the '94 list' (it takes into account USSR, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Namibia events; and adds Vatican - most probably wrongly interpreting 1994 [23], [24], [25] PLO recognition/relations as such of SoP). The list you gave here in contrast to the '94 list' doesn't claim to list different number of states than actually listed.

I propose that we replace the '94 list' and '2004 PLO relations list' with this one. The problem with Cameroon/Swaziland/Vanuatu will remain - they would still be backed by source contradicting Austria/Germany MFA pages and by blanket list without dates. But it will be sufficient to keep them in the "inconclusive" section. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be fine with this. You can change them over whenever you want. Nightw 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tajikistan

In the book [26] on page 25 stated the following: (original in Russian and translated) 63 ГОСУДАРСТВА УСТАНОВИЛИ С РЕСПУБЛИКОЙ ТАДЖИКИСТАН ДИПЛОМАТИЧЕСКИЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ (на 2 апреля 1994 г.) Австралия, Австрийская Республика, Азербайджанская Республика, Арабская Республика Египет, Аргентина, Беларусь, Великое Герцогство Люксембург, Венгерская Республика, Вьетнам, Государство Израиль, Государство Кувейт, Греческая Республика, Замбия, Исламская Республика Иран, Исламская Республика Пакистан, Исламское Государство Афганистан, Испания, Италия, Индия, Корейская Народная Демократическая Республика, Китайская Народная Республика, Колумбия, Королевство Бельгия, Королевство Нидерланды, Королевство Саудовская Аравия, Королевство Таиланд, Королевство Швеция, Куба, Литовская Республика, Мольдивская Республика, Республика Мали, Мадагаскар, Мексика, Монгольская Народная Республика, Народная Республика Бангладеш, Новая Зеландия, Палестина, Польская Народная Республика, Португальская Республика, Республика Армения, Республика Болгария, Республика Казахстан, Республика Кипр, Республика Кыргызстан, Республика Корея, Республика Румыния, Республика Узбекистан, Российская Федерация, Республика Чад, Сирийская Арабская Республика, Соединенные Штаты Америки, Социалистическая Народная Ливийская Арабская Джамахирия, Словакия, Турецкая Республика, Туркменистан, Украина, Федеративная Республика Бразилия, Федеративная Республика Германия, Финляндия, Французская Республика, Чешская Республика, Южно-Африканская Республика, Япония.

63 The State has adopted the Republic of Tajikistan DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (On April 2, 1994) Australia, the Republic of Austria, Azerbaijan Republic, Arab Republic of Egypt Argentina, Belarus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, Vietnam, the State Israel, Kuwait, the Hellenic Republic, Ecuador, Islamic Republic of Iran The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamic State of Afghanistan, Spain, Italy, India, Democratic People's Republic of China, Colombia, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Thailand, Kingdom of Sweden, Cuba, Lithuania, Moldivskaya Republic, Republic of Mali, Madagascar, Mexico, the Mongolian People's Republic, People's Republic of Bangladesh, New Zealand, Palestine, the Polish People's Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Republic of Armenia, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Romania, Uzbekistan, Russian Federation, Republic of Chad, Syrian Arab Republic, United States of America, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Slovakia, the Republic of Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Federative Republic of Brazil, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, French Republic, Czech Republic, South Africa, Japan.

Therefore, the date of diplomatic relations PNA with Tajikistan can be considered 2 April 1994 or earlier. --analitic114 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will add "1994 or before" for relations, but can you find another source that mentions SoP (like [27]) and has a 1994 or earlier date (it would be the best if you find date of recognition/relations with SoP - maybe something about first ambassador accreditation/announcement/meeting). Because I assume that the 1994 relations are with SoP (because as you see in the link I give currently the non-resident embassy is of SoP), but my assumptions is not enough and recognition date remains "2009 or before".

Can you find something about Turkmenistan? Alinor (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan - the sources we use for these are also not very good. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About Turkmenistan difficult - The site of the Government nothing, and other public sites do not.

Azerbaijan - the same link as your about 1992 for the establishment of relations with the Palestine (it is not clear with the PNA or SoP) --analitic114 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1992 it is about "PLO or SoP", not "PNA or SoP (or PLO)" - see Georgia. The problem is that we don't have another source to back it (the link with SoP reference was a google cache link that doesn't work anymore. Alinor (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

About Russia, Belarus and Ukraine now have a look, but here everything is not easy. The same Russia: in 1988 the Soviet Union recognized the independence of the State of Palestine, Russia, as successor to USSR continued its position, but according to recent data, with the Embassy of the State of Palestine in their support for the right of the Palestinian people to establish their state. --analitic114 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

All three are listed in the UNESCO application as SoP recognizers from 1988 - USSR (Russia is its successor), Ukraine SSR, Belarus SSR (these were UN members on their own). The problem is that we don't have any additional source to back this - Ukraine has a source for "Ambassador of Palestine" (no SoP reference) [28]. Belarus has unofficial source about SoP, but the Belarus MFA lists only "Embassy of Palestine". For Russia we have one list maintained by the PLO UN delegation, this list contains errors and also doesn't include SoP references (e.g. has "Embassy of Palestine" only). On the official Russia MFA site I didn't found list of "Foreign missions accredited/send to Russia". Maybe there is one in the russian version of the site? Alinor (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Found just such a document on the website the Russian Foreign Ministry[29] Russian version of this [30],that is, on the one hand Russia recognizes the State of Palestine, and for the international community, Russia supports the right of the Palestinian people to establish their state (the policy of double standards). --analitic114 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Really interesting glitch. Translators mistake maybe?

I found [31] ("Посольство Государства Палестина"), [32] ("Embassy of the State of Palestine in the Russian Federation"). I think this is sufficient to keep Russia in "recognizer" section, right? Alinor (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Leave, yes, but a bit strange! On the one hand the State of Palestine Embassy in Russia is the other leader of Russia is only expressed support for a Palestinian state (as if PNA independent public education and the state almost Created: [33] Россия по сути уже имеет дипломатические отношения с Палестиной, заявил президент РФ Дмитрий Медведев. Таков был ответ российского президента на вопрос журналистов о том, означает ли позиция России о праве палестинцев на создание независимого государства фактическое признание независимости Палестины.

"Это все вопросы формального порядка, потому что Россия, по сути, имеет уже дипломатические отношения с Палестиной, у нас есть представительство, которое представляет наше государство, у нас самые разнообразные и очень многоаспектные отношения с Палестиной".

Медведев напомнил, что российская сторона общается с руководством палестинской автономии на высшем уровне. "Все это в комплексе и означает наше отношение к Палестине как к правосубъектному образованию. Но это, тем не менее, не отменяет того, что Палестине еще предстоит пройти остаток пути, связанного с созданием самостоятельного, независимого государства".

Палестина в настоящее время находится на половине пути этого процесса: "После известных решений ООН и до сей поры Палестина проходит свой, очень тяжелый, крайне драматичный путь. Ну а степень развитости правосубъектности Палестины – пусть юристы на эту тему рассуждают", - цитирует ИТАР-ТАСС слова российского президента.

Сегодня – второй, заключительный, день визита Дмитрия Медведева на Ближний Восток. В среду в столице Иордании Аммане российский президент провел официальные переговоры с королем Абдаллой II. Среди других было достигнуто соглашение о расширении двустороннего сотрудничества в энергетике. А накануне он побывал в Палестине, где провел переговоры с главой Палестинской национальной администрации (ПНА) Махмудом Аббасом. Затем оба лидера открыли Русский музей в Иерихоне и осмотрели новый парковый комплекс в Иерихоне около библейской смоковницы.

Russia in fact already has diplomatic relations with the Palestinians, said President Dmitry Medvedev. Such was the response of the Russian president a question about how does Russia's position on the right of Palestinians to establish an independent state de facto recognition of the independence of Palestine.

"It all matters of a formal order, because Russia is, in fact, already has diplomatic relations with the Palestinians, we have a representation that represents our state, we have the most diverse and very multifaceted relations with Palestine."

Medvedev said that the Russian side communicates with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority at the highest level. "All this together means our relationship to Palestine as a corporate entity. But, nevertheless, does not negate the fact that Palestine has yet to pass the rest of the way, associated with the creation of a separate, independent state."

Palestine is currently half way through this process: "After a well-known UN resolutions and to this day Palestine is a very heavy, very dramatic way. Well, and degree of development of personality of Palestine - let the lawyers argue about this topic" - quoted by ITAR- TASS news agency the Russian president.

Today - the second and final day of Dmitry Medvedev's visit to the Middle East. On Wednesday in Amman, Jordan, Russian President held official talks with King Abdullah II. Among other agreement was reached on expanding bilateral cooperation in the energy sector. A day before he went to Palestine, where he held talks with Palestinian National Authority (PNA) President Mahmoud Abbas. Then the two leaders opened the Russian Museum in Jericho and a tour of the new park in Jericho, near the biblical fig. --analitic114 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

At first this seems strange, yes, but actually I think Medvedev speaks about the PNA relations. PNA doesn't claim to be a state and is unrelated to the SoP. There is no problem for Russia simultaneously having relations with the non-state entities PNA/PLO and recognizing SoP as state-in-exile and having relations with it (Embassy in Moscow, etc.), that is yet to get control over any territory (option1 in Poland section). Such double-faceted relations are possible, because both the PNA and the SoP are represented abroad by the PLO (so, basically Russia has relations with PLO). Of course, at some future point in time all these three may merge somehow into state with control over the West Bank/Gaza Strip, but things haven't gone so far yet. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if they leave, then pointing out that it is recognized as a government in exile.--analitic114 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is with the article name - see here. It should be moved to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization (or such should be created) - then this can be explained additionally (it currently is just mentioned in the bilateral relations section). Alinor (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Generalizing source about OIC members

Related to above and continuing past OIC members discussion. Currently we use one source where Curtis Doebbler makes a generalizing statement that 'all OIC members recognise Palestine as a state' for 3 states in the "inconclusive" section.

Relevant quote from the source [34]: "The 21 other states of the Arab League, for example, already recognise Palestine as a state. So too do the 56 other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."

As you can see in the archived discussion this source was brought in because other sources showing that OIC-as-organization recognize SoP were not sufficient to show that "all OIC members recognize SoP" - because of the following: "What is the procedure for taking decisions in OIC? Unanimity, majority? Even if it is unanimity the sources don't show that "OIC members recognize SoP" - the sources only show that the OIC itself recognizes SoP. (African Union recognizes Sahrawi Republic, but not all of its members recognize it)." Then this Curtis Doebbler source was used for his generalizing statement. He most probably applies the logic above ("since OIC recognizes SoP, then all its members recognize it" - without checking whether this is actually true). It was objected evenback then that such logic seems dubious and that the whole generalizing statement seems wrong.

Now, the doubts are confirmed and this generalizing statement is proven wrong by the Guyana MFA in 2011 [35] - "The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine..." (e.g. Guyana recognized yesterday instead of years ago as the 'generalizing source' claims). In addition we have also this recent news contradicting the generalizing statement: "Suriname, another South American country and Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member, is expected to recognize Palestine within the coming days. Suriname is also a member of the OIC."

I added 'unreliable source?' tags to the usage of the generalizing statement proven wrong with the explanation1 below:

1. generalizing statement that all OIC members recognize SoP proved wrong - Guyana recognized in 2011, not at time of this earlier generalizing statement
2. statement that all OIC members have recognised the State of Palestine may be doubted: Guyana issued statement of recognition in 2011, years later
3. statement that all OIC members have recognised the State of Palestine may be doubted: Guyana issued statement of recognition in 2011, years later with the words "... today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine"

Night w, you later changed it to explanation2 (thus implying that the generalizing statement maybe isn't proven wrong). I then added the clarification - explanation3 (today decided ...) - so that it's more clear where the contradiction is, but you reverted to your explanation2. I see no reason for that and I think that explanation2/3 wording is misleading anyway and should be replaced with explanation1 or similar.

In the past we have already removed sources that contain incorrect statements (such as Boyle source about 195 UN members) and I don't see any reason to keep this source that wrongly claims Guyana recognition years prior to the date when the Government of Guyana took such decision. Maybe we can use this Curtis Doebbler source for the other issues described in it about the political situation, etc. in the appropriate sections of the article - but not his 'generalizing statement' as quoted above. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert on the notices. I can add those back for you. I believe there was some kind of edit conflict which destroyed your edits. But it should be noted that Doebbler is still a reputable source, and if he says that all the members of the OIC recognise, then his claim must be represented unless we can find explicit proof that each of those members do not recognise. Again, since Guyana was party to a reaffirmation of recognition of the State of Palestine in 2003, it is debatable as to whether Guyana may have actually recognised it then. The same goes for the rest, although even if Guyana's recent statement did disqualify this claim, it only disqualifies it for Guyana. There needs to be further investigation into how the OIC declarations affect its members. Nightw 06:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Doebbler claim is aways represented - see [36]. We just can't use the generalizing statement for individual cases of "XXX recognizes SoP".

It's not debatable "whether Guyana may have actually recognised SoP in 2003" - it didn't. It recognized it "TODAY, January 13, 2011".

I understand that there are logical reasons for Doebbler to be confused (from above: "Guyana has supported the Palestinian cause since long time - see [37] ("...consistently called for the establishment of a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders") - and thus most probably supported SoP OIC membership - and all this may confuse somebody into thinking that Guyana recognizes SoP.") and we all make mistakes, but the Guyana situation proves that 'SoP recognition by OIC-as-organization doesn't mean that each OIC member state recognizes SoP' - and this is quite logical and in fact this is the common case for all organizations (very seldom, if ever, such decisions are binding on their members) - for example the SADR/African Union case, the Israel/UN case, etc. SoP/OIC is not different. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That last statement of yours is dubious, as I'm sure you're not familiar with OIC policy, so in fact you don't know whether it is different or not. It can be easily debated that Guyana recognised the State of Palestine in 2003. The statement from the Ministry does not disprove this: "The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine as a free, independent, and sovereign state, based on its 1967 borders." Its statement can be simply seen as a formal declaration. No, Doebbler's claim remains as Guyana's actions cannot discredit his insight on the others. Nightw 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are going at great lengths here in interpretation, assumptions, etc. in order to claim that Guyana recognized SoP in 2003. Basically you say that Guyana was recognizing SoP in 2003 non-formally, e.g. unofficially - until they decided in 2011 to officially recognize it. Of course such logic is in line [38] and other sources that show Guyana (and others') "support for Palestine right to exist", etc., without making that last step of formally/officially recognizing SoP.

We are listing OFFICIAL FORMAL recognitions, not unofficial/non-formal ones. And if Doebbler's claim includes UNOFFICIAL NON-FORMAL recognitions and statements of support, then we can't use it for Cameroon, Syria, Turkmenistan (but for some of these there are additional sources, so this doesn't automatically mean that all three should be moved to the third section). So, depending if you interpret the Doebbler's claim as showing official or unofficial recognitions - it is either proven wrong or not applicable - in both cases we can't use it in the table. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm also saying that it's unclear as to whether this was simply Guyana recognising the state within a specific border setting. Given also the PNN source below, there is too much disagreement between sources to justify moving OIC entries one way or the other. Having said that, I'd like to move Suriname back to the inconclusive section. Nightw 05:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't manage to support the dubious-since-the-beginning claim with "unofficial recognition" and now you are further stretching your interpretation to argue that the 2011 decision is only about borders. The quote is "The Government of Guyana has today decided to formally recognize the State of Palestine as a free, independent, and sovereign state, based on its 1967 borders." - borders is the last thing they mention and before it there is "today decided to formally recognize the SoP as a free, independent, and sovereign state, based on its 1967 borders."

Suriname situation is no different from Turkmenistan and Syria - it's inclusion in the "inconclusive" section is backed only by the generalizing source. I think all three of these go together - and should be in moved to PNA/PLO relations (Syria) and no recognition/relations (Suriname, Turkmenistan). So, while we still discuss this Suriname is OK to be in the "inconclusive". Alinor (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The PNN source is full of so many inaccuracies and can't be used to support this (see lengthy section below). The only parts of it that seem OK are Foreign minister direct quotes (not PNN writer interpretations), putting aside that he is "primary/POVed". Alinor (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "now"? Read my original comment in which I put emphasis on the points that could be misleading. The statement could easily be interpreted either way, so it doesn't directly discredit Doebbler's original claim. The PNN is one of a number of sources that claim that these states do recognise, and since there are no primary sources that directly disagree with these claims, the entries need to remain in the inconclusive section. In the below thread, you disregarded my advice about setting a WP:V criteria for each section, and went straight into making judgements about individual cases, so I've made up one of my own that I'll be sticking to. You appear to have done the same. Nightw 07:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can easily think of many unrealistically stretched interpretations of this straightforward statement in order to support your/Doebbler generalizing claim.

The PNN source doesn't say anything about Guyana, or OIC. Guyana is only seen on the map (of unknown origin and not exactly clear what it shows and why) along with Suriname and French Guiana colored the same. This map contradicts the text and also there are other contradictions and self-contradictions in this source - see my TLDR explanation. Quality of this source is very low.

I don't disregard your advice to set WP:V criteria - on the contrary - I followed it (the main bullets descriptions here) - and presented list of recognizers that are "weakly" backed - so that we can debate there what should be done. If you have other proposals for criteria - just describe them in the section below, you don't need to wait for me to set the criteria - I will gladly discuss your proposal. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And about the 1967 border straw - if you look at the news reports about Guyana you will see that their writers/journalists interpret the event not as 'Guyana recognized SoP long ago, but today decided to acknowledge the 1967 borders' - they interpret it as 'Guyana supported Palestinian cause since long time and today decided to recognize SoP - inside the 1967 borders' [39] or simply 'Guyana hasn't recognized SoP until today, when it decided to recognize it' [40]. Alinor (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, any comment on the discrepancy between your (far-fetched and hanging on tiny straw IMHO) interpretation and the interpretations done by the news reports (that I agree with)? Alinor (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Paraguay statement from 28.1.2011 is relevant here. Contrast Paraguay "reiteration" (of 2005 recognition) vs. Guyana "decision to recognize" - if Guyana had recognized SoP before 2011 its statement would have contained some similar wording to that of Paraguay (about reiterating already done recognition). But it doesn't have anything like that - it's about "Today decided to recognize". And even as I don't like to rely on external interpretations - the journalistic reports also support the same - and not the far-fetched interpretation that Guyana had recognized SoP before 2011. I think all this shows clearly that we should not use the generalizing Doebbler's claims. Alinor (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Poland

As continuation of archived discussion Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority/Archive 2#Poland:

I obtained a copy of official answer of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on question about status of Palestinian embassy in Poland, and about recognition of the State of Palestine. According this answer, dated on August 19, 2010: “Polska uzależnia uznanie państwa Palestyny od osiągnięcia porozumienia pokojowego pomiędzy stronami konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego” (Poland makes the recognition of the state of Palestine from achieving a peace agreement between the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). This mean, that Poland not recognized the State of Palestine yet. Aotearoa (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you place a copy of the Polish MoFA about Palestinian embassy in Poland, as I above placed the letter of the Kyrgyz MFA. --analitic114 (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The translation seems very bad - could someone who knows both Polish and English translate this, please?

We have this from Poland MFA - "Embassy of Palestine". Could you ask them whether this is PLO Embassy or SoP Embassy? Or about some press release/announcement of ambassador accreditations/official document - to see whether it is SoP or PLO? Official document from 1988-12-14 would also be welcome.

And the question about Kyrgyzstan is the same - should we use this information or not? Alinor (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The copy of answer: File:Answer of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.jpg. Palestinian Embassy in Warsaw is the Palestinian National Authority Embassy, not the State of Palestine. Aotearoa (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

About the "Embassy of Palestine" - could you got its accreditation documents (or at least some press release) - because of course it represents the PNA, but having in mind its name it seems to be "Embassy of Palestine, the UN observer entity".

About the Poland placing in the table. As described here (in the light of [41]) - there are two possibilities:

1. Poland recognizes SoP as state-in-exile, that is entitled to eventually control a territory/population, and until that moment it gets full diplomatic treatment as state, including embassies established in the name of the SoP GiE, etc.
2. Poland recognizes Palestine state right to exist, its entitlement to eventually control a territory/population, but until that moment 1988-SoP is not recognized as state, the SoP GiE is not recognized as representative of the 'eventual Palestine state'. Until that moment Poland deals only with the PLO/"Palestine, the UN observer entity" and with the PNA established by it - but not with "PLO-as-1988-SoP-GiE".

The letter seems ambiguous in that respect and maybe can be interpreted in both ways. Could you post a translation of the whole letter? (there is also one 1997 date mentioned there - maybe the date of establishment of the embassy?) Alinor (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Letter from Vice-director of the Department of Africa and the Middle East [of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] to Vice-director of the Protocol [of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] (Warsaw, August 19, 2010): In response to your letter No. PD 191/343/10 on the name of the Palestinian embassy, the Department of Africa and the Middle East is pleased to announce that it maintained the position provided by Director K. Połomski in June 1997, that at present stage of the formation of Palestinian statehood should be preserved the current name of this diplomatic post, ie the "Embassy of Palestine".

Representatives of the Palestinian National Authority regularly announce a declaration of create Palestinian state and to ask the members of UN to its international recognition, what constitutes a means of pressure on the Israeli authorities. The question of the possible reaction to such Palestinian declaration is the subject of discussion at the EU forum. Poland makes the recognition of the state of Palestine conditional on achieving a peace agreement between the parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Aotearoa (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better than the first translation. So, the "Embassy of Palestine" seems to be "Embassy of Palestine/PLO, the UN observer entity". And I interpret the last sentence of letter so that it seems that Poland is in position2 as descibed above. As such it would have to be moved to the "no SoP recognition, PLO/PNA relations" section - if we are going to use this information.

Separate question that remains unanswered: what statement has Poland made on 1988-12-14 about SoP? Alinor (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not likely. At the very most it'll be moved to the inconclusive section. While I admire the commitment of Aotearoa, there are some puzzling issues that need to be straightened out first. Why is Poland listed in the UNESCO source if it never recognised Palestine? If it did indeed not recognise Palestine, then why did the government, like Austria, not request its removal from the list? Why has it also appeared on every other list we've presented? And, while I will (as always) assume good faith here, this is most likely a self-translation, and therefore should be verified by another (uninvolved) Polish speaker. Nightw 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Iterpretation Aotearoa basically corresponds to the original. --analitic114 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, while I also already asked about the contradiction with UNESCO source (and would like to have this cleared out) your other question is easy to answer - "Why has it also appeared on every other list we've presented?" - because it's present in the UNESCO list (or other similar "first" list), because all former communist states are also present. As you can clearly see the lists are supplemental - they take an older list and reflect some changes - and even make counting/other mistakes in the process of "updating". The question is whether the UNESCO list is wrong or not.

Aotearoa, can you email Polish MFA again and ask them: why they are in the UNESCO list as recognizer, what statement/decision about SoP they made on 1988-12-14 (copy of official document will be welcome), what of the two options from my 10:00, 20 January 2011 comment they are into currently?

I think the Aotearoa email is sufficient to show the need for additional source about Poland - like the #Weakly supported in the recognizers section cases - actually it's already covered there in one of the "various more" bullets. Alinor (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I discussed earlier, the UNESCO’s list is not an official document. This is only explanatory note prepared by 6 countries and presented during the session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (not during the General Conference), without any information whether this document was formally adopted or not. Not even known whether individual countries took position to this document. Simply, it is a source, about which nothing concrete is known. Aotearoa (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Poland is listed in this document, is a question to the authors of the document and not to the Polish Foreign Ministry. I don’t know any Polish publications informed that Poland recognized the State of Palestine. In the official lists of states presented by Poland at the UN, Palestine is not listed as the state (links to publications I stated in an earlier discussion, here's another, where on page 95 Palestine is listed as part of Israel). Aotearoa (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you think that Poland is in option2 above? Maybe on 1988-12-14 they issued such statement and were wrongly included in the "UNESCO list" (it seems the case of Austria is similar - but they bothered to request their removal from the list. Poland didn't).

Anyway, the letter you uploaded seems to imply that Poland is in option2 - thus should be moved to "inconclusive" or "no SoP recognition" or at least a 'dubious' tag (linking here) can be added after Poland name. I won't object this (the case of "Embassy of Palestine/PLO" instead of "Embassy of SoP" is weighting in this direction) - but what do others think? Alinor (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the questions raised in 2007 by a Member of Polish Parliament to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta [42]. The second question is: "Czy Rzeczpospolita Polska utrzymuje stosunki dyplomatyczne z innym jeszcze podmiotem, który nie jest państwem, poza tym Zakonem Kościoła katolickiego oraz Stolicą Apostolską?" (Is the Republic of Poland maintains diplomatic relations with yet another entity that is not a state, except this Order of the Catholic Church and except the Holy See?). The Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the minister, said in the official answer provided in the Polish Parliament [43]: "Polska nie utrzymuje stosunków dyplomatycznych z innymi podmiotami międzynarodowymi niebędącymi państwami za wyjątkiem Suwerennego Zakonu Kawalerów Maltańskich, Stolicy Apostolskiej oraz Palestyny." (Poland does not maintain diplomatic relations with other international entities that are not a states with the exception of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the Holy See and Palestine). Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly mentioned the Palestine as "international entity that is not a state." Aotearoa (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Aotearoa, do you think that Poland is in option2 above? Should we move it to "inconclusive" section?

Anyone else to share his opinion? Alinor (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, option 2 is correct. Therefore, Poland should be moved to the section "Conflicting or inconclusive sources..." or to the "Not recognising the State of Palestine..." Aotearoa (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The list of controversial recognition I agree, but not in the list of unrecognized. While I can not find it, but as I find, privude link to the source, which states that the European Union adopted (as a law or rule - I will not lie) that a member of the European Union can have a relationship with the PNA, but not with the SoP, including of embassies and diplomatic missions. Yes, and Poland itself as many states are double standards, on the one The sides recognized it was in 1988, but no source of non-recognition of independence, on the other hand argues that the PNA has no embassy in Poland SoP at this site Ministry of Foreign Affairs behalf of the Embassy of the State of Palestine. Strange as that!!!!!--analitic114 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is dubious. Here you are a quite unequivocal example of an embassy of the SoP accredited to an EU member state: [44].—Emil J. 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Analitic114, EmilJ, why are you involving the EU here? It has nothing to do with this issue - e.g. some of the EU members recognize it, others don't. There are many examples in both directions. Alinor (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying.—Emil J. 10:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Paraguay

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

"Several other South American states, including Peru, Uruguay and Paraguay, are expected to follow suit." [45]

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

Yes, I have noticed the same thing, but these news reports are know to be inaccurate/conflicting (see here) - some of them mention Uruguay as recognizer in 2010 [46], [47], [48] - albeit we have sources showing that it announced 'intention to recognize in 2011' [49], [50] and the quote of the Uruguay President words [51] shows the same - in addition to the Uruguay government report that albeit contradictory also shows intention for 2011.

About Paraguay - in the table we have this from Paraguay MFA showing "EMBAJADA DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA" (emphasis mine) - and this non-resident "Embassy of the State of Palestine" as listed in the Paraguay diplomatic list) is based in Brazil, who at the time of making the list was still not recognizing SoP and the mission name in Brazil is 'PLO/Palestine Special Delegation' [52] - so Paraguay position was different from that of Brazil - Paraguay recognized SoP. Alinor (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Not to rub it in, but: [53] :) At least we have some clarity on the issue now. TDL (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The situation on Paraguay is clear - on 28.1.2011 it "reiterated" SoP recognition [54]. You can also read the official statement at [55] (Flash): "RECONOCIMIENTO DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA (Asunción , 28 de Enero de 2011) RECONOCIMIENTO DEL ESTADO DE PALESTINA COMO LIBRE E INDEPENDIENTE DENTRO DE LAS FRONTERAS EXISTENTES EN 1967

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That wasn't me, that was User:Dailycare who added it: [56]. I think it's notable if '67 borers are explicitly mentioned in the recognition. If you want to add another column for it then go ahead. That being said, it will obviously be even more tough to find references for this than just a recognition/establishment of relations. Most of the cells will probably end up being empty. TDL (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Uruguay

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

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

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

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

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

Hi guys, I don't understand why Uruguay is still listed as inconclusive while many reputable sources list them as having recognized the SoP, like [57] and [58] and [59]. Also, why is the Dominican Republic not colored in on the map even though it is listed as a recognizer of the SoP in the table? Btw thanks for all you do on wiki! Umar99 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

And also in some of the other sources like [60].

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

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

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

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