Misplaced Pages

Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Night w (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 15 November 2010 (→PNA and PLO, diplomatic recognition, State of Palestine?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:44, 15 November 2010 by Night w (talk | contribs) (→PNA and PLO, diplomatic recognition, State of Palestine?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lots of unnecessary duplication

Right now there is significant duplication of material in the following three articles:

  1. State of Palestine
  2. Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
  3. Diplomatic_missions_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority

I'm going to think about this for a bit and read a bit about how other countries handle such a situation before deciding on a course of action. --Abnn 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Focus

This article should be more about the substantive political history of the foreign relations with specific states over the last 13 years or so, and less about a list of embassies (information which is contained on other pages). AnonMoos 11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Syria

The list included a number of states for which no reference was given (Montenegro, Serbia, Syria and Australia). Whereas I could provide one for Montenegro, Serbia and Australia, I don't find a reference for the recognition of Palestine as a State by Syria. I therefore removed it for the list, but naturally someone who does find a reference may add it again. MaartenVidal (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

States granting special diplomatic status

Can someone who know explains what the difference between the different types of diplomatic status is particularly between a General Delegation of Palestine and a General Palestinian Delegation. --Gramscis cousinStalk 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem - overlap

I have been adding refs to the list of countries which recognize the State of Palestine. It just occurred to me however that this information should not even be here really since it is covered in List of diplomatic missions of Palestine. Further, the PA is not the representative of the Palestinian people in the international arena, the PLO is. The PA is merely an interim administration which is charged with local government under the Oslo accords. I think we whould remove the entire section to List of diplomatic missions of Palestine. I'm not sure this article should even exist given that the PA has no authority to represent the Palestinian people in the international arena. Perhaps an AfD is in order? Tiamut 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the list is problematic because it implies that it is a list of countries that recognize the PLO-declared State of Palestine (1988), which apparently Pedir did mistake it for. It should be removed from this article, and a new list should be created if a source is found for states that recognize the State of Palestine. Media sources say anywhere from 67 to 'about 100' states recognize Palestine. —Ynhockey 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The list is problematic because it misrepresents the status of the Palestinian Authority - i.e. in that it gives it authority in the international arena, which it actually does not have. I've removed the list, and merged its content here. The sources cited there make clear that 107 states recognize the State of Palestine, with an additional 25 falling short of statehood recognition, but maintaining diplomatic relations nonetheless. The list has 132 entries once the two were merged which accurately reflects the source cited.
Regarding the other issue I raised, which is that the PA is not authorized to represent Palestine in the international arena, don't you think this article should be deleted? Tiamut 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And following up on that idea, if the article is to be kept, should it not be renamed to Foreign relations of the State of Palestine? Tiamut 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNESCO":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Maps?

The map currently being used here is:

The map currently being used on Palestinian National Authority, Proposals for a Palestinian state and State of Palestine is:

Which one is more correct? Are both of them partially right? Should the two be combined?--189.33.2.165 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just have one and get rid of the other. As far as I know, they're both inaccurate. Different articles also use varying figures regarding the number of states giving recognition, see more on this talk page. The top map is definitely outdated, and the creator also seems to have shaded Honduras instead of Nicaragua (a mix up?). The bottom one may be more accurate, but there are certain countries shaded that might need checking again. Night w (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PNA and PLO, diplomatic recognition, State of Palestine?

It seems that there is some mix-up at different levels:

  • whether the third country has relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian National Authority
    • if it is with the PLO: wheter the third country recongises its declaration of independence and thus as the State of Palestine (here I am assuming that recognition of the declaration means also full diplomatic relations, but maybe this is a second question?)
    • if it is with the PNA: wheter the third country and PNA have full diplomatic relations, or some different/special relations

So, it seems there are multiple cases for third country/organization-Palestine relations:

  1. No recognition/relations with neighter PLO nor PNA
    1. Neighter PLO nor PNA recognises the third country (eg. some from the List of states with limited recognition), but the third country recognises PLO or PNA
    2. The third country recognises neighter PLO nor PNA, but PLO or PNA recognises the third country (I assume here are all UN members that currently have no relations with PLO/PNA)
    3. Both ways no recognition
  2. Third country has relations with PLO
    1. full diplomatic relations (declaration of independence recognised), embassy/consulate (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PLO in third country)
    2. special relations (declaration of independence not recognised), office/mission/delegation (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PLO in third country) - the UN falls in this category
  3. Third country has relations with PNA
    1. full diplomatic relations, embassy/consulate (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PNA in third country) - are there such cases?
    2. special relations, office/mission/delegation (of third country in Gaza/Ramallah; of PNA in third country)

The no relations cases should be easy to sort out. If there is some list with date of establishment of relations - all made before 1994 will be with the PLO. After 1994 it would be more complicated to distinguish (as many such lists include only "Palestine" without PLO/PNA reference). Additional hurdle here would be cases, where the third country has switched relations from PLO to PNA or vice versa (if there are such). Also, maybe there are cases where the third country maintains relations with both PLO and PNA (maybe Israel is such a case?). Regarding the full/special relations some clue can be the type of mission (in, of) - if it is embassy/consulate or some other type of office/mission/delegation. Here maybe there are complications with the possibility of different types of the in and of missions (eg. Embassy of Palestine in X, but Special Office of X in Palestine - or vice versa). Also, in the lists of missions articles there is no mention of Israel-Palestine (wheter PLO or PNA) missions - but in practice there is much interaction (at least Israel-PNA), so there should be some offices/"West Bank section in ministry X of Israel"/"Israel-relations commitee in ministry X of PNA"?

As far as I can tell the international organizations (AL, OIC, UN - as Palestine joined/became observer much before PNA establishment) deal with the PLO, but maybe there are other organizations/treaties where the PNA has entered after 1994?

I think that in order to make a proper map of international relations we should sort out these facts first? Alinor (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The confusion here is far more complex. For example, a vote in favour of Palestinian observer status is not recognition of Palestine itself. I have not been able to find any reliable source to sort out the true position. And, what is a general delegation and a special delegation? Ewawer (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The mixup remains, but it seems that the above questions are not formulated correctly.

  • the PLO is the entity, recognized by the UN as "representative of the Palestinian people" since 1974.
  • the PLO has declared the State of Palestine in 1988. (as government-in-exile?)
  • the PNA is a 'interim administration' established in 1994 by the PLO (after the Oslo agreement with Israel) with limited (by Israel) control over the West Bank and Gaza (let's put the Hamas dispute aside).
  • 'interim', because the PLO and Israel agreed to start negotiations on various issues (settlements, borders, etc.) until final agreement is reached.

So, basically the PNA is the internal government and the PLO is the entity conducting international relations. Somebody made the comparison with the Vatican City State and the Holy See. Governments-in-exile do a similar thing, but without having the PNA-like 'not-in-exile' units. There are the following possibilities:

  1. XXX state does not recognize the PLO as representative of the palestinian people (any examples?)
  2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people
    1. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people; recognizes the PLO as "State of Palestine" (the 1988 declaration);
      1. possible PLO embassy/consulate in XXX;
      2. possible PLO diplomatic non-resident accrediation to XXX of some third-country embassy/delegation/office of PLO/SoP
      3. possible diplomatic non-resident accrediation to PLO/SoP of some third-country embassy/consulate of country XXX;
      4. possible non-diplomatic office/delegation of country XXX in Gaza/West Bank; (here I assume that no diplomatic/embassy/consulates of XXX in West Bank/Gaza are possible, because Israel would not allow, regardless if XXX has relations with Israel or not. But is this so?)
      5. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for PLO/SoP relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of country XXX
    2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people; does not recognize the SoP 1988 declaration;
      1. possible PLO non-diplomatic office/delegation/etc. in XXX
      2. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for XXX relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of PLO
      3. possible non-diplomatic office/delegation of country XXX in Gaza/West Bank;
      4. possible non-diplomatic non-resident responsibility for PLO relations by some third-country embassy/delegation/office of country XXX

In all of the cases, if country XXX recognizes the PNA as the limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza - the respective embassy/delegation/office/relations-responsibility will deal with PNA relations too. (any examples of country not recognizing the PNA as the limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza?)

Then, comes the question on the nature of the PLO-PNA link (this should be defined in the PNA founding documents or constitution if there is such). The above examples assume that there is such link (both de-jure and de-facto), so that agreements for aid supplied to the PNA could be negotiatied at the embassy/office/delegation of PLO in some third-country, for example. What If the PNA is not unit of PLO, but entirely separate/independent-from-PLO entity, and the PNA establishment was only agreed by the PLO and Israel, but the PNA is "controlled" by voting of west bank/gaza population and the PNA no formal links to the PLO? Then there are the following possibilities (and the hypothetical question of "switching relations between PLO/PNA"):

  1. XXX state does not recognize the PLO as representative of the palestinian people (any examples?);
    1. XXX recognizes the PNA as limited governing authority of the West Bank and Gaza (and as representative of the palestinian people?)
      1. possible PNA offices/delegations to XXX; non-resident responsibilities for XXX relations
      2. possible XXX offices/delegations in West Bank/Gaza; non-resident responsibilities for PNA relations
  2. XXX state recognizes the PLO as representative of the palestinian people
    1. Same as the above list with assumed PLO-PNA link 5+9 possibilities, but since here we assume no PLO-PNA link, there should be clear distinction if a office/delegation/relations-responsibility is related to PNA or PLO

Anyway, I hope that someone could clear this issue (eg. - show source explaining the PLO-PNA de-jure link) and if this "no-link" assumption is wrong - then things would be less complicated (eg. PNA external relations are done exclusively by the PLO).

And, finally, Israel. Does Israel have some representation/office/delegation/etc. to the PNA or PLO and vice versa - offices of PNA or PLO to Israel? Or some special department(s) in PNA/Israeli governments? The PNA and Israel governments do communicate somehow after all... (also, Israel and PLO negotiate agreements of the Oslo magnitude). See also the same topic here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Alinor (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented a list that was as much verifiable as possible with the present sources - on 23.10.2010.

Night w, you made edits to this article on 3.11.2010 - without changing anything in the list from above, but later, following our debate on another article (here) you repeatedly deleted it, even after I asked you to use this section here before removing sourced content. If you have sources showing that some state from this revision should be moved to another section of the overview - OK, just move it - but else - please do not delete the sourced content. Alinor (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also you removed a valid clarify tag without any reason given. Alinor (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I've tagged the section for improvement and update. Nightw 17:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow. So much tags. Are all of these really necessary?
"needs additional citations for verification" - this is duplicated - already present on the top of the article.
"may be confusing or unclear to readers." - what may be confusing/unclear?
-tag after 'the states with limited recognition' wikilink - what is vague - they are already listed in the linked article. I think it is better to show them in this way than to just list "the 10" - and then to have everybody starting edit-wars over "but Kosovo is a province of Serbia", etc.
You removed CI/Niue - why? We already have a consensus that they are sovereign states (only the issue WHERE to put them in the List of sovereign states is still in debate), and anyway they conduct their own foreign relations and establish diplomatic relations in their own name - so they are no less notable than Andorra and Nauru.
You removed SMOM - why? It establishes diplomatic relations in its own name. I understand that this may be related to our other debate, but I think the situation here is different - SMOM and SoP/PLO/PNA have no diplomatic or official relations between themselves (and both have such with other entities), that's why SMOM is listed in the "no diplomatic or official relations" section - what is the problem? Alinor (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The section is confusing because a) it presents outdated information as current, rather than past (although nobody could possibly know what as of what year it is relevant, as it doesn't cite any dated sources); b) it displays data which differs significantly from data shown elsewhere on the page, and from (sourced) data shown in related pages; c) it uses a map which differs significantly from the data displayed in both the same section and in other sections of the article, as well as from (sourced) maps displayed in related articles. All of these, of course, can be put down to the fact that the information is outdated.
But things get even more foggy when one identifies that the information displayed is not relevant to any one period. For example, it shows the establishment of a recent relationship (Costa Rica), but then fails to show the establishment of a different relationship established in roughly the same period (Venezuela). This clearly means that you have not, in fact, pasted this information from a "single list", as you say, but have instead done your own counting, and displayed your total as the total (i.e., fact; we both know that you're guilty of this elsewhere), either missing or deliberately omitting key relationships. You have clearly overlooked a list maintained on a related page, which is well-sourced and whose entries recently went through rigorous review, one-by-one.
This means that instead of stating that the number is unknown, and listing the individual relationships that we have sources for, as we should do, the article now presents a figure as fact—overriding any number cited by a legal professional—, and to boot, that figure is based on counting by a Misplaced Pages editor, which amounts to original research.
If the section is not removed or if no efforts are made to improve it shortly, I will take the matter to WP:OR/N.
I'll be brief on the other questions, as they'll prove redundant in the long-run: 1) I'm baffled as to how you could possibly claim consensus on the Cook Islands and Niue discussion; please, don't insult my intelligence. 2) You're free to put something about the SMOM under the "Organisations" section, which is where it's relevant.
You don't comment on the duplicated tag and on the vague-tag, so I will remove these, OK?
There are already "factual accuracy disputed" and "outdated" flags - the "confusing" flag doesn't refer to anything additional to these two, so I will remove it, OK?
The tag stating "This section's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information." covers both factual accuracy and outdated, so I will remove the "outdated", OK?
What has SMOM to do in the "Organizations" section? SMOM is not an international organization. SMOM has no member states, no member organizations, etc. - so SoP/PNA/PLO can not join SMOM. The "organizations" section is for the membership of SoP/PLO/PNA in international organizations. And as you see the EU is not there, but in the "official relations" list. The only relevant place for SMOM is along the entities that have not yet recognized SoP, not established diplomatic or official relations with SoP/PLO/PNA. Do you disagree that currently SMOM has no relations with SoP/PLO/PNA?
CI/Niue. Yes, there is consensus - that they should be included in the list of sovereign states. The only disagreement is in what of its sections these should be listed. Or at least that was the situation when the current debate (a side note - we haven't done anything recently on that one) about the general criteria for sorting the list of sovereign states article started. But there is no debate on the inclusion criteria - and CI/Niue satisfy these. Anyway, they have established diplomatic relations with many states. It is up to bilateral decision between SoP/PLO/PNA and CI, and between SoP/PLO/PNA and Niue - to decide if they recognize or establish some type of relations between each other. Do you disagree that currently SoP/PLO/PNA have no relations neither with CI nor with Niue?
"confusing":
outdated information - the lead section of the article says 94 (with a source from 2003) - so 97 is not outdated (it is not based ONLY on the 1988 - I tried to add the next recognitions too - by looking at the List of diplomatic missions articles for countries with "Embassy of SoP" and with "non-resident embassy accredited to SoP". If you see someone misplaced (and have a source) - just put it in the relevant section (I will later update the map if you don't want to do this).
"differs significantly from data shown elsewhere on the page," (lists/maps) - the page has figures for recognition ranging from 94 to "about 130". 97 is inside this range. Not to mention that it is not clear what some of the figures (e.g. the 117, and the non-number "about 130") show - diplomatic recognition, diplomatic relations, diplomatic relations and official relations, diplomatic recognition and official relations - or how reliable they are.
"differs from (sourced) data shown in related pages;" - if you refer to the SoP page - I don't know how it "recently went through rigorous review, one-by-one." - after I found the 1989 UNESCO list, officially submitted at an UN specialized agency, including not only number, but names of the countries and in most cases date of recognition - I wanted to take account of the recognitions coming after that date and I tried to use the SoP page, but when I clicked on some of these references (for countries outside of the UNESCO list) they were mostly bad links, or generalized statements like "All OIC member states recognize SoP". I used only those who were specific.
"outdated"(again) - as I said - I agree that there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state, but the 97 figure is not outdated - as I explained above (and see also below) - it is based on the 1989 UNESCO list, but adds 6 more states which I found on the SoP and diplomatic missions articles. If you have a source showing a misplaced country - let's correct it. The Venezuela example you gives uses a sources that doesn't open currently - so I can't check what is written there (maybe some "intention" to establish diplomatic relations or "official relations", but without diplomatic relations/recognition?). For explanation why not all states listed on SoP article are well-sourced and rigorously reviewed - see below. I haven't overlooked the SoP list - on the contrary - I used it to find "states other than the UNESCO 91"
Generally, I added the map&lists, because my intention is to bring up the quality of the article - because as you see above currently it mixes different types of relations, uses non-explicit sources, etc. That's why I put a WP:V pledge (as comment - please read it if you haven't already) in the Overview section. I was "restrictive" when I compiled the lists - e.g. included a state in the 97 number only if I found a source showing explicitly "recognition of SoP". Now I expect that if someone has a source showing that a particular state is misplaced - he would just move it to the appropriate list. In the end - we will achieve a list that is much better sourced that the other lists about SoP/PLO/PNA around Misplaced Pages (in fact that is the problem of most of these - they mixup the three).
I don't find as good quality the current situation of an open-ended range ("94 to about 130") and using questionable sources. I think that we should aim to an exact list of states (not "just number") with date of recognition by each one. Because it is easy to say (in a paper, interview, etc.) "vague-term is vague-term by about 130 states" or "vague-term is vague-term by a couple of dozens states", it is a degree harder to say "vague-term is recognized by ..." (e.g. to specify what relationship you speak about - diplomatic recognition, diplomatic relations, official relations, etc.), it is a degree harder to say "SoP is recognized by..." (e.g. specify about what are these positions expressed - SoP/PLO/PNA/Palestinian right to have a state/Palestinian right of self-determination), it is a degree harder to list the states, it is a degree harder to give exact dates. So, a source making only the first step is much less reliable that a source making all the steps. Also, more recent date of the source does not mean that it is more reliable. For example the 94 number utilized in the lead gives a list of "countries have recognized the State of Palestine" (with (c) 2000-2003 by seemingly authoritative author - the PNA itself) - but this list includes Austria. As we see in the embassy pages, SoP page, etc. Austria does not recognize SoP - it only has a PLO delegation like many other states that currently don't recognize SoP. Looking at the UNESCO link we even understand why the person at the PNA writing the webpage made this mistake - Austria is one of the 92 states mentioned in the Annex II, but afterwards the signatories of the request (Algeria, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and Yemen) have issued a "corrigendum" that Austria should be deleted. Apparently the PNA civil servant writing the webpage has missed this corrigendum. So, we have an "official webpage" (I put quotes as I can't open the www.pna.gov.ps currently) with wrong data; we have also an official communication in an international organization with a mistake (albeit rectified later). What this example shows, IMHO, is that it is not only the date or only the author what determines the quality of the source - we should look at all aspects. The existence of this corrigendum note (plus the dates of recognition) in the UNESCO link shows that it was not prepared "lightly" by just throwing some numbers and names around - as is to be expected from an official communication between states - and I assume that if a state was wrongly listed it would have objected and get removed as Austria. That's why it is a very sound foundation for our list here - but we should have as good as possible sources for each additional (after its 91) state.
I regret that you got involved into this only because of our debate on another page/topic - so you maybe approach the issue with "resentment" and the result is that you want to delete it outright instead of improve it (if necessary).
The other way (but I find it more controversial) to improve these lists is to outright delete states without specific sources from the PNA/SoP/etc. pages.
Currently the 97 number is sourced by the UNESCO link and the Embassy articles - maybe we should put right after the number, as hidden comment, the UNESCO link plus the names and explicit sources for the 6 additional states (after 1989). If someone moves a misplaced country as 98th, 99th, etc. - we would add the source there.
Alternatively we can rework the table above the overview - by adding proper sources and dates of recognition - but this will require the deletion of some unsourced/badly sourced states (or to move them to an "unclear" section). What do you think? Alinor (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I made some changes and added more sources. See also here. Alinor (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is what the lead section states (I've added emphasis to help you get through it successfully this time):

"In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms. The Palestinian National Authority publicly acknowledged the recognition of 94 other states.^ Since then, other states have publicly extended recognition..."

It cites a list of states that the PNA "publicly acknowledged" as having "recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988." Austria later withdrew its recognition, so it won't appear in later lists. Unlike your material, however, the lead correctly portrays this information as dated. It is not "wrong", it is dated (relevant to a specified time). Do you understand?
If you agree that "there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state", then you cannot portray the number 97 as a total. I don't know how you can't understand this. I'm starting to think you might still be in school... There are six spiders under the rug, but I can only find five. If I have others telling me that there are more, and I realise that they may be right, then I cannot state with confidence (let alone claim as fact) how many spiders there were to begin with. I can only state how many I've found. Is this making any sense?
You, in this case, cannot state that there are 97 recognitions, because you are claiming a number that a) isn't supported by a reliable source, b) disagrees with professional legal sources, and most importantly c) is conclusive, where no conclusion is apparent. You can only state (in this case, list) what you've found. Otherwise, you consciously risk publishing wrong information. Do you understand this?
You can "aim" for the highest level of "quality" you wish, but as long as things remain "vague" and there are reputable authorities which disagree, then we cannot state that we know the answer, especially not by using synthesis (or counting) of two or more sources.
Delete the section, and merge whatever information is relevant into the table.
I haven't replied to your other questions because I've addressed more pressing questions first. I don't have the time (or the will) to sit at a computer all day and type, and then read your mammoth theses, which I've had to skim through. I apologise if I've missed anything. My time is precious to me. If you wish to persist with this, I'll contact Tiamut (talk · contribs), one of the other editors that was involved in the previous review of individual recognitions, and we can go through things again. Nightw 14:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
All template tags besides the "This section's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information." are superfluous as their meaning is duplicated (or at least that's what your explanations above show). Why don't we remove them?
I changed "the states with limited recognition" to "the rest of states with limited recognition" (e.g. without Cyprus/Armenia/China/Israel/Koreas that are listed before this line). Alternatively we can write "the not members of the UN" - but this will be true only until some of the 10 others recognizes SoP, so put the other variant.
The lead section. So, if I take your stance I should declare the lead section to be a OR/SYNTH violation. It uses one source (PNA website (c) 2000-2003) that says "International Recognition of the State of Palestine - The following 94 countries have recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988: ...'list'..." and another source about the 2008 establishment of relations between SoP and Costa Rica - and 'draws conclusion' along the lines that 'since there is one example of a state establishing relations/recognition of SoP after the 94-list-source 2000/2003 date - the 2008 Costa Rica, then "other states have publicly extended recognition" too.' Also you additionally imply that the 2000/2003 source is not a list of states recognizing SoP in 2000/2003, but a list of states that have in some period recognized SoP, but later kept or withdrew this recognition. This is a very slippery logic and is not obvious by the quote from the source. Also, we don't know if Austria withdrew its recognition or it had never recognized SoP - the "Austria corrigendum" doesn't give explanation it simply states "Austria should be deleted from the list of countries that have recognized the State of Palestine".
Outdated. The overview section and its sources are not outdated - they are the most recent ones. The section is relevant to the current moment, not to 1989 or some other "specified time" as you say. If you have additional sources - add their information, but if you don't have additional sources - how could you claim that the sourced information is outdated/incorrect?
I agree that "there may be some 98th, 99th, etc. state" - this is true not only for Palestine, but for every state - any information in Misplaced Pages may be outdated and any list may be missing some entries - there is aways the possibility that some events happened after the date of issue of the sources used or that some events were not taken into account by the people writing the sources used. What if some state had recognized SoP yesterday? What if it did it 2 months ago? What if it did it in 1988, but for some reason is missing from all sources that we use (e.g. a "corrigendum" is needed or even issued, but we don't have a source showing this). There is aways such possibility - for any information in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is as correct as the sources used. So, if you have a source showing a misplaced country - let's correct it.
I don't claim that the 96 number is "eternal truth" or something like this. I just listed the states that we have sources for. Then I listed a section for the states where we have conflicting sources (plus it has a "list incomplete" tag). So, this is not a TOTAL, but just a list of states recognizing SoP - going as far as our sources provide information for. It is not "conclusive where no conclusion is apparent" (your point c) - it just shows what the RELIABLE sources show (contrary to your claim in point a) - which of the sources is unreliable in your opinion?
"b) disagrees with professional legal sources" - what sources do you mean? The 114/117/about-130 numbers - from offline sources, some of them even without a ISBN mentioned, with no quotes in the article (so, is the text before the footnotes an exact quote from the offline sources or some interpretation by the wikipedia editor that added the information?), without any list or dates of recognition and the last one actually is not even giving a number (what is this "about 130" supposed to mean - maybe "more than the 114 reported previously")? By looking at the numbers I don't see how we can get to 130 without counting the ~30 "official relations/delegations" so this number probably includes some of these countries. The 114/117 seems more plausible - but still, unless we have a reliable sources showing recognition by specific additional states we can't be sure.
Or by "professional sources" you mean the PNA webpage 94-states-list that is currently inaccessible and that includes Austria (maybe recognized SoP for a brief period in 1988/1989 - or never) and the Vatican (never recognized SoP - see here - it has only "special relations with PLO"). I think that it is a copy-paste from (or vice-versa) this 2001 list of the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation (as far as I can tell this is a non-governmental organization) - so the reliability of this list is very questionable - it has a remark "Note that one of them, Austria is a member of the European Union." that is obviously incorrect (according to both the Austria MFA page and to UNESCO source) - assumingly because the writers of the list missed the UNESCO Austria deletion corrigendum. Also, if the copy-paste is from institute to PNA page - then a page seemingly to be a PNA official page, currently unaccessible and copy-pasting SoP recognition list from a foreign unofficial source - this doesn't increase confidence either.
"thigs remain vague" - that's what I aim to avoid trough the rigorous WP:V policy application in the overview section. While for the above table is acceptable to include information even without any source (recently some embassies were added only with an explanation "found on the PNA page") or to use some source with vague wording or entirely non-specific generalizations - in the "SoP is recognized by ..." part of overview section all sources are specific&explicit and come from most authoritative places - official intergovernmental communication (at UNESCO) and websites of governments.
The vagueness remains only in the "There is no clear indication" part (much smaller - the first part already contains more than 130 states). That way the user can see what the sources show as undisputable and what as inconclusive/vague.
If we try to merge the overview and the table, then either many of the entries in the table should be deleted (as they are not backed up by sources or use bad-links or conflicting or inconclusive sources) - or the table should be divided into three parts ("recognizing SoP", "official relations with PLO/PNA", "unclear/conflicting/inconclusive sources"). That's why I refrained from copying the whole UNESCO source list - in order to keep the overview section short - so that I don't have to delete content from table or to reformat it (as I assume that more involved editors here have made the table).
I would welcome participation of anyone with constructive attitude, especially if he can fish-out some reliable source that we don't have currently. Alinor (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the list of states limited recognition OK as footnote? Also, I see that you removed some of the tags, but "confusing or unclear" is still there - what is confusing or unclear, but not out-of-date or factual accuracy compromised? Alinor (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just go through each point one-by-one until you understand what I mean, then I'll go back and address the rest?
This list from the PA government website, which you're referring to, is the list of states that the PNA publicly acknowledged as having "recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation by the PNC meeting in Algiers in November 1988." It's relevant to the time of the declaration, as is specified. Here's another quote to help you:

"...the PLO’s 1988 declaration of independence (See Algiers Declaration) was recognized by 94 states..." — Act of Recognition of Statehood, The Reut Institute.

What has happened since that time (withdrawals of recognition, additional recognitions) is irrelevant to that timestamp. It's simply a list of those states that recognised the State at that moment in time. The list wasn't compiled in 2003; that's the copyright term of the website.
If you understand this, let me know and I'll move on to your next point. If not, I'll continue with this one. Nightw 11:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If it's easier for you to go one-by-one instead of all-at-once, OK, fine by me.
"It's relevant to the time of the declaration" - No. It is relevant to the time of writing the source (between 2000 and 2003, most probably 2001) - 'The following 94 countries have recognized the State of Palestine after its proclamation ... in November 1988' So this is list of countries that have recognized SoP between 1988 and 2000-or-2001-or-2003 This should be obvious, isn't it? Anyway, we already have the exact dates for many of these 94 - some are in January 1989 and later.
"What has happened since that time (withdrawals of recognition, additional recognitions) is irrelevant to that timestamp." The timestamp is "after November 1988", so anything happening between 1988 and 2000/2001/2003 is relevant (such as Ethiopia recognition in 1989 - Ethiopia is in the 94-list too).
You can still argue that the source is showing only recognitions and not withdrawals (I don't agree with that - this is very twisted logic and highly unlikely and also is contrary to the purpose of the list - but since the source doesn't specify if it shows or doesn't show withdrawals - let's assume that it doesn't) - the 94-list includes Austria and the Vatican City. Currently they are not recognizing SoP (per their MFA websites). In what periods of time did Austria or the Vatican City recognize SoP? When had they withdrawled this recognition? And the opposite question - why isn't the source listing Slovakia - one of the recognizers (per its MFA site)? All these contradictions show that this list is unreliable.
Not to mention that instead of 94 as it claims it lists only 93. (excuse me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I see). I assume that the 94th that they 'had in mind, but missed it because of a typo' is Kenya. Anyway, highly unreliable.
"The list wasn't compiled in 2003; that's the copyright term of the website." Yes, the list is most probably compiled in December 2001 by a non-PNA/PLO/SoP non-governmental institute. Anyway what are the initial date and the end date of the "that moment in time" that you speak of? (the Palestinian Declaration of Independence is dated 15.11.1988) - and how did you deduce that from the source wording?
Also, the 94-list (or 93?) includes states not mentioned in the UNESCO source - so supposedly it covers wider time period than the UNESCO source. Alinor (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm clearly going to need further assistance to explain this to you. I'll post something on the WP:OR/N by tomorrow. Nightw 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, in the meantime I will return the 'unreliable' tags for this so-called-94 list. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Side note: I see you have no problem with labelling the status of individual relationships "unclear" when it suits you, but you're still pretty okay with displaying that number as fact. Nightw 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this and the note behind the number shows that this is not the case. Alinor (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
... You mean the note that you just added then? That's a step in the right direction, but it still needs further clarification as to why this differs from what the lead section says (i.e. that the number is unknown). Nightw 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
? the note is right after the number and is stating that the number is not full/total - I think this makes everything obvious (it is even without the note - if the reader looks at the "inconclusive sources" section. Also, the number is not unknown (such as the age of the universe is unknown) - it is only that we or a particular outside person (who is giving the quoted "unknown" statement) doesn't know it.
Also, having this note - and all sources below - makes the "citation needed" flag very strange there - right below, in the list itself, are placed many many sources. Alinor (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So, what more "clarification is needed" and what is "confusing or unclear" that isn't already "factual accuracy compromised because of out-of-date information"? Alinor (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"The exact number of states recognising the State of Palestine is unclear, as reliable sources are in disagreement." ...would be preferable. Avoid any statement of a number. Especially since you don't have a single (one) source to back that up. Nightw 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

addition of weasel tag

Night w, you added a {{Weasel}} breaking into the text:

First about style - in the future I would suggest that you use {{Weasel-inline}} for in-line tags instead of the section/article tag that you utilized.

On substance - your argumentation for adding it was ' "states with limited recognition" is not a legal term or a category for anything; you need to get rid of it' - Misplaced Pages is not a law, this phrase is part of the article name it is linking to: List of states with limited recognition. I don't agree that we get rid of this article, because its name is not a legal term - and also that it should be removed from the current article for the same reason.

Anyway, if you think that it should be removed - you can just reformat the text to:

No need to add any tags. Anyway I think a compromise solution will be better - if your intention is that the states are listed in the text and not in a footnote:

  1. the rest of the states with limited recognition: Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria
  2. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria (the rest of the states with limited recognition)
  3. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Republic of China (Taiwan), Transnistria {footnote: the rest of the states with limited recognition } Alinor (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer to go with the top option and not use "categorisation". Nightw 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyle sources for State of Palestine recognition number

There was a reference pointing to an offline source where Boyle (Professor Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois) allegedly stated that 'about 130' countries recognize SoP. Night w recently added a source showing that later Boyle specified the number to be 127 - this is the source. There it is written: "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine."

UN members are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine. That's why I added a 'unreliable source' tag.

As a side note - I assume that Boyle is having in mind 192+Cook Islands+Holy See+Niue = the 195 states according to the "All States" formula applied by the UN Secretary General (that are also members of the Vienna list organizations). Alinor (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories: