Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Belize

Belize have recognized the State of Palestine. [1] --Ahmetyal 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://belizean.com/news/belize-officialy-recognises-palestine-as-an-independent-and-sovereign-state/ --analitic114 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Geez your fast mate! Thanks for the update! Nightw 22:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Liberia, Cameroon

  • What is the source for Liberia recognition? If there isn't any why is it listed in "States that have recognised"?
  • Why is Cameroon not listed? [2] is published on the website of the President of Cameroon - if Palestine wasn't recognized by Cameroon, then the President of Cameroon wouldn't publish a greeting from such unrecognized state on his website. Japinderum (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this PLO issued map (showing Liberia recognition) a neutral source? It's also contradicted by the text you supplied where it's written that Liberia, Cameroon, Eritrea do not recognize. And it's not present on the Liberia line in the table - all other lines have supporting source, but Liberia. Who added Liberia and what source/explanation did he gave when adding it? Maybe there is some news report or statement?
For Cameroon I see [5], but it has a strange comment "Note that one of them, Austria is a member of the European Union." disregarding that Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czehia, Malta, Romania, etc. are also EU members (and strangely contradicts the current article that lists Austria and Vatican as no recognition). Japinderum (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Japinderum. Please check the archives on this talk page for more on these sources. There is only one list published prior to 2011 that can be certified, which is the UNESCO list already cited in the article for the recognitions prior to 1989. I added a {{citation needed}} template to Liberia's entry to encourage other editors to add information if they had it. As it says at the top, the list is based off the one published by the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department, which no government (including Liberia) has objected to. It is true that it is a primary source, but as we saw from the UNESCO list in 1989, states listed will respond if it misrepresents them. Nightw 14:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see that some states responded to the list in the UNESCO submission - but remember that this is a document circulated in an international organization. It is expected that states respond over such documents. I'm not so sure that all states around the world care what's written on a PLO website. Also, I saw that there were some PLO or PNA lists (now offline) - maybe it was on the UN delegation website - mentioning Cameroon, Austria, Vatican, etc. - so such lists are not a 100% confirmation.
Anyway if Liberia is added because of the PLO list, but the "citation needed" is only there to encourage editors to find an appropriate source, then OK. About Cameroon I'm confused - I would expect that the recent PLO list is accurate considering the amount of attention given to recognitions for the September vote, but the Cameroon president website source shows otherwise... Japinderum (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It shows a letter authored by Abu Mazen in which he signs as "President of the State of Palestine". That it's preserved in its original form is not enough to justify that Cameroon recognises him as such—probably just that they see little point in objecting to it. See the same title left as is here, here and here. Nightw 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see. I will try to find some source describing Cameroon position, but so far I couldn't. Japinderum (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

States that have not recognised

I understand that the EU isn't numbered because it's not a state, but why the Vatican City State also doesn't have a number? Also there are a few other gray areas on the map (I assume green = recognition, gray = no recognition) that aren't listed at all. I think these can be found below the table in the version of the article before splitting recognition [7].

If the numbering is somehow related to UN membership (because of 2/3 required for the September resolution?) I propose the following arrangement (that also takes into account that there are non-state actors involved):

  • "Position of other states" be renamed "Other positions"
  • "States that have recognised" be renamed "Diplomatic recognitions"
    • "UN member states" remains the same
    • "Non-UN member states" be renamed "Non-members of the UN"
  • "States that have not recognised" be renamed "No diplomatic recognition"
Why? And if it isn't right, then what's the explanation for the missing numbers and lines? Japinderum (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The recognizers section is divided into UN and non-UN, then why not divide the other section in the same way? Japinderum (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It is better to try to find a Night W I think it is unlikely to agree to your suggestions and himself more to explain why (in en-wiki, I usually only give the sources, most of the work on this paper leads Night W)--analitic114 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the numbers are given for UN member states only, since at the top of the list it gives the figure "126 of 193". For clarity, the numbers in the list should total 193. Regarding missing entries, if you have any information that can be added to any entry you think is missing, it'll be more than welcome. Their names are in fact hidden in the markup of the article, pending sources on their position. I'm in the process of filling out entries in the second section; their positions are relevant to the UN resolution. I do not see any point in adding non-UN members for the sake of it if there is no corresponding information to add alongside. Nightw 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The present arrangement (of the "no recognition" table) is confusing - some are numbered, some aren't. The "recognition" tables are split into UN and non UN so it's more clear. That's why I propose that the same arrangement is made for the "no recognition" section (numbered lines go in UN table, EU and Vatican go in non UN table). It's more consistent that way. Then the UN table has "empty" lines (only number/name and no comments), so I don't see why the non UN table shouldn't. I understand that we don't have a source describing Somaliland position - just as we don't have a source about Macedonia position - but there is no reason to list only one of them. Japinderum (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, there are sources on the blank entries (see Macedonian position [8][9]), I just haven't had the time to fill them all in yet. If you have a source on non-UN members' positions, by all means, the information can be added. If not, blank entries are pointless. Nightw 18:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I can help with filling the empty sections if you provide sources, but I'm not sure there are sources for all of them.
But the confusion with numbering and inconsistence remains - let's split this table like the upper one - into "UN member states" and "Non-members of the UN". In addition I think that if one of them has empty lines the other should also have them - why having empty lines for only some of them? Japinderum (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, you reverted the above changes [10], but alas you didn't gave an explanation why "There's no reason to have entities like Somaliland and SMOM on this page". What is so special about these two? We already have SADR mentioned (a non-member of the UN) in the list of recognizers. We have gray areas on the map that were missing from the table until my recent edit (e.g. Somaliland). We have Somaliland and SMOM on the equivalent pages (about recognition) for South Sudan and Montenegro (here and here). Also, you reverted other things and not only Somaliland and SMOM. Japinderum (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted what I saw as a wholesale addition of irrelevant entities. We include all UN members because their opinions hold weight on the international stage, and we mention other states and political bodies that recognise. There's no reason to create a list of entities that aren't in the UN and have no position, as there's no way to create viable inclusion criteria. Do we include the Tibetan governmentinexile? And sure, if Somaliland makes the statement "We do not recognise Palestine" then lets include it. If not, giving a default no position for these small even less recognised entities which probably don't care either way is OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a page about the September vote at the UNGA (that page is Palestine 194). We have (in the version you reverted to) Tuvalu, Monaco and others in the list of non recognizers - without any position mentioned (is this OR?). And besides the vote at the UNGA (where obviously Non-members of the UN do not vote) the opinions of these hold similar weight to the opinions of Cook Islands, Somaliland, etc. (also, we are not supposed to judge who has more weight) There is no reason to mention only some, but not others. Tibet government is in exile as you mentioned and in addition it currently does not participate in diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations with anyone - unlike those that you removed.
If we take a decision to list only those who we have some details about - then fine, the rest can be listed as "position unknown" (see history of main page for a variant of this before the split into relations/recognition articles - [11]).
Also besides removing some of the "position unknown" or "irrelevant entities" you mixed numbered and not numbered entities in a single list and reverted to the "Non-UN member states" heading instead of the "Non-members of the UN". The former is more problematic as it implies two wrong things: 1. all of listed are states (the EU and SMOM aren't) and 2. they are members of something else than the UN ("Non-UN") - the correct thing is that they "are not members of the UN". Japinderum (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
UN members invariably are much more important on the world stage than things which for all intents and purposes don't exist on the international stage. What inclusion criteria are you going to use for the non-UN members? As for Tuvalu, it's not OR, because we have the list of states recognising Palestine and Tuvalu is not on it. Feel free to change the titles if you want. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, as mentioned above in this way we have full consistence with the map: recognizers (green), non recognizers (gray). Japinderum (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've already made two edits - one with hidden Non-members of the UN states with unknown position (as you suggest in your last sentence) and a subsequent one unhiding those.
So, we are going to judge that Tuvalu and Monaco are "much more important" than Cook Islands and Somaliland? As I said - if this opinion of yours is because of their UN membership - this is relevant to the Palestine 194 page devoted to the UNGA vote - not for this page here devoted to all international recognitions, not only to these by UN members.
"Things which ... don't exist on the international stage"? I think this looks like a personal opinion - a harsh/radical one indeed. And I'm sure the governments of these "non existing things" don't agree with it. Try stating that in their capitals or elsewhere in their territory... And most of them have been recognized by many other states and organizations. Japinderum (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As the UN is often seen as one of the key points in obtaining statehood, its members are indeed quite important. Sure we can list the recognitions we have, but theres no reason to list entities with disputed statehood if they haven't made a clear position. You still haven't suggested any inclusion criteria for them. As for the not existing on the international stage, it's not an opinion, it's true. Many of these entities don't have any say in international politics. No doubt those in Hargeisa agree, considering how hard it is for them to get any international aid. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean UN is a key point in obtaining statehood? There are many states that weren't UN members until very recently - either by their own choice or because of political fighting between other states that are already UN members (such as Switzerland neutrality choice and such as USSR blocking USA-supported states or vice versa). Being non-member of the UN doesn't mean that they are somehow lower quality states than UN members (again, Switzerland is a prime example - it was better economically, democratically and by many other criteria than many of the UN members at the time when it wasn't yet a member).
"Not existence" - do we really need such strong wording? Some say that Israel doesn't exist. Israel says that there is no State of Palestine. Some say Somaliland doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that the Republic of Somaliland government officials in Hargeisa will agree with you that there is no such government, no such republic or that they don't exist as persons... I doubt regular citizens would agree either (they may agree that it's not easy living in a state with so little in terms of foreign relations and recognition). I don't know whether you have something against Somaliland or another one of those, but it's not sure whether all of them have less "say in international politics" than some of the obscure UN members such as Monaco, Tuvalu, Palau, etc. Let's not get into opinionizing like this. Things exist regardless whether there is someone watching. The same is with the states - they exist regardless whether they are recognized by every Monaco out there, by only one of the Monacos or by nobody. Of course it's "better" if they are recognized by everyone, but this isn't aways the case.
You ask about inclusion criteria - isn't it obvious? This is the page about "International recognition of the State of Palestine", so we list entities that engage in international diplomatic relations (such as the important acts like diplomatic recognition of the respective counterpart, appointing resident or non-resident ambassador as official point of contact, etc.). Those are mostly sovereign states (regardless whether UN members or not) and some special cases (such as the EU). Japinderum (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Joining the UN is viewed as a prime goal for legitimising their state status for unrecognised states today, despite old examples such as Switzerland. Kosovan officials have stated their desire to get into the UN, Palestine obviously sees it as a way to establish a state, the Cook Islands wishes to be in in the long term, etc. This isn't just from me, for example, reuters: "In reality, however, membership in the United Nations is generally considered to be confirmation that a country is an internationally recognized sovereign state."
You've missed my point, in that Somaliland no matter how established it is on the ground is a non-entity in the eyes of the international community. I've never heard of a Somaliland official denying this. There's a documentary by the BBC called Places that don't exist in which an official says they can't get aid because of this. They pretty much all have less say than anyone with a UN vote that can actually vote on international law.
It's not obvious, and mixing entities like SMOM with states in questionable. Should we include the Asian Development Bank, which has officials known as ambassadors and who countries appoint ambassadors to? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
There are many states that joined the UN decades after they were established (and also there are others, who were established before the UN and joined it decades after the UN establishment). And Switzerland is not an "old" example - it was already established before the UN and joined just recently, in 2002. Non-membership of the UN does not imply in any way that a state is "unrecognised". "Unrecognised" by whom? "Technically the United Nations does not recognize states. Individual U.N. members do that on a bilateral basis." (right before your quote) So, yes, if a state haven't been recognized by any entity conducting diplomatic relations, then it's "unrecognized", but of those that you remove there are few (if any?) who are in such position. Also, there are some UN member states that maybe you would call "unrecognized" - Israel is one of these. The point is that there are more states than the UN members. In fact, in times when the non-members of the UN were more numerous and more "important" this was taken into account by the UN institutions - there are several organizations (including the UN among them) whose membership is considered "important mark of statehood" or something like this, e.g. it's not exclusively about the UN. Of course, presently, when almost everybody is in the UN, for everyday layman usage it's easy to say that the only "important mark" is the UN.
Who are these "unrecognised states" you refer to? While for most of these that you want removed have not very big acceptance worldwide this isn't true for all of them. The Holy See (Vatican City State)?[12] (diplomatic relations with over 150 states, EU and SMOM) The Cook Islands? [13][14] (UN) [15] (this list is for Jan2011 - relations with more states were established afterwards such as Netherlands[16] and Japan[17] - a respectable list for a such small remote island state) You call these "unrecognised states"?
Palestine wants in the UN, yes. Kosovo also. But Cook Islands? What do we have about its UN aspirations? Holy See - currently they don't have UN membership aspirations.[18]
The UN is not some kind of Worldwide Parliament adopting "THE International law". So, "anyone with a UN vote that can actually vote on international law" actually refers only to those parts of "international law" adopted in the UN institutions. There are other sources of international law and other international organzations, where few of the votes are of non-members of the UN. There is no single worldwide "ultimate highest authority" and while it's easy to mistake the UN for such - it isn't. Actually, the reluctance of the USA to participate in many UN initiated activities (such as UNCLOS, ICC, Kyoto, etc.) is because of its resistance to the UN becoming such "worldwide central authority". But again, we don't need to engage in such discussions here, the purpose of these lists we speak about is much simpler than evaluating the mechanisms of worldwide governance and law.
Somaliland. The point of this page (unlike Palestine 194) isn't about who has more say "internatioanlly", "in the UN" or somewhere else. The point of this page is about State of Palestine international recognition and non-recognition. Somaliland is one of the entities that conduct diplomatic relations (Ethiopia consulate in Somaliland, headed by a diplomat with the rank of Ambassador) and diplomatic recognitions.[19] So, it should be listed in the non-recognizer "Non-members of the UN" table just as SADR is listed in the respective recognizer table.
Non-state entities conducting diplomatic relations. What's questionable about this? There are numerous sources showing states that have established diplomatic relations with the EU[20][21] and SMOM[22][23] (in both cases over 100). As you can see what similar lists of diplomatic recognitions or diplomatic relations includes for other states - the Asia Developmnet Bank is never listed. No other state or entity is listed besides those we had here in the article before your revert. And this is again obvious - SMOM is a leftover from the past (as a sovereign entity that isn't a state) and the EU is the first of what is maybe to come in the future[24] - a union of sovereign states, where these states willingly agreed to pool some of their sovereign rights, including in specific fields of foreign affairs (such as external trade policy) - such decisions are taken by mechanisms of supranationalism in institutions such as the European Commission whose members represent the interest of the EU and not of the member states and whose appointments can be (and have been) refused by the European Parliament (another unique institution that has real legislative powers, but whose members are appointed by direct elections in the whole EU and not by national parliaments - unlike other international organization parliaments). ADB and other international organizations such as the African Union (despite commonality in naming) are not anywhere near such institutional setup - regardless how their officials or the offices of their member states are referred to. Some states maybe question SMOM sovereignty and refuse to recognize it and to conduct diplomatic relations with it (as you can see in its list there are a few that conduct only "official" instead of diplomatic relations); in the past the USSR refused to conduct diplomatic relations with the European Economic Community (precursor organization of the European Union) exactly because it objected the notion that sovereign states can "give up" parts of their sovereignty to a common organization and its institutions; other states refuse to recognize Israel or other UN members. This doesn't mean that a list about international recognitions and non-recognitions should ommit the EU, SMOM, Israel and every other state that isn't receognized by everybody else.
Again, no need for such elaborate discussions here - see for example [25] showing how Montenegro was recognized by SMOM in June and subsequently bilateral diplomatic relations where established between them in September (in some cases recognition is from the date of establishment of relations). SMOM is obviously one of the entities that participate in diplomatic relations and diplomatic recognitions, so it should be listed in the non-recognizer "Non-members of the UN" table just as SADR is listed in the respective recognizer table. Japinderum (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you reverted the unhiding of the Non-members of the UN with unknown positions - with the note "UN members are listed or not listed on Palestine's website". Yes, but this website mentions only the UN members who recognized - because it's aimed at the UNGA vote expected soon. As you can see this website doesn't mention SADR (who recognized, but isn't UN member) - so I'm not sure we can use this website as proof that the Vatican, Somaliland, Cook Islands, SMOM or other non-members of the UN also don't recognize Palestine. I think that in this case we are safe if we stick to "list as non-recognizer unless source is found for recognition", but if you insist we can add a short list (not a table) with "Non-members of the UN whose position is unknown" (like in the history of the main article) - but then we should add one more color to the map. In any case the current inconsistency shouldn't remain (states that are non-recognizer according to the map, but unknown position/missing according to the tables). Japinderum (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Night w, any comment from you? I see that you reverted after DePiep edit, but in that way you mix numbered and non-numbered lines, put EU under the heading "state", use wording about "members of the non-UN" instead of "Non-members of the UN", etc. What do you disagree with in [26] or [27]? Japinderum (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, once again, if you have a source describing these states' positions, then they can be added. If not, there is no point in including them under a "position unknown" heading. This isn't a depository of random names. If a position is known, it can be included. If not, there's nothing to include. Nightw 07:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you replying to editor you worked with before on this like on Talk:State_of_Palestine?
Anyway, the issue is that we have states without position listed in the UN section, so I don't see any reason to not list the rest. We should either list only those that we have information for or all. The current setting lists Monaco, but doesn't list Somaliland. If we keep such empty "placeholder" lines in the UN section, then the same should be kept in the Non-UN section. If you want to show the number of UN members that haven't announced a recognition yet - this can be done in the text (193-126=67) - no need to have all 67 listed with "placeholder" if we don't put "placeholder" in all sections. Japinderum (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see your previous discussions. So before the split you initiated (well done, BTW) the article had exactly such "placeholder" list with alternating descriptions between "no recognition" (accused to be OR - but the map is the same) and "no known position". So placeholders should be kept in both UN and Non-UN sections. Japinderum (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, I'm working on adding the positions—please be patient. I'm travelling; I have neither the energy nor the time to sit at the computer constantly. If it bothers you that much, I suppose we can hide those entries until I've filled them in. Nightw 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will hide those with empty lines. I would prefer that both UN and Non-UN tables keep the empty lines, but if you insist on not showing "unknown position", then it should be uniformly applied to both tables. Japinderum (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hiding the empty ones is fine, but please don't hide those with relevant information. The only entries that are completely devoid of useful information are Tuvalu, Myanmar, Liechtenstein and Andorra. Nightw 10:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't hided any line with relevant information. Only such that you subsequently filled (which is OK) and these listed by you here. If it's fine why have you un-hided these that you mention above? Please hide them again if you don't intent filling those.
Some of the lines are now filled with "The government hasn't expressed any position" followed by statements with somewhat ambiguous relation such as "foreign policy of Monaco follows France" or about relations with Israel. Japinderum (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You reverted changes to headings and said "please don't include smom, states only". There are two problems here: the tables already include non-state entities conducting diplomatic relations, so the headings should be changed regardless whether SMOM is included. Also, there is no reason to restrict positions shown to "states only" - positions of the few non-state entities that are engaged in diplomatic relations - the SMOM, the EU (and the Holy See to a degree) should also be shown. If you insist to distinguish the non-state entities somehow, then EU and SMOM lines can remain without numbers for example. Japinderum (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, don't play dumb. You know how this works: I objected to your edits, and I reverted them. Editing policy requires that you gain a consensus before repeating the edit. You haven't even gotten close. If you must be so picky about the "state" label, we can move the EU to a separate section on IGOs, which I've been meaning to create anyway. Nightw 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Again Alinor? Anyway, relations and positions of IGOs are described in the Foreign relations of Palestine article and I disagree removing the EU from the table, where it belongs as one of the entities conducting diplomatic relations - unlike regular IGOs and this was recently acknowledged at the UN.
When you implemented the split you made many changes, including adding section and table headings, which need a little tweaking. Please don't act as if this is your own article. I see that you initiated the split and so "grandfathered" the article, but the tweaks I did are not major and you haven't given any reason for your objections - it seems like "I don't want you messing with my article". In addition you even reverted other changes that you claim to agree with. Weird. Japinderum (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing owning an article with defending it against persistent vandalism and unilateral changes that have been repeated without consensus. If you are indeed new to Wikipedia, then you should no doubt concede that you have little experience with our editorial guidelines.
  • Firstly, see editing policy, which I've shown you before—if your edit is reverted, discuss it on the talk page and get consensus from other editors before repeating the edit.
  • Secondly, see our policy on sources. Relevant to your edits, opinion pieces are never considered appropriate sources.
Unless you have something solid on the position of the SMOM, I don't see any reason for adding it. Humanitarian aid doesn't mean anything relevant to this subject. Nor, for that matter, is "assistance" to Niue and the Cook Islands foreign relations—they conduct their own, as has been seen in the past. You need at least one relevant piece of information. Nightw 08:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Confusing "owning" with "defending" - please see "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute." on top of this page right below your name. I understand that you are heavily involved in this article, but you are showing non-tolerance to "foreign" edits.
About changing and consensus - you recently changed table headings without any discussion and in the process of the split that you initiated you deleted the list from below the table at [28]. I don't agree with both of these actions, but I conceded on your "no empty lines" plea, because I have respect for your contribution and overall design of the splitted article. In return you are acting in a not tolerant way.
What I found on SMOM position is that it announced support for Holy See plea of ending violence. This is not less solid than many of the descriptions you recently added. What I found on Cook Islands, Niue, South Ossetia and Abkhazia positions is that they are influenced by other states - similarly to what you recently added about Monaco, Marshall Islands and others. If the sources I added about South Ossetia and Abkhazia are unacceptable by policy (as opinion pieces or whatever) - fine, but why remove the rest? Simply because it hasn't been added by you? Japinderum (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No, because it was irrelevant. Foreign relations are to be distinguished from foreign policy. Of the reliable sources you provided, none stated anything about foreign influence. In fact they stated the opposite: that the Cook Islands and Niue treaties do not confer on New Zealand any control over decisions other than those delegated to it; you have not provided a source that indicates that the matter of Palestinian statehood has been delegated to New Zealand. What you found on SMOM was irrelevant to its recognition of a Palestinian state. In addition, I see that you were recently notified about the 1RR restriction on articles relating to the IP conflict. You have just violated this restriction with this edit. If you do it again, I will report you and you will be topic-banned. Nightw 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The text of the edits is not about "influenced", but about "assisted" and that's what the sourced given stated. This is not less relevant than your edits about Monaco, Marshall Islands and others you recently added - I wouldn't have added it if you haven't added such descriptions before that. The same for relevance of other edits. The difference between my approach and yours is that I haven't reverted your mainly irrelevant descriptions, because I'm not in the process of "defending my own article against foreign edits".
The edit you cite isn't violation of 1RR - it reverts a non-consensus and incorrect change you did to the table headers of the second table. It's quite minor actually and I don't see what do you object in it.
What I gather from your comments is that you for whatever reason don't want to acknowledge that the non-state entities EU and SMOM conduct diplomatic relations. Despite the various sources showing that they do you still insist on disregarding this and on putting "state" everywhere in section and table headings. I agree with non-numbering of EU and SMOM, so that they are distinguished from states, do we need something else? Japinderum (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It is significantly less relevant. Whereas the Cook Islands can delegate some decisions to New Zealand if it wishes to, Monaco must align its foreign policies with those of France. Since recognition of a state is a matter that would obviously come under this agreement, this is relevant. If the SMOM has made an official statement on the State of Palestine, I wouldn't be opposed to adding it. Humanitarian aid belongs in Foreign aid to Palestinians, it's not relevant here. Nightw 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
About Monaco, South Ossetia, etc. descriptions I have my reservations, but our core disagreement is elsewhere - Do you agree with the changes required to reflect the non-state nature of EU and SMOM, e.g. changing headings from "Non-UN member states" to "Non-members of the UN", etc.? Japinderum (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No. SMOM isn't in the article, so that's not really an issue. As for the EU, I don't really think its presence warrants changing the consistency of all headings. I'd be fine with moving it to a separate section listing international organisations, since they'll have to go in eventually and that's where it fits best. There are already sources on the AU, NAM, Arab League, OIC, ALBA, SICA and Caricom present in the article, I just need to add text. Nightw 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
As I already explained above I don't agree with removing EU from the table. Japinderum (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

UN members votes count

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looking at the tables/number of recognizer and non-recognizer UN members the following pattern emerges:

  • 193 total UN members (>50% = 97, >2/3 = 129)
  • 15 total UNSC members (>50% = 8)
  • State of Palestine status to be upgraded to "UN member state":
    • In the UNSC there are 9 that recognize. Even if 1 of them is somehow "swinged" to abstain it's unlikely that 2 will do it. But 3 of the veto-powered permanent members do not recognize, so one of them is likely to use a veto.
    • UNGA overruling UNSC veto - UNGA 129 votes are needed (if this procedure can be utilized in this case)
  • State of Palestine status to be upgraded to "UN observer state":
    • UNGA 97 votes needed

Both 129 and 97 votes requirements are dependent on the assumption that all 193 UN members will vote. But some of them may be "absent". Also, states that haven't paid their membership fees are deprived of voting right [29].

So, my question is - where can we find a list of UN members with unpaid fees (or otherwise suspended from voting - such as Libya that currently doesn't have a representative at the UN)? Such "poor" states are found in both recognizer and non-recognizer camps, so the balance is not obvious. Japinderum (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Analitic, this is interesting information. Nightw 14:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The link is already updated - on 11 October 2011 the UNGA adopted resolution that allows all UN members to vote, including those that haven't paid their fees. Japinderum (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Recognition

As I said in the es and to Analitic114 [30] (who reverted my edit): recognition by a country is not OR. Connecting such a recognition with a country's statement in this topic here is OR. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the OR?--analitic114 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
In the word "connecting". -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact non-recognition of Israel in an article on the recognition of the State of Palestine is necessary, least because of the dispute on both sides of the possibility referred to the State of Palestine (by Palestinians)--analitic114 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, how? In Palestine, some states only recognise the sovereignty of the State of Palestine, while others only recognise that of the State of Israel. See Legal status of Western Sahara for another example where "sides" are described. Nightw 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(eh, "how" is not "where", why ask "again"?) This is the OR: a country's position in topic X does not relate to their statement in topic Y. It is the same country, but that does not create a relating link between statements. Putting these two topics together here in the table is an act by an editor, not an outside world thing (and unsourced too). That is OR. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Night w - you changed your edit post while I was responding. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And analitic114 squeezed in a post out of sync [31]. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
So...? I first asked you on Analitic's talkpage, hence the "again". The two matters are connected and provide readers with context. And it is indeed an "outside world thing" unless you're completely unfamiliar with the Arab–Israeli conflict. Nightw 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"The two matters are connected", "provide readers with context", "unless you're completely unfamiliar with the Arab–Israeli conflict". Your three remarks are all editorial (read personal), not factual. No source. OR, is what I say. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what kind of source you are expecting to be shown. You are arguing, from what I can tell, that a state's recognition of the State of Palestine's exclusive sovereignty is not related to the subject of international recognition of the State of Palestine. Have I got this correct? Nightw 23:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not differentiation in the way you mention (exclusive vs international), that is not the issue here. The marking (by color) has the legend: "Only recognises Palestinian sovereignty (i.e., does not recognise the State of Israel)". Connecting these two facts, even if both are sourced separately, is a made up statement. To be more precise, this kind of OR is described in WP:SYNTHESIS. -DePiep (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're arguing that we should remove the first or second part, and simply keep one or the other...? That's not what your edit showed... Nightw 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This was my edit: [32]. No 'first part' or 'second part' (what are you talking about?). Remove the (colored) note, as I did in my edit. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're flopping all over the place. Please explain yourself better. What are you disputing? Nightw 00:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I can help - I think that DePiep basically says: You can say that "Lebanon does not recognize the State of Israel" OR that "Lebanon does recognize the State of Palestine", but you shouldn't combine these two unless you have an explicit source that explicitely links them by saying "Of Israel and Palestine, Lebanon does recognize only Palestine". I think that instead of edit-warring the issue could be easily resolved - blue color legend can be changed to simply "does not recognize Israel" (and this seems well sourced) and the "Only recognises Palestinian sovereignty" part can be moved to some of the text sections with a link to some source discussing the "competition" between Israel and Palestine over territories of the former British Palestine mandate. Just my 2 cents. Japinderum (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, Night w disrupts the talk. Night w does not answer a single question or statement I made. I am not flopping, I explained the (single!) edit I made.
At least Japinderum tries to read it. But now, my point is this: in this, there is no source that connects 1-1 a country's statement to that country's position re Israel. So it should be out. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you read any of the statements? Here, for example, is an article I read just today, and explains why recognition of one, the other, or both are connected. Nightw 06:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? -- don't get paternalistic. After that, your "for example" still does not make the link that a country's thing on Israel is related to the that country's statement re Palestine. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: what has "States which do not recognise the State of Israel" as a marker has to do with this? It could be a separate column, alas, but it does not has anything to do with any state's opinion about recognising another state (e.g. Palestine). -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please post a thread at WP:OR/N. You've got two editors disagreeing with you and you've rejected Japinderum's proposal. I believe the sources are in the article, that the relevance is obvious, that the information is helpful. Apparently you still disagree. I think it would be best to solicit other opinions. Nightw 23:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, how did you know WP:OR/N existed? And by the way, the "two editors" you count don't add up to a single coherent argument. -DePiep (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting links - not about recognitions

Link1[33]: "This won recognition from about 100 countries, mainly Arab, Communist and non-aligned states - several of them in Latin America." - this is a nice match to the current "Shortly after the 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by many other developing states in Africa and Asia." - but I see that before the split[34] communist was also mentioned.

I added this, but subsequently "non-aligned" was added by another editor. But the non-aligned states were already accounted for. I suggest removing "non-aligned" as it overlaps the rest groupings.
The main groups of states who recognized the State of Palestine in 1988/1989 are: Arab/Muslim, Developing/Decolonized/Independence struggles (e.g. SWAPO/Namibia - a fellow independence movement), Communist. Those two or three of these overlap in some cases (e.g. a developing arab communist state), but adding "non-aligned" is unnecessary since there are none (few?) such states who aren't also in one of the other three groups. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Link2[35] that is interesting for Palestine 194: "Many have claimed that if the U.S. does indeed veto the Palestinian UN bid, the only option would be for the Palestinians to pursue upgrading Palestine’s current observer status at the UN. This is incorrect. As Palestinian diplomats have recently noted, they can get the UN General Assembly to admit Palestine as a UN member state pursuant to the terms of its Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950).[36] So Obama’s veto at the Security Council can be circumvented by the General Assembly through the Uniting for Peace Resolution." - this is not an opinion piece, but words of FRANCIS BOYLE - legal advisor to the PLO.

What this means is that if the PLO can get in favour over 1/2 of UNSC members of which at least 1 is permanent member - then a veto by some of the other 4 permanent vendors can be overruled by over 2/3 of the UNGA members. I think this should be mentioned at the Palestine 194 page - this is the third possible outcome of the UN bid:

  1. UNSC and UNGA both approving UN membership
  2. UNSC rejecting UN membership, UNGA approving UN observer status with over 1/2 for the State of Palestine (here it's interesting whether the PLO also remain a UN observer as it's now?)
  3. UNSC rejecting UN membership, UNGA overruling UNSC rejection by UfP procedure

Does someone know how much is actually "over 1/2 of UNSC"? 15/2 = 7.5, so technically 8 is over 1/2, but [37][38] mention "nine". Both this and "over 2/3 of UNGA" is important because right now Palestine recognitions figures are exactly 9 UNSC (and even one of them influenced to abstain may reject the bid) and gravitate somewhere below 2/3 of UNGA. And is it 1/2 or 2/3 of the votes cast (in favour, against, abstain) or of total membership (including also absent)?

Any timelines for when the bid will be published, when the votes will be cast and when the UN will decide which countries will be allowed to vote even if their fees are not paid? Japinderum (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda

Antigua and Barbuda have recognized Palestine. [39] --Ahmetyal 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Separate article?

Hi, I was thinking if a separate article for the Palestinians request for UN membership tomorrow and all the effects of that (such as protests etc) should have its own article? and if so what name should it have? and if not,then why? thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We have Palestine 194. Is that what you mean? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I tried to find an article about this subject. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland, Iceland

According to the map of countries that have recognized Palestine, those two countries have already done so. According to the links used to support this assertion, however, all they have done thus far is saying they'll vote at the General Assembly to support the Palestinian statehood bid. So far, however, there's been no real action on their part. I suggest they be removed from the map until actually support statehood. 187.113.127.224 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Grenada supports

Can someone include this in the article? Grenada supports Palestine [40] --Ahmetyal 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's already been added to Palestine 194, but I've replaced the ref with your government one. Nightw 03:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And I've updated the entry on this page. Nightw 03:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

lists - empty lines, missing entries - discrepancy

There are three problems:

  1. Listed/Not listed. The list of UN non-recognizers includes one empty line - Tuvalu. The list of non-UN non-recognizers is missing Cook Islands, Niue, SMOM and some others (Night w says that this is because their lines would be empty - we don't have sources for their positions yet). We should either include empty lines or not - in both sections. Either the missing non-members of the UN should be added or Tuvalu should be removed.
  2. UN/Non-UN split. Why is the list split like that? Such split may be appropriate for the Palestine 194 page that deals with the UN membership application, but not for this page that is not only about the UN.
  3. Numbering. Having numbers on the non-recognizers gives a "preview" of a possible future votes - but currently only the UN members are listed exhaustive both in recognizers and non-recognizers. But there are other organizations - for example the recent re-applying to UNESCO that includes non-members of the UN, who will vote. So, the non-members of the UN sections should also include all (including such that we don't know what their position is) - also related to point1. Japinderum (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
On the second point - we have a non-members of the UN with full membership/voting rights in various international organizations (including UN specialized agencies such as UNESCO and WHO), so their positions are not less important than those of the rest - even for the use of the list as "voting crystall ball" (that the UNESCO vote shows is not 100% effective - some recognizers vote against, some non-recognizers vote in favour, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Improper use of time-stamp template

I hate to indulge your characteristic pettiness, but revert-warring obviously isn't going to help. Placing a dated stamp against a template that is almost immediately updated independent of this article is obviously silly. If you go around the project placing {{as of}} next to every instance the where figure is mentioned then it defeats the purpose of having a template for the figure to begin with. It means that every one of those articles will then have to be edited individually just to fix the date, which isn't really relevant when the template is updated so quickly.

My original intention with the {{as of}} template was to present the information as current by having {{As of|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} generate the date automatically. I changed my mind a few minutes later after realising that it would create technical malfunctions with categorisation and that it wasn't really necessary anyway. I reverted to plain prose in my next edit minutes later, so your attempt to pass your changes off as a revert to the original version is plainly transparent. Nightw 19:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on the content. Your personal attacks against me obviously aren't going to help.
  • "a template that is almost immediately updated" - Where does WP:ASOF say that if an editor tries really hard to update the figure as soon as it changes then the guideline doesn't apply?
  • "It means that every one of those articles will then have to be edited individually" - you could move the {{as of}} wording to {{palrec}} if you like. It should be simple to add this as an optional argument. But the argument that "it's too much work to do it properly" obviously isn't a good one.
  • "My original intention with the {{as of}} template was to present the information as current" - this would obviously not be appropriate. The whole point of including a time stamp is so that it has to be manually updated to ensure that the info is still up to date. Claiming that the article is instantaneously updated is ridiculous.
  • "your attempt to pass your changes off as a revert" - I was trying to do the minimal amount of reverting that was required. We can go right back to this version if you prefer. TDL (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As you've noted, WP:ASOF is a guideline, which allows for common-sense usage and interpretation. Placing date stamps when each occurrence of the data is simultaneously updated independently of any article it appears is obviously neither practical nor necessary when updated so frequently. You're obviously not required to adhere to common sense, but I reserve the right to point it out for you. Most pieces of information in an encyclopaedia are dated. The guideline was obviously not intended to be used with information that is updated separately from the relevant date and as quickly as this is. It's for use with data from censuses, data that will quickly become dated as soon as its put to paper. If your intention here is to see how long you can play the wikilawyer, then I have no problems with reverting to that earlier version, or with simply removing the sentence. Lastly, please do not edit my comment. Your persistence in trying to pester my regular area of editing because you're getting frustrated with our engagements elsewhere is petty. You're not improving these articles in any way. I'd recommend taking a breath and spending some time on subjects you're more familiar or at ease in. You've already violated restrictions once today; I'd hate to see you blocked over something you don't actually care about. Nightw 21:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult for you to have a discussion without attacking other users. Your WP:Personal attacks are very disruptive to collaborative editing. As you no doubt recall, I've been involved in Palestine related articles for some time (ie [41]). Just because we have common interests doesn't mean that I'm out to get you or being "petty". Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I'm not "familiar or at ease" with the topic or don't "adhere to common sense". Just because you think you WP:OWN this article doesn't mean that others opinions aren't valid.
  • "Placing date stamps when each occurrence of the data is simultaneously updated" - again add the code to {{palrec}} if it's too much work for you to update individually. But being too much work isn't a good excuse to make factually incorrect claims (that the article is instantly up to date) in the article.
  • "data that will quickly become dated as soon as its put to paper" - The number of Palestine recognizers has change 18 times in the last 10 months, or every two weeks. Is that not quick enough for you?
As for your accusations of violating WP:ARBPIA, you are of course welcome to file a complaint against me if you like. However, given that I've only made 1 revert in the last 53 hours you're not going to have much success with that. Given your long history of violating the same policy, I'd advise you to take a break from a topic which you obviously care deeply about and in which you seem incapable of dealing with criticism of your work. TDL (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It being "too much work" is not the issue. The issue is that editors won't do it—for whatever reason—and it will result in a multitude of incorrect information. As for our "common interests", you have not contributed to Palestine articles. Your "edits" to such articles have been minor changes purely associated with either me or Alinor, further cementing the idea that you have a set of grudges that you apparently need to overcome. I'm not filing a report for violating remedies because you're not going to be regularly editing IP articles, are you? If I'm wrong, by all means—convince me: contribute to an IP article that I haven't created or frequently edited; contribute to one of the numerous discussions on IP article talk pages where I'm not involved. At the moment, you're not trying to collaborate. You're just trying to disrupt, and it's because you're disgruntled by how things are panning out elsewhere. Since you don't appear to have anything better to do, and I do, I'm going to carpet this issue with a revert to the earlier version you suggested as soon as I'm able. Nightw 23:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Danlaycock and their hiding nick TDL. User:Nightw opens this thread with: I hate to indulge your characteristic pettiness. This is a personal attack, and worth throwing out. Disclosure: in another post I have an issue with NightW. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you? I was under the impression your issue was content-related...? What specifically do you agree with here? Nightw 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you? writes NightW, possibly about me (we don't know). This is disruptive, non-cooperative behaviour, NightW. Danlaycock/TDL is right. Now NightW, did you ever edit Wikipedia under another name? -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you have not been banned yet is nothing short of amazing. Nightw 01:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
You can belittle my contributions all you like, but your repeated personal attacks aren't helping the situation. You call me names and then say I'm not trying to collaborate? Perhaps you should consider WP:AGF. I've got no grudges, although you sure seem to be carrying one
  • "it will result in a multitude of incorrect information" - I'll repeat my point which you keep ignoring: so move it to the template if you like. Problem solved.
  • "revert to the earlier version you suggested as soon as I'm able." - No, please don't. The consensus seems to be against you on this issue. TDL (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think that was a serious suggestion. It would produce (on various articles)...
  • "...has received diplomatic recognition from As of October 2011, 127 states."
  • "The proclaimed State of Palestine is currently recognized by As of October 2011, 127 countries."
  • "As of 2011, As of October 2011, 127 (Expression error: Unrecognised word "as"%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine."
...and would obviously reduce the template to all but uselessness. I don't know what consensus you're referring to. You've made some changes, I reverted them, you made them again, you consented to reverting to the version immediately prior to the content dispute, and I agreed. Unless you have an alternative proposal... Nightw 00:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote very carefully: "add this as an optional argument" to the template (emphasis added). Obviously it would be extremely silly to make this a mandatory option. Perhaps the problem is you just don't understand how templates work?
User:DePiep agrees with my edits. You are the lone editor arguing against them. Please don't revert. TDL (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Then what's the point? You're either pushing the guideline or your not. Out of the examples I gave above, it would work in exactly zero cases, which means the issue of producing incorrect information still stands. All in the name of a guideline that doesn't appear to be relevant. DePiep has said he agrees with you. He hasn't specified what about. And even if he does agree on your content points, that's not a consensus. Perhaps the problem is you just don't understand how consensus works? Nightw 01:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope, you're still obviously not understanding how templates work. The point is that you could update the "as of" date at the same place+time as the number in the template. If there's an optional parameter, it would work perfectly in every case you listed and the obviously relevant guideline would be uniformly updated whenever the figure is updated. I'm not sure why you don't understand this. Perhaps reading Help:Templates will be of some use? Or you could look at {{Kosovorecognition}} (which you plagairised for {{Palrec}}) which does something similar.
There's clearly no consensus to remove this paragraph. Please don't. TDL (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the section to the revision prior to the content dispute, as pushed through by Dailycare. I have no problems with leaving it at this, since the figure given by Dailycare is the most recent figure claimed by the upper ranks of the PLO. I will not repeat my changes to this section until we have reached a consensus. You are apparently under the impression that consensus has already been achieved here, so I will contact an uninvolved administrator to consider that claim. If the admin confirms that a consensus has been achieved, we can put your changes back in. Agreed? Nightw 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's clearly a very bad idea. As you yourself quite rightly pointed out "Mansour is also unreliable". 139 may well be the largest figure claimed by the PLO, but since you failed to source the claim I can only speculate on when he said it. However, just a couple weeks ago the same man said 131. Including figures from on obviously unreliable source in the lead is undue. Picking one of several drastically different figures from the same source in a similar timeframe is also undue. And there's clearly no consensus to remove the most important sentence in the lead in the first place. I'll give you an opportunity to self-revert before doing it myself.
You edit still hasn't addressed the issue I've raised since you kept the other dated statement in this section. If you insist on removing the figure from the lead, I'll be forced to revert this edit and replace it with something that is properly time sequenced. As temporary solution I'll add the {{As of}} template to this instance. If you disagree, be sure that you revert to the last agreed upon revision before this edit.
Given that you seem to be under the impression that your lone voice constitutes a consensus to remove the sentence, I agree that it would be wise for you to consult with an uninvolved admin. Of course it would be far simpler if you just tried to work collaboratively on the compromise I suggested. TDL (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The figure is sourced in the last sentence of the background section. I actually think the PLO's official figure would be better to put there, but there wasn't a consensus for your changes so as you know I had to revert to the revision prior to the dispute, per WP:BRD. Your issue with displaying Mansour's figure is a new matter. You obviously share my concerns about the reliability of the source so hopefully we can agree on a way to address that. I've added the timestamp to the template, so your guidelines have been taken into account. Any other issues? Nightw 13:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not quite what I had in mind. I'm happy if the {{DMCA}} is only transcluded on {{palrec}}, but what I want to do is have it optionally output the "As of" (or other customizable phrasing) bit of text so that each article is correctly time stamped. I don't mind coding something up, but there's no sense of me investing the time if you are just going to revert me. TDL (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You say there's no consensus to add Mansour to the lead, but there isn't a consensus to add your changes to the lead either. And I haven't "added" anything. I reverted to an earlier version of the lead submitted by Dailycare. I'd be grateful if you would edit the template actually. I had to undo my edit since it created compatability problems with the #expr: code to display a percentage. And if you do edit the template, the month that should be put in is September, not October. Nightw 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree with my edits, as per WP:BRD it's your responsibility is to revert to a stable consensus version pre-dating the dispute. Instead you reverted to a version that you yourself quickly reverted twice. As I sated in my edit summary, if you want to revert to a revision before the dispute then I won't object. However, given that you seem to be in agreement with me to add the functionality I've proposed to the template this probably won't be necessary. Since {{kosovorecognition}} and {{palrec}} largely duplicate each other, my intention is to write a "master" template that can be used for any state with limited recognition, but I likely won't be able to get around to all this until later today. TDL (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I can't make another revert today, can I? In any case, I'm anxious to see what you come up with, so I'll leave it for now. Nightw 15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got the new functionality working on {{Palrec}} and I've added it to this, and several other, articles. Most of the complex codding has been offloaded to {{Numrec}} which I plan on using for {{kosovorecognition}} as well. For updating purposes, you'll just need to change the M, Y and N variables on {{Palrec}} to sync it across all pages. (The M is optional). Still have lots tweaks I want to do, but it's mostly working now. TDL (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, looks good. I'll have to play around with it a bit since I'm not really sure which letters produce what in the asof parameter. Maybe you could write up a quick documentation as well...? Nightw 02:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No sources for Israel non-recognizers

I've added a {{cn}} to the claim that the highlighted states do not recognize Israel here. This info either needs to be sourced or removed. I don't see any sources on International recognition of Israel for most of the non-recognizers either. TDL (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. Nightw 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Since there's been no progress on this in over two weeks, and given the legitimate OR concerns raised by User:DePiep in the discussion above, I've gone ahead and remove this per WP:BURDEN. TDL (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been slowly sourcing International recognition of Israel. Since I've been distracted elsewhere, my progress has been slow. I can transfer the sources over. Nightw 08:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Just add it back in when you transfer sources over. Not critical for now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Nightw 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done what? You've reinserted the material, but it's still mostly unsourced. TDL (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Which entries in particular? I see I missed Comoros and Oman, that's two. I'll look for those now. Any others? Nightw 00:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

headings of section 4

I suggest the following change to the headings (like in [42]):

  1. States that have recognised -to- Diplomatic recognition
  2. States that have not recognised -to- No diplomatic recognition
  3. Position of other states -to- Other positions
  4. Non-UN member states (what is "member state of Non-UN"?) -to- Non-members of the UN

That is because international diplomatic recognition - the topic of the article - is practiced not only by states (see [43] - example of diplomatic recognition by SMOM). Japinderum (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Addition of - Explanation on the Recognition of States

In order to clarify the sequence of events for A) recognition, then; B) recommendation by the UNSC before; C) any UNGA vote on acceptance for UN Membership. Readers should be afforded the chance to be aware before the main bulk of the article ... talknic (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this more to do with Palestine 194? This article isn't really about a UNSC vote. It's about A. And then B and C are discussed at Palestine 194. Nightw 20:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Night w - "Isn't this more to do with Palestine 194?" Article title here is "International recognition of the State of Palestine"
"This article isn't really about a UNSC vote" Correct. Nor is Palestine 194 about the RECOGNITION of a State. It's about ACCEPTANCE into the UN. It should also have an accurate description of the process of RECOGNIZING states and who it is done by, before applying for acceptance into the UN as a State or; acceptance into any of its bodies before acceptance as a UN Member State.
E.g., There is this one existing source already in the article."Request for the Admission of the State of Palestine to UNESCO as a Member State". It is not about the recognition of Palestine as a State by the International Community of Nations/States. Being a UN document, readers might be led to believe recognition of states is through the UN. They ought be informed before reading the bulk of the Article
Furthermore there's no explanation of Provisional States and/or non-Self Governing Territories free of or under military control/occupation; Provisional States and/or non-Self Governing Territories and/or States under an agreed protectorate; Independent States; Independent Sovereign States.
E.g., Provisional States & non-Self Governing Territories: Palestine has been a Provisional State since 1920League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph) ... Confirmed in the 1922 LoN Mandate for Palestine League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: First Line. A status which has never been rescinded. What remains of Palestine after Jordanian and Israeli Independence, is still a Provisional State, whose territories have been under the occupation/military Control of other entities since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Non-Self Governing Territories and those with Provisional State status are protected under the UN Charter Chapt XI.
Given the complexity of each status, the very least readers ought be afforded at the outset, is a brief explanation similar to the one I've provided ... talknic (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence you've given might be an appropriate introduction to the fifth section, although you could argue it could easily be replaced with a hatnote to Diplomatic recognition where the subject can be explained to the reader in more detail. The second and third sentences, however, are noticeably off-topic at that stage, since acceptance into the United Nations isn't touched on until the recent events section, below the hatnote for Palestine 194. The only page of that UNESCO document that is being referenced is an annex attached to the application listing the dates on which states extended recognition. As for the other thing you've brought up, Mandate Palestine was terminated in 1948, I can give you the text of the act if you want it. It doesn't exist anymore and has no connection to the state which declared independence in 1988. It's certainly not categorised as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. Nightw 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the mandate is terminated and de jure the territory is not listed at the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. But the UN still treats it just as one of these - as territory under Israel responsibility that has to eventually get self-governing status somehow (independence, merge with Israel, merge with Jordan/Egypt, etc. - just like all other territories that have "graduated" from that list) - where independence is the most realistic option of course. For such discussion see here. Japinderum (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant to what's being discussed here. And for the record, as you know and can see, we both participated in that discussion and your thoughts were not shared by anyone else. Nightw 03:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Night w - Noted your removal without any sign of consensus: "The first sentence you've given might be an appropriate introduction to the fifth section," 5. See also? So the reader reads this article in ignorance of how recognition comes about. Brilliant notion.
"you could argue it could easily be replaced with a hatnote to Diplomatic recognition where the subject can be explained to the reader in more detail" so instead of a compromise while the subject is on Talk, you revert??
"The second and third sentences, " tell the reader recognition is before UN membership and are entirely relevant to having some forehand knowledge of the process before the bulk of the article.
"As for the other thing you've brought up, Mandate Palestine was terminated in 1948.." What on earth are you on about? This is what existed before you reverted // "The recognition of States is by the International Community of Nations/States, it is not obligatory[1]. The states must have already been recognized by the International Community of Nations/States before being recommended by the UNSC for membership in the UN. Only after recognition and recommendation does the UN General Assembly vote on a State's acceptance for UN Membership."//
You had no consensus and your points were yet to be addressed. You offer no compromise ... talknic (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, firstly, I reverted because it was added without consensus and you hadn't responded to my comment in five days. My comment was made on the 8th, so at that time the fifth section was what is now the 4th... A hatnote to diplomatic recognition in the second section is in my opinion the best option as I don't think it can be adequately explained in a few sentences. With the second sentence, as I said, this article isn't about membership in the UN; that is discussed in detail at Palestine 194, so it's a bit off-topic at the beginning of this article. The last paragraph in my comment ("what on earth are you on about?") is in rebuttal to the what you brought up about provisional states and Mandate Palestine. Nightw 12:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Night w - "added without consensus " Show me the rule that says I must have consensus to add something ... thx
I made a change and brought it to Talk for discussion
"you hadn't responded to my comment in five days." Folk wait over 2 or 3 months for answers to a simple CN
"as I said, this article isn't about membership in the UN" I agree. That's why folk who might be completely ignorant of the subject should know the process BEFORE the bulk of the article, which is peppered with UN UN UN UN UN .. The first reference is to the UN...
"what is now the 4th"?? Why? There are issues BEFORE the 4th section relevant to how states are recognized.
"rebuttal to the what you brought up about provisional states and Mandate Palestine" Yes the Mandate ended, however the sacred trust to protect non-self governing territories (Chapt XI) was a part of the UN Charter BEFORE the Mandate ended.
For the sake of a small entry, readers are afforded insight into machinations of the whole recognition article. To that end I offer an even shorter compromise ..
//There is no legal obligation for States to grant recognition [1]. States must first be granted recognition by a majority of the International Community of Nations before being recommended by the UNSC for membership in the UN. The UN General Assembly then votes on acceptance for UN Membership."// ... talknic (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Notes on process: Talknic, while there's no need to have consensus to add something, the flipside of that is that there's no need to have consensus to remove something that was disputed when added. Making a post on talk doesn't suddenly make an addition or removal acceptable. Also, expecting people to wait months for you to respond to something is ridiculous, often people only wait 24 hours. Five days is generous, especially as you edited on the 11th.
In terms of content, I'll just add that this article shouldn't attempt to explain recognition. Some background knowledge is expected. In addition, if a section is so unnotable it can be reduced to a couple of sentences, then it shouldn't be a section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of text

Night w deleted three sourced facts - showing what Tuvalu, Cook Islands, Niue done at the UNESCO vote.[44]

As I understand his motivation is:

  1. Abstain/absent at UNESCO vote over Palestine membership is not important
  2. Do not list empty lines in the non-recognizer section "since they don't add any value"

I don't agree with both of those, but I was tolerant with his second one. Since months I wait for him to add something in the empty Tuvalu line (so that it doesn't breach his 2nd rule), but he didn't. Now he wants to remove notable information and at the same time keep the Tuvalu line empty. Such behavior is inconsistent. Either we keep all empty lines or we delete all empty lines. Japinderum (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That two of them abstained from, and the other skipped altogether, a vote on whether Palestine should be admitted as a member of UNESCO hardly indicates much of a position on whether they would recognise it as a state or not. About a third of the states that voted to admit Kosovo as a member of IMF didn't recognise it as a state and several of them still don't. Therefore, Tuvalu's entry should remain blank. Whether Niue and the Cook Islands are sovereign states (and therefore worthy of being included on this list) is a matter currently being debated at Talk:List of sovereign states. I'd prefer not to have a simultaneous debate here. Please establish the answer there first, and if they are listed there, we can do so here. Until then, I don't see the point in having blank entries for cases in dispute. Nightw 13:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a list of votes at IMF? That will be interesting. Anyway, votes at the specialized agencies are certainly indicative of the stance of a country (I don't say voting there is equal to diplomatic recognition - I don't suggest changing the list - I simply added the info in the description box). Even if abstain/absent. Much more than some vague ambiguous statements you put for some of the entries.
No. We already discussed this above - you said you don't agree having empty lines (repeatedly deleted some). I deleted all remaining empty lines, but you said "wait, I'm writing their descriptions right now". I waited - and even finished the work with Tuvalu. Now, you want at the same time to remove Tuvalu description/make it an empty line - without deleting the line. I don't agree with that.
If you want Tuvalu to remain as blank entry - then the rest deleted blank entries should also be returned back.
The list here is about international recognition of the State of Palestine - it's not about some debate about what the Cook Islands and Niue are. The fact that they have full voting rights over State of Palestine membership in 7 of the 18 most important international organizations (and in some less important ones) shows that their position over the topic of the article (international recognition of the State of Palestine) is quite important (i.e. Liechtenstein will vote in less than 7 of the 18). So, they should be listed unless you have a source showing that their foreign policy is subordinate to somebody else's foreign policy. Japinderum (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not willing to get into that debate with you again Al. I've deleted all the blank lines. Nightw 14:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

According to this site [45], South Sudan has recognized Palestine. --Ahmetyal 21:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

Does really Ireland recognize Palestine? I think the jewish source makes no difference between Ireland and Iceland. Any other source available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seuthes (talk • contribs) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b David Raič (2002). Statehood and the law of self-determination. http://books.google.com/books?id=L7UOyPGYBkwC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=UN+statehood+rules&source=bl&ots=Ui0bgx5_fC&sig=GZbrpsIgvwcsF6IwFLtQqKCm3nc&hl=en&ei=Xm0LSu7zG43ktQP10MXmAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=UN%20statehood%20rules&f=false: Martinus Nijhoff (Law). p. 46. ISBN 9789041118905. {{cite book}}: External link in |location= (help); Unknown parameter |Quote= ignored (|quote= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1136269339"