Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Sudan

Found thats link [1] (arabic) - Ambassador the State of Palestine in Sudan--analitic114 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Benin

Found that link [2] - Ambassade de l'Etat de Palestine au Bénin (avec résidence au Nigeria)- Embassy of the State of Palestine in Benin (with residence in Nigeria)--analitic114 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Vanuatu, Papua - New Guinea, Timor-Leste

Question about the host files as authoritative sources from Commons [3] no sources I discovered:

Vanuatu, Papua - New Guinea - not something new, even on the news and newspaper strips Timor-Leste - information only for the admission of the Ambassador of Palestine (not indicated that SOP)

Waiting for the views and reactions--analitic114 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the links: East Timor, Vanuatu and PNG (jeez, can somebody rotate that thing?). Those look more than good enough for me, and there were some previous claims about these three made by Ali Kazak (see here), who was ambassador to Vanuatu and East Timor. Good work, random IP! Night w2 (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Article Ali Kazak is more like an autobiography (which is a warning in the article). If the member who posted these files were available on another site or photo copies of the newspapers mentioned in the article about Ali Kazak, maybe the issues would not arise, but without them is difficult to judge the accuracy or completeness of such information (otherwise, in the press these facts have been overlooked and the well-known tabloid the news would have appeared)
And about Timor-Leste with the date May 1, 2004 - in the above link (as I found when searching separately) - This date only the date of accreditation of a new ambassador, and not to establish relations (otherwise it would name the establishment of relations)
And over IP - it is from Australia (if not the Ali Kazak we wrote ????)--analitic114 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It might indeed be Kazak, but the scans look real. It'd be pretty hard to fake those stamps and signatures and then impose them over the text. A lot of effort for something pretty trivial. I'll do some digging online myself, but I do agree that we need a secondary source for each, at least in order to avoid our own interpretation of them. We have several for Vanuatu, but not the others as of yet. Night w2 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

These following sources should clear up some of the concerns relating to Vanuatu, PNG and Timore Leste: http://www.mfac.gov.tp/media/mr040301ae.html ; http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19980507038 ; http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0922156500001096. With regards to this general debate given that the documents provided are source documents their validity should really not be much of a concern, I was the uploader of the documents, hence the one that made the initial changes. I didn't see the need to double source my changes due to the inherent nature of the documents, especially given that they are of a more relaible source than most of the rest of the sources linked in the article as they merely reference third party websites to a large degree, whereas these are the documents as issued, signed and stamped by the relevant government authorities. In establishing further sources it is hard for three reasons: 1) the nature of the countries being all small south pacific nations means that they generally don't have very accurate records (including on government sites) and 2) if the current ambassador for palestine to those nations has not presented her/his credentials then they would not have it listed as a non resident ambassador. 3) the recognition by PNG and Vanuatu happened over a decade ago and due to the nature of the countries they have very little information on the internet about their foreign relations at that point in time. I believe the National Library has a large collection of Mr Ali Kazak's documents and are in the process of adding them to their catalogue, whether these documents are included in that I am unsure of, but that could in future be a reference point for the document. As it stands though I believe the source documents should be sufficient. I hope this clears some of the concerns you guys may have. And sorry for the non-rotated file. (Haifa99 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for uploading them. I've requested further insight at the Reliable sources noticeboard as to whether we can use them with what little supportive sources we have available. Nightw 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the content of three scans shows explicit SoP recognition, so assuming that these are not fakes I'm happy we have resolved 3 more dubious cases. But unfortunately I'm not sure whether we can use these as source... Maybe we can place PNG, Vanuatu and Timor in the recognizer section, but with 'citation needed' tag - until a source is found? Alinor (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't there a strangely-formatted "better source needed" tag that you used to place on some references? That'd be useful. Nightw 09:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I can fish it out if that's needed, no problem. Alinor (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated it. Could you do the maps? I also moved Georgia recently. I hope that's okay; otherwise, feel free to revert. Nightw 14:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you check my maths aswell? And add the tags... Nightw 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Granted, the three move, but still, an additional source is the way toquestions from an outsider reader could disappear. Yet such a question, as you have about a final list of recognition SoP? (according to my data fully confirmed by the 82 + 3 current of about120) can see it on ru-wiki. Are there any more updates? (aboutsome controversial you have some on ru-wiki confirmed from theRussian press and news agencies)--analitic114 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Night w, I'll check math, tags, map, etc., but I'm kind of busy currently. Would you look at this in the meantime?
Analitic114, I haven't compared the two tables yet (this and that), but looking at the numbers - sandboxB has 63 officially confirmed (66 if including Vanuatu, PNG, Timor), reaching 76/79 if we add the inconclusive, reaching 117/119 if we add the unofficial sources. The 82 ru-wiki number doesn't match neither 63/66 nor 76/79 - so it seems there are additional countries. Do you know witch these countries are? Alinor (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. I'll continue that discussion if you insist, but it doesn't really look like he's going to make a ruling on anything. Unless he does, it's not going to lead anywhere unless we make a compromise: I'll concede that the Guyanan statement makes Doebbler's statement about the OIC dubious; you concede that his statement about the Arab League hasn't yet been ruled out. Syria remains unresolved until something more substantive comes along. Otherwise, yes, I'll reply on Timid's talk page tomorrow. Nightw 11:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried doing the maps, but can't do it properly. Leave it to you. Nightw 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
About this - the generalizing statement was dubious from the start (see archives here) - it seemed like an easy thrown phrase, that's unclear whether it's 100% correct and thus is unreliable especially for pinpointing positions of individual non-mentioned states. The Guyana statement is just a recent proof that the generalizing statement is not 100% correct. We already have the noticeboard result that we shouldn't use generalizing statements. And especially the Doebbler's generalizing statement published on a partisan website - there is no way we use it to put a particular state in whatever group - regardless if it's member of OIC, AL or something else. Also, all sources point to the conclusion that Syria doesn't recognize SoP and there is no source pointing otherwise - unlike the Cameroon, Vanuatu and others where initially we had inconclusive or conflicting indications and finally we found explicit official sources. Also, there is the separate issue of relying on journalistic or bloger interpretations - we need to clearly distinguish these from the explicit official sources. Alinor (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (open version)

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved. This discussion is pretty much impossible to read any kind of consensus from, and that remains true if we include previous title discussions as well. There is a tiny bit more support for Foreign relations of Palestine, but 7 to 6 (6 supporting the current title) isn't much of a margin. Therefore, I think that moving this page from one controversial title to another wouldn't be a huge improvement, nor would it prevent another move request from occurring within a few months. I don't know what the solution is, but it's been almost two weeks since anyone contributed to this discussion, so I'm putting it to bed for now as "no move". - GTBacchus(talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → ? – This is now an open move request.

  • The article describes foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine. The current title is not inclusive of most of the content, and is therefore inappropriate.
  • Instead of slapping "oppose" and ranting out their political opinions on Israeli-Palestinian issues, editors are now asked to suggest an alternative, or to support another's suggestion. As always, your input is greatly appreciated. Nightw 03:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
List of notifications
I'm baffled as to why you've pinged these projects. The page in question is only currently under the scope of two WikiProjects... Nightw 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
it's written in my comment - these are the remaining projects of the generic term "Palestine". Alinor (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
And how are the foreign relations of Palestine related to the Ottoman Empire? Nightw 06:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the projects at Palestine. If editors there are not interested they will not post anything here. The previous proposal was also mentioned there. Alinor (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Previous move discussions
Until the title effectively describes the content, as per WP:TITLE, yes. Nightw 06:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
See Bard comment below about that. 'FR of PNA' is a valid and notable topic. If the article includes content that's not about this topic then this part of the content should be moved accordingly. No need for perpetual repetitious rename requests. Alinor (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, not a viable proposal. See my reply below. Nightw 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Perfectly viable. See below my reply. Alinor (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed title: Foreign relations of Palestine

Support

  1. Nightw 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Tiamuttalk 08:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  3. - ℤiαηsh✍ 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  4. - analitic114 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  5.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  6. Rennell435 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  7. —Ashley Y 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this is an improvement, but not ideal. This proposal does a good job of avoiding use of phrases such as "national authority" or "Liberation Organisation" in the title. But "Palestine" alone is still fairly commonly used to refer to the geographic region. "Foreign relations of the Palestinian territories" would work best IMO. —WFC— 05:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't work since the Palestinian territories are only associated with the PNA and Israel. That as the title would render everything to do with the PLO and the State of Palestine as out of place. Nightw 05:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the 1990s, the observer status of the PLO in the UN has been conducted under the name "Palestine". The PLO represents the Palestinian people as a whole, inclding those outside the Palestinian territories. Geographical regions do not conduct foreign relations, so the argument that Foreign relations of Palestine is confusing, doesn't really hold water. "Palestine" is both the official name and most common name and shold be sed per our naming guidelines. Tiamuttalk 08:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the context of "Palestine" as a political entity conducting international relations is already established by the prefix "foreign relations of". Let's not underestimate the readers. There wouldn't be any confusion. Nightw 13:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Palestine is not official name of the PLO. It's a designation used by the UN when referring to the PLO. Just like "Russia" is designation used for "Russian Federation", etc. But 'FR of Russia' is unambiguous - there is no other common usage of Russia than the Russian Federation. In the case of "Palestine" there are three common uses - PLO, SoP, PNA. That's the difference. If you want an article about FR of PLO it should be clearly named so, instead of something else. Alinor (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Support per Tiamut: "Palestine" being the name of used in the international arena. Not only in the UN, but also from the missions list, almost all entries seem to accredit their ambassadors to "Palestine". Rennell435 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine" is 'used in international arena' for three entities - PLO, SoP, PNA. So, it's ambiguous and inappropriate for article title 'FR of X'. Alinor (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
...All of which we discuss in this article. No problem with having a broad title if the subject is broad. Even if we did fork the content of the article, we'd still need to retain a generic Palestinian foreign relations article in order to explain the overlap between the two entities and direct readers in the right way. Nightw 06:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The title shouldn't be ambiguous, that's the problem. The overlap and distinctions between the entities are discussed at their own articles and on the 'FR of PLO' and 'FR of PNA' articles. It's also somewhat covered at Palestine (disambiguation) and if needed can be elaborated a bit on the 'FR of Palestine' disambiguation page. I don't think we need a separate article about 'Overlap and distinctions between PLO, SoP and PNA in their foreign relations' - and even if we do the title you propose doesn't fit such topic. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems we are onto something in this thread. This is not a paper encyclopedia, we have theoretically infinite hard drive space yet even long time wikipedians still try to conflate and merge disparate topics as if we were back in the days preceding the Intel chip. The relevant point being that maybe there is nothing wrong with a sort of Meta-disambiguation page of explanatory [citation needed] text disentangling related concepts. In other words, with respect to the insight of Alinor that " [we probably] don't think we need a separate article about 'Overlap and distinctions between PLO, SoP and PNA in their foreign relations" we would be remiss to dispregard that idea without due consideration. But I am agreed that "the title you propose doesn't fit such topic." In short, my inclination is to support 'More,Better and More Distinct" articles even on topics which seem at first glance to belong in one article. Exercise of that perogative is what makes Wikipedia strong. Bard गीता 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Would marginally prefer Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. —Ashley Y 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I also support 'FR of SoP' as article title - but such article should be in addition to article(s) about PLO/PNA relations (these are separate from SoP relations). Alinor (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Worst title renaming suggestion.... ever. (for so many reasons) JaakobouChalk Talk 17:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to name a couple? And why you think the current version is the best option? This isn't a vote... Nightw 18:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there even a single source that combines stuff that Arafat did and Haniyeh does into the term Palestine foreign relations? No. Supporting this outstandingly bad title suggests a shocking groupthink mentality. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed title: Palestinian foreign relations

Support

Discussion

Proposed title: Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization

Support

  1. Alinor (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I support 'FR of PLO' either as an article encompassing the foreign relations of PLO, SoP (PLO-EC is its provisional government), PNA (established by the PLO, represented abroad by the PLO, ultimately responsible to the PLO) [for sources see previous move discussions] - or as separate article (about foreign relations of PLO and SoP) in addition to the FR of PNA article. Alinor (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No change from current title

Support

  1. Ynhockey (Talk) 06:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  3. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  4. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  5. Alinor (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  6. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that whether the article encompasses the foreign relations of the PLO is irrelevant. The PLO is the direct predecessor of the PNA. Many organizations worldwide go through major changes, and not always each iteration has a separate article. I think an article called Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority can encompass all Palestinian foreign relations, except those of organizations opposed to the PNA (e.g. Palestinian Islamic Jihad), and indeed this is a topic that the article doesn't currently cover. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The PNA is not synonymous with the PLO. The PNA is a temporary administrative body created pursant to the Oslo Accords (which were signed between Israel and the PLO) and it is responsible for international agreements only as they pertain to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The PLO, on the hand, represents the Palestinian people as a whole, including those in the diaspora. Its history predates that of the PNA by several decades and since the 1990s, the observer status of the PLO in the UN has been conducted under the name Palestine. To discuss the foreign relations of Palestine and the PLO in an article on the foreign relations of the PNA is frankly ridiculous given these facts. Tiamuttalk 08:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's why the article should be either 'FR of PLO' or there should be separate articles (for PLO, PNA). Alinor (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect, Ynhockey. It's not the predecessor. It's the parent organisation. It's not like the same thing as the Kingdom of Israel is to the State of Israel. It's not like the PLO ceased to function on the foundation of the PNA. They're both still conducting their own vaguely-separate foreign relations. Nightw 13:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are we re-doing this request immediately after it failed? It seems like an abuse of process. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the proposal. It's quite obviously not the same as the last. Nightw 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
C'mon Night w, it's the same - the previous had a 'support move to FR of Palestine', 'support FR of PLO/FR of PNA split' and 'oppose move to FR of Palestine'. The current has 'support move to FR of Palestine', 'support move to FR of PLO' and 'oppose both moves'. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Night w, in the future please make accurate and factual Talk: page statements. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Not "inaccurate" just because you can't wrap your head around it, mate. This request, unlike the previous one, encourages participants to propose an alternative when they don't agree with a proposal, or offer arguments as to why the current title should be kept. Hardly anybody did that in the previous discussion, so it was a failed exercise. A proper discussion should have editors weighing the proposed title(s) against the current one, and providing answers for if, and if so why, the current title is preferable. Nightw 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
So far no "new" proposals have been made - so far the current discussion is a repeat of the previous one. Alinor (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
If that were the case, then it'd be entirely by circumstance, though I don't remember [[Palestinian foreign relations]]—one of the three options initially proposed in this request—being part of previous discussions. Nor, for that matter, was [[Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization]] formally proposed last time. I believe someone else has also suggested [[Foreign relations of the State of Palestine]]. The last request was just a regular one, which was basically "this name, yes or no?" whereas this request encourages participants to throw out new ideas, so that we can analyse what the best option is, since clearly the current setup is unacceptable. Nightw 13:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, maybe by circumstance, but that's the result. 'Palestinian foreign relations' is pretty close to 'FR of Palestine'. 'FR of PLO' was proposed the previous time - the split proposal and the first move proposal. 'FR of SoP' was also mentioned before.
The unacceptability of the current setup is not in its title, but in the title-content mismatch. And this can be easily solved by keeping current 'FR of PNA' and having a separate 'FR of PLO' or by moving all to 'FR of PLO'. Alinor (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and frankly this RM should be ignored. The consensus is not going to change in two days. Is the plan here to rinitiate RM's until we get what we want?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Just more WP:IDONTLIKEIT... this isn't anything new from the lack of consensus for a move that resulted just a few weeks ago. This is just an alternative, and somewhat underhanded manner of achieved that. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Because in the previous discussion, none of you said why the current title is the most ideal, you simply opposed the proposed title. As you've all just done again. No arguments for the current title have been presented by any of you, besides Ynhockey. So the IDONTLIKEIT comment is ironic, since it's considerably more relevant to the kind of behaviour you're all demonstrating. Unless you present an argument to support your position, your participation won't carry any weight, based on WP:NOTAVOTE. Nightw 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
In the previous argument many people, including me, were very clear about why the current name was superior to your proposal. I, for example explained that "the proposed new name would add imprecision to the article's name and reduce clarity about the scope of the article. The proposed name would also mean Wikipedia would be, in effect, "taking sides" regarding a complicated political issue, and thus violates WP:NPOV". That's pretty clear. In the last discussion you also tried to arbitrarily disqualify the views of those you disagreed with, but never made the same statements regarding those you agreed with - as you've done here. Therefore, it is actually "your participation won't carry any weight", because of it's non-factual and partisan nature. And finally, holding a new "discussion" on an identical topic as soon as the old one closes, while claiming it is a "different" proposal, is a disruptive abuse of process. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have a problem with my process style, by all means, take it up on the administrator's board. Your dismissive behaviour is extremely unbecoming of an admin, though it's not surprising as I see you've a less-than-reputable history on the behavioural side of Wikipedia. And as for your accusations of me being "partisan", you'll do well to note that I made my thoughts on both sides' reasoning in this thread. Also, in the last discussion, I read your comment, and then I expressed my curiosity as to whether you had actually read the article. You didn't reply. I'll give you another chance now: How did the proposed title "reduce clarity about the scope of the article" when it currently describes foreign relations of entities that are not related to the PNA? Nightw 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
'FR of PNA' is a clearly defined topic suitable for article title. The current content doesn't match it - that's why a 'FR of PLO' article should be established (either as separate article - in addition to FR of PNA and/or FR of SoP - or as the only article covering relations of the three entities). The title 'FR of Palestine' is ambiguous, confusing, unclear and according to some - misleading and POVish. If you want we can prepare some explanatory article at 'FR of Palestine' that briefly describes the overlap and distinctions between PLO, SoP, PNA and links to the respective foreign relations articles (two or three). Alternatively 'FR of PLO' can be established as the single article (PLO is the "common link") - the overlap/distinctions are already described in its text - and 'FR of Palestine' will remain a redirect to it. Alinor (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There are two separate and distinct matters which tend to be clumped together creating a never-ending font of confusions. The cause of this is probably because of use of the drop-down to effect a RENAME which also serves as a MOVE. But actually such MOVE actions are a special case of a content move, which is the case in which 100% of the content is moved. Many content moves are < 100%; they are called splits and merges.
  • Any article title which states a valid topic should not be RENAMED. RENAME should only apply if there is something defective in the titular concept itself. In other words, if it is a bad title, an invalid title, a confusing a title: a title which should not , per se, be permitted.
  • Cases in which the underlying content does not correspond to the title are different matter. If SOME but not ALL of the content belongs elsewhere, the article is SPLIT or MERGED.
In this case, the article title states a valid topic. It is not necessary to view the content beyond a cursory review, because if the content does not conform to the title, the remedy is to MOVE bad content over as a subsection somewhere, or as a new artice. Oppose Rename. This does not prejudice creation of any new page which is judged on its own merits. Bard गीता 22:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bard and Jayjg. Also, I support keeping 'FR of PNA' - see my 06:21, 28 May 2011 comment above. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if the current title is kept, Geoff is correct in saying the lead will have to be re-written. Nightw 06:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in the 'FR of PNA' article should remain only the content related to this topic. No problem with that. Alinor (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
While i agree with Jayg that the narrow scope of the incumbent title is the superior option, i don't agree at all with his characterization of Nightowl as "disruptive" for bringing this discussion. For one thing, :it is not a discussion to delete anyone's work so it is not so drastic as to create a chilling and inhibitory effect on anyone's editing. But i do agree with Jayg that we should be "wary" of "taking sides" and the :characterization of Palestine as a sort of eternal Platonic eidon is debatably the consequence of summary judgement on numerous usages of that proper noun. IMHO it is as potentially "disruptive" to characterize :a good faith action as disruptive as overt POV edits, etc. Please recognize that reframing a motion is simply a matter of accepting criticism and excercising rationality in a collaborative process. Please do not :characterize other users actions as violations of the letter and spirit of WP. Note, it is tantamount to a personal attack, although it is not necessarily a personal attack insofar is it addresses actions rather :than personality, appearance, ethnicity, etc. But it focuses on prior actions, it alleges a pattern, and to the extent it is OT, it verges towards personalizing the issue. In other words, the new proposal stands on :its own merits and characterizing it as "disruptive" is unduly legalistic and not appropriate. Bard गीता 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
..."[R]eframing a motion is simply a matter of accepting criticism and excercising rationality in a collaborative process". Glad somebody got it. Nightw 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My opinion about renaming the article

especially hate my opinion about the article title in a new topic (Please do not judge strictly my ideas, this is just my opinion)

In my opinion the most complete definition (provided that the term Palestine to use the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem, and Palestine as the historic area in this concept does not make (it's time to divide these concepts and to indicate in Palestine (Historical region) is its historical significance in the title (I later try to open a similar discussion about the naming of Palestine (Historical region) and in ru-wiki)

More argue my views on items on the proposed ideas:

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority - this concept does not include recognition of the State of Palestine (in the Oslo Agreement PNA - a transitional administration to an independent Palestinian state, but the question of relations of the State of Palestine is not covered by these functions PNA). Yes, the actual level of the PNA and the State of Palestine is too difficult to merge and divide with that (keeping in mind foreign policy, for those that recognize the independence of Palestine (State of Palestine), the State of Palestine, for the rest of the PNA (Or even the PLO)

I.e. the legal concept of PNA can not include the functions of the independent State of Palestine (recognizing that properly stated in the article).

Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - in my opinion this concept is more appropriate as the PLO's foreign policy from 1964 to 1993 (the year of the Oslo Accords) of certain functions PLO as a result of which transferred to the PNA (the process of preparing and establishing an independent State of Palestine) while the PLO actually left the function to expand and establish relations with other states that have not established diplomatic relations with either PNA or with SoP

I.e. for Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization's easier to create an article on establishing relations of PLO with States and the desire to bring them to the problem of creating an independent Palestinian state and establish diplomatic relations with it (Ie, the history development of diplomatic of Palestine and PNA)

The question of Palestinian foreign relations - is not entirely clear on what the Palestinian foreign relations question, which includes the concept of Palestine in the name of the (questions may be even greater than to Foreign relations of Palestine (which, if necessary, and little understanding of the issue will explain in a theme, you can including the independent and disinterested reader) --analitic114 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede on this article is needs improvement!!!!

The lede on the article is very problematic on English composition grounds alone. It is simply poor writing and poorly thought out. The first sentence launches right into discussing the PLO without establishing a foundation. It needs to start out talking about the topic of the article, which is to do with the PNA. Then and only then it is permissible to talk about subtopics.

PRINCIPLE: The first sentence should establish itself in relation to the article title in a way that is more direct and uncomplicated.

FACT: The article starts with the history.

EXAMPLE: Articles about the Foreign relations of the USA do not start off talking about the East India Company.

Articles about the Foreign relations of Germany do not start off talking about the Vandals.

Articles about the Foreign relations of France do not start off talking about the Carolingian Hapsburgs.

Articles about the Foreign relations of Chile do not start off talking about the indigenistas, or the Spanish Crown. Bard गीता 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Colleague, your comments at least funny! Ran with the claims to the article and forgotten? If you have any questions or complaints to the article shows, but do not compare to other articles. All articles under one pattern not to write. For each article, and topics situation is unique.

And over the composition of the article: The theme of International Relations of Palestine (PNA, PLO, SoP), in principle, unique to international relations. No where in the world such a situation was not and is unlikely to emerge when the functions of the same system (speaking of, after the leader of the Palestinian Arab people in Russia) have two organizations and structures - SoP and PNA (on the one hand, Russia said on recognition SoP to another meeting with the leader of PNA). So no problems in the preface, I (as the author of a very different composition and the Foreword to articles on the Russian version of this topic) I do not see.--analitic114 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

? Just for easy understand. Simple. Bard गीता 04:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bard, that's because the article is actually mostly about the Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. That's why I suggest moving most of the content there and retaining here only the content related to the PNA. Alinor (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Except that's neither practical nor helpful to the reader. It's no use to readers to explain the barely-there separation between the two organs, since it's largely only in theory. In practice, of course, both foreign ministries are run by the same person. In many cases it simply boils down to which title was put on a treaty, and in many cases it's both. Given the substantial overlap, and that the theoretical separation is very often indistinguishable, it's almost impossible to effectively describe the situation without lumping it all together. Nightw 06:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to make a 'single article' its title should be unambiguous - 'FR of PLO' (that's the entity that has established and represents the other two). But there is no problem in having two separate articles. Also, there are no "both foreign ministries" - only the PNA has ministries, SoP and PLO have other organs. Alinor (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This thread was started really just to establish that whatever the content is, the current "lede" ( I don't really like that word spelled that way ) should always match the current article title and if the content diverges, the first sentence should establish the connection. Pending disposition of the move, if any, we must act as if thousands of schoolrooms across the world are relying upon this article for weighty decisions.The way things are now, the article dives right into the ancient past with neither tether nor moor to the current, stated topic. Granted, much of this would be mooted by a move. Pending implementation of the move, perhaps someone would care to modify the offending sentence. [?]Bard गीता 22:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why there is a tag in the beginning of the article that it's "unstable/major changes in preparation". The "lede" is not "ancient", the PLO continues to exist to the present day and conducts foreign relations - for example it's a UN observer non-state entity. Alinor (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah, of course didn't actually mean ancient ancient. Just suggesting as a point of good composition establish foundation linking first sentence with stated title, assume the reader knows little about topic. That's all that point is about. Not in any way intended to refute your proposal, it is a separate matter.Bard गीता 02:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lesotho and Malawi

Link to Wafa - [4] + it indicates a confirmation of the recognition by the Malawi. Waiting for comments--analitic114 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before now. Another editor seems to have already updated the table accordingly. Malawi's embassy is listed on their list, so that's defintely confirmed. Accredited ambassador through Cairo [5]. Nightw 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've put Malawi down for June 2011 or before, because this is the first I've heard of it, but the webpage states it was last updated on 30 April 2010. Was the recognition possibly earlier than this and we missed it? Nightw 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Previously anywhere information on Malawi was not.--analitic114 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
May have recognized somewhere in April 2011 (maybe even established diplomatic relations 30), but may said to recognize only in June (and sometimes the delay is an example of the same Abkhazia - established diplomatic relations with Vanuatu, May 23 and said only 1 June), simply in the media, this information appears along with recognition by the Lesotho.--analitic114 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
So should we change it to "2011-04 or before" for Malawi? Nightw 05:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I think yes, it will be closer to the truth. It's a pity there is no man living not far from Malawi, to obtain copies of documents (as we had with Timor-Leste, PNG and Vanuatu)--analitic114 (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti

The question of Djibouti - Were not you find new link to confirm recognition of the State of Palestine? --analitic114 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not found anything, but then Djibouti is not a very transparent government. Nightw 09:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Just have to ru-wiki due to my transfer Djibouti and other countries without additional sources of one of the members my actions have been named the original researches.--analitic114 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If you accidentally discover the sources, let me know.--analitic114 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion without explanation

This edit has a comment stating what was done but it does not explain why. Perhaps the rationale is exceedingly obvious but for those of us who are not specialists in Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority it would be helpful to state the rationale whether that be OT, POV, Trivial, Promotional, or whatever. This complaint is about the threadbare nature of the edit comment and does not go to the issue of whether the edit is valid. Please keep that question separate, thanks. GeoBardRap 18:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Geoff, you've changed your signature! That particular edit is actually me just removing residual stuff that was "rescued" by AnomieBOT from earlier deletions. But why did I remove the note in the first place? Curtis Doebbler claimed that all members of the OIC and Arab League had already recognised Palestine. This claim was found to be false when Guyana issued a statement earlier this year, followed by Suriname and then Lesotho. We had a noticeboard discussion about removing him as a source; I was the only proponent of keeping him on the grounds that his claim about Arab League members hadn't been disproven. When Syria issued a statement a few days ago, I had to concede that ground. Doebbler is a pro-Palestinian source, so it's undue to have him in there just for the sake of it. Nightw 06:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The map shows Ireland as gray (no diplomatic relations with palestine) but the table lists it as having diplomatic relations with a palestinian embassy in Dublin. One or ther other needs to be updated. Somekindofusername (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which map are you looking at. Grey on the first map would mean that Ireland hasn't recognised the State of Palestine, which it hasn't. Grey on the second and third maps would mean Ireland doesn't have relations with Palestine, which it does and is coloured accordingly (blue). Regards, Nightw 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Publication from the PLO

The Negotiations Affairs Dept. of the PLO has released Who recognizes Palestine? It's got the big number 122 posted on the top (which is the number quoted by Abbas et al in all the recent news articles. The major differences between our map and theirs is in respect to Turkmenistan, Swaziland (two cases we were unsure about anyway) and Cameroon, which isn't shown as one of the countries recognising. And it doesn't show South Sudan. I think this may be a good number to use when quoting figures. But how does this affect our list? I'm not so worried since I think a clear indicator of who does vs. who doesn't will become apparent in September. Thoughts? Nightw 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the same list in the format PDF [6] [7], but not listed on our Eng. Wikipedia contains:

1-Turkmenistan 2-Swaziland 3-Liberia.

For Swaziland and Liberia, we have no sources (for Swaziland contradictory), and by Turkmenistan I'm to Alinor provides links to sources on relations with the PNA.
I think the set list but with a request to another (others) are more authoritative sources--analitic114 (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
So should we move Liberia, Turkmenistan up to the top section? And then with a note requesting better sources. I think this is the best idea. We should match this official list. This would also mean removing Cameroon, which, having just looked at it now, is probably a good idea. The source for Cameroon is a letter addressed to Paul Biya from Abbas, where he signs himself as the President of the State of Palestine. The Cameroonian government is not the author... Nightw 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I think until in the middle (consisting of Liberia, Swaziland, and Turkmenistan), to request a more authoritative and neutral source, perhaps soon there will be data sources (because of the potential vote in the UN General Assembly to join the Palestine as a sovereign state)
About Cameroon think - leave - hardly government of Cameroon in this form would have left a letter greeting (if have relations with the Palestinian Authority, indicated only they, but in this case and the Palestinian Authority and the State of Palestine)--analitic114 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok about the three for the middle. About Cameroon, I disagree. It cannot tamper with an original diplomatic correspondence, it would only publish it in its original form. But regardless of that, we now have the PLO itself as a source stating that Cameroon does not recognise. Nightw 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dates for relations

  • Slovakia: Government of Slovakia. "Štáty sveta: Palestina" (in Slovak). Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2011-08-05. Nightw 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This source also gives the date of Slovakian recognition as the date of its establishment of diplomatic relations (1 January 1993). Is this right or should we stick with the Czechoslovakian date? Nightw 13:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Officially recognized Palestine. See here or Google it it for more sources. --50.50.160.109 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but you're looking for International recognition of the State of Palestine. This article is about diplomatic relations, which haven't been established with St Vincent. Nightw 07:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Solution to title

Since the last move request was closed with no consensus and the current title fails to effectively describe the topic, what are the alternatives to a page move?

Iceland

Iceland has recognized Palestine as a state - what needs to be updated here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You did everything that's required. Nightw 13:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 UNGA resolution

Effectively, the UN observer status was transferred from the non-state entity PLO to the State of Palestine, but since the potential source to confirm that - http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml - is not yet updated (as of 30-Nov-2012 it still shows PLO/Palestine as non-state observer entity and does not show the observer State of Palestine) - I suggest we wait until that point before changing the table. There is still the very slim possibility that both PLO and State of Palestine will be UN observers or that some different arrangement will be established such as "PLO-EC, in its capacity of provisional government of the future state", etc. (I don't think so, but it's better to have a confirmation). Japinderum (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, we should await sources signifying the changes of status, if any, at other organizations (such as specialized agencies, etc.) - not to rewrite everything without backing from a source. Japinderum (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Move article

the opening paragraph of this article is utterly incorrect: "The foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) are conducted by the PLO which maintains a network of offices in foreign countries.". The PLO is not subordninate to the PNA, it is the exact opposite relationship. The PNA is a structure launched by PLO in the Oslo framework for managing the local governance in parts of the Palestinian territories. PLO always maintained direct responsibility for foreign relations, from 1988 onwards as the leading entity of the State of Palestine. --Soman (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the PLO is the entity that established and represents abroad the PNA and the PLO is the entity whose Executive Council is the government of the State of Palestine, thus a move to Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization is warranted. There are such proposals discussed before, but unfortunately they didn't succeed. The previous discussions are quite long and I unless there is some new information (which the recent resolution isn't since it doesn't change anything in the structures conducting foreign relations) I don't think it's good to open that pandora box again. Japinderum (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering the fact that 100+ states recognize the State of Palestine and that the State of Palestine has been admitted (by overwhelming majority in UNGA vote) as non-member observer state at the United Nations, Foreign relations of Palestine might be more apt. We usually brand these articles by the name of the state, not the political entity at its top. --Soman (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed at lenght before. State of Palestine is different entity from the PNA. They are not related. The only link between them is that both are created by the PLO (who also represents both abroad). That's why if we are going to stick to the combined article it should be at "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Of course we can have separate articles for PLO, the State of Palestine, and PNA. But using "Foreign relations of Palestine" in the title is ambiguous - confusing and unclear about which entity it is. In addition we have also Hamas claiming to represent the Palestinian people. The usual case is of one territory, one state, one government - all under the same name. But the case here is not the usual one since we have 3-4 separate political entities, most of them sharing the same goals and working together, but nevertheless they have their own separate institutions, decision making rules, etc.
UNGA observer status vote (that was not supported by 19 of the recognizers) does not change anything in that configuration, or the article titles. The 120+ states that recognize are also since long time ago, e.g. including during the time of the multiple previous move discussions. Nothing warrants re-opening these tedious discussion now. Japinderum (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Should be moved to Foreign relations of Palestine. It doesn't matter if it's ambiguous -- you argued this in all the previous discussions but it's a moot point. We don't have separate articles for each entity, this is the combined article. So "Palestine" is the best name, since it's used by all of them. Put a move request in, Soman. Nightw 10:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with name Foreign relations of Palestine too. Jan CZ (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The correct title is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - the PLO represents abroad all three entities - itself, the State of Palestine and the PNA. This is explained in the archives. Does Foreign relations of Palestine include Hamas or not? Japinderum (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: There was broad consensus that a change needed to be made, the difficult issue was determining the destination title. After a close read-through of both this discussion and the article, I've determined the current consensus is to move to Foreign Relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. —Darkwind (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority → Foreign relations of Palestine – As per the discussion above. PLO has been represented as Palestine in several international fora for decades, and since 1988 as State of Palestine. With the UNGA vote Palestine, and not PNA, is represented in the United Nations. Soman (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Whether a country declares its relations are with the PNA, the SoP, or the PLO, it's the same Palestinian administration handling the relations. CMD (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title is ambiguous and unclear whose relations it refers to - contrary to WP:TITLE. The correct title is Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - the PLO represents abroad all three entities - itself, the State of Palestine and the PNA. This is explained and sourced in the archives - there were such move proposals and there were long discussions about that. Nothing has changed recently, so I don't see a reason to re-open this tedious debate. Does "Foreign relations of Palestine" include Hamas foreign relations? Japinderum (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment the "foreign relations" (liaisons with international bodies and foreign and Arab agencies) of the Hamas cabinet in Gaza is coordinated through the PNA in Ramallah. It is a tricky relationship, and there have been disagreements on whether Hamas has stepped over the line in making direct talks with foreign and Arab countries. Most notably, Fatah sharply criticized Haniye after his visit to Egypt after Morsi's election. Hamas replied that Haniye had not visited Egypt as head of government, like they have said that visits abroad at international events of Hamas leaders are done as representatives of the party and not the government, stressing that they have not broken the consensus on external relations. These contacts do deserve a chapter in the article, but they are not separate from the foreign relations of Palestine. It is just a bit complex. --Soman (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Re: "Unclear whose relations" -- it's Palestinian relations. Sources rarely bother making pedantic distinctions between branches of administration. The article certainly doesn't and the text combines all of it together. The title should match. Nightw 11:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • A source for Hamas-PNA official coordination? Is Hamas subordinated to PNA MFA or how is it done? Hamas or PNA agreeing or disagreeing with particular foreign actions of the other side is one thing - having an institutionalized coordination is quite different. And yes, it's unclear. What does "Palestinian relations" mean? Relations of the PNA, of PLO, of the State of Palestine, of Hamas, of whom? Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Correction - there already is an article on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine, it is named International recognition of the State of Palestine. Since the State of Palestine won some kind of recognition, the international recognition article should be renamed into "foreign relations article".Greyshark09 (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As the primary author of that article, I can tell you that is not what the page is about. It's a chronology of diplomatic recognition, not diplomatic relations. Two totally different subjects, and most disputed countries have articles for both. Nightw 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As should be clear to anyone who has read it, this article combines foreign relations of the three capable entities most commonly known as "Palestine". WP:PRECISION dictates that we only be as precise as needed -- Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine is ridiculously unnecessary given that all three of them are commonly referred to as "Palestine". The proposed name is also the name most commonly used for Palestinian representation in international organisations (including in the United Nations System). Nightw 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not up to Wikipedia editors to "combine" foreign relations of entities that are separate. Exactly because the three entities are COMMONLY referred to as Palestine (e.g. it's ambiguous who it's a reference to) - that's why the article title should NOT BE "Foreign relations of Palestine" - it should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization - because that's the entity that represents abroad all three of them and that's the entity that has established the other two entities. Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You've just contradicted yourself. You say we shouldn't "combine foreign relations of entities that are separate" and then argue that "all three of them" should be combined in an article under a different title to the one proposed. Wikipedia editors should reflect whatever reliable sources do. Sources don't bother with the obscure distinctions half the time, so neither have we. Regardless of that, the article presently describes all three, and unless you're going to try creating a fork again, it'll stay that way. Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "all three of them" excludes the fourth, Hamas - combined should only be those that are have official institutional links between each other. Wikipedia should not copy from sources that "don't bother" about details. There are plenty of other websites that fulfill that role. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So you agree that the current title is not correct, but you're quite happy to keep it that way because you oppose the only name that could encompass all of the article's current content matter? Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No. The current title is not correct, but the proposed isn't correct either - I oppose both. And I already explained what's the correct title that encompasses the foreign relations of PLO, State of Palestine and PNA. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - a related move request was recently closed at Talk:Palestine#Requested_move. And again - this discussion here is a repetition of a previous long discussion - and nothing has changed since then in the institutional arrangement of PLO, State of Palestine and PNA foreign relations, so there is no reason to re-open this discussion. Japinderum (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That has no bearing on this request. I opposed that move because in geography "Palestine" can refer to a region. This is the subject of foreign relations, where "Palestine" always refers to the Palestinian government. Apolitical regions don't conduct foreign relations. Nightw 12:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a related move request. Of course apolitical regions don't have foreign relations. The problem with the proposed title here is that it's ambiguous "Palestine government" - which one? Hamas government? PNA Cabinet? PLO executive council? We should not bring ambiguities in the titles of the articles. If you want to include all of these in the scope "Foreign relations of Palestinian organizations" is more suitable. If you want to include only the internationally recognized ones then "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is the correct one as explained above.
  • Nothing in the institutional setup has changed since the previous discussion. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • All the articles "Foreign relations of.." are primarily on the relations of States, not Governments. This article is about the relations of Palestine. The PLO's relations are something like the Foreign relations of the French Government or Foreign relations of National Transitional Council. Special article can be created, for example Foreign relations of Hamas. But this article is a summary, it is about the relations of Palestine. Jan CZ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the common case you have a single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory. The case here is different - special, because there are four entities conducting "foreign affairs" (one liberation organization, one state, two local administrations) under the name of a territory, that's under the control/occupation of another state (Israel). PLO represents abroad both the PNA and the State of Palestine. So there should be two articles - one for the PLO foreign relations (that covers also the State of Palestine and PNA) and one for Hamas relations. In the context of foreign relations "Palestine" is ambiguous term - and that's why it's not suitable for WP:TITLE without additional qualifier. Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine is the short name for State of Palestine. This article is about the relations of that State. The fact that the term Palestine sometimes means something else, is not a relevant argument against renaming the article. After all, the article could designate the Foreign relations of the State of Palestine, much like International recognition of State of Palestine, to remove these doubts. More entities acting on its behalf is not at all a problem (because here is two governments for Syria, here is not possible to have article Foreign relations of Syria??). On the contrary, precisely because we need to have the article universal name covering everything. In this article and should be relations of all the relevant players (including Hamas). For Hamas is then possible addition article also to create a separate article. Jan CZ (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - What consist of foreign relations? In particular, from the relations with other States. It is a bit absurd that we have articles as Albania-Palestine relations, China–Palestine relations etc. (no China–PNA relations or China PLO relations).. but the General article is not named Foreign relations of the Palestine. The status quo has no logic and is unsustainable. Jan CZ (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether other article titles should be changed, and the degree of ambiguity acceptable in those, is a separate issue. But the "main" article title should not be changed into an ambiguous one. Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine is the short name for the State of Palestine. All articles (bilateral relations, diplomatic missions of/in etc... used this name). Article International recognition use full name of State. No article used the name PNA or the PLO. Foreign relations of Palestine (or of the State of Palestine) is better name for the article. Jan CZ (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Palestine (disambiguation) is the short name also for the PLO and the PNA. This article is not about relations of the State of Palestine, but about all foreign relations conducted by the PLO (and PLO-EC) - as internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people (including refugees outside of Palestine (region)), as provisional government in exile of the State of Palestine, as representative abroad for the PNA. The State of Palestine and the PNA are also created by and accountable to the PLO and the PLO's PNC, PCC and PLO-EC. The sources for all of this are in the article(s), e.g. [8], [11]: ISBN 978-0-19-826837-6 and others. The recognition article is only about SoP, but the relations article is about all PLO activities (covering also SoP and PNA) - if the relations article was restricted to SoP relations only, then most of the "participation in international organizations" and half of the "bilateral relations" tables would've been deleted. for the other articles titles you mention see my previous 09:17, 15 December 2012 comment There are not "more entities acting on behalf of SoP" - there are "more entities that the PLO acts on behalf of", e.g. the SoP and PNA - it's the PLO that acts on their behalf abroad, not the other way around. So, the proper title for the article is "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Hamas is a separate organization (from PLO and SoP and from the internationally recognized PNA government - albeit it claims that it's the legitimate PNA government) so a separate article for it is fine (and of course it should be mentioned briefly also here). Japinderum (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If the PLO acts abroad under the name of Palestine, then I see no reason at all, why should the aggregate article could not designate the Foreign relations of Palestine. Especially if actually includes all relations, PLO, PNA, and SoP, and basic information on the relations of Hamas. I still think that Foreign relations of Palestine is the correct name for the article. And it is definitely a better and more accurate, than the name of the existing, which is factually completely incorrect and, therefore, we have to change it. Jan CZ (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • PLO uses the designation "Palestine" in the UN (following resolution 43/177) and for some, but not all of its bilateral relations. But the name of the organization is PLO, not "Palestine". Wikipedia does not follow UNGA resolutions - whatever the political advantages somebody gets from those do not dictate article titles. The article title should not be like an WP:EGG link - it should be as clear and explicit as possible. The WP:TITLE problem in "Foreign relations of Palestine" is not that "the entity conducting the relations is not called Palestine" by anybody, but that in the context of foreign relations that name is ambiguous since the same name is utilized also for other entities. I understand that supporters of Palestine want to make it look "upgraded" and "just like any other regular state" in as many places and ways as possible - but as said above - unlike the regular case of "single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory" - here the case is unique, not like that - and we should not use article title hiding the facts.
  • The entity conducting the foreign relations is the PLO, thus the title should be Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization. I don't see any reason for us to invent something else. And in the article itself it's already explained what does PLO have in common with SoP, PNA, who uses the designation "Palestine", where and why, etc. Japinderum (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - the move request also includes incorrect statement: "With the UNGA vote Palestine, and not PNA, is represented in the United Nations." - PNA was never represented in the UN. Since 1974 the UN observer is the PLO and nobody else. Since 1988 the designation "Palestine" is utilized for the PLO delegation (just like you use "France" instead of "French republic"). The PLO conducts foreign relations since before 1974, since 1988 the PLO-EC represents also the State of Palestine (established by the PLO's PNC) as its provisional government-in-exile, since 1994 the PLO represents also the unrelated local Oslo accords (signed by PLO, Israel, USA, Russia) administrative entity - the PNA (established by and accountable to the PLO). Nothing in this setup changes with the recent UNGA vote that changes the PLO UN delegation into SoP UN delegation (and PNA is not subject of the 2012 resolution). The foreign relations are still conducted by the PLO. Japinderum (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Enough about politics. This is Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines that pay no attention to that. Palestine is the WP:COMMONNAME here, as evinced by the name of its seat in almost all diplomatic organisations. Whether it's ambiguous or not, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since we only have one article on Palestinian foreign relations. Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's COMMONNAME, but ambiguous in the context of "foreign relations" - it's common for more than one entity. Also the primary topic are the PLO relations (see below). Anyway, WP:TITLE prevents us from using the ambiguous term you prefer - the title has to be specific about whose entity foreign relations the article is. Japinderum (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Summing up: So, of the editors who participated, all except one are against the current title. Of those against the current title, all except one support the proposed title, while the other suggests a different one (below). Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't twist. There are 2 editors opposing and 3 supporting. One of the supporting also supports the alternative proposal if that one fails. Also, as the proposing sentence shows this repetition of the move request is made now because of the recent UN vote (WP:RECENTISM) - which changes the UN delegation title, but not the institutional setup or who conducts the relations, etc. Ironically see Greyshark09's link - Palestine delegation itself seems to go away from the "Palestine" term and to prefer the more specific and unambiguous "State of Palestine"[9]. Japinderum (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
No... There are five editors (not three) who agree the current title is not correct: Me, Jan, Chip, Soman, and yourself (you just said it 15 minutes ago). Of those five, only you are against the main proposal. Nightw 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Summary-current status:
Yep. Although they're not really votes. We've also got to look at each editors' stance on the current title, and there's a clear agreement that the current title is incorrect. Nightw 14:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Night w, I stated clearly that I OPPOSE this proposal for ambiguous WP:EGG title. I don't like the status quo either, but that's a separate issue. And I provided sources showing what's the correct title - see below. Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Emmette, as you said the relations abroad are handled by the PLO and I agree "Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization" is a better title - so, I proposed to use it. That is factually correct and avoids the WP:EGG-like situation with the ambiguous "Palestine" in the title that's unclear whether it's a reference to the PLO, SoP, PNA, etc. Japinderum (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Palestine" is completely the same as Germany, France or Russia. It is the geographical name of the territory of a political entity bearing its name. Previously Russia was greater (e.g., in the territory of the Russian Empire times), today is much smaller (Russian Federation). Earlier Palestine were larger (in the days of the British Palestine), today is much smaller (a Palestinian State/occupied territories). Change the size of the territory, or the ambiguous status of the political entity does not alter the accuracy and appropriateness of the concept of Palestine.
  • In the case of Palestine is unclear its status. but that's no reason to question the use of the name Palestine or Foreign relations of Palestine. Unclear status of Abkhazia also does not prevent the use of names such as Foreign relations of Abkhazia.
  • The article shows the relationships of all relevant palestinian actors (PLO, PNA, SoP, Hamas), and the Foreign relations of Palestine is optimal, factually correct name. Jan CZ (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Territorial size has nothing to do with the discussion. The status of each of the political entities is tangentially relevant, but what's most important is that it's not only one political entity (as your comment implies), but there are multiple - and that's why the title should use the name of the correct one. It's not that "Palestine" should not be used because someone questions SoP sovereignty (e.g. "unclear status" as you say) - it should not be used, because the PLO and PNA are also commonly called "Palestine" - that's why there is Palestine (disambiguation).
  • In Abkhazia you don't have multiple entities such as Abkhazia Liberation Organization, Republic of Abkhazia declared by that organization and a separate "Authority of Abkhazian Civilian Advisors to Russian Military Command in Greater Caucasus" that's not related to the republic, but only to the organization.
  • "Palestine" is not the same as Germany, France, etc. those have a single set of state, government and territory and only one entity conducting "foreign affairs" under the name utilized for this single set - the government of the state controlling the territory. The case here is different - special, because there are four entities conducting "foreign affairs" (one liberation organization, one state, two local administrations) under the name of a territory, that's under the control/occupation of another state (Israel). PLO represents abroad both the PNA and the State of Palestine. For sources see 09:02, 17 December 2012 and the articles. So there should be two articles - one for the PLO foreign relations (that covers also the State of Palestine and PNA) and one for Hamas relations. In the context of foreign relations "Palestine" is ambiguous term - and that's why it's not suitable for WP:TITLE without additional qualifier. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Each entity has its own article Foreign relations of Entity, regardless of the number of Governments, or control of the territory, or etc. Content of the article isn't the problem described in the intro. I disagree with you, it's still the same repetition of arguments. I don't see sense in continuing. Jan CZ (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If each entity has its own article, then we should have separate articles such as "Foreign relations of PNA", "Foreign relations of PLO", "Foreign relations of SoP". I don't think you are anybody else is proposing such setup. If by "entity" you mean "Palestine" - then you get to the core problem with the proposal - there are multiple "Palestine" entities and that's the reason the title should be explicit and not ambiguous and WP:EGG-like. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary

  • Jan CZ, this is not a voting poll, and also no need for such summary after every response. Also some of those 5 also support the title "Foreign relations of the PLO". My summary of the above is the following:
  • The same proposal was discussed before and not approved. Nothing has changed in the topic of the article or in the institutional setup of the entities involved since the last discussion. Recent UN vote also doesn't affect any of those and it's also RECENTISM. The proposal should not be approved per WP:TITLE - titles should not use ambiguous terms in an WP:EGG-like fashion. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal endorsed by most editors. Inclusion of CI+Niue on the List of sovereign states had been discussed repeatedly. And finally, we have the inclusion of the two countries on the list. Niue was included with a minimum consensus of 61%. All those who were against the inclusion respect it. Jan CZ (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Palestinian supporters prefer "Palestine" as it looks like a "normal state" and Israeli supporters prefer "anything other than Palestine" so that it don't look like a normal state (the same motivation that was behind the Palestinian initiative at the UN in 1988 for the short-form designation of the Palestinian delegation - and ironically now they want to reverse that back to full-name [10] - as that now suits their cause better). But Wikipedia should be NPOV. Titles should describe the topic - they should not be tools for political promotion of noble causes. Japinderum (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Close this already It's been 15 days, and conciseness is overwhelming to move this, I think it's time to close this RM and move the page. I strongly suggest relisting the below RM tough, everyone has been so focused on this one that there hasn't been much perpetration in that one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but i couldn't understand your comment; please reformulate.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I want to say that here most consensus although not strong but it is sufficient to make a change. And I said for example, the change was made with even less support (case of Niue, see Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue). Moreover, it is clear that the retention of the existing name has almost no support. 12% prefers the retention of the existing name, 62% prefers the proposed name, 25% prefers the alternative name. Leaving the current name in this situation probably is not the best solution, I think. Jan CZ (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I did read the discussion there, and it seems that 58% (or 60%) is not counted as "consensus" for Niue inclusion [11]. There is some attempt to include Niue based on hard Academic source, but that is a different thing. Consensus is usually considered as 75%; in some cases 67% can be considered (with good sources); less than 66% (which is what we have here) is very problematic and can be decided only by admins.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative

  • I'm not against waiting, but had to propose the proper title, because of the above renaming request. The problem with waiting is the big probability that nothing substantial will happen (e.g. no "big bang" announcement of "PNA is disbanded" or "PNA is merged into SoP") - there may be some renaming here and there (like the health ministry website) and that's it. That will only complicate our editing work by increasing uncertainty in sources. Japinderum (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If, one day, the situation will change (really born SoP, cease the PLO..), then the article can be renamed again. But that does not alter the fact that the article should now correspond to the current situation. Today the name is factually incorrect. Let's change it. Jan CZ (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Japinderum, this story might cause you to reconsider your mind - the Arab League website now says the member name is "State of Palestine" [13] (Da'wlat Falastin). It seems to become the official designation of all PLO institutions, as the representative in the UN also attempted to change the sign from "Palestine" (under PLO) to "State of Palestine" (standalone) [14].Greyshark09 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • State of Palestine is member of the Arab League since decades. Nothing new there. Long time ago other editors and I fished out sources explicitly showing "State of Palestine" as the Arab League member (for the table of international organizations participation in the article here). Same for OIC. The UN designation source is interesting, but it only shows what we already knew - PLO observer delegation is changed into SoP observer delegation. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes about as much sense as the current title. Bilateral relations and foreign relations of the Palestinian Authority are not conducted by the PLO, nor are they attributed to it. Nightw 12:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Unless something has changed since 1995, the only Palestinian body that exercise diplomatic functions is PLO. In fact according to their agreement PNA is not allowed to conduct any type of foreign missions including establishment of embassies.--Mor2 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you should take a look at the above move proposal by Soman (the main discussion), to rename this article to "Foreign relations of Palestine".Greyshark09 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, you have already voted there, never mind...Greyshark09 (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody is saying the PNA is disbanded. The proposal here is exactly the opposite - the article should be 'FR of PLO', because the PLO is the one conducting the foreign relations since decades, since before the PNA and since before SoP, and continues to do it in the present time. Whether PNA is disbanded or merged into SoP is entirely separate issue. Japinderum (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually there are talks about it. On one hand as i wrote here - Abbas mentioned PNA in present sense, but on the other the mission in the UN was officially changed from "Palestine" (under PLO) to "State of Palestine" (see UN announcement [15]; change at UNOG [16])and Mahmud Abbas is now officially related by the UN as the President of the State of Palestine and not as Chairman of PLO/President of the Palestinian National Authority.
Interestingly, in one of prior conferences in 2012 it was said that "... This transformation will, logically, require the prior dissolution of the Palestinian Authority (which, legally, should have ceased to exist in 1999, at the end of the "interim period" provided for in the Oslo Accords) and the accompanying proclamation that all of its ministries and other governmental agencies have become ministries or agencies of the State of Palestine. In this context, it would, of course, be highly desirable for a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas to be achieved prior to September." [17].
It is not clear when all other Palestinian institutions will be transformed, but it seems it is on the way.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
With "nobody is saying" I mean - nobody of the editors making proposals above. I don't doubt Palestinian officials take all scenarios into account. On the other hand - PNA was NEVER represented at the UN and it still is not. The UN may refer to some acts of the PNA or may give it support or whatever, that's it. MEPC can speculate as much as they want (although I don't agree that Fatah and Hamas "peace" is a pre-condition for the dissolution of PNA or its merge into SoP - the "internationally recognized PNA" is the Fatah-PNA. Hamas may claim they are the legitimate PNA rulers, but that won't prevent the PLO - the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people - from dissolving the PNA/merging it into its other project, the SoP). Actually there were speculations that this act was to be done BEFORE the application for UN membership in 2011! Taking this step will be a huge event - and hopefully will make our job here easier (e.g. reduce the details that should be taken care of not be stamped over by over-enthusiastic cause supporters), but we shall see... it all depends on how it's executed. For Wikipedia editors sake I prefer a "big bang" announcement instead of creepy step-by-step behind the scenes "takeover" of PNA by SoP which will led to uncertainty and wrong reports by uninformed sources.
Anyway, the forumish discussion we drifted into is at best tangential to the topic here (or even irrelevant). When it happens and when we know what exactly happened, then we can discuss what changes in the articles it requires. Japinderum (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The process however is ongoing - now it is Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics to change its title to be that of State of Palestine (see [18]). This of course applies all the figures of demographics etc. to be those of the State of Palestine. I'm not implying i intend to change this right away in the wiki, but other editors will go on this process in parallel with the ongoing transition of PNA->SoP.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bureau changing its title doesn't change the statistics themselves and also the SoP article infobox already uses the oPt/PNA statistics. And this is irrelevant to the foreign relations discussion. Japinderum (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And what PLO (not PNA) institution is changed into SoP institution? I haven't seen such example so far. And besides that's irrelevant since the PLO-EC is the SoP government - do you have a source stating that this will change? In case you have sources to confirm neither of those questions, then PLO will continue to be as relevant as today. Japinderum (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Abbas announced transition from PNA to SoP in the near time; the change has already begun.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Closer's comment

Please make sure to edit the article appropriately to reflect its new title. I had enough trouble fighting the server to get the page to actually move that I'm not going to try editing it myself. —Darkwind (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Requested move 26 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. It's been a month and no one has objected. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


Foreign relations of the Palestine Liberation Organization → Foreign relations of the State of Palestine – Since the previous RM almost three years ago, the name of the relevant organization is now clearly and consistently the State of Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Source? --JustBerry (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment. Sorry to drag this out, but considering the RM above and the generally fractious nature of all Israel/Palestine article, I'm giving this another relist to make sure no one has any objections. Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Article misses to give main info in a short, analytical, updated form

Hi. I came to this page with one question in mind: how many countries, and which, have recognised Palestine as a state? I do believe that that's the core information one looks for on this page - and I don't mean me, but probably most readers. Unfortunately, unless I am willing to do a lot of reading between the lines and of arduous counting in that impressive list/table you have created, this information is not readily available here. Also, since the 1960s different organisations have been recognised as the "sole representatives of the Palestinian people" etc., but there is a huge difference between Brezhnev or Ceauşescu recognising Yasser Arafat's PLO while it was on a lost outpost in Tunisia, and a Security Council member state recognising the State of Palestine nowadays. Mathematically put, it's Fatah<PLO<PA<State of Palestine. Maybe one of the editors could

  • indicate when the last statistic was posted ("currently" is a non-word on WP)
  • give the recognition figures in a split manner, i.e. (leaving out Fatah for convenience): how many states have recognised
    • PLO
    • PA
    • the State of Palestine.

Additionally, indicating the categories of countries is essential: USA, European Union, China, Russia (thus the Security Council members), NATO members, BRICK states. Reality is, the rest count less in this matter; the Arab League recognising the SoP is no big surprise. The alphabetical list is of little practical use here. The Military Order of Malta, knightly and most honourable, is a case in point :-)

Treating the many different categories all as one, with some half-hidden colour code to help stubborn & perseverent users, and with no summary at the top of the table or if possible IN THE LEAD (so-and-so-many recognised this or that org.), makes this all become almost useless to the knowledgeable reader and misleading to the newcomer ("Wow, looks like a bunch! The whole world!"). It's hiding more than it is informing, which is counterproductive for an encyclopedia - and arguably also to the "cause" some might think they are serving by overwhelming the reader with more & more countries mentioned in the list.
Thank you, ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Arminden: this page is about foreign relations. The article you are looking for is International recognition of the State of Palestine, which which is where diplomatic recognition is covered. It's linked to at the top of the Bilateral relations section. TDL (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Danlaycock:, and thanks! I see what you mean. Point taken. If I may, I still think "foreign relations" of a political entity that's still out in limbo is very much defined by its int'l status, so clarifying that issue would be helpful on this page as well. I guess that some time in the future these two pages will be merged into one. I'll look up the other page right away. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this page could use clarification. Ideally there would be a column which specifies with what political entity the state has relations with in the table. Unfortunately I think it's often ambiguous. But be WP:BOLD and add some clarification if you think you can! TDL (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 39 external links on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Foreign relations of the State of Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_State_of_Palestine/Archive_7&oldid=1140129012"