Talk:Foreign relations of the State of Palestine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Changes and review

I've made a few changes to the unacceptable revision.

• I've made a slight copyedit to the note on the OIC. Please tell me whether this clears up the issue.
• I've removed an unsourced embassy in Jordan's section, which was tagged.
• A lot of my grammatical corrections seem to be persistently reverted. I've corrected them again. I don't see what the issue was with them. You put full-stops after sentences, and each word should be separated by a space. You can learn more about this at either WP:MOS or your local primary school.
• I've put back the stable version of the Uruguay note, since this changed whilst discussion (in a thread above) was still ongoing over the matter, with the last comment being only eight days ago. Consensus has not been achieved, and I'd ask editors to respect policy and wait for this.

There are a few problems still remaining:

• A group of sources, along with an unsourced commentary, have been reinstated in the article against consensus and whilst discussion is still ongoing. This is an insult to every editor that is trying to achieve consensus on this matter. It should be removed by the editor that added them immediately.
• A refnote now does not makes sense: "Currently, Palestine participates as an observer at UNESCO through its National Organizing Committee", with a link to a note saying "Such as listing without further clarification "Palestine" or something else..." The note shouldn't be linked from there, or it needs to be rewritten. I've removed it, considering the following:
• A note about the ambiguity of "Palestine" was in the process of being drafted in a thread above, with the last comment being only eight days ago. This should be reverted to the previous revision, or removed entirely, until a consensus can be achieved. I've removed it.
• Quotes:
  • I don't know why national days and foreign scripts are being included in quotes. Is this necessary? It was never justified when it was objected to.
  • The latter part of the quote, "...as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" is irrelevant, and doesn't need to be quoted.
• This "Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories" has no business in the footnotes, as it does not explain anything. It is simply a link to another article, which can be easily put on the word "Department".
• There's now a new footnote in the article, which has citations that are poorly-formatted. Nightw 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your version of the Uruguay note is NOT "the stable version", I already explained this above, please stop pushing that. I will look at the other of your changes later. Alinor (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with the arrangement of the note's content doesn't change the fact that the note has remained intact since it was added months ago. I only agreed to have it as a note in the current state. If you insist on tampering with it, I shall have to insist on it being put back in the main body of text, and a pending note to be put in the cell spacing. I've shown a considerable ability to compromise for your agenda, whereas you have not budged an inch and are now blocking further improvements to the article simply due to the fact that you'd like the note to be arranged "chronologically". Nightw 10:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"the note has remained intact since it was added months ago." - is this a joke? The Uruguay note was added by you and I immediately objected it. It has not remained intact - I objected/reworded it and you pushed back for your version. This was repeated multiple times. We can put some variant of the note in the main text, but I think we both agree that it's better as a footnote. I don't know what do you mean by "put back in the main body of text", because this (as edited by you) doesn't have such note in the main body of text. If you refer to some older version where Uruguay was mentioned in the main text - please propose the wording here so that we can discuss it.

And what do you have against chronological ordering of the events? Is there any reason to use a different event ordering?

I also think that I have made multiple compromises in order to accommodate your changes, let's not argue about who is not budging, etc. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had originally explained the situation with Uruguay in the main text, below the table. You objected, so I moved it to the notes, with a "Pending" clarifyer placed in the cellspace. You objected to that, so I agreed to remove it. You now object to the wording and arrangement of the note... I won't be accepting any change to that, since I've already compromised enough on that point. If need be, we can remove the note, and move Uruguay back to the "inconclusive" section. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I objected your newly added note in the main text too, don't you remember? This was never a consensus/stable version. If don't accept ordering events chronologically, then we should remove your newly added Uruguay note altogether (sources will remain linked at its line). If you insist we can keep it in the "conflicting" section, but I think both of us know that its place is in the "no SoP recognition" section. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with the facts presented, but you're willing to accept overlooking these facts (and presenting the situation as unclear) simply because said facts are not arranged chronologically. If this is the only reasoning, I can lodge an RfC to see what others think of the differences...? Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My last proposal was to just mention that Uruguay will recognize in March 2011. You then insisted that there is "conflict and confusion" in the sources that we should repeat in the article. I agreed, but insisted to present these events (various reports) in chronological order. You stubbornly refuses and pushes (without giving any reason) for your version that hops back and forth in time. This is bad writing style and doesn't help the reader.

I don't object RFC, if you word it in a neutral way. Something like: "For a Uruguay footnote two editors, Night w and Alinor, can't agree on the exact wording. Their versions are as follows:

1. ... - Night w prefers that because ...
2. ... - Alinor prefers that because it orders the events chronologically and doesn't hop back and forth in time. The final result is also more firmly underlined.

Also, we already have 3rd and 4th opinion, but I know you like to disregard these when they don't agree with you.

And finally - since the RFC lasts for 30 days - we should agree where Uruguay should stay during that time and with what footnote, if any. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't block further improvements - I block only some of the changes that you are pushing for - those that I don't see as improvement. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you... especially considering your literacy handicap. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask you kindly not to use personal qualifiers and insults. If I remember correctly one of our first arguments on this page was with you repeatedly saying to me "Alinor, you can't grasp the concept of dated information" (or something like this - and in addition using some not-so-polite qualifiers/statements/comparisons) and then eventually you understood that I was correct (about the particular issue back then). Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a progressive area of discussion, but, no, you were not "correct" about the dated information. I simply became exasperated trying to explain the concept. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the concept, and you stopped pushing that, because you realized that you weren't applying it properly and that I have already taken it into account in the edits I've made. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? Would you be so kind as to identify these edits? Because, as I recall, I simply removed the sources that you weren't happy with, and attributed the same dated information to a different set of sources. Nightw 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In these edits I didn't objected the information, dated or not, but the source that you removed. But I wasn't referring to that. Anyway, it's unproductive to argue about edits and issues already resolved long ago. Alinor (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

About your OIC note redaction - no, it doesn't clear the issue. OIC decision (unanimous or not) is separate from individual state decisions. This should be made clear in the note. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And how does the current version not accomplish this? Do I need to dumb it down a bit further? Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About not-so-polite - see above; About the OIC note:

1. "However, whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states is unclear."
2. "However, whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states, and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine, is unclear."
3. "However, whether each of the member states recognizes the State of Palestine, is unclear."
4. "However, whether these decisions represented unanimous recognition by all member states is unclear."

I suggest that we use option2 or 3. These clearly decouple the OIC decisions from the SoP recognition by individual states. Options1 and 4 don't do this and imply that if the OIC decisions were taken unanimously then all OIC members recognize SoP. What do you have against options2 and 3? Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They're badly written. There also hasn't been any compelling argument that would warrant its change. Repeat: how does the current version not accomplish this? If you consent, I can take this to an RfC, or perhaps one of the content noticeboards, and see what others think. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Badly written - if you speak (again) about grammatical and such errors - correct them or be more specific where/what they are.

How does your versions not accomplish this? I explained that already above. I'll do it again. Your versions implies that if the decision "OIC to recognize SoP" was taken unanimously, then all OIC member states also recognize SoP. And these two things are not coupled. A state may vote in favour of "OIC to recognize SoP", but at the same time withhold its own recognition of SoP, because of not wanting to spoil its favourable bilateral relations with Israel, USA or some other reason. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The term "unanimity" means that all units are uniform. For a decision to represent "unanimous recognition by all member states" means that it represents recognition from all member states. Maybe this is an ENGVAR issue... RfC would be a good idea, and I can combine it with the Uruguay issue. Nightw 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree to mix the two issues in a single RFC.

The OIC decision can not "represent recognition by member states" unless this is explicitly stated in the decision itself, some declaration or whatever - OIC decision is about OIC recognition only. That's the problem with option4. What do you find wrong in option2 or 3? (the one that you like more) Alinor (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"The OIC decision can not "represent recognition by member states" unless this is explicitly stated in the decision itself, some declaration or whatever - OIC decision is about OIC recognition only." ??? That's what the note is about... Read it again. It's about whether it does or not. You've just gone and said that it "can not"... Explain yourself properly. This is supposed to be an impartial note. Nightw 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your version of the note says "whether these [OIC] decisions represented unanimous recognition by all member states is unclear." and the problem is that no OIC decision represents any recognition by whatever OIC member state. OIC decision may represent recognition or non-recognition by OIC as organization. This is influenced by the decisions of member states to recognize or not, but there is no direct link between recognition by OIC-as-organization and recognition by OIC member states. OIC member states may recognize somebody, who the OIC-as-organization doesn't recognize (e.g. no decision taken yet, issue not yet discussed or whatever political reason). OIC member states may not recognize somebody, but they may vote in favour of OIC-as-organization recognizing it (e.g. consequences are different - maybe some OIC member doesn't want to grant diplomatic immunity to PLO staff in refugee camps on its territory, but still supports the idea for creation of the State of Palestine and doesn't object its OIC membership and recognition). Anyway, we are not here to deduce what the reasons for recognition or non-recognition are.

The point is that your versions imply that if OIC decision was taken unanimously it automatically means that all OIC members recognize SoP - we don't have anything to back such assumption and I don't think it's correct. Alinor (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says "whether [what you're saying that I'm claiming] is true is unclear". And it is. If it was clear, there wouldn't be any need for the note. I don't have time for this. Wait for the RfC if you don't get it. Maybe some other editor can explain it to you. Nightw 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it says that, but it fails to say what the more important unclear thing is - whether all states members of the OIC individually recognize SoP or not.

Anyway, having in mind the noticeboard result we don't need to add any OIC Doebeller note. So, the source can go after the background section sentence about OIC/AL, if you insist on keeping it. Alinor (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the editor there advised not to use it as a source for individual entries like Syria. The discussion didn't touch upon Doebbler's claim in general, and whether it should be mentioned in the context of the OIC declaration. There is no source to claim that the OIC and AL recognitions didn't mean recognition from all member states, so the note is still relevant. All that need be done is to detach the note from the individual entries, and attach to a statement in the Background section. Nightw 15:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to find negative sources for anything that we can come up with. If you think that "OIC and AL recognitions do mean recognition from all member states" - get another source for that. Actually the editor advised that we don't use the Doebbler "post on a partisan website" for anything. Anyway, since it seems you like that source I propose not to delete it entirely, but to put it in the background section OIC sentence. About the note - if it isn't going to be used on individual entries I don't see why we have to add it (the only other maybe useful thing not present elsewhere is the source itself - and we can directly put it after the OIC sentence in background section - no need for footnote, quotations, etc.) Alinor (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the footnote where and how it is. We can attach it to the statement about OIC recognition in the background section. Nightw 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The stable version [1] doesn't have such footnote and I don't agree to add it if this source isn't used for individual entries and I don't agree with your wording of the note you want to add. If you insist - you can add a version of the note in some of the redacted versions shown above to the background or OIC sections - or you can add move the Doebbler source (without the footnote) to the background section OIC/AL sentence. Alinor (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's a relevant controversy. Why do you object to having it? Nightw 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I already explained. The Doebbler source itself was found not suitable, but anyway, in order to reduce arguing I won't remove it altogether (but in any case it can not remain used for individual entries like Syria and Turkmenistan). Additionally I said that I won't object adding some variant of the OIC note - to the background or OIC sections - but if you want to add such note it has to take into account the redactions made to it underlining that unanimous OIC decision for OIC recognition of SoP does not show that all OIC members individually recognize SoP. I can show you the comments including these versions of the text, if you want. Alinor (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll lodge an RfC for the wording, that's no problem. Nightw 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jordan - we don't have source showing neither Embassy nor Ramallah/Gaza office, that's why both remained (with 'citation needed' tags) - I suggest that we keep both until we have a source for one of these (otherwise we imply that Jordan has office and no embassy). Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

full stops/grammatical/etc. - of course I don't object these - I just haven't noticed them. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you should be more careful. Next time, instead of just reverting, just undo the changes you don't agree with. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If somebody is "just reverting" that should be you, but anyway - as I said - I didn't noticed these. Since you have now pointed these, there is no problem. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"I aways take care of your "cite" into "Cite" and similar corrections and intermediate edits, regardless small and they are - I adopt them in the revisions of the page that I do!" *Cough* Nightw 15:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't noticed these edits, because they neither add nor remove any text from the article. Alinor (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko sources - please resolve that with him. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you readded them. It is now on you to remove them. I'll bring it to ANI. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I readded them, just like I have done with any other edit between the two instances of "my" version. As I have explained to you multiple times at the moment I have no intention to do any edits to these two pages (and maybe it is impossible anyway). Even less so over these two sources - I don't understand your insistence to remove them, but in any case this is between you and Eliko. If you think that these should be removed - discuss this with him or remove them yourself. I would not argue with you about keeping the sources, because I expect that you will start with "citation not formatted correctly" and I have already done enough citation re-formattings because of you insisting on somebody else doing things that you want done. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is policy that insists, not I. See WP:A. Nightw 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What has WP:A to do with this? Anyway, I'm not the person you should speak with about these. Please contact whomever added them the last time. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Palestine ambiguity" note that you removed because it didn't perfectly match its second usage in the UNESCO section - OK, I agree that some rewriting is in order and that until we agree on it the stable version should be restored. You suggests these things in your comment above, but you did a different thing - removed the note altogether and put instead some text in one of the places where the note is needed. The text is neither the stable version of the footnote nor discussed and I have objections with it (it doesn't take into account the non-PLO/SoP/PNA Palestinian organizations, etc. - see section above where we discuss the footnote). Also, the UNESCO section needs ambiguity note too (ideally it needs a non-ambiguous source, but since we don't have such we should rely on the footnote). I will propose a reworded footnote in the section above where we discuss it. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"You suggest these things in your comment..." Not "suggests". Subject-verb agreement. Remember that was one of the things I tried to teach you earlier? But, more to the point, in my comment above (as you say), I've said "This should be reverted to the previous revision, or removed entirely, until a consensus can be achieved. I've removed it." How have I done differently? And what text have I replaced it with? I'm not seeing a difference, I just the removed the note, as I said I'd done... Maybe you can explain what you mean. But yes, a rewording can be discussed above. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

About not-so-polite - see above. About the issue at hand - I didn't say you did something different, I say that while I support one of the options you give in your comment I don't support the one that you implemented. There is a difference between your text and both the stable and the changed-by-Alinor footnotes - as you say, your text is a rewording of the note. So, let's discuss it above. And let's keep it as footnote (unless you give another proposal about how to resolve the UNESCO/Palestine issue). Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my 09:59, 12 February 2011 comment about this footnote in the section above. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

National days - yes, this shows whether the country in question deals with SoP or PLO/PNA. For example, in the case of Malta MFA site the only thing there implying that it recognizes SoP is the National day. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, and what about the quote in Arabic script? Is that necessary? Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary just like the other similar notes. I would put an English translation, but I remember somebody saying that policy requires quotes from sources should be in the original language. If you think this is not so - let's put the English translation. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well. I think the national days argument could be well interpreted as synthesis, but I'm willing to overlook this if you feel the quotes are necessary. Nightw 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"...as non-resident Ambassador to Palestine to Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas" - this is not irrelevant, it shows that the source is about PNA relations and not about SoP relations. If you want to shorten the note we can remove "Mahmoud Abbas" (as it is enough to have PNA President).

I see. That's fine. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories" - if you insist, OK, let's move the link to the "Department" word - but all other entries have their links/sources as references/footnotes. This will make the appearance inconsistent.

New footnote with poorly formatted citations - if this is about the Eliko sources - please work with him on that. I can reformat this as footnote and can even format the citations in the way you like them - but only after we reach consensus on our issues here, at the moment I have no intention to make edits. Alinor (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this was referring to the citations in the note about government in exile status. They need to be formatted properly in line with the article's citation style. I won't be doing it for you anymore. Nightw 13:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, I have implemented the 'cite web' template, just as you likes it after you complained about these the previous time. And also, if you don't like something you can change it - this is Wikipedia after all - I don't understand why do you expect for others to do what you wants to be done. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because policy requires it. See WP:A and WP:BURDEN. Nightw 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong in the re-formatted version or not? Alinor (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are issues with the creditation and authorship specifics. I'll fix them myself later on. Nightw 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done this for you. I hope that next time you can manage it properly yourself. Nightw 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, it seems that we have solutions for the issues besides the OIC note, Uruguay note, "Palestine" note. On these three I'm the last who has commented. Does this mean that you agree with the last of my comments? Alinor (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, because I've yet to lodge the RfC. Give me time, or do it yourself. It's also been only two days since the last comments. I have a life, when I go on Wikipedia I'll get to what I can. Some responses will take longer than others. Nightw 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are to lodge a RFCs we have to first sort out what the article will look like during that time. I don't agree with it showing your versions. I agree with the article showing my version or neither/stable version of the notes. I also don't agree to mix RFC topics into one. And I kindly ask for you to provide a draft of the RFC text before lodging it. You can also reply to my comments above when you have the time. Alinor (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I really? How awfully kind of you. The RfC for the Uruguay note has been lodged below. If you insist, the Uruguay note can be removed and the entry moved back to the inconclusive section. Nightw 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't provide draft of the RFC and ignored my above suggestion for text. I will make some relevant adjustments below. Alinor (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. Firstly, you are never allowed to edit another editor's post unless you have their express permission. You can argue what you want in the RfC in your own posts, like everyone else. Do not edit my comments again. Secondly, you've made an edit to the article against an administrator's request, which was to reach agreement on the talk page before making controversial edits. You've removed the note under discussion in the RfC, with a comment to me: "Night w, you should have done this yourself". Per the administrator's request, I am waiting for your consent. Because removal of the note will mean that the disagreement between sources will no longer be explained to the reader, the lack of information requires that we move the Uruguay entry to the middle section. Do we have an agreement to do this, or not? Don't take it upon yourself to make decisions. These are just more instances of the extremely disruptive behaviour that is becoming typical of you. Nightw 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the article restoring the stable version in regard to the Uruguay note, because of your misleading RFC text and because you opened a RFC without restoring the stable version in regards to the Uruguay note (so that your misleading RFC text has more chances to mislead RFC commenters that your version is the stable version - which it isn't). I have explicitly asked you that you don't open RFC without restoring the stable version first. You ignored this and made a misleading RFC. I don't object moving Uruguay entry to "inconclusive" and if you so insist - move it, but we both know that it belongs in "no recognition". I object portraying YOUR version as the STABLE version which it ISN'T. That's it. Your actions are disruptive and deliberately misleading others so that you try to get favorable outcome of the RFC, you basically try to rig it. Why have you ignored my request that first restore stable version and then file the RFC? Alinor (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then feel free to argue your point in the RfC, like everyone else. Next time, if you don't want me to lodge the request, do it yourself. Nightw 14:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't 1. push your non-consensus text in the article; 2. lodge RFC about it; 3. Prevent others restoring the stable version of this text during the RFC period.

Next time when you lodge a RFC make sure that you restores the stable version of the content subject to the RFC. Alinor (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments are:

• Uruguay note chronological ordering - 06:37, 15 February 2011 here above
• OIC note clarity (not relevant if we don't use the generalizing claim anymore) - 08:42, 17 February 2011 here above
• "Palestine" ambiguity note, related to UNESCO link removal - 09:59, 12 February 2011 above

In addition we are also discussing three other issues:

• #Independence struggles sentence addition
• #Bilateral relations - first paragraphs chronological ordering
• Syria/Turkmenistan sources, if any. Alinor (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, could you give a list of references that need formatting change in order to remove the general tag added in January 2011? Or do these changes yourself. Alinor (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Note on ambiguity of "Palestine"

On the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, the use of simply "Palestine" in sources has caused confusion. In a political context (rather than historical or geographic, it has been deemed necessary for sources to specify exactly what institution they are referring to (the Palestinian National Authority, Palestine Liberation Organisation, the State of Palestine).

A statement in the article reads: "Because of inconclusiveness in sources, in some cases it is impossible to distinguish whether the participation is executed by the PNA, the PLO as representative of the Palestinian state, or by the PLO as a non-state entity."

This necessitates an explanation, and thus a note was added:

"Such as listing without further clarification "Palestine" or something else, which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN), the PNA, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory."

I identified "something else" and "some different entity" as unneeded weasel words with no apparent meaning; these and the mention of the region and territory as superfluous as regards the purpose of the note. My revision simply reads:

"Such as listing without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO, the PNA, or the State of Palestine."

Alinor has rejected this, since he claims that there are other references that are ambiguous, and other entities that these references can refer to. But I'll leave it to him to explain himself since I don't fully understand why, since this is only meant to be an example. Nightw 17:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually a note with different text was added, but the version Night w shows above is one of my proposals for its improvement after he made some complains about the initial/stable note. Anyway, I want to express my thanks to Night w for portraying my position/the situation in a better way this time. Our long discussion is here (from 15:06, 19 February 2011 upwards).

Another thing - Night w also insisted on removing one link from another section of the article and this necessitates the use of a footnote with similar wording there. I proposed to alter the wording a little to fit the second use of the footnote:

"Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or something else that can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the region or territory."

"something else" (other than "Palestine") - because we already know that there are other terms used besides "Palestine" such as "Palestinian Standards Institution", "Palestinian Football Association", "Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions", etc.

"some different entity from the region or territory" (different from PLO, PNA, SoP) - because we already know that some of the entities are not established/sanctioned/related to PLO/PNA/SoP (and their subordinate institutions) such as the non-governmental trade union "Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions" and maybe some of the entities that we currently don't know what their affiliation is (see the international organizations section in the article). Alinor (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• The proposal of Night w above to replace "something else" with the adjective "Palestinian" is acceptable, because it covers all entities that we currently know of (if we find source using some different wording later, we will need to put back "something else" or use another wording). But I don't agree to remove the "some different entity from the Palestine region or territory", because this will imply that all of these entities are related to the PLO/PNA/SoP and we already know that this is not true. That's why I propose the following:

1. "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the region or territory."

2. "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory."

3. "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the homonymous region or territory."

   Alinor (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What about just "...can be a reference to the PLO, the PNA, the State of Palestine, among others." ? Nightw 09:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"among others" is too broad and could mean anything, what about:

1. "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or a different entity from the Palestine region or territory."
2. "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or another entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can word either of those without mentioning the "Palestine region or territory" at the end, then I'll support its inclusion. Nightw 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I can replace the repetitious "Palestine", but "region or territory" should remain, because otherwise the meaning becomes too broad and includes "anything", instead of only Palestine-related entities. So, what about:

• "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or another entity from the homonymous region or territory." Alinor (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't it just be "another entity with the same name". I'll accept that version if grammar is corrected ("different" or another qualifier needs to be added before "from"), and the links are removed. Nightw 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "with the same name"? We are discussing the last part of the sentence - and it's not about the name, but about the origin of the entity - its origin can be PLO/SoP/PNA/some different entity from Palestine region/territory (non-related to the PLO/SoP/PNA institutions - such as private trade union, etc.). I'm also not sure where your "different" remark fits into, but what about the following:

• "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or "Palestinian", which can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN),[15] the PNA,[16] the State of Palestine, or a different entity from the homonymous region or territory."? Alinor (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

These are terribly worded. What is the relevance of mentioning the region here? Can it not be substituted with plain English words? Nightw 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is that for any non-clarified case, where we don't know the affiliation of the entity the only thing that we have is that it's from "Palestine" or that it's "Palestinian". While I assume that these are from the Palestinian territories - this is still just an assumption since the broader Palestine (region) carries the same "Palestine" name.

What is terribly worded? Any suggestions or other proposals? Alinor (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a way to get rid of the mention of the region and the territories, I'll support its inclusion. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going nowhere. Nightw 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't argue about inclusion, but about wording. The stable version already includes a note, albeit with a different wording. If we don't agree on wording change the stable version note (one much shorter than this one) will be restored.[2] All this argument began when you decided to make change to the stable version note.

So, unless you find a way to mention the region and the territories, I will not support changing the wording of the stable version. Alinor (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this "stable version" you've picked, and since there doens't appear to be a consensus for that version of the note either, then the article will remain without it unless you can come up with a better version than the one I've proposed. Nightw 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The stable version that "I picked" is one edited by YOU. And it remained unchanged for a long time. And it is not objected by anyone, but you. And other editors, briefly involved in the Night w vs. Alinor dispute support my revision. So, you are the one wanting to make non-consensus changes. Alinor (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I accept that. But there's also not a consensus to have it in its previous state. Since it's not essential to the article, it'll be left off until we can come up with a version we can both agree to. Have you got any ideas? Nightw 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When you didn't have any reason to object you said "get rid of the mention of the region and the territories" without any explanation why these should be get rid of - and right after I gave reasons why they should remain. This is "I don't like it" with no additional reasons against a change that I propose.

But at the same time you put your personal "I don't like it" against the stable version. And this is not a reason to change a stable version. So, the stable version of the note will remain until we can come up with a version we can both agree to. Alinor (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you had bothered to read the RfC, I've said quite clearly that I regard the mention of the region and territory as superfluous to the purpose of the note. You disagreed, and I disagreed in turn. You don't have my permission to add the note back in the way it was. The note should only be attached if there is a version which everybody can agree on. This isn't a constructive area of discussion so until you can come up with a new proposal, I won't be responding here any further. Nightw 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I explained why they are not superfluous and are pretty relevant. You didn't object these arguments, but basically say "I don't like it". This is not constructive. Anyway, if we are not going to change the wording of the note, then the note will remain in its status quo state (e.g. neither mine nor your changes will be applied). Alinor (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "I don't like it", I said that that I felt their mention was irrelevant. Ignoring my objections and attempting to pass it off as something else? That is not constructive. Nightw 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You said that, and when I explained why it is relevant, you didn't say anything about my arguments. So, I assume you don't cared about arguments and you just don't like it. That's why I said above you basically say "I don't like it" and not you said "I don't like it". If you want to discuss the explanation I gave I can point you to the particular comments or write it again. Alinor (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine

These four references show the relationship PNA (including PNA Ambassador to Ukraine) and Ukraine. Ukraine has a relationship with the PNA.

[3] [4] [5] [6].--analitic114 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, in what part of the table should we place Ukraine? Alinor (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Relations with the PNA. I could not find the sources of the relationship with the SoP. And in the data sources opening specified on relations with the PNA and an official reception Ambassadors of the PNA.--analitic114 (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if we are going to do this, then what should we do with the other states in the same situation - where we have official sources showing PLO/PNA relations and unofficial sources showing SoP recognition? (khaki/orange colored) Alinor (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippines

Found the following link for accreditation of Ambassador of the State of Palestine in the Philippines [7]--analitic114 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And from what looked: On Iran, which is not new either, the site of the Foreign Ministry to repair.--analitic114 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that currently at [8] there is no SoP Embassy. You can see more sources and discussion about this here. It seems that sometimes later in 2007 the Embassy was downgraded to Conuslate-General of the State of Palestine [9] and then, before 2010, it was closed (no such consulate found at [10]). We have also [11] that speaks about re-opening of the embassy, but this particular link contains only PNA references and no SoP reference. So, there is the possibility, that Philippines don't recognize SoP anymore (a possible reason for the closure of the SoP Consulate-General) and deals only with the PNA. We don't have any other similar case, but we also don't have any other example of SoP Consulate, so I think this warrants extra caution and further attention. I would like if we have a recent (post 27 April 2010) Philippines source about SoP recognition. Alinor (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

Found that links. [12] [13]--analitic114 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO these point in the direction of "PLO/PNA relations, no SoP recognition". Much like Ukraine, Poland, Cyprus, etc. Alinor (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Syria

I return the question of Syria. Why is it removed? More in the archives 4. The opponent has not provided any public references. On the idea of ​​a great Syria - also a weak argument. Greece declares parts of Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic) as its territory, but nonetheless it has diplomatic relations and recognition. Same Bulgaria and FYRM. The idea of ​​a Greater Serbia there too. And except for the forum links were not provided. And Syria claims Lebanon, but still has a relationship with him.

P.S. - Looked for links, or anything of the sort found. There's only meeting with the representative of the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. together. Or anything of value yet. But most sites of Syria in Arabic, which I do not speak.--analitic114 (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Syria is removed after Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Foreign_relations_of_Palestine_-_generalizing_source. See also above. In short: the only source for its inclusion was a generalizing claim by non-neutral website/expert that all OIC members recognize SoP - in addition to the neutrality issue Guyana 2011 recognition has shown that this statement is incorrect. So, this particular source is not used anymore and as you say - we can't find any other source. On the contrary - on the official Syria embassies list there is a "PLO mission" and not a "SoP embassy". Alinor (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Independence struggles

I added this in the background section: "Many of the countries supporting the PLO and early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." - but Night w removed it.

I think this is stating an obvious fact (that many of the recognizers and supporters are states that have been decolonized) and in addition we have two sources linking support for PLO of two particular countries with their own decolonization/independence struggles.

Any objections to restore this text - or suggestions for rewording it? Alinor (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The first source, as I've said before, doesn't support the statement it's attributed to. It says "The Guyana/Palestinian fraternal relationship dates back to the 1950s during the height of the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa". Nowhere in the document does it say, for example, that Guyana has gone through an "independence struggle and decolonization". In fact, Guyana's independence came about relatively smoothly. The second source you've provided does better, but as you stated yourself recently, one or two (in this case only one) examples are not indicative that the claim applies to "many". Additionally, that this is the trend for "early recognizers" is plain original research, as neither of those sources indicate that either one of them recognises the State. Nightw 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Guyana has gone trough decolonization - regardless if there was armed conflict, political issues, or smooth calm transfer of power.

"Early recognizers" - as >80% of the current recognizers are from 1989/1988 and ~75% are from 1988 (no more than 1.5 months after the declaration) don't you think that these are "early"?

"neither of those sources indicate that either one of them recognises the State." - yes, these are "countries supporting the PLO"

Do you question that 'many of the recognizers and supporters are states that have been decolonized'?

Also, both sources clearly show a link between anti-colonial/independence struggles and support for the PLO.

[14], [15], [16], [17], [18] - all of these UN documents show the same link. You can read for example page76/50 of Volume I PDF and many other parts of these sources; and you can read about the "national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States," in the UNGA resolution; the issue of "finishing decolonization" was very prominent at that time and of course the states that make statements in support of PLO and decolonization in the sources were quick to recognize SoP in the first 1-2 months - and this of course includes all the states run by former "national liberation movements recognized by OAU/AL". Alinor (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know what I'm supposed to be looking at with these UN documents. Can you quote a particular line? Otherwise, can't you just find a source that states exactly what you're trying to add? I don't question any of it, but I do question your choice of references. So per WP:BURDEN and WP:OR, you need to find an appropriate source that directly supports your choice of words. Nightw 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Directly"? We are not supposed to write only quotes from the sources. The links that I give (and previous links about Guyana, East Timor, ...) clearly show that a major driver for supporting PLO and later SoP was shared self-deterimination/independence struggle that many of the early recognizers of SoP have gone on their own. You don't question this, but you object adding one simple adjective to the current relevant sentence, because the resulting phrase is not found letter-by-letter in the sources? I will later formulate again some proposal for wording of the sentence in question. Alinor (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Many of the countries supporting the PLO and of the early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." Alinor (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this? You said you were formulating another proposal. This is a copy-paste of the first one; it even has the same spelling and grammatical mistakes! The sources don't say what's being claimed, nor is the quantative terminology supported (to verify "many" would require many sources), or (once again), you could just find one source that says roughly what you want to claim. Nightw 19:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous more important sections waiting for your answers and you focus on this one...

This sentence doesn't require any sources - you can see in the "History of XXX" articles that many of these had independence struggles and have been decolonized. And you can see from the UN sources I gave you above that these issues are tightly coupled with the PLO. But you already said that you agree with that. Your obstructionist approach is appealing. Alinor (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot bypass WP:BURDEN by asking readers to go looking for sources in other articles. You've been told that before by a number of editors. And you cannot use two examples to verify "many". Your lazy approach to finding sources is, similarly, "appealing". You don't have to wait for me to find more for you. Go to the library. Try searching on the internet. If the information is true, it shouldn't be difficult. Nightw 04:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some of the countries supporting the PLO and of the early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone trough independence struggle and decolonization." If you say where and what the grammatical errors are we can correct them. Alinor (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Spelling: "trough" should be "through", and "struggle" should be "struggles", unless you're only referring to one instance. See plural. Nightw 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some of the countries supporting the PLO and of the early recognizers of the State of Palestine had themselves gone through independence struggles and decolonization." Alinor (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Also "recognizer" is not a proper word. And there's still the attribution issue. Nightw 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some of the countries supporting the PLO and of those, that have recognized of the State of Palestine soon after the 1988 declaration, had themselves gone through independence struggles and decolonization."

attribution issue - that's why I replaced 'many' with 'some'. Alinor (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no source there that touches on recognition. And you're still using examples. I don't understand what's so difficult about finding a source that makes a general claim. The only thing that's obvious from your sources is that Guyana and East Timor both empathised with Palestine's struggle for independence. Nightw 08:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"There's no source there that touches on recognition." - we have many sources showing recognition of SoP in 1988, less than 2 months after the November 1988 declaration. I can add a few of these for countries gone trough independence struggle/decolonization. Agreed? Alinor (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

...Do these sources says they have gone through independence struggles or decolonisation? Nightw 15:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you so insist I will bring the sources in couples - one showing independence struggle/decolonization and second showing SoP recognition. Alinor (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. Nightw 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the two sources will be used as separate reference each for the thing it shows. SYNTH is when you combine multiple sources as reference for something that is said in neither of them. Alinor (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. Neither of the sources state that, let's say, Namibia had recognised the State of Palestine and had undergone a struggle for independence. WP:SYNTH: "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research". You're drawing a connection between two events that no source provided has made itself. Nightw 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources that we have link other states' independence struggles with these states PLO support/sympathizing. So "Some of the countries supporting the PLO and of those, that have recognized of the State of Palestine soon after the 1988 declaration, had themselves gone through independence struggles and decolonization." is fine, but you object mentioning the SoP recognition.

So, what about having additional sentence "More than 70 of the first 90 countries that recognized the State of Palestine during 1988 and 1989 have gone trough the process of decolonization."? Alinor (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed revision is fine, as long as you don't link the common words and stick to the spelling used in the article. Your next proposal is fine too, if you can find a source for it. Good luck! Nightw 17:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"don't link common words" - do you refer something in the version as shown above or you warn about adding other links?

second sentence sources - "first 90 countries" - inter-article link to the table of recognitions; "gone trough decolonization" - do you want links for each of the ~70 states or a smaller number is sufficient? Let's say 3-5 sources? Alinor (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, if you're using a number, you need a source to back up that number with the claim that you're making. If you're using "most" or "some of" you need the same, with sources that draw the same connection and make the same claim you do. Nightw 09:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't need to. WP:CALC. If you insist I can bring ~70 sources, but I don't think this is really needed.

What I claim is that country A gone trough decolonization, country B too, C too, etc. up to ~70 (I can provide exact list of who A, B, C, etc. names are and back each one of them with a source, if you insist). Alinor (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

For WP:CALC to apply, yes, you'd have to bring in the same number of sources for the number you want to claim. And those sources would need to mention Palestine and make the same connection you want to make in order to make it relevant and avoid synthesis. Theoretically, I could say that most of the countries that recognised Palestine from the onset had citizens with mostly black hair. And, theoretically, I could then come up with ~70 sources saying that each of these countries had citizens with mostly black hair, relying on the sources in the table to show that these countries recognised Palestine. That's not how WP:V works. You need to have your source support the connection you're making. We've had this discussion before with that thing about Communism you insisted on adding. Nightw 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no "make same connection" is needed. The sources just need to show that the countries I claim to have gone trough decolonization really have gone trough such. And of course these will be countries that have recognized SoP in 1988/1989.

Also, see [19] (John Quigley) "Following the 1988 Palestine declaration, Palestine was shortly recognized by eighty-nine states. The bulk of the states recognizing Palestine were from the Third World" - and being former colonies, decolonized countries is a common feature of almost all of the Third World states. Alinor (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to read what you're writing before you post it. You're drawing your own conclusions and making your interpretations. It's synthesis unless the source combines the information like you do. It's original research unless the source explicitly states what you do. Plain and simple. I won't keep wasting my time here. If you disagree with this policy, take it to WT:V. Nightw 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation, but anyway - what about: "The bulk of the states that recognized the State of Palestine during 1988 and 1989 were also from the Third World"? Alinor (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can incorporate it into the already-existing sentence making far-fetched connections, then I'll be okay with it like that. Although of course, since it's not in the stable version I might have to object... Nightw 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused - you say "OK" and then say "it's not in the stable version" - yes it's not, that's why we are discussing it here. Above I have given exact examples of the two sentences that I propose to add (and you can see the same in the sandbox). You agreed to the first some time ago (I think). What do you say about the second? Alinor (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

...Nevermind. Just read the first sentence of my response. Nightw 12:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative. Do you agree with the text as proposed above? Alinor (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what would really be cooperative? If you read what I write. I'll paste it again: "If you can incorporate it into the already-existing sentence making far-fetched connections, then I'll be okay with it like that". Do you need any further explanation of my position? Nightw 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can start with showing an example of what you mean. You can see in the sandbox the full paragraph. Alinor (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

?? Incorporate it with the already-existing sentecne on connections, e.g. "Communist states", whatever else. "Incorporate", ... include, integrate, put in together with... Seriously? Can you do that or not? Nightw 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's required to be in the same sentence, but if you insist - what about that:

"Some of the countries supporting the PLO had themselves gone through independence struggles and decolonization and the bulk of the states that recognized the State of Palestine during 1988 and 1989, shortly after its 1988 declaration, in addition to most former communist states, were also from the Third World, including many other developing states in Africa and Asia such as most members of the Arab League (AL) and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."? Alinor (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's too long. We don't need to mention every single variant of every single connection. Note that in most contexts "independence struggle" and "decolonisation" and "developing states" and "Third World" refer to the same thing. I suggest you pick one or the other, otherwise the sentence becomes clumsy and unreadable. Nightw 05:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one arguing before that these are different things and that's why I brought the additional sources. Now you say these are the same thing. Is this disruption, "I don't like it", obstructionism, non-cooperative approach or something else? Alinor (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try to focus on the content, rather than attacking me, if you could. Nightw 08:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't attack you, I just ask about the reasons for these 180-degree turns in your statements. Alinor (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we agree that these terms mean the same thing, then is there still a need for change? If so, which terms are you proposing to use? Nightw 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not going into such "if we agree..." with you. You should say what your opinion is - either you still insist, as before, that these are different and 'Alinor, you should bring another source for that' - or you reverse your opinion and say "these are all the same". No ifs, etc. Alinor (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow you, and you aren't being particularly conductive to a discussion of any value. It doesn't look like there will be an outcome to this thread at this time. Nightw 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia

Found thats links. [20] [21] [22]--analitic114 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The second and the third refer to an "Ambassador of the State of Palestine". These can be added, but unfortunately this won't change Tunisia place or coloring (unofficial sources about SoP recognition). Alinor (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Djibouti

Found the following references to relations with Palestine, I propose to move into a relationship with the PNA, as indicated only the PNA president, and there is no indication of recognition and relations with the State of Palestine, that's a reference to the state radio and TV Djibouti and the official news agency Djibouti [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]--analitic114 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or at least we should move such cases in a separate section "only unofficial sources about SoP recognition" (see above). But IMHO in this case we should not rely on such sources at all. Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Zambia

Find the following links. [31] [32] [33] [34] Also I think into relationships with the PNA--analitic114 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or at least we should move such cases in a separate section "only unofficial sources about SoP recognition" (see above). But IMHO in this case we should not rely on such sources at all. Alinor (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations and footnotes

Alinor, please familiarise yourself with Citation style.

• When providing links to online addresses, the link to the book's preview on Google books is only ever provided for the title. Don't link to book pages within the page parameter. Don't include wordsearch in the URL. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Don't provide online links to documents like constitutions, legal charters, treaties, etcetera. Cite the name of the document, followed by the date. Identify a specific article or chapter where applicable.
• Where citations are duplicated, the first instance of the citation should include the information. All subsequent citations of the same name should be empty.
• When multiple citations provided all say the same thing, select two or three in order to reduce clutter.
• Footnotes that need to include citations must use the {{#tag:ref||group="note"}} markup. Since this page does not use that template for its footnotes, information that needs to be sourced cannot be added in the form of a footnote and must be instead added within the main text. Footnotes in <ref> format should not include Citation templates if that is not the adopted citation style. Nightw 05:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• And where to provide the direct source to the page used? About wordsearch in the URL - why? Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs.
• Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents?
• OK about duplications. This is related to last bullet.
• OK about that - but I would suggest keeping the rest as hidden text - in case some of the "selected three" becomes a dead link.
• I agree with arranging footnotes and references separately - maybe we should do over the whole article. Also it needs a bibliography section for some of the references. I would try to arrange that. Would you care to "properly format" citations about who you added the second tag-template on top? Alinor (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. Please stop adding these incorrect citations to the article when I've asked you not to. At least educate yourself on how to properly cite sources first. Please discuss any issues you have first. Nightw 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you're reverting my change to Uruguay, revert it. But you're not, you're making your own edit, which will need to be discussed. Nightw 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, please don't make incorrect edit-line descriptions of your edits. [35]

Would you answer the two questions above? (bullets 1&2) - and comment on bullet4

"you are making your own edit" - I just tried to preserve as much as possible from YOUR undiscussed edit. And it's not only about Uruguay, but the whole new section you added. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be patient, I'll get to your questions when I have a chance. And we should both refrain from reverting anything for another 24 hours... Nightw 07:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I made 3 reverts here and you - 4 - and now we should stop? Before we stop, should I do a 4th like you did? And the same at State of Palestine - you've done 2 reverts and I - 1. Before we stop, should I do a 2nd there like you did? When you revert something you should explain why. Should I open WP:3RR/1RR notifications in order to understand what you don't like in the things you reverted? Alinor (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I only count 2 reverts here, and 1 at the State of Palestine. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

[36], [37], [38], [39]; [40], [41]. Mine reverts follow yours with the exception of the last at each article. Alinor (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This, this, and this are not reverts. Nightw 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not argue about that, what's the point? Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In response to the "why" questions, this is just the way things are done. For basic law documents (such as the Arab League Charter or any national constitution), the reference is kept simple. An online link to the text is inappropriate, and the use of abbreviations and symbols is preferred (see here). Also see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates. I definitely agree about splitting footnotes and references. You can see here for an example of where references are included within footnotes. A bibliography is also a good idea. Nightw 08:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you mention the List of monarchs - what about this question? Alinor (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find such rules there, would you specify/quote them?

• Where to provide the direct source to the page used if not where the page number is mentioned?
• About wordsearch in the URL. Highlighting points the reader to the relevant paragraphs. Why should we remove it?
• Why shouldn't we provide online links to documents? Alinor (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, it disperses a section which described discrepancies between sources into random areas. If you can set up footnotes using the ref template, then I can move the section about Uruguay into a footnote, and link directly to it from the table. But it can't go in a citation as is without skipping WP:V requirements. And the section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations was moved to a section on Palestine's representation within the OIC... which left me confused. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The section on Doebbler and the OIC declarations - that is one of the new, still under discussion, additions - was moved to section "Relations with international organisations", subsection "OIC". I find this as suitable place for this content and could agree to put it as footnote in the "Background" section after the OIC statement - but using this as content for a new "No relations" section is inappropriate and misleading.

So, I propose that we restore this, move "Doebbler and the OIC declarations" as footnote on OIC in the "Background" section - and then start sorting footnotes and references in separate lists using the ref template (thus correcting the Uruguay links issue). The other linking/citation style issues to be changed according to opinions in the below comments. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the referencing questions, you can link to a specific page, just not on the page parameter. Use the url parameter, which places the link on the title only. This avoids confusion with readers and problems with Checklinks on the Toolserver. Online versions of any old document are fine, just not basic law documents. I don't know why that is the case, it's just the way it's done. Nightw 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But you reverted when I put the link to the specific page at the url parameter. That's why I moved it to the page parameter. So, you now agree to have link to the page at the url parameter?

Charter of the AL is not "basic law". Also, I still don't see what policy prohibits linking to it.

Anyway, if you agree on the above restoration - we can temporary remove the AL (and/or page) links - until we reach consensus on these. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

...Am I supposed to answer these questions? Am I supposed to agree or disagree, as you've asked me to do? I'm unsure because you've actually gone ahead with your "proposal", even the parts of it that you said you'd wait for consensus to determine. And in your edit summary, you give the description "restore version prior Uruguay move; just moving Uruguay without other changes; the other things - to be discussed - see talk...". So, was that a mistake, or ...? Either way, I'll provide my answer below, and if you care to read it you're most welcome. Otherwise, I'm not sure how this "discussion" would continue... Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my additions, "Relations with international organisations" is not a suitable place to discuss recognition by individual states. When you're able to split the Notes and References properly, I will change this section to a footnote, which can be linked to from each entry that it affects (e.g., Turkmenistan, etc). Similarly, when you're able to split the refs, I can put the Uruguay section into a footnote, and link to it from that state's entry. Until this split occurs, however, we cannot include references within other references, and we cannot skip WP:V requirements. It needs to be set up before a footnote is created. I can help you with the formatting if you like.

I've corrected the formatting on that book source. The Charter of the Arab League is indeed Basic Law (?), and while I don't know whether WP policy prohibits links to online texts, it is conventional not to, especially if the original is not in English. Nightw 04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think AL charter is "basic law"? And where should we put a link to it if it is? In the future Bibliography section?

Doebeler OIC generalizing claim is not about individual states - it's a generalizing statement about "OIC members". But OK, let's use a footnote for this.

Night w, the changes I made to the pre-Uruguay-move version were to simply move the Uruguay line in the below section - as we agreed - what do you object in that? (no ref inside ref, etc. - I had just copy-pasted the line - as it was in the status quo - eg. if there is ref-in-a-ref it was there since long time) It is a compromise until we decide how/where to describe the situation. I don't agree with your current version with new sections - but I agree with moving that in some way/form to footnotes. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and one last thing - the "44 to 40" vs. "48 to 40" - the first number should be lowered, because some of the "inconclusive" states have no relations (e.g. 4 of them or something like that). Alinor (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the moving of Uruguay to the bottom section, but you didn't do "simply" or "just" that as you claimed (and still claim, apparently), you made a whole bunch of other changes aswell that you said you'd hold out on. And, in addition, you added some hidden notes regarding WP:CIRCULAR that went clearly against consensus on a noticeboard discussion. If the confusion is not explained properly, then Uruguay needs to remain in the middle section. So we'll wait for you to split the Reflist, and then this bickering can end.

Any written constitution is a basic legal document. Did you read this? See also here. If you want to persist with this, you can add, "available at {{Cite web|title=[name of website]|url=[link]|accessdate=[date]}}, and that will be acceptable. Nightw 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What "other changes"?? This is the comparision [42] (between pre-Uruguay move and my edit of yesterday) - besides "just" moving Uruguay the other changes are pretty minor (missing letters, reference names that YOU added after the Uruguay move - and I did care to restore, etc.) - if you argue about the hidden text or some other even more minor change (these came because they were in the pre-Uruguay-move version - but yes, it was also my edit, so maybe you object some of these) - fine, why haven't you just removed these (they are really minor and easy to remove) - instead of pushing back your version with new sections, that I clearly said that don't agree with. If you want to restore Uruguay to the middle section - then, OK again - you can restore to the pre-Uruguay-move - but not, you pushed your edits. So, in order that you don't accuse me again for some minor grammatical edit or hidden text - would you restore back to some commonly agreeable version, so that we can continue from there? (for example [43] with the minor changes - remove hidden text and something else if needed)

Is the AL charter a "constitution"? Are constitutions of international organizations "Basic law"? Anyway, I don't mind having the link after the description - as you propose, so we can just make it that way. Alinor (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I see that you are active here [44] - since you haven't restored to the version prior to your addition of new sections, and haven't said anything about the proposal for interim solution right above - I will implement it. Alinor (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is me reverting IP vandalism. What of it? Nightw 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean that you are active, but haven't restored - but now I see that you at least removed the additional sections. I still haven't got time to look into the other changes you've made recently (the Uruguay/OIC notes, etc.) Alinor (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the last I had looked at this thread, you had said you would organise splitting the footnotes and references, so that I could move my new sections to the footnotes. I had been waiting for you to finish that, but returned this evening to see that you had perhaps forgotten, and were talking about something else. I presumed that you were still okay with this initial motion, and so I did the footnotes for you. I haven't removed the additional sections, I've moved them to the footnotes. That was what we had agreed? Do you remember now? Nightw 22:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems there was a misunderstanding. I asked you to restore to no-additional-sections version so that I can start dealing with the footnotes. You didn't do this, I was waiting (because the previous time you accused me of making more changes than 'restoring and just moving Uruguay') for you to restore - before I start with the footnotes. Currently I see that you removed the new sections (as I said before - putting these into footnotes is OK, but I will have to check what's written in these notes). You also made some changes that I still haven't looked into. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, because moving a whole paragraph into a footnote was a bit much to ask of you...that's why you couldn't start on it? I should've known... Luckily, I seem to have mustered the energy. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you changed the description of the no relations/recognition section:

1. There is no information available pertaining to the positions of:
2. The Palestinian administration has not established diplomatic relations with the following states:
3. The State of Palestine is not recognised by and the PLO and PNA have not established relations with:

The initial version is 1. You changed to 2 (but it's incorrect - some of the recognizers also don't have established diplomatic relations yet; also "Palestinian administration" - what does this mean? Something like "Palestine" maybe? We need to be more specific and careful here). I propose as version3. Alinor (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't read right. "The PNA has not established diplomatic relations with the following states, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine" would be better. Citations are still need, of course, but the dubious tag can be removed. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This leaves ambiguity about PLO relations. What about "The PLO and the PNA have no official relations with the following states and entities, which additionally do not recognise the State of Palestine:"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, mention them as well, that's fine. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you removed the FRG link with explanation "doesn't support the claim". This is the only source we have in the table about that. Do you suggest that we move FRG to "inconclusive" section or what? Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FRG? Federal Republic of Germany? Where in the source does it state that Germany does not recognise the State of Palestine? I may have missed it... Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If so, should we move it to "inconclusive"? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...(?) That's a separate matter. I removed the ref from that statement, because said ref did not support said statement. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And what's this obsession with removing links? Your recent removals include:

• Link to former UN observers
  1. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity"
  2. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity."
  3. "Namibia was established by the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), which recognised the State of Palestine on 19 November 1988, at which time it was a UN observer entity"
• Link to Occupied Palestinian Territory
  1. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
  2. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
  3. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."

I see that both point to articles linked somewhere else, but these two links are labeled differently from the other occasions - and one of them directs to a specific/different section. I restored the links and made slight amendments - variants3. Alinor (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know! Could it possibly be that repeating links is discouraged by policy? Or that linking to disambiguation pages within article space is similarly discouraged? Oh, that must be it! It doesn't matter what they're labelled as; if this was up for FA they'd be the first thing to go, no excuses. That observer page is already linked to twice in the article. I'm of half a mind to remove the second instance aswell. Nightw 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK doesn't say that ALL duplicates should be removed. In these particular cases (I already agreed with you on many more) I explained above why we should retain the links. No change needed here.

The Palestine (disambiguation) link points exactly to the article needed - it is about the "inconclusiveness" and "unclarified reference". This is one rare example where exactly the ambiguity of the term is what we want to show. The disambiguation page shows exactly this ambiguity. Of course, if you insist (but why would you?), my addition of Palestine (disambiguation) link can be reverted. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do insist, and I do remeber something about "otherwise" and clarification, but these are not excuses for repetitive linking. You can easily explain within the text what you mean. Nightw 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, removed Palestine (disambiguation) link. I think it's the best way to show the ambiguity.

What about "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."? Alinor (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not where you add the link, it's the simple fact that a dab link is present in the article. Nightw 12:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's the article we need to link to (and DAB links are present in articles, when there is need to link to them - for example at Palestine top). Otherwise what can we do? List the first section of the DAB page in the footnote? Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab links are not to be present in articles. That's a hatnote in the Palestine article. These are picked up by the toolserver, as an issue that should be fixed. See WP:INTDABLINK. Nightw 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The toolserver doesn't prevent us from keeping the DAB link if we decide that it's useful. Do you have another idea how to explain the ambiguity without repeating the Common meanings section? Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but policy does, and the toolserver picks up on instances where policy has been disregarded. Another idea? Yes: a citation linking to a reliable source on the ambiguity of the term "Palestine". Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"toolserver picks up on instances..." - yes, and a bot places a tag on the talk page. That's it. And we have a good reason to link there - we want to show the ambiguity.

What about:

1. "Such as listing "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification.
2. "Such as listing "Palestine"[45] or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification."
3. "Such as listing "Palestine" (for the different uses of this term see Palestine (disambiguation)) or "Occupied Palestinian Territory" without further clarification." Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There isn't a good reason to link it, no matter what style you do it in. If you want to explain the ambiguity of the term, add a lexicographic source. And "Occupied Palestinian Territory" won't be linked either, as it's a redirect to a page that has already been linked to. If you have problems with our Manual of Style, take it up on a community talk page. Nightw 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." - the case with this OPT link (and the other of the links that you strive to remove) is of occurrence a long way from the other occurrence - even in a different section. What about:

"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "a long way from the other occurrence", and it isn't "even in a different section". They're both in the "Relations with international organisations" section, and in fact, the other "occurrence" is exactly halfway between where that footnote is written, and where it's linked from. In my current resolution, would you believe, they even fall in the same screenshot. So stop making things up. And you won't get any of those links in that new version you're drafting either.

My proposal: "Such as referring to "Palestine" or "Occupied Palestinian Territory", without further clarification, which can be understood to mean a number of things." Cite a dictionary or something similar at the end, listing the multiple meanings. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The other occurrence is in "United Nations representation" section. And additionally the OPT occurrence we speak about is in a footnote. And also the other occurrence is not shown-in-the-same-way.

A dictionary? What a good joke.

What problems do you see in the 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal above? "you won't get any of those links" - why? are they linked nearby, in the same way, or what? Alinor (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you're going to need to cite something, be it a dictionary or another kind of lexicographic source. If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be included to begin with. The problem with your version is that it is badly arranged and badly written. You won't get any links in there because none of those will be their first instance. Sorry. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What isn't sourced? The Palestine (disambiguation) content? Please, stop wasting my time. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel your time is being wasted, feel free to edit another article. I'm afraid you'll be here for a while if you're trying to push through unsourced edits. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

'There's nothing wrong with having the simple clarification based on Palestine (disambiguation), instead of leaving the reader wondering what this means (since you object just putting a link to the DAB page), especially when the situation is unique.' Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with adding a source either. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a so obvious issue - "Palestine can be a reference to different things" - I don't understand your objection here, I propose that we just copy the relevant common meanings from the DAB page. Even wikipedia Palestine page is about the Palestine (region). Regions do not participate in organizations - some organization/entity/government/etc. from that region or representing that region can participate, but not the region/territory itself. And my proposal is to mention the three entities that are know to participate in some organizations - plus to mention the possibility that some other entity from the region/territory participates (as we already have such examples - associations for Red Crescent/Football/Olympic/Trade unions/etc.) Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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

IMHO of the things mentioned in my 16:42, 22 January 2011 proposal only "PLO-is-referred-to-as-Palestine" is not obvious, but all of the other are pretty obvious. And for PLO we have a source - the UN resolution. About the obvious - we also have for PNA (Baroud source) and you think that we have such also for SoP (the Bissio source) - but anyway, both are obvious. Sources showing that in some organizations other entities related to the region/territory are listed under "Palestine": [46], [47], [48]. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It will not be obvious to a first-time reader. It may be obvious to you and I, but this is a detailed political subject where most will not have the prior knowledge necessary. To most people, "Palestine" simply means the Holy Land. So where you are making the claim that an organisation (PLO) or government (PNA) or state, you need to back up the claim. So, with inline citations included, what is your proposal? Nightw 05:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Such as listing without further clarification "Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine", that can be a reference to one of the following: the UN observer entity designated "Palestine" (Palestine Liberation Organization), the Palestinian National Authority, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory."

If you think that it's needed we can also put there the links to ITUC, IFRC, FIFA examples of 'other entities representing Palestine territories/region/holy land'. Alinor (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Do any of those sources use "Occupied Palestinian Territory"? What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three? and do we have sources for them? Nightw 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about OPT - we can write '"Palestine" or something else' instead of '"Occupied Palestinian Territory" or "Palestine"'.

"What other entities are referred to as "Palestine" other than those three?" - of these that we have in the table - [49]/[50]. I assume that these ISO/ITUC/IFRC/FIFA entities are actually somehow related to the PNA - but unless we have a source showing such link we can't be sure. Anyway, the reason for this note is not in the cases that we have sources for, but for those that we don't - IPU, NAM, G77, ESCWA, UNWTO, WIPO (and any other organization that we haven't listed yet, if any). Alinor (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of "something else" and "or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory" - these should remain, because while we have identified the Red Crescent as PLO-affiliated we still don't know about the Standards Institution, sports associations, etc. Alinor (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The note is about vagueness in sources. There's nothing vague about "something else" if you don't know what that is. Nightw 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The note is about inconclusiveness in sources that manifests itself in not specifying what entity is represented at the organization in question. "something else"/"some different entity" are there, because we can be exhaustive in listing all possible references/entities - this is just a general remark note. If you remove these you imply that the only reference used is "Palestine" and the only entities are PLO/PNA/SoP. Both assumptions are incorrect (instead of Palestine we have also other references such as "Palestine standards institution"/etc. - see sources above; instead of PLO/PNA/SoP we have also other entities - such as Palestinian trade union federation). Alinor (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

"Palestine standards institution" is ambiguous because it's not clear whether it's established/sanctioned by PLO, SoP or PNA. And it shows why we need to have "something else" besides "Palestine" - just sharing one word in the caption is not enough.

"Palestinian trade union federation" shows why we should have "some different entity" for Palestine region/territory - it's not established/sanctioned by PLO/SoP/PNA, but is a different entity - established by private organizations. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What word would need to be replaced in order to make "Palestine standards institution" unambiguous? Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's obviously related to the PNA since its website uses the domain .gov.ps. The PLO doesn't use that; it uses .plo.ps or .org. Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "what word"? The 'clarify' tag in the table PSI line can be removed if we find a source showing that PSI is a PNA institution. I share your assumption that because they use the same domain most probably this is the case, but we need a source for that. We can't add as reference "Night w and Alinor think, that because PSI website is at gov.ps it is related to the PNA". Alinor (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What ... word? If "Palestine Standards Institution" instead read as "Palestinian National Authority Standards Institution", there wouldn't be any ambiguity, would there? The ambiguity lies exclusively with the word "Palestine", does it not? Anyway, here is your source. Nightw 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This source seems fine, we should add it to the article. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Following your insistence to remove the UN#Palestine link from the UNESCO section I tried to find a compromise solution by utilizing the ambiguity note there. You are right, that it doesn't match perfectly both locations where it's used, that's why I propose the following wording: "Sources mention without further clarification "Palestine" or something else that can be a reference to the PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN), the PNA, the State of Palestine, or some different entity from the Palestine region or territory." Alinor (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you want a tag in there, "something else" and "some different entity" are not going to stick. Why is it necessary to mention the region and territory at the end? You're also using examples again. Using a dictionary would just make this so much easier... but if you must avoid the most reliable sort of source when it comes to terminology, you should find a source that at least describes the ambiguity of the term. Nightw 08:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'Specify' tag where? "Something else" and "some different entity" are there, because we can't be exhaustive in the footnote. If the only possibilities were "Palestine" (and not "Palestinian Red Crescent", "Occupied Palestinian Territory", "Palestinian territories", "University of Arabs in Palestine" or whatever "something else" - this note is about all ambiguous names that we don't have sources showing their affiliation) and PLO/SoP/PNA (and not different entities from the region/territory - the trade association is just one example of what we have found so far, there are other such situations - sports associations, etc.) - then there would have been no need for these. But this is not the case - we already know for sure that in addition to PLO/SoP/PNA there are other, unrelated to these three, "some different entities" from the region/territory - trade association for sure, but maybe also some of the sports associations, etc.

I don't know of a dictionary that deals with such legal issues like "list of entities from the Palestine region/territory that represent it in international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the names these entities are referred to at these organizations". The closes thing that comes to mind is Palestine (disambiguation), but you rejected all suggestions on that. Alinor (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Something else" and "some different entity" are weasel words, and would be marked with or . I'm fine with adding a note, but there's no justification for lack of specificity, especially since the ambiguity in all of the names you've cited can be attributed to the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian", and thus unspecified weasel words are uncalled for. The disambiguation page is not an acceptable reference as that is WP:CIRCULAR, and one in which there are no cited sources. Nightw 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case we need exactly weasel words, because "Palestine" is a weasel word. And nobody can 'specify' these weasel words - they represent unknown-to-editors organizations and names. If we knew all we wouldn't need such words in the first place. Are you sure that each entity member in international organization as "Palestine" is from PLO/SoP/PNA? Of course you aren't - we already have the trade association and also there is possibility that the sports associations are also "separate" from these three.

Disambiguation page would not be used as "source", so WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant. The link to the disambiguation page can be used as link to description of the "Palestine" ambiguity (because you object of describing all of its aspects in the footnote itself). And sources for the disambiguation page can be easily added (there are here in the proposal above), weren't this not forbidden by policy. If you want we can retain these sources in the footnote instead, after the disambiguation link. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

? Ah, no we can't since disambiguation pages are not allowed in articlespace. We've already discussed that. Wait for the RfC. Nightw 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't propose to put wikilink to the DAB page, but other kind of link, that isn't disallowed. See 15:36, 22 January 2011 examples above (these can be reworded, but the type of link is this). Alinor (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you style the link, you're still linking to a dab page. Nightw 14:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is it written that we can't have hyperlinks (not wikilinks) to DAB pages? In this case we want to show exactly the ambiguity of the term, so we need to link somehow to the DAB page (or some dictionary if you know such that includes this explanation). If you don't want to hyperlink to the DAB page, then we have to basically copy its relevant parts in the footnote - and that includes mentioning Palestine region/territory - because of the non-PLO/SoP/PNA entities. Alinor (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

No, because the source is not easily inaccessible. Austria, Germany should also be seen, along with lacking Kenya, Namibia, etc. - that's why the whole list is show. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Negatory. If you want to attribute this source to a particular claim about Kenya, Namibia, etcetera, then it becomes relevant. Until then, only the relevant portions need be quoted. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to attribute it to claim about Kenya, etc. We need to show these, because in that shows the problems with this source, not to attribute it to something. Alinor (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you insist, you can add the problematic areas aswell, but including the entire quote including the irrelevant areas is unnecessary. Nightw 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But two of the problems are with missing states - what area to show? alphabetical around them? And with so many 'areas' isn't it better to just include the full quote? Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It's unnecessary and it wastes space. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can use smaller font for the list. Or [show] button? Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How about

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

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

And again

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

• "don't repeat links" - I will reply to you above, where this is discussed.
• "replacing tag on challenged info" - if you want the dubious tag - link it to the section where it is described what's dubious - or add hidded note - or whatever - but explain somewhere why the tag should be added. My opinion on the sentence is above in comment from 18:37, 21 January 2011.
• "WP:EP: talk before making changes to accepted versions" - the last accepted version is around [51] - and I already explained that I don't agree with some of the changes you pushed afterwards (inconsistent "pending" marks, wording of the Uruguay note you add, etc.).

So, please, talk before making changes - or we have to restore to [52]. Alinor (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making threats here you better start discussing the changes you want to make. Alinor (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

They're discussed above; haven't you been following. I don't know what this new section is for. They're all the same changes you're trying to make. Nightw 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What you don't know? Have you looked at [53]: "Don't agree with this; to be either date or dash; El Salvador, Mexico and others are also potentially pending - Uruguay pending is already in described in the note"; [54]: "rephrasing newly added note - clarifying Palestine reference; chronological ordering of events"; [55]: "this has to be linked, otherwise we imply that "State of Palestine participates at UNESCO through its National Organizing Committee.", etc.? Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This section is about the "pending", the wording of the newly added (by you) Uruguay note, etc. new changes.

I propose that we put back [56], implement these of your changes [57] that are acceptable to both (citation formating on Belarus, Sri Lanka, India; Quigley link/formatting). And then continue to discuss other changes. I also have some new mission links, but can't add them during this edit-warring. Alinor (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No. While recognition from El Salvador and Mexico is speculated, Uruguay's decision to recognise has been made, and they've publicly announced when it will happen (see here). Nightw 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, until it happens it hasn't happened yet. No need for new special marks only for this - it is already explained in the note in the same column. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We already do the same for future embassies - dash/old type + footnote/source - no "pending" marks. Alinor (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a need for it, because reliable sources show genuine confusion over this. The recognition has been announced, and the formalisation of the declaration is scheduled. The alternative is to add "See note" in the column, rather than "Pending". Nightw 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusion shown by some of the sources just shows that they are not so reliable. These are just reports/announcements wrongly interpreting the official decision.

What more "see note" note do you want than the "[note 9]" already there? Alinor (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration. Nightw 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I ask what note you want and you go back in circles. The fact that "the decision to recognise has been publicly announced, and a time set for the formal declaration" is already mentioned in the footnote. There is no need for any additional notes. Alinor (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is, because Uruguay's situation is unlike any other's. And it avoids the same confusion demonstrated in reliable sources by summarising the point quickly. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Everybody that is confused about why there is a — instead of date will click on the note and read all he needs. No need for special marks here. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't predict what "everybody" will do. There's nothing wrong with having a simple clarifying word instead of a — , especially when the situation is unique. Nightw 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

what if make the — itself a link to the note? (I'm not sure if this can be done, but I will try if you accept such solution). Alinor (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to let it slide, as I doubt it will matter for much longer. We can just stick with the note. Nightw 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Also, I checked if the dash can be made a link to the note - it works. Alinor (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, but it's not an improvement to have it that way. The reftag sitting right next to it already links there. Nightw 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you like it more if we put only a [note 9] without a mdash;? Alinor (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it a big deal. Nightw 07:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Fowler, Michael; Bunck, Julie Marie (1995). Law, power, and the sovereign state: the evolution and application of the concept of sovereignty. Penn State Press. ISBN 0271014717, 9780271014715. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Takkenberg, Alex (1998). The status of Palestinian refugees in international law (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198265905, 9780198265900. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Talmon, Stefan (1998). Recognition of governments in international law: with particular reference to governments in exile (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198265735, 9780198265733. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Quigley, John (1990). Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice. Duke University Press.

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

Yes, that was resolved prior to your revert. Nightw 07:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My revert of your undiscussed changes about Uruguay. Let's hope we move on soon. Alinor (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other issues to resolve before restoring this version? Nightw 14:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have to check it against the combination of the versions cited in 13:43, 22 January 2011 comment above - and we also have to implement the multiple changes we agreed above. You can do a temporary sandbox if you want. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

...It's not that big of a deal. Take a look at the current version and the changes that were made. If I've left anything out, feel free to add it. Otherwise, everything I've done was agreed to beforehand. Nightw 12:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And why have you again put up that "Pending" mark and other things I clearly said are disagreed? I assume (haven't readed it yet) that you also again put your initial Uruguay note wording without taking into account my subsequent redactions. I don't insist on you discussing this, if you accept my redaction - if you don't, then please discuss the whole note addition first. I will restore the text you added in the version redacted by me. If you don't like my redaction - then remove the whole note you added, don't revert to a version with your initial undiscussed text.

I will also check the rest of the changes. Alinor (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I completely forgot about the "pending" thing. I don't know what "redactions" you're referring to actually. Is there an issue with the wording? Nightw 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redactions/issue with the wording - I speak about the Uruguay note. I can accept the following redaction of your newly added note: "In April 2010, Uruguayan Foreign Affairs Minister Luis Almagro and PNA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki signed a joint communiqué formalising relations. In September Uruguayan President José Mujica announced his intentions to recognise the Palestinian state in 2011. In November, it was reported that he had announced his government's recognition of the Palestinian state during the sixteenth conference of the Federation of Arab-American Entities (Ferab), held in Montevideo that month. However, later reports have shown that Mujica is actually expected to make these arrangements in March 2011, in line with the previous announcement for recognition in 2011. Mujica indicated that his government will establish a representation at Ramallah, and that the State of Palestine will establish an embassy in Montevideo within the first half of 2011." Alinor (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a difference. Is there one? Nightw 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not big - just a minor rewording/rearrangement. If you find this OK we can use it. Alinor (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. It's very poorly arranged, which makes it difficult to read. I'm not seeing any rewording. If you don't mind, there's nothing wrong with the note as it is, so please leave it. Nightw 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "note as it is" - there is the initial text that you added and there is my redaction of it shown here above. I made the redaction in order to clarify and properly order your newly added texts. What is bothering you in the latest version shown in the 09:28, 29 January 2011 comment? Alinor (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's poorly arranged. I just said that. Did you miss it? Nightw 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, yours is poorly arranged as I just said. Your version jumps around the events and doesn't present them in the order they happened. Alinor (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not in kindergarten, are we? Putting things as a plain rehash of events ("he did this, and then he did this, and then this happened...") demostrates extremely simple writing style and, frankly, a poorly-educated author. In either case the differences are de minimis, but consistenly blocking the addition of a note simply because you disagree with the arrangement of words is the very definition of disruptive. Nightw 12:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What's important in that note is to show that early announcement of intention to recognize in the future was made, later an erroneous reports were made that this has already happened, and finally these reports were disproved by subsequent reiteration of intention to recognize in the future. What redaction would you propose that makes all this clear?

Also, we don't need this long note - we can just mention the most recent announcement for expected recognition in March 2011 (unreliability of unofficial/interpretative sources can be discussed at the talk page). Alinor (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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

OK, I don't object having the long note. But about its exact wording - I think that we should describe November events after we described the September events, not before. Why do you object this? You added the note (bold), I made slight re-arrangement/rewording. If you want to change my redaction, please be so kind to explain what you don't like in it. Alinor (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said twice before now: it's poorly arranged. I know you didn't miss it both times. It's fine the way it is. Nightw 15:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is poorly arranged? The chronological order? If you have some other objection, such as grammatical/punctuation/repeat-of-content or something else - be specific and we can correct it. But the ordering of events should be chronological. no way for your back-and-forth hops in time to stick. Alinor (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, because recounting events must be done in a straight line. Just stick to the RfC discussion. I'm certainly not going to debate style and grammar with an editor who stuggles with spelling and diction. Nightw 15:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your straight line is, but it hops back-and-forth in time. And I don't "debate" grammar - I asked you whether the problems are of this kind or something else. Alinor (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And again again

It seems our differences are over this. These difference include changes to the status quo ([58]) made by me and made by you. It seems that you don't agree with the changes I do and I don't agree with the changes that you do. I will list/explain below the changes I do (minor IMHO), but you will have to do the same for the rest of the changes (e.g. your changes).

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

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

1. Pure citation formatting and some other things that I agree - I will adopt these in the revision that I will do shortly.
2. Citation formatting where deletion of relevant quotes is involved - I don't agree to remove the quotes.
3. UNESCO NOC link removal - I already explained that I don't agree - see my comment 13:43, 22 January 2011 above. No rely from you.
4. OPT link removal (from footnote about ambiguous/non-specific membership lists) - we are discussing the whole note above - last comment is mine from 17:54, 28 January 2011. I will put a revised version of this note. Feel free to restore the status quo if you don't like it. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Night w, please continue the list with the other changes you propose to make

I can't really see anything worth discussion here. They all seem to be minor technical details. The quotes you attached to Cyprus citations simply duplicate the titles, as your "redaction" to the OIC note also does the sentence before it. Point number 4 is unnecessary, as an editor will need to look for the source's markup anyway. Point number 5 is interesting, since I had previously removed this link, then you put it back, then I removed it again, and then you put it as a footnote; then I moved it back to a link, and now you want it as a footnote. It links to the actual subject being described, it's not an egg link, so if it must be included, it shouldn't be put as a footnote. I'm also puzzled about this "consistency" issue you've raised. What other notes and references are about specific consular offices? I can't see any... As for the last point: yes, there are too many wikilinks in the article. I'm working on reducing them. An article on Quigley certainly doesn't need to be linked twice.

That footnote about ambiguity doesn't need to go into so much detail. It's already duplicated in the sentence immediately after. Is this "UNESCO NOC" issue to do with the repetition of the UN observers wikilink? Those need to be reduced and "explanatory function" as you so often cite is not an excuse and in fact violates WP:EGG. You'll have to find another way of "explaining"... Nightw 12:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

quotes don't duplicate the titles (I tried to remove these) - these that I add/restore are in addition to the titles. The redaction to your newly added OIC note also doesn't duplicate - it's one thing whether the OIC decision was taken with unanimity - and another thing whether each single state recognizes SoP. They can vote in favor of SoP OIC membership even if they don't recognize it themselves. number4 - yes, but if the editors looks at the subsequent tags and not the first one he won't find it. Israel link - consistency in not having links at the 'mission type' word, but having the link as footnote/reference. It's kind of unique mission type, so it's better distinguished and reflected by a footnote than a wikilink in the name.

I don't agree that the article has "too much wikilinks", but anyway - as long as you keep in mind the rule that 'later occurrence that is a long way from the first' can remain, OK (this is about the UNESCO NOC link and the Namibia/"SWAPO is a former UN observer" link - if you remove it you just invite people to add "citation needed" tag there). About the OPT link and note redaction - see above section where this is discussed. Alinor (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The title is "General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus" and you want to quote "Other missions - General Delegation of Palestine in Cyprus..." And you don't think this is a repetition? The OIC note states "the OIC had delivered explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions ... whether these decisions represented the unanimous view of all member states is unclear." Adding ", and whether each of them recognizes the State of Palestine..." is completely superfluous. I don't see how you cannot see this. It's simple English.

Regarding point number 4: there is only one instance of the citation's markup; any editor looking into the source's reliability will have to go to the markup. There's no need to repeat things everywhere. That includes wikilinks ... or is this another attempt to substitute proper referencing with other Wikipedia articles? If that really be the case, just get a citation. Nightw 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

About the GD in Cyprus, OK. About OIC note - "unanimous view" is about the "explicit statements of recognition upon numerous occasions delivered by the OIC" (e.g. whether the decisions for these statements are taken with unanimity among the OIC members or not). The additional remark "whether each of them recognizes SoP" is about a different thing. OIC recognition of SoP is different from recognition of SoP by individual states. So, if you want to remove one of the questions then the question about individual recognitions should remain and the question about procedure of OIC recognition adoption (e.g. unanimity vs. majority) can be removed. About repeating hidden note - OK. About wikilinks - I added the wikilink, because the readers may be interested about this "former UN observer" thing. This is the first (only?) time it's mentioned on the page and I don't see anything wrong with linking to the appropriate article section. It happens that long way from this occurrence of the link there is another occurrence linking to the same article (but different section and different naming of the link). Even if they were named the same - no problem in keeping both links as they are long way from each other. I don't agree with your removal of the link. Alinor (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The note says the OIC recognised Palestine, and that whether this was a unanimous recognition from all states is unclear. Maybe you think it needs rewording, but there is only one issue that needs to be mentioned. I added a citation on SWAPO's former observer status. Readers might also be interested in how SWAPO "established" the state of Namibia; it doesn't mean we should link to it just because it fits nicely in the sentence on the word "established". It's more than about being repetitive, it's also linking to things completely unrelated to the subject. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the OIC note is to mention "only one issue", then it should be "it's unclear whether each of the OIC members recognizes SoP" - because this is different from "it's unclear whether the OIC decision to recognize SoP was taken with unanimity". Alinor (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, I made some other changes that you seem to object (for example - relations column heading) and changed in turn to something third. I reverted to my variant (because I don't accept your third variant) - and explained why on the edit line. You put back your third variant without explanation. Please stop doing that - if you so much dislike my change, when you see that I don't accept your change - then revert to the initial variant, don't push for yours. If you insist on yours third variant - please raise the issue on the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And on subject of relations - in the table heading we should list SoP/PLO/PNA so that it's clear relations with whom the column is about. If we leave it just "relations since" it implies that this is "SoP relations since" (the previous column is "recognition of SoP"). Alinor (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a clutter, but if you insist. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And if someone makes disruptive edits that is you by reverting to an arbitrary past version made by you (non-consensus) and not implementing the following unrelated-to-the-dispute changes, including minor technical corrections (such as clearing of duplicated sources - and maybe something else that I haven't noticed yet) This forces everyone to check again and again for the things you disregarded and to do the same corrections all over again and again. In contrast I aways take care of your "cite" into "Cite" and similar corrections and intermediate edits, regardless small and they are - I adopt them in the revisions of the page that I do, so that we are on the same track and hopefully converge into a single consensus version. Your editing just forks the article into two yours/mine versions. Alinor (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're an angel. If only we could all be more like you. Nightw 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Night w, please stop pushing for your edits - you don't agree with my changes, I don't agree with yours; if you insist you can revert to a version with NEITHER (such as [59]), not to a version with your changes that I don't agree. I put a revision that takes into account your Cyprus objection, the Eliko sources, and some other minor things - here. Please explain here what and why do you want to change in this version. Of course you can also restore to a version WITHOUT your changes and explain here what and why do you want to change in it. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the last stable version would be this version, which was stable for 5 days (with the exception of a minor IP vandal). I've objected to plenty more than "Cyprus", and you were perfectly aware of that. It was deliberately disruptive to repeat the edits that were previously reverted, since you hadn't gained a consensus to add them. And "the Eliko sources" (and the commentary attached) will never be accepted in this article without a clear consensus to do so beforehand. He can propose something here if he wishes to, and I will respond accordingly, but he has yet to do so. Nightw 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not "stable" version - it is just one of the back and forth edits between you and me. 5 days? You mean that the time I refrained from reverting your changes, because I was waiting for you to comment on the talk page on the numerous still open issues?

the last stable versions is the version that I linked - I object to your subsequent edits (those of them that aren't adopted in the subsequent versions that I made) and you object to some (or all) of my subsequent edits. I even listed most (maybe all) of the not-in-agreement changes one-by-one in some of my comments above. For example your newly added Uruguay and OIC notes are unacceptable to me without taking in account the issues I raised multiple times. I made several redactions to these non-consensus changes of yours - to try to make them acceptable - but you seem to reject all of these attempts (or you haven't even read these - maybe you just reverted to your version in a disruptive pushy way of edit-warring?).

plenty more than "Cyprus" - yes, I'm aware of that, but since I disagree with your versions of these "plenty more" I adopted at least what we both agreed - the removing of duplicating "general delegation" in the Cyprus reference.

"the Eliko sources" - he added these with the older format of the table with "Asia regional group" line - and since I don't object the inclusion of these sources I moved them to the note about Asia regional group (according to the new arrangement of the table that you and I agree with). There are two options here - either you object the inclusion of these sources in any location - so you have to discuss that with Eliko; or Eliko objects the new arrangement of the table (Asia regional group in a note) - then our (Night w and Alinor) agreement to put it in a note is disputed by him and all of us have to discuss it. I don't understand what's your problem with adding these two sources - I see nothing wrong in adding them to the note - but you really better discuss this with Eliko. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is under discussion at the OR noticeboard. Overriding that discussion before consensus can be achieved is a massive violation of policy, and an insult to every editor that is involved in trying to achieve a consensus there. Revert it. Nightw 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to remove these sources - do this yourself. I don't have the intention to do any reverts currently, we have more than enough AN/I already. I suggest that you and I don't make any edits to these two articles, make a list of all changes (compared to the real stable versions), discuss and hopefully agree (with the involvement of another editors), then implement only what's discussed, then we will know what the "new stable" version is, then we can discuss further changes.

I also commented on the OR noticeboard. Alinor (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - first paragraphs

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

If nobody objects I arrange it in the following way: "In states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and are often referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and their heads as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza." Alinor (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold, please. Nightw 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are a few problems with this. You've used examples to supposedly "prove" that this is the norm. That is synthesis, in my books. You need sources that state exactly what you do. Nightw 12:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you specify what part of the text you don't agree with? Alinor (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You've used examples as verification on the "Embassy of the State of Palestine". You've also done the same on "Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims. This isn't such a big deal, but the writing style is also quite difficult to read. And you've misused two sources. Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine, so, correct me if I'm wrong, that attribution is no longer valid. Nightw 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ambassador of Palestine" and the "non-resident ambassadors" claims - situation is the same in the version that you support, so I understand your "This isn't such a big deal," as agreement to do this for these two and also for "Embassy of the State of Palestine". If you insist we can add "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine".

Chile and Argentina now recognise the State of Palestine - but the sources show the situation before recognition decisions were taken. Anyway, if you insist these can be removed/replaced.

"writing style is also quite difficult to read." - any particular problems/proposals for change?

The problem with the status quo text is that it isn't ordered chronologically (e.g. PNA missions/relations came long time after PLO and SoP missions/relations - so these should be explained first) and in addition it doesn't explain well enough the situation (but if you think that in my attempt to reformulate the sentences the writing style has gotten worse - please specify in which parts, so that we can improve these). Alinor (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're using synthesis in the first point. You're putting two sources together (as examples) and using them to claim that this is the general rule. That's not okay, and I won't agree with that. If that kind of attribution is present in the article at the moment, it will need to be addressed. I certainly don't see "chronologically" as an issue, and I'm baffled at why you think it would be in such a context. Readability is far more important. On that note, there is an issue of subject-verb disagreement in your writing; such a simple thing is quite obvious to any reader. Lastly, I don't see any of this as an improvement to the current version, which reads quite fine in my opinion. Nightw 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"If that kind of attribution is present" - what do you think, is it present or not? And how do you propose to address it if you think it is?

This is not synth - the table is full of proofs. Anyway, what about this rephrasing: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains "Embassy of the State of Palestine"."?

"issue of subject-verb disagreement" - could you give a quote?

"chronologically" is an issue in this context of course. For example the "network of missions and embassies" of the PLO exists since long time before the PNA "represented" by it. So, the natural way of describing is to start with PLO network of missions and embassies, the transformation of some of them into SoP embassies, the accreditation of non-resident ambassadors to SoP, the opening of representation offices to the PNA in Gaza and Ramallah. Of course if you find some grammatical/etc. mistakes in my text, let's correct them. Alinor (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Example-to-prove-the-rule style attribution should be removed, and replaced with appropriate sources. I don't see the point your alternative: how is that information. States that recognise the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have an "Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"; why would that need mentioning? That is generic information that should go in the articles embassy or diplomacy. Subject-verb agreement: "are often referred to as 'embass[ies]'", "their heads as 'ambassador'", "the PLO maintains [an] 'embassy'" ... I definitely don't see chronological presentation as an issue, but maybe it will read better when you fix the grammatical errors and get rid of the obvious information. Nightw 07:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The point in my alternative is that there is no example-to-prove-the-rule, since the alternative text doesn't include any rule.

"why would that need mentioning?" - because unlike Jordan (there is only one Jordan - the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) in the case of Palestine we have three (or more) Palestines - SoP, PLO, PNA, "a Palestinian state", etc. In some countries we have "Embassy of the State of Palestine" (SoP) and in other countries we have "Embassy of Palestine" (PLO). Countries that don't recognize SoP don't have "Embassy of the State of Palestine", but countries that recognize SoP may have either of the two.

So, what about: "In some of the states that recognise the State of Palestine, the PLO maintains an "Embassy of the State of Palestine". A number of other states have granted some form of diplomatic status or recognition to a PLO delegation, falling short of State of Palestine recognition. In some cases, as a matter of courtesy, these delegations and missions have been granted diplomatic privileges, and thus in such a country the PLO maintains a mission referred to as "Embassy of Palestine" and its head as "Ambassador of Palestine". Representation of the PNA abroad is performed by the PLO through its network of missions and embassies.
States that recognise the State of Palestine accredit to the PLO (acting as its government-in-exile) non-resident ambassadors residing in third countries. Representation of foreign countries to the PNA is performed by missions or offices in Ramallah and Gaza."? Alinor (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

"I don't like it" is not a reason to object sourced content. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is when you're attempting to change content and add something that wouldn't be an improvement. This is stating the obvious. Nightw 11:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I explained the reasons why this change is useful, you raised some objections (not against the main argument, but against some issues with the resulting variant) that were taken into account and afterwards you resorted to "I don't like it". Yes, it's easier to say that than to give arguments, but we work trough are arguments. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 3 April 20RF11 (UTC)

Your "main argument" was that the text wasn't arranged "chronologically". My argument isn't "I don't like it", it's "I like the current version instead". Your issues with arrangement are baffling and your proposals are not improvements in my view. I objected to your example-to-prove-the-rule sourcing, and you addressed it by simply quantifying the subject, which negates the usefulness for the information. Get outside opinions if you wish to push it further. Nightw 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So, please don't remove the 'do not archive' tags (or restore these if you already had removed them). Alinor (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)