Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	List of sovereign states
Status	Closed
Request date	23:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Requesting party	TDL (talk)
Mediator(s)	Ludwigs2
Comment	No apparent possibility of consensus. Editors consistently find new grounds for objecting to proposed compromises, and refuse to move forward on viable but imperfect proposals.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The dispute is over the sorting criteria employed on List of sovereign states to divide the states into two sections: "widely recognized" and "other" states.

Who is involved?

1. Danlaycock (talk · contribs)
2. Alinor (talk · contribs)
3. Ladril (talk · contribs)
4. Taivo (talk · contribs)
5. Pfainuk (talk · contribs)
6. BritishWatcher (talk · contribs)
7. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
8. Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
9. Night w (talk · contribs)
10. Jiang (talk · contribs)
11. XavierGreen (talk · contribs)
12. LlywelynII (talk · contribs)
13. Orange Tuesday (talk · contribs)

What is the dispute?

The current list breaks the 203 entries on the list into two sections: "widely recognized" and "other" states. However, no definition of "widely recognized" is provided. This WP:WEASELy term makes it impossible to WP:VERIFY whether a state satisfies the criteria or not. As a result, any choice of placement is necessarily WP:OR. For example, Palestine is recognized by at least 111 states (>57% of UN members) but is listed on List of sovereign states as a widely UN-recognized state with no sources to back up this claim. As per WP:LSC: "Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." The current use of "widely recognized" fails on all three counts.

A secondary issues is whether the states of Cook Islands and Niue should be included on the list, and if so in what section? Hopefully, a resolution of the primary issue will solve this issue as well.

What would you like to change about this?

All attempts to quantify "widely" have failed for two reasons. Any choice of a particular percentage of recognizing states is arbitrary (ie why 66% and not 50%?). Also, we have no idea how many states recognize most states on the list. (Or sources to back these claims up.) Thus, any sorting criteria based on the "number of recognizers" seems to be impossible to implement in practice. With this in mind, we have considered alternatives based on membership in international organizations, amongst other ideas.

Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get past very basic issues. Several editors insist that the status quo is fine, and that "widely recognized" isn't a weasel word. Using this logic, they have rejected every compromise suggested to date on the grounds that they feel that the current division of states is "correct" and any modification to these groupings produces an "incorrect" list. However, as per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The status quo is unverifiable, and hence MUST be replaced with something that is verifiable. Even if the verifiable criteria is "wrong" (and this is only a matter of opinion) it's far better than a correct but unverifiable list.

How do you think we can help?

Mediation should be helpful since it can focus the discussion on finding a verifiable compromise, as opposed to arguing over whether there is something wrong with the status quo.

Your acceptance of mediation

Extended content

Post your acceptance of mediation here: Accept, hopefully the knowledge of law will prove an asset! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Accept.XavierGreen (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. TDL (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. --Taivo (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. Alinor (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, sure. Nightw 12:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Accept, on the basis that I probably won't be very involved. Pfainuk talk 13:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Accept.--Jiang (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Decline. While I thank Ludwigs2 for his kind offer of his time, per the discussion page, user:Alinor appears to be the sole user pushing this, ignoring a broad consensus, good faith, and plain English. Widely is not a weasel word under any category at WP:WTW: it implies more recognition than a rebel client state (for example, Turkish Cyprus or Russian Abkhazia.) If there is any issue at all between that category and nations like Palestine with broad but non-universal acceptance, the page can simply open a new section for the latter category below those of universally-recognized nations such as the USA or France. This is non- and wp:Pointy issue. -LlywelynII 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC) "the page can simply open a new section" - please, this is insult to all of us who participated in 6 pages of debate. The issue of both sorting criteria and of page arrangement according to the selected criteria (but we don't have even this so far) is not so simple. I propose that we finally start the mediation that we waited for for months and there you can explain your proposal. Alinor (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Alinor, let's not start disputing things until the mediation is opened, please. LlywelynII, are you sure you don't want to give mediation a chance? because this is the kind of thing mediation is designed for. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. The current talk page had misled me as to the crux of the issue, but apparently Palestine and Kosovo have caused problems documented in the archives. None that couldn't be solved by an intermediate category or asterisk, mind, but further, despite my own quite brusque tone, Alinor and TDL were not only civil but helpful in walking through the issues that had previously vanished from the talk page. I suppose they deserve their day in court. -LlywelynII 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Your acceptance of mediation (2nd round) Post your acceptance for the second mediator, Ludwigs2, below: Accept. Alinor (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. LlywelynII 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept on condition that both issues be dealt with separately. (I understand, yes, they are linked, but they are separate issues, solving the first, will not solve the second) Outback the koala (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept.--Jiang (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. TDL (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept with the caveat that issues are dealt with separately so that clear consensuses can be reached or not on each issue. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept as before. Pfainuk talk 20:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept.XavierGreen (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Accept Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Accept. Nightw 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC) All right. Ladril (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Extended content

Wasn't this at the Mediation Committee already? Lord Roem (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC) That's right. We filed a RFM way back in October. But after 3 months of waiting in the queue for a mediator to become available the case was suddenly closed last week with the comment "Closing case: no mediator available." Since this issue still needs to be resolved, we decided to try our luck here. TDL (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I may be able to take this case on. One of the two I had previously closed. Another is smack-dab in the middle of discussion. I would like to see an acceptance of mediation by all parties before taking this. Lord Roem (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Great! Thanks for taking this on. Note that all of the involved parties have previously agreed to mediation when we filed our RFM. Not sure if that's sufficient or not, but I'll drop a note on everyone's talk page asking for their consent. TDL (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Why not just use the UN member state list as a (theoretically) neutral objective independent list of sovereign states, listing all other sovereign states under "other" (Palestine, Taiwan, etc.)? That would seem to neatly get rid of the WP:OR problem while presumably making everyone just as upset with the end result, which is usually what a compromise results in. Banaticus (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Because the UN never claims to include all sovereign states, so basing a list of sovereign states on their list could be considered OR or SYNTH. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Not the place for discussion. Move this to discussion section below. Also, indicate acceptance or rejection of mediation before I can proceed. Lord Roem (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC) That's kind of what I was thinking, Lord Roem. Mediation cases, especially completely informal mediation cases such as this, aren't "owned" by any one person. 71.95.225.97 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I will move this mediation back to 'new' for assignment to another mediator as I am getting busy in RL. Lord Roem (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) new mediator I am willing to take on this case, if that's agreeable to everyone. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Do we need to do a second set of acceptances? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) it would probably be a good idea. the point of the 'acceptances' is to make sure that everyone is at least marginally committed to the mediation process - mediation only works if people are willing to give it a chance. but when i get a sense that I'm good to take on the case, I'll clean up the page a bit and ask for a new round of yeahs.--Ludwigs2 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you, we were in a state of limbo for months... About the 'acceptances' - we got the full set of 11 on MEDCOM, here so far we got 8 (and no non-acceptance so far) - the others maybe didn't have enough time yet to respond. May I suggest that the process continues without restarting the count, waiting for the rest 3 - and that we "collect" signatures again at the next point where these are needed? I'm not familiar with the process, so excuse me if my suggestion is a no-go. Alinor (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC) well, might I suggest (assuming you're on good enough terms to do this) that you drop a note in talk for all the participants saying that this mediation can go live if they are ready? I just need a sense that everyone is on board, and then we can proceed. --Ludwigs2 08:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC) OK, I will post reminders on everybody talk pages for the second (MEDCAB)/third (MEDCOM+MEDCAB) time. I will start a second accept/decline list below. Unfortunately there is a new user, that I don't remember to be involved in the more than 6 pages debate - LlywelynII and he put a decline in the list for the previous mediator. I don't know if his position will be different this time. Alinor (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I've seen a couple of people make mention of two issues which need to be separated. I can make an educated guess about that, but I'd prefer if one of you would give a nice clear statement of what these two issues are. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC) The two issues are the sorting criteria and the inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue on the list. I agree that it's best to try and separate these two issues, and I've argued this point myself, however in the past this has proven impossible. We first tried to focus on whether CI/Niue should be included, but we couldn't agree on which section of they should be listed in if they were included under the current setup. We then tried to focus on how to sort the states, leaving for a future discussion the decision on whether CI/Niue should be included or not, but that discussion invariably turned back to where CI/Niue would fit in under any proposed scenario. We considered compromise solutions, such as creating a temporary section titled "Associated states of New Zealand" or something along those lines specifically for these two states until we resolved the sorting issue, but we couldn't agree on that either. As you can see, we haven't been able to agree on much! Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion after many months of discussion that the two issues are too closely related to be able to completely separate them and we are going to need address them simultaneously. However, if others prefer I'd be happy to try and focus on them separately. Perhaps with your expert guidance we'll have more success. TDL (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Just to note that the discussion on that reached conclusion and consensus that they should be included, because the sources show that these are independent sovereign states. They were not included only because we couldn't agree on what part of the list to use (because of the status quo vagueness/lack of sorting criteria). Of course users that joined later are maybe unaware of this discussion - or maybe consensus changed during all that time. But sources haven't changed - on the contrary - every now and then a new source supporting CI/Niue inclusion was added to the main talk page (some of these were moved to the CI/Niue discussion sub-page, others remain in the main talk page archive). See [1] - variant of Sandbox2 with CI/Niue. Alinor (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I think that the sorting criteria that we choose should be "universal", not depending on particular states - so I don't think these two issues are related. Regardless what sorting criteria we choose the inclusion or non-inclusion of CI/Niue will be decided by a different criteria - the inclusion criteria. The issues got mixed only because people ask all the time "OK, and by your proposal where will CI/Niue go?", the answer is "in section XXX [if they are to be included in the first place]" and somebody is then quickly objecting "I don't agree, they are not states" and there you go - we swing the discussion in that direction and forget about the sorting criteria proposal altogether. The problem is that some of us have already decided how they want the list to be split - not by some criteria, but by "X, Y, Z should be in the more prestigious section; A, B, C should be in the secondary section - because I feel this is right" - and they object any criteria that doesn't give this desired result. I hope the mediation process succeeds in focusing the discussion and preventing it from drifting from one issue to another unrelated issue. Alinor (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Procedural question: I've never been involved in a mediation before. Will the solution to the two issues in question based solely on the contents of the "Discussion" session of this page? Where do we propose and rebut possible answers and what information is taken into consideration? --Jiang (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Jiang, mediation is just a formal process to guide the consensus making process. The mediator isn't going to issue a decision or force a solution on anyone. S/he's really just here to try and focus the conversation on finding a compromise. Feel free to jump into the discussion below with your rebuttals, or start your own new section if you've got a better idea. TDL (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Immediate Issue We have one immediate issue for you, the mediator, to decide. How should the article be tagged as being under mediation? One editor is pushing a WP:POINTy dispersement of nearly a dozen "weasel" tags throughout the article on the same words wherever they occur. Other editors consider this to be pointy and overkill and suggest a single tag at the top as an overall indication of dispute, or, at the most, one or two tags in the lead, but not throughout the article. Please advise us as to the best practice here. --Taivo (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC) My advice would be to remove the individual tags and place a {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag at the top of the page. That way it's clear that revisions are ongoing, without a mass of small dispute tags all over the place. You could look through Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes to see if there's a different template you prefer, of course. So basically this sounds like a classification dispute. Leaving aside the Ci/Niue issue, is this a conflict between classifications used in sources, or between classifications that editors have derived from sources? (I'm not worried about any synth issues at the moment - this is a list, and lists are always a bit odd - I'm just trying to clarify the dimensions of the problem.) --Ludwigs2 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I'd say it's slightly more complicated than that. The current setup claims to classify the states, but it does so in a way that makes it impossible to verify which category each state belongs in. (How can one decide if Palestine is "widely recognized" or not, since this term isn't well defined?) The proposals for change have attempted to make the classification more precise, so no OR is required to decide which category each state belongs in. The proposed categorization schemes are all derived from sources. So the dispute is between those who support the current ambiguous classification scheme, and those who support a specific classification scheme (or no division at all). TDL (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Also, what he said. — LlywelynII 00:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) The essential issue is what the namespace means. There are two separate ways to construe sovereign states. The old way was that countries are those acknowledged as such by the old [European] countries. Because that smacks of imperialism, modern international law says that de facto independent states are taken to be sovereign; however, it also says states cannot legitimize separatist rebellions in others by according sovereign status to them. Further, international recognition remains necessary for a government to be able to assert its status as a state in any meaningful way. By the de facto rationale adopted by the inclusion criteria, the list should be a unitary one of all governments holding their territory, regardless of their international recognition. However, some editors feel that involves a NPOV violation through legitimizing separatist states who fail to meet the old formal (and still practical) qualification of international recognition. Further, even if the page were to be divided rather than split into internationally-recognized sovereign states or somesuch, simple divisions of the page are confounded by intermediate states ranging no recognition (Somaliland) to patron recognition (Turkish Cyprus, Abkhazia) to partial recognition (Palestine). — LlywelynII 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC) request to participants Ok, I'm going to make this a formal mediation request: please, as much as possible, try to keep the discussion away from what other editors might do, think, believe, hope for, like, dislike, or etc. The more you talk about other editors, the more the discussion gets tangled in personal issues, and the more difficult it becomes to sort through content issues. I'm going to start asking people to redact personal claims as I see them (which you can do by striking the with html <s></s> tags (it looks like this). thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2, use of the term "POV" in Wikipedia is generally highly charged, implying that the editor to whom that term is aimed is pushing an inappropriate agenda. One editor here, Alinor, continually uses "POV" as a general attack on other editors' arguments and positions and continually combines it with charges of violating WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. This is a borderline personal attack on the editors who disagree with him. We are all experienced editors here and know the primary Wikipedia policies. --Taivo (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I use "UN POV" to denote the practice/point-of-view of the UN. I use "UN membership POV" to denote the point-of-view of some editors that UN membership is THE most important criteria for statehood/sovereignty. I think that this is generally a personal POV/common sense POV/common misconception - but I use "POV" in relation to these two in order to underscore the difference between the POV of the UN itself and the POV of editors pushing for UN membership. I don't use this as attack, but as short way for illustration/comparison of/between the two. Alinor (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC) why did you feel the need to wplink common misconception? Outback the koala (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC) wplinked it instead of explaining I mean. I think there is no problem with wikilinks in comments... Alinor (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

restart - structured dialog

Extended content

Ok, My apologies for being absent for a bit - real life and wikipedia distractions had me busy. But let's get back to business. The problem I see in all of the above discussion is that there is far, far too much original research going on. you are all trying to determine for yourselves what constitutes a state, and that's just not the way things work. With that in mind, I'm going to ask you all to present scholarly sources that give a list of sovereign states, along with their rationales for making the determinations they do. You can see an example of what I'm talking about here, where someone has presented a list of states based on the work of Dr. Paul M. Johnson: Dept. of Political Science, Auburn University. Two rules that you must follow here: Do not discuss borderline, marginal, or problematic states in this section unless you are quoting a scholarly work; we're going to try to establish a baseline first before dealing with problem states Only present material from scholarly works; do not present your interpretation of material from scholarly works (e.g., do not say that all UN states are sovereign states unless you are presenting a source that says that explicitly) Please link as much as possible to keep down the volume of visible material, or if you need to present an entire list, use the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates so that lists do not swamp the page. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Agreed. This has been the major problem with the discussion from the very start. [redacted]Unfortunately, several editors have rejected every idea justified by RS since they invariably produces the wrong answer. Thus, we've been left to discuss compromises which don't address the fundamental OR issues of the list. The "Vienna formula" is the only criteria we've discussed to date which both: a) attempts to address the same issue we are (what constitutes "recognition by the international community") and b) is motivated by a RS. The UN-SG specifically invented the criteria to address the question: "when a treaty is open to "States", how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States?" The UN-SG's concern was that due to the UN-SC veto, membership in the UN wasn't a neutral way to determine what a state is: "However, a difficulty has occurred as to possible participation in treaties when entities which appeared otherwise to be States could not be admitted to the United Nations...owing to the opposition, for political reasons, of a permanent member of the Security Council." The conclusion was: "Since that difficulty did not arise as concerns membership in the specialized agencies, where there is no "veto" procedure, a number of those States became members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community." [2] Easy. Neutral. Verifiable. It may not be the only solution, and I'm happy to consider others, but it's certainly the only one that we've discussed which is completely free from OR. TDL (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Danlay - I've redacted part of your response on civility grounds. no talking about other editors, please. As to the rest, I think you've missed my aim - I don't want you to cite arguments, I want you to find scholars who have made lists of the sovereign states, and cite those lists. The problem with citing arguments is that it calls on us as editors to make evaluations of the material. Instead, I want to see the lists that scholars have made, because then we don't have to worry about what is right and wrong, only about which source we're going to use. --Ludwigs2 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Well, one benifit of the Vienna formula is that for every UN treaty that is signed, the UN-SG applies the criteria to construct a list of states which are eligible to sign the treaty. Thus, all we have to do is look at these treaties to get our list. So here is one example. Every time there is a new treaty signed, we get a new, updated list. TDL (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) From the Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive: "It was also decided that all commonly recognized members of the international community should be represented, excluding a handful of quasi-states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Vatican City. In 1977, data for the latter were also introduced, with coverage extending from 1975." (List) From The Statesman's Yearbook: (List)--Jiang (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Jiang - ok, these are good, but can you also link to wherever it is they explain the criteria used for making these lists? That will become important when we discuss the lists in detail. --Ludwigs2 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Well, perhaps I don't understand the point of this exercise then. If you just want sources which have constructed lists of states, then there are ample atlases out there. The problem is, every one you look at has slight differences in which states they include, and I've yet to see one which explains their rational for inclusion/exclusion. The source you provided doesn't provide an explaination for why Taiwan and Palestine are included, but Kosovo, for example, is excluded. (As far as I can tell, Dr. Johnson's website is only used for the vague definition of a state at the start, not for which states to include.) As you pointed out to Jiang, without this information they aren't much help. We could arbitrarily pick one source, and rigidly follow their lead, but that seems like it would be WP:UNDUE. TDL (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Like Dan, I also don't get it. you just want us to list sources? I don't understand how the one you reference is relevant. Outback the koala (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Well, the point of this is that we want to stop engaging in OR. So, we look for lists that are available in sources. Then we have three courses of action, depending on what information we find: We look to find the most common rationale used by these sources (assuming these sources give rationales, which they should if they are good scholarly sources) We look to find the most common source that these sources rely on (assuming these sources tell us what sources they use, which they should if they are good scholarly sources) As a last resort, we take a broad sample of sources, include the states common to all of them, and then include the states they differ on with appropriate attribution (e.g., the US is assumedly on all of the lists, so it is included; the vatican might be on some but not others, so we include it with a qualificatory note that it is included by such-and-such lists but excluded by such-and-such lists) In this way, we stop arguing over what states are to be included, and instead let the sources do the arguing for us. see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 04:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC) I will try to keep an open mind, although I feel this approach may not be feasible. Outback the koala (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with Outback that this approach may not be feasible. Sometimes we get so afraid of WP:OR that we forget to use our brains. OR is not the ebola virus. --Taivo (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC) lol - trust me, I am not afraid of OR as a rule. but the problem we are having on this page is that everyone is doing OR, and everyone is coming to different results, and so we've lost any possibility of evaluative criteria. It's just one of those cases where different people can reasonably reach different conclusions by starting with slightly different presumptions, and that unfortunate fact is basically keeping you all perpetually stuck at square 1, agreeing on nothing. So, In this case, I think that pure persnickety policy-mongering might break the rut. If we stick narrowly to the letter of policy - only using lists that sources have worked out, and not trying to work out anything on our own - then we are bound to come to some conclusion. That will at least get us to square 2 or square 3; maybe that will be good enough, maybe not, but it will be something. the advantage to sticking very close to policy like this is that it is unarguable: if you have a source, the source says what it says, and other editors are forced to accommodate that to some extent. That (believe it or not) is the beginning of compromise and cooperation. So: sourced lists, preferably from more scholarly sources, preferably with statements about their selection criteria or the source they base their list on. let's see what we find. --Ludwigs2 07:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Remember that the issue at hand is sorting criteria, not inclusion criteria. So, if we go this "number of sources" route - what will be the sorting criteria? "Listed in all sources we use" vs. "Listed in X% of the sources we use" vs. "Listed in Y% of the sources we use" vs. ... "Listed in 1 of the sources we use" vs. "Not listed in the sources we use, but still satisfying the inclusion criteria"? How will we decide on the values of X, Y and the number of groups? Why? What to do with entities listed in the sources, that don't satisfy the inclusion criteria (e.g. Tibet from Ludwigs2 example)? How will we select which sources to use (see below for about this problem)? Such proposal was discussed before (option8 in the list/"direct copy" in the table) and is one of the few that got overwhelming rejection - almost everybody put "oppose" on it and nobody put "support". Alinor (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with TDL about Vienna formula. In his 03:48, 17 March 2011 comment he provided an official list of states based on it (unfortunately it's from 1997). Ludwigs2, the source that you gave as example includes interesting (and useful IMHO) definitions of Sovereign state ("political organization ... possessing a local predominance of coercive power ..." and "A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy.") and explanation about " alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies " and I think these should be added to Sovereign state article. On substance - the list says "there are now 194 independent sovereign states" (and then includes 197 entries - so which is it?). It has a remark about "Palestinian territories and Taiwan" and is made after "the ending of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro" (Montenegro is the newest UN member) - so I assume that 194 = 192 UN members + "Palestinian territories and Taiwan". In addition the list includes Holy See/Vatican City and Tibet. That is 196. The 197th is a duplicated entry (Burma/Myanmar is listed twice). In addition if you look at [3] you will see that Wikipedia is mentioned as a source (yes, this is different page, but related - and IMHO all of the lists on this site are at least influenced by Wikipedia). Then the source says "The states marked with an asterisk are members of the United Nations", but the following UN members don't have asterisk - Kiribati, Montenegro, Nauru, Tonga, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu. The source is obviously made after Montenegro independence or at least referendum in 2006. It maybe is made before Montenegro UN membership, but there is no explanation why Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu don't have asterisk. One explanation can be that the person making the list was using older UN members list from after 1994 (Palau has asterisk) and before 1999 (these that don't have asterisk joined in 1999 and later). But this also doesn't match, because Switzerland and Serbia have asterisk and these joined in 2002 and 2000 respectively. So, it seems the person making the list was using older UN members list from after 1994, but marked Switzerland and Serbia with asterisk because these were "obvious" and "regular" states in his opinion. Whatever the real explanation is - such glaring mistakes and discrepancies show only one thing - such unofficial lists by "scholars", "map/atlas makers", "academics", etc. are OR/POVed themselves and aren't any better than Wikipedia editors arbitrary picks - unless they have gone trough peer review in scientific journals. That's why I think that we should stick to official lists used in international treaties and by international organizations. Alinor (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Heavens to betsy... Alinor, That list I gave was an example I got from a 35 second google search. It wasn't meant to be definitive. And please note what you've done here, which is exactly what I'm trying to get all of you not to do: You took what the source said and you started analyzing it on your own to try to figure out why it didn't do what you expected. No, and no, and no. what I'm asking you all to do is find secondary scholarly sources that make lists, and then we will discuss the merits of the sources, not the merits of their lists. That is the way to be sticklers about wp:NOR. I am not expecting this to be easy for any of you, since you all (obviously) have thought long and hard about these issues and I'm frankly asking you all to stop thinking. But since you obviously cannot come to an agreement by thinking things through, let's see if we can find agreement on more pedantic, mindless grounds. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC) The most non thinking thing we can do is keep the status quo list and slowly over time make small, incremental changes. Outback the koala (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Look, koala: I am asking you all to provide scholarly secondary list-sources that we can examine, without any interpretation on your part(s). I understand the resistance to doing this; I'm asking you to do it anyway. can you help me out with this, or do you have a particular reason for not wanting to do so? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC) I haven't "started analyzing it on your own to try to figure out why it didn't do what you expected." - I just checked the numbers it gave with ITSELF and they didn't match. In the process I found additional factual errors. Then I found Wikipedia influence on a related list on the same site. If I'm to start analyzing the content of the list then I would ask questions like "why is Tibet included?" and "why is Transnistria not included?" - but I haven't done so. discuss the merits of the sources. OK, so IMHO my conclusion is valid - "such glaring mistakes and discrepancies [misreporting the easy to check fact of who is UN member; double listing of a state; self-contradiction in the numbers - reported as 194 vs. actually 197 in the list] show only one thing - such unofficial lists by "scholars", "map/atlas makers", "academics", etc. are OR/POVed themselves and aren't any better than Wikipedia editors arbitrary picks - unless they have gone trough peer review in scientific journals. That's why I think that we should stick to official lists used in international treaties and by international organizations." Alinor (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) And as we know such official lists leave out key states such as Transnistria... And back around we go. @Ludwigs: We are not going to be able to simple copy a list from somewhere else, making our own works and has worked in the past, this is about sorting the list we already have. Now most lists do use UN membership as a criteria for sorting; we currently use that on the list (see current page). Was there something more specific we could look towards, Its very difficult not to find a POV source in this area( If its a russian source it might include some and exclude others compared to say a U.S. source for example) Outback the koala (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I think in principal this is a good idea. If we could find academic sources which have done what we are trying to do, and which give their justification, it would be a huge help to the discussion. The problem is that we've all look for such sources and they don't seem to exist. I've yet to see a comprehensive list of all 203 entries which divides the states into two groups. Of course, the fact that no one has ever done this before is a strong indication that what we are trying to do is WP:OR. However, the alternative (a single list with the details highlighted) is always strongly opposed whenever it's brought up [4]. TDL (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I've never seen a list elsewhere with all 203 included. Outback the koala (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC) The goal is not to find a list with all 203 included. Finding official lists that describe their criteria is useful so that we can select one of these criteria as sorting criteria and say separate the 203 already-included-per-status-quo-inclusion-criteria into "those covered by sourceX crtieria stating ..." vs. "the rest". Alinor (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I am OK with looking into different lists - if there is explanation of the criteria/method used to compile it and if they come from suitable sources. So far, the only such list is the TDL provided [5]. Alinor (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with the majority viewpoint, and we've been through this approach before, Ludwig (check out the talk page archive and you'll see). This "list taken from a reliable source" approach doesn't work, because it forces us to adopt the limitations (edit for clarity: to copy the mistakes) of other sources, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. People here have developed, for example, lists of videogames without bothering to see if all of them are part of a list published somewhere else. Why should we be any different? Wikipedia is supposed to list items which are considered to qualify according to sources, it's not itself supposed to be a list of lists. Ladril (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Outback and Ladril are right. This overreliance on finding a list that suits our purposes is smoke and mirrors. We have already agreed on what to include in the list, our only issue here is how to sort the list we have and whether to abandon the status quo which has served us well for a long time. Indeed, if you look at the history of this discussion, and the editing history of those who have pushed the hardest to change the status quo, the underlying thrust (although never openly acknowledged) appears to be how to move Kosovo from the "other states" list into the widely-recognized list. In the end of this exercise, we will not have determined anything other than X reliable sources use the UN to sort their lists and Y reliable sources don't use the UN to sort their lists. We will be exactly where we are right now. Ladril is accurate--we can become so enamored of Wikipedia policy that we forget that we are trying to build something useful here. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Please Taivo, spare us the personal attacks. I've supported numerous divisions in the past which keep Kosovo in the "other states" section, so the accusation is baseless. I could just as easily turn the mirror around and suggest that those who refuse to accept changes to the status quo are doing so solely to keep Kosovo in the "other states" section. Such accusations aren't helpful to moving the discussion forward. Also, see WP:LONGTIME. Just because the list has been full of WP:OR for a long time, doesn't mean it's OK. And for the last 1.5 years the status quo has been disputed, so it's not a very strong argument. TDL (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I wasn't talking about you, Danlaycock. And sometimes it's important to view the history of a discussion as well as the discussion at a particular point in time. For example, while at different times a broad consensus has been formed on X or Y model, I can always predict that it will break down because of where Kosovo falls in the list or how Kosovo is portrayed in the list. It seems to be a stronger barometer of how successful a particular version will be than how Taiwan, Palestine, or Vatican City are listed. All this discussion is well and good, but it always turns in a circle and we end up at the same place--do we use the UN to sort the list or not? All the reliable sources in the world won't decide that issue for us because the reliable sources will either use the UN or not. In the end, there won't be unanimity on the issue. --Taivo (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I don't disagree with you. But I certainly don't think this is an issue restricted to one side. Both sides of the debate are guilty of this. Everyone has a POV on what states are "widely recognized", and it's impossible to completely ignore this. I'd suggest that the reason why Kosovo provokes the most disagreement is because it's the closest of the "other states" to being "widely recognized". We're trying to draw a bright line, and Kosovo falls somewhere in the gray middle area. Is it more like Israel or Somaliland? There are strong arguments to be made both ways on this, and no obvious answer. TDL (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Personally, I liked your one-list sortable option with the two columns--UN membership and disputes--and the bright colors, but maybe I was the only one. --Taivo (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with Taivo that Kosovo is a key underlying reason for the sorting discussion(I believe it arises out of a Western POV - where most of us english speakers come from), but I strongly disagree that it is the only underlying reason. I was also most likely to go for that one-list than any of the other suggestions; it's informative but so many colours and I didn't want to see Vienna. Would anyone be interested in restarting debate on that list? I don't see us going anywhere here. Outback the koala (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Another 30 second google scholar search yielded this: A revised list of independent states since the congress of Vienna (Kristian S. Gleditsch; Michael D. Ward) which is a fully academic source that should have detailed rationales for inclusion. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this from where I am - can someone download a copy and post relevant portions? Let me point out the obvious point (obvious to me, at any rate) that you need outside, scholarly sources to point to, or you will never resolve this dispute. You can say that the problem is over ordering, you can say that the problem is over the position of Kosovo, but in fact the problem is that you are all doing original research to justify the results you want, and none of you are willing to accept the original research of the other sides. The simple fact of the matter is that if you use the results in a reliable source, there's nothing left to argue about except which source to use. It no longer matters if the list is right so long as the list is properly sourced and attributed. correct? --Ludwigs2 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Ludwigs2, but I'm afraid you are incorrect. This discussion is not now, and never has been, about inclusion, but solely about sorting and what to include in the sort. No one is really arguing about what to include in the total list. Above, you can see that Danlaycock, Outback, and I are all feeling good about the single listing with two sortable columns--UN membership and sovereignty disputes--that Danlaycock put together above. Outback and I don't want Vienna mentioned because it is difficult to verify. UN membership is very easy to verify and sovereignty disputes are easy to verify. But you're not going to find many, if any, sources that include all 203 states that we currently recognize on this list. --Taivo (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I can't access the article at the moment either (but I may be able to get it via my institutional account). However, I did find this related document [6] which lists every state and gives some explanation. They consider any state which has been recognized by another state to be "formally independent" (although for some reason they subdivide this by excluding all microstates with a population <250,000). The remaining states are labelled "De facto independent states without international recognition." Definately some promising stuff in there, but it will have to wait until the morning for me to look at in more detail. TDL (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo, membership in Vienna list organizations is not more difficult to verify than membership in the UN - membership lists are public and accessible online. Please stop repeating this incorrect statement that Vienna is "difficult". And in addition, membership in Vienna list organizations is actually utilized by the UN and other international organizations and treaties. I don't see any reason why we should disregard UN Office of Legal Affairs and pursue some editor-OR/POV instead. Ludwigs2/TDL, the list you found (I assume it's the same) is interesting, but I also haven't looked at it in detail yet. What I see on a first glance is that it includes too many entities that are not in the status quo. But what is more interesting is to see what criteria they used for inclusion, separation, etc. - I haven't found/deduced it yet. Alinor (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, with Danlaycock's single list variant, we are approaching some level of consensus, at least among Danlaycock, Outback, and myself. Your continued insistence on Vienna inclusion instead of UN membership is a stumbling block. And Vienna verification is more difficult than UN membership because it involves more possible organizations and a weighing of how many organizations a state is a member of. Thus, rather than a straightforward, X is a member of Y, you have situations where one state might be a member of one organization, but another state might be a member of ten organizations. Is the one-membership state more widely recognized than a ten-membership state? Perhaps not. International memberships (other than of the UN) are for purposes of convenience based on state needs, not necessarily on playing the Vienna recognition game. --Taivo (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo - you're missing the point. I don't care (personally) about the outcome of this dispute. I'm telling you that you are all engaged in OR. The concern about sorting is an OR concern (You each are arguing from first principles that this or the other sorting system should be used). I don't mind a little functional OR of this sort if there's progress on the dispute, but if the dispute is stuck you need to dispense with OR concerns (like sorting order) and go back to what is given in sources. Verifiabilty, not truth. stick with that principle, at least until we make some headway. --Ludwigs2 14:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo, I agreed on a compromise - to use UN membership for a column - if we use Vienna for coloring. Or vice versa. And Vienna verification is not more difficult and does not involve counting/weighting the number of organizations - the Vienna formula is pretty straightforward - 'membership in any of the following: UN, ICJ, IAEA, FAO, ICAO, IFAD, ILO, IMO, IMF, ITU, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WBG, WHO, WIPO, WMO, UNWTO'. So, it's either X is member of one of those or it isn't such a member. And we won't be having more widely recognized and less widely recognized - that's the core issue - not to use arbitrary weasel terms such as widely recognized at all. UN membership is also "for purposes of convenience based on state needs" and is not for "recognition as member of the international community" or something like that - the most obvious example is Switzerland that was member of Vienna organizations before its decision to join the UN. There are others that joined the UN decades after they joined Vienna organizations. And they joined these organizations not with the aim of "playing the Vienna recognition game", but because they deemed the activities at these organizations important. And I ask again - why should we decide on our own to disregard what WP:RS/UN Office of Legal Affairs says? "States became members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community." Ludwigs2, I think Vienna is the one backed by WP:RS and WP:V - unlike all other suggestions. We have the UN Office of Legal Affairs explaining what it is, how and why it's used, many international treaties and organizations are also using it - if needed we can bring sources to these. Alinor (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, you are again pushing a single, solitary source for using Vienna, whereas we have provided previously many sources that list "the countries of the world" and mark UN membership and no other memberships or affiliations (lists of "countries of the world" found in some of the most common atlases). You have only one source that marks Vienna, and, as I recall from the last time I looked at it, that source doesn't even say "Vienna", but simply lists other organizations that states are members of. It is you who are using "Vienna" as a cover term for membership in other organizations. Indeed, using the UN list of other organizations and calling it a Vienna list is your own OR. The UN list simply lists other organizations in addition to UN membership (or lack of same). --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, Taivo: You've both just made sourcing claims. can each of you provide a couple of good, scholarly sources that back up these claims? --Ludwigs2 07:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Here is the UN list which Danlaycock provided. In it, the UN Office of Legal Affairs lists countries that are signatories to the Law of the Sea. But in the actual listing of countries, the only distinction it makes between the status of the signatories is UN membership or not. There is no Vienna listing whatsoever. States that are not members of the UN are italicized and have a footnote attached to them that simply says that they are not members of the UN. Hammond Centennial World Atlas (1999) has a "World Flags and Reference Guide" as a listing of the countries of the world in which the only membership that is marked is UN membership. Deluxe Illustrated Atlas of the World (1991, Rand McNally) has a "World Nations" list where the only membership that is marked is UN membership. I own a third atlas, but it doesn't have a list of countries in it. So there are two atlases and the UN Office of Legal Affairs Law of the Sea document that mark only UN membership as far as international memberships or recognitions go. --Taivo (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I've been able to get my hands on full copies of the following academic sources: [7], [8], [9]. I'll try to take a look at them tomorrow, and give an outline of their contents. TDL (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I've just skimmed through these three articles provided by Danlaycock and the thing that strikes me as relevant here is that there is no scholarly consensus on what constitutes a listable state. Any action in which we choose one scholar over another is, ipso facto, OR. The other alternative is to list all the different criteria used by scholars (population, recognition, membership, etc.) in multiple sortable columns. Our listing, which we all agree to by consensus, is already OR (as it should be for the reasons cited above). --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC) That's actually useful. If there is no scholarly consensus on what constitutes a listable state, then we are presented with a matter of wp:WEIGHT in which we should include all credible perspectives (with attribution) in something like their prominence in the literature. So your second suggestion (making multiple sorted columns to use all prominent criteria) has some appeal. now we just need to decide (1) what sourced criteria are sufficiently prominent to include, and (2) what the relative prominence in sources of each is. --Ludwigs2 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Like the idea as well. I think that would accomodate the Vienna formula as well. Ladril (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Actually, since there is not a single scholarly bundle of criteria that is widely accepted for sorting (other than simple UN membership), then the columns should be just those criteria that constitute components of the formulae--UN membership, recognition by at least two states, population, disputes on sovereignty, membership in another international organization, etc.--not cover labels for the formulae themselves. --Taivo (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo above you say "You have only one source that marks Vienna, and, as I recall from the last time I looked at it, that source doesn't even say "Vienna", but simply lists other organizations that states are members of." and then accuse me of OR. I have given the UN Office of Legal Affairs link multiple times, but it seems that you haven opened it at all! If you had you would call "Vienna formula" Alinor OR. I'm not surprised that you are still opposed to using it - you think it's mine OR, where it's in fact the only criteria supported by WP:RS. I would refrain from qualifying your act of entirely ignoring this link despite my multiple references to it. Quotes from the source: B. The "Vienna formula"; the "all States formula"; the practice of the General Assembly ...how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States? ... members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community. ...For example, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was opened for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the Convention. This type of entry-into-force clause was called the "Vienna formula". Have you seen this before? And this is part not of some obscure list compiled by unknown OR criteria. This is part of a text explaining the practice of the UNSG that is "Prepared by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs" and published at the UN Office of Legal Affairs website. And the part of it that we can use begins with the question "how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States?" If needed I can bring many official sources - international treaties and international organizations statutes - that include wording similar to "XXX shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice" [10]. Not unofficial atlases/maps, not unofficial and not peer reviewed scholar works, not unofficial OR by blogers, journalists, Wikipedia editors and the like. In conclusion - I don't know about "scholarly accepted" criteria - and this is irrelevant if it means some scholars outside of the official governmental structures, international organizations and diplomatic corps. What we have source about is the practice utilized by the UN and many other international organizations and treaties. This is what is actually utilized "professionally" in the World. This what governments and diplomats use. Not dormitory wall maps. Not schoolbooks. Not the general public. An encyclopedia should not be a compilation of common misconceptions, but per WP:V should rely on WP:RS. And I don't see anything more reliable than a UN Office of Legal Affairs text explaining "how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States?". Alinor (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I was recalling another document, Alinor, sorry for the confusion. However, you don't seem to understand the nature of what a reliable source is in Wikipedia terms. The UN document is one reliable source, but official documents have no more weight than other reliable sources. You seem to want us to rely on the UN document without reference to any other source for our discussions (your comment "not unofficial [emphasis mine] atlases/maps, not unofficial and not peer reviewed scholar works..." is telling that regard). In your view, the UN document is the beginning and the end of the discussion. That is not the way that Wikipedia works. Indeed, in many respects, neutral scholarly works are preferred over official documents here. The UN document is but one source that we can use here, but certainly not the only one. --Taivo (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Guys, again (using a different tack): The statements and practices of organizations such as the UN are by definition primary sources, and while primary sources may sometimes be used on project, they are discouraged, particularly where editors find themselves arguing from primary sources to reach their own conclusions about the topic. We should as much as possible keep to scholarly secondary sources about the material. Alinor, your 13:51, 21 March post is explicitly the direction we do not want to go per the above. Taivo, your 23:52, 20 March post is bordering on a request for synthesis from published sources (unless I'm misreading what you mean). Please, guys, get some scholarly secondary sources to back up your positions. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs, my point was that there is no agreement in scholarly sources as to what constitutes a state. Therefore, in order to avoid WP:SYN by building some sort of composite notion, we should include sortable columns for the major criteria which are used in scholarly sources to define statehood--namely, recognition by two or more recognized states, population, sovereignty disputes, UN membership, membership in Vienna organizations, etc. This isn't synthesis. Inappropriate synthesis is where you take X sources and build some sort of logical conclusion that may not match any of the sources' actual conclusions. What I mentioned above is taking X sources and listing their criteria without reaching any conclusion. For example, if we're going to list best cities to live in and Source A uses summer and winter temperatures, Source B uses average salary and winter temperature, and Source C uses number of schools and average salary, then our sortable columns would be summer temperature, winter temperature, average salary, and number of schools. In our text we would discuss the three different approaches, but rather than having three tables, we have a single sortable table. That's not inappropriate synthesis. --Taivo (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo, you've made a misstatement. There is no agreement between scholarly sources as to what constitutes a state, but assumedly any particular source has a clear opinion in its own right on the matter, since the term 'state' continues to be used as a meaningful scholarly term. With this in mind, it is appropriate for us to weigh and balance the clams that different sources make with regards to states, but it is not appropriate for us to decompose the criteria that different sources use to pull out the meaningful elements. that would be synthesis (or at least OR). Do you see the difference? A says X and B says Y is fine, but we cannot work A and B together to make some new statement Z. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2, we're NOT "working A and B together to make some new statement". We have a list of states here that we all agree on by consensus. That is not what we're determining in this mediation. Whether that list is OR or SYN or delivered on tablets from Sinai doesn't matter because we have all reached consensus on the members of that list as a whole and that membership isn't going to change here. I keep getting the feeling that you don't want to work at the point where we're in disagreement (the sorting criteria for that already existing list), but that you want to back up and reinvent the wheel. What we are working on in this mediation isn't the list, it's merely the way to present that list. Perhaps I misunderstand your intent here, that's always a possibility. If you're proposing sorting criteria that simply has Column A labelled "Source X" and Column B labelled "Source Y" and Column C labelled "Source Z", then you're proposing something that is highly unusable for the average reader. --Taivo (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Taivo: You have to understand that trying to impose a sorting order can also be a form of original research. I am not asking you to go back on anything that you have already agreed on; I am asking you to find secondary, scholarly sources to resolve the things you disagree on. Trying to resolve your disagreements by arguing from first principles is what's gotten you to mediation in the first place - it doesn't work. can we try something else, please? --Ludwigs2 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC) OK, thanks for that clarification. So we have a list of states that we agree on (leaving out the issues of Cook Islands and Niue). And we are starting to agree that a single sortable list might be the best option. (If I'm getting it wrong, someone else jump in and say so.) The issue with the single sortable list is now what sorting columns to add. The first run at columns consisted of two columns that most were comfortable with--UN membership and sovereignty disputes. So the question arose as to what other columns might be desirable. That's when you asked about scholarly sources. Three secondary scholarly sources have been presented at this point, which have minor variations in their definitions of what comprises a sovereign state. There are different ways that I see this scholarly information being usable to us. None of the sources deal with "levels of statehood", they all offer a definition of what constitutes a state, thus each of the states on our list will either meet the definition of each of the sources or not. So the obvious method of using these sources would be to add three columns that would simply be "Source A", "Source B", and "Source C" in which the value for each state would be "Yes" or "No". Or the three columns could be combined into one and each state would have an entry that lists which of the definitions it meets--the US entry would be "ABC" while the Somaliland entry might be "--". Another way of using these scholarly sources would be to have columns for each of the factors that the sources use to determine statehood. This seems to be a much more reader-usable way to incorporate the discussion in the scholarly sources. --Taivo (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I think Ludwigs makes a good point. None of the sources I've looked at "rank" states on their degree of "stateness". Just because a particular source claims that "A sovereign state is anything that satisfies (a) (b) and (c)" doesn't mean that a state which ranks HIGH on (a) is MORE of a state than a state that ranks only PASSABLE on (a). And plus, we'd have to come up with our own the subdivision along (a). So while it's obviously very notable that the DPRK is claimed by the ROK, it's OR to claim that this makes them LESS of a state. (Unless of course we can find a RS which make this claim. None of the academic sources I've looked at have made this argument.) Perhaps it would be better if the additional columns wern't sortable, this way we wouldn't be making this implication? TDL (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The academic sources don't make the argument, however in the case of the DPRK the ROK does not consider the DPRK a state. So in the South Korean (and Japanese) POV a list of sovereign states would not included the DPRK. Maybe not having these columns sortable is good, however I feel the sortability may be useful for determining which states were not recognised yby different amounts of states. CTS and all that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC) On primary sources Ludwigs2, you say that we shouldn't rely on "primary" sources - but in this case it is debatable whether there is a "primary" source in the first place (that's why we have this debate. The subject "List of UN member states" has a primary source - the UN - and we use it and nobody disputes the list. But the subject "List of sovereign states" is a different thing altogether). What I say is that the reliable sources in our case are the official sources - international organizations and treaties - and not unofficial maps drawn by individual people and similar things. Taivo, above you say "but official documents have no more weight than other reliable sources." - I see a problem here: what constitutes a reliable source in this case? A wall map? A news report (such as "Montenegro becomes the 192th state" when in reality a journalist just used some other press release and replaced 'UN member' with 'state', maybe to save space or to reduce repetition for stylistic reasons, because 'UN member' is used below/above in the same text)? A text by blogger? A text by 'legal scholar' that is not peer reviewed? An 'atlas of the World' for the mass market? - I don't think any of those is "reliable" for the topic at hand. Taivo, you complain that the UN source is the only one I support. OK, besides the UN Office of Legal affairs link, how many other sources do we have that describe the criteria for "statehood" in such a way that a WP:V list of states is easy to compile (a list can already be provided in the source, but most probably it would be outdated, that's why the criteria described should be easy to apply in a WP:V way)? Alinor (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) "What constitutes a reliable source...?" sounds like you have not actually read WP:RS. The three scholarly sources that Danlaycock cited above are all reliable sources and perfectly applicable in this case. Ludwigs2 explained to you that they are more reliable sources than the UN Office of Legal Affairs that you continue to cite because the UN document is a primary source while the scholarly articles are all secondary sources. All three of Danlaycock's sources have easily verifiable criteria. Have you actually read them? I don't think so. --Taivo (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) UN Office of Legal Affairs is not a "primary source". In fact, no source is "primary" on the topic of "List of sovereign states" (if there was we wouldn't have this discussion). But we should distinguish between sources describing the real world usage of the term, in the practice of diplomacy and international relations - and sources describing the personal theoretical opinion of the source author about the subject. I don't have access to these 3 sources. Would someone copy here the relevant text? And, please add the "not only UN OLA" sources to the appropriate list sections below. Alinor (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, the distinction between a primary and secondary source (essentially) is that a primary source deals with the topic in a practical, use-oriented way, whereas a secondary source deals with the topic analytically as an outside observer. The distinction is important because those who deal with a topic in a use-oriented way usually have goals and interests that color their understanding of the topic (the UN is interested in stability, for instance, and its recognition of statehood may be colored by desires about national or international stability); secondary sources usually just analyze. This doesn't mean that primary sources are unusable - primary sources are perfectly usable for a lot of different tasks in an article - but it does mean we have to keep in mind that they may not be a neutral depiction of the topic. secondary sources have no direct and immediate 'irons in the fire', and so can be trusted to be more neutral; they may not always agree, but the disagreements are analytical, not teleological. Keep in mind that a lot of the other things you mentioned - blogs, non-scholarly articles, etc - are also primary sources (and as primary sources are probably less useful than the UN), and things like maps are often tertiary sources. That's why I keep saying we want to stick with academic scholarship, if we can find it. --Ludwigs2 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC) As I said earlier - I don't object looking at other sources - that's why I made the list sections below - so that we can have an overview of all sources we have found (but maybe you should encourage other editors to add links there). But I still think that official sources (such as international treaties) are preferable and more reflective of the real world than opinions of individual legal specialists or mapmakers. Another note - I think that looking for sources about "definition of statehood" or "list of sovereign states" puts us on a wrong track. The article already has such consensus criteria and list - so while finding such sources may be helpful to shape the debate it's unclear if/how we can use them in practice (even if find and agree on such sources). We also agree (kind of) that not all of the included states are "equal". But we argue about where the 'separation line' should be (and if it can't be a line - what kind of separation/sorting criteria and groups should be there). I explained where IMHO the focus should be in 08:43, 22 March 2011 comment below. Alinor (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) List of sources describing criteria for "statehood" with results possible to check in a WP:V way UN Office of Legal Affairs add here/move those of the above that don't provide such criteria to below section/scratch those that are not reliable List of sources describing criteria for "statehood" with results not possible to check in a WP:V way add here/scratch those that are not reliable List of sources providing "list of sovereign states" without describing their criteria for inclusion add here/scratch those that are not reliable Discussion about placement of specific sources in the above 3 lists moving comment to source discussion section Alinor (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Alinor, you have beaten "The UN Office of Legal Affairs" to death here. You mention it as a Holy Grail so many times that it is now meaningless. It is not our only source. The three scholarly sources that Danlaycock provided above are actually more reliable in the discussion than the UN Office of Legal Affairs because they are secondary sources, not primary sources like the UN list. You also call atlases unreliable sources, but you are quite wrong there as well. Most atlases that are published by Hammond, Rand McNalley, et al. are quite reliable since they have been prepared by the scholars hired by those companies and are peer reviewed to just as great an extent as the UN Office of Legal Affairs. Indeed, what is the UN Office of Legal Affairs document other than something prepared by lawyers and not peer-reviewed other than by other lawyers in the same Legal Affairs office. Every objection that you pose for an atlas can be posed for the UN document that you treat as scripture here. The only documents that are perfectly in tune with WP:RS are the three that Danlaycock has presented above--secondary, written by scholars, peer-reviewed, and published in a scholarly press. The UN document is not in that class. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) UN Office of Legal Affairs is not a "primary source" and I don't think the legal experts there are less capable than the people preparing mass market atlases. I don't think we have any indication about who has prepared the atlases you say, what criteria he applied and why, and that these were peer reviewed as you claim (peer review in the scientific sense, not just 'checked' by the editor-in-chief or something like that). Alinor (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Continuation of the discussion I agree with the notion above by Ludwigs2 and TDL that sources actually don't "rank" the degree of "stateness". The sources actually give "yes/no" about who is a state (and the rest obviously aren't) and if you are lucky they also give explanation about the utilized criteria. This is already solved in the article (we have a consensus inclusion criteria). But when it was done it was obvious that somehow "regular"/"widely recognized by the international community" states should be distinguished from the "other" states. In the status quo this is done in an arbitrary way (that gives a seemingly sensible result and IMHO that's why it was made so in the first place - the result matched editors "wish" back then and the article was edited in this way disregarding the lack of defined sorting criteria) of "UN members + Vatican City". I think that we should not aim to define a 'degree of stateness' or to rank the already included states in some way. We should simply replace the arbitrary pseudo-criteria "UN members + Vatican City" with something that in fact matches "widely recognized by the international community". So, I think that the question is "which entities are widely recognized as states by the international community" (e.g. who should be included in the current section1) - and you know that we already have the answer from the UN Office of Legal Affairs: "and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community". The same answer is utilized in practice by international organizations and treaties. I see no reason to deviate from that. Alinor (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No, Alinor, I continue to disagree with your elevation of the UN Office of Legal Affairs as the universal arbiter of this list. The criterion "members of the UN plus the state with undisputed sovereignty that isn't a member" is a perfectly valid criterion for sorting. Your accusation that we got the list we "wished" is a violation of WP:AGF. I could just as easily accuse you of the same--you're a pro-Kosovo patriot who has been banned from Kosovo topics, so you came to this list to get Kosovo out of the "other state" category. But that would be a violation on my part of WP:AGF. Don't throw accusations of bias around unless you want them thrown right back (WP:BOOMERANG). An emergent consensus was starting to develop around the presentation in Sandbox 3. I'm not sure why we got sidetracked away from that issue. --Taivo (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) You are kidding, right? I don't accuse that somebody intentionally inserted the pseudo-criteria "UN+VC" - this was done not on purpose and without mean intentions. But this doesn't change the fact that it's not a criteria. That's why we have this discussion. And accusing me of pro-RoK POV is hilarious. Both bans were because of complaints by pro-RoK editors. And in both cases the changes I made persisted regardless of my bans - because I did what was right to do and it was NPOV (the bans were over edit procedures - because the pro-RoK editors were willing to engage in edit-wars). My bans were the price needed to be paid in order for the Kosovo article to be a NPOV article free of efforts by RoK or Serbia POVed editors to turn it into "theirs" article by the back door (but let's see how long this will last). Sandbox3 has multiple issues and I don't see "an emergent consensus" - some editors support it, some don't, most haven't issued their opinion. "members of the UN plus the state with undisputed sovereignty that isn't a member" - is this supposed to be an explanation of why the status quo uses the pseudo-criteria "UN+VC"? Why isn't it written in the article? What's its source? Should I point additional flaws here? Alinor (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Comment What will be the implications of the solution that is being proposed for the different lists of sovereign states by year? [11] Ladril (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry about that accidental revert - must have hit the wrong link somewhere on my watchlist. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Currently these historical lists aren't divided into "widely recognized" vs. "other" - they are of the 'single list' type. If these are going to be divided - then obviously this criteria can't be utilized for lists dated before the second half of 19th century - the time of the establishment of the first of these international organizations - ITU - and actually the second international organization of all times in the whole World (ITU is the second after the regional Rhine river commission. UPU is the third). But should we widen the scope of this already complicated discussion to include these historical lists? We already excluded CI/Niue from the scope and I think the issue with historical lists is less relevant than the issue with CI/Niue. Historical lists can use whatever separation criteria is suitable for the period the list is made for. And for most of the periods there will be no need for separation at all (actually the periods where separation may be useful are the same periods where the above criteria applies for). Alinor (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Agree with Alinor, however we divide up today's states, historical states have completely different criteria. I assume historical lists have to deal with issues like suzerainty and other political issues non longer relevant, and vice versa there are issues in the modern day that wouldn't have been as important back then. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC) "Currently these historical lists aren't divided into "widely recognized" vs. "other"". Dude... please see [12]. Ladril (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) I don't know Chip, you and I both know people come all the time and suggest, with reference to suzerainty, that these states in their opinion should not be included. Andorra and Monaco always seem to get hit with these accusations and as an after thought maybe Liechtenstein is thrown about. Recall work on the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe page. While I agree that this may have an impact on these other lists, perhaps even hundreds in the project (when you look at GDP by, pop by...); but really we should focus on the page at hand first and the rest of the project impact later. Outback the koala (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Ladril, sorry, I didn't see that one - these are too many and the ones that I saw weren't divided. Anyway, I think that separation criteria for historical lists depends on the year/period for which the historical list is - and IMHO this should be discussed individually at each historical list (or for groups of historical lists) - whether and what separation is needed. Of course the criteria we decide to use for the present-time list will have influence on the discussions about the historical lists - especially these of the more recent history at the end of the 20th century, etc. But I propose that we don't try to have all these discussions at once and that we focus on the present-time list for the moment. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC) "Andorra" Those people are correct. Andorra wasn't a sovereign state until 1993. But we are getting distracted here. My point was: if we're going to apply Ludwig's criteria for this page, does that mean we'll have to find sources that way for every single year? Ladril (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Oh my. I thought the current list was a mess, but those historical lists are a complete disaster. I don't see any sources to support either inclusion OR sorting. Do we really need a separate list of sovereign states in 1804 AND 1805 when they are nearly identical? And can we really say that there were sovereign states in the 35th century BC? I think the information would be much more helpful if presented in timeline form, something like List of female state governors in the United States, at least merging full centuries together. Beyond this digression, I agree with the sentiment that the further back we go, the less applicable the concept of sovereignty becomes. Nation-states haven't always existed as they currently do. While the outcome of this discussion could be used on these historic lists, I don't think that it would necessarily have to. As for other lists, such as "by GDP", the consensus there has been to list whoever the source lists. So if the IMF produces a list of national GDP's and includes Hong Kong, we should follow their lead, even if HK isn't a sovereign state. TDL (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC) "I agree with the sentiment that the further back we go, the less applicable the concept of sovereignty becomes." No one is debating this (we'll have to wait for Xavier for this, I assume), but the modern notion of sovereignty, according to scholarly sources, dates back to the Seventeenth Century, so that's still a lot to sink our teeth into. The thing is, the encyclopedia is supposed to be a cohesive work, so definitions and standards used in one page will have to be in agreement across all pages devoted to the same subject. I'm perfectly aware that the de facto situation is light-years away from this, but still, this is something that should be done if this is to become an encyclopedia and not just a disjointed, mini-World Wide Web. So no, I don't think this is an issue that can just be "left for later". Ladril (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC) OK, but what about my suggestion that in for different historical articles different separation criteria should be applied? We can decide here to use criteria X for 'present time'. Obviously the same arguments can be applied to 2000s, 1990s, etc. But when you get to the point in time where criteria X is unacceptable - editors of that particular list (and I assume that the group of editors will be similar) would explain why it isn't acceptable. Do we need to do all these discussions at once, right now, right here? I think we can't manage that. Alinor (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC) A solution they found on Dutch Wikipedia (nl) which I edit occasionally is that the current list is a new list created every year allow the list past to stay frozen, thereby definitionsal changes do not effect past lists. Their current list is "List of States in 2011" [13]. It's a novel solution that seems to work for them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Any opinions on 08:43, 22 March 2011 comment in relation to the present-time List of sovereign states? Alinor (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I dont think anyone's changed their opinions from above. It's still the same, I still oppose. Outback the koala (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I placed my comment in continued opposition above. --Taivo (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Outback the koala, I don't understand why do you oppose. We have a straight answer of our question from a reliable source. What more do we need? Even if it doesn't match our own opinion. I just tried to look at the issue from different angle - what can we do with minimal changes to the status quo. And people, if you don't like the UN OLA source - please, insert the sources you like in the lists above, so that we can see what we can choose from. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC) The problem, Alinor, which you would see if you read the scholarly sources (which are preferable from a Wikipedia point of view), is that there is no single scholarly consensus which is usable in this context. Indeed, many of the scholarly lists eliminate some UN members from the list--e.g., San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein--most commonly because they establish an arbitrary minimum population figure for what constitutes a state. (The UN Legal Office list is not preferred in Wikipedia as a primary source written by non-scholars.) You continue to characterize the status quo as "arbitrary", but it is not--it is not "UN+VC", it is UN members (which means that is has been accepted as a sovereign entity in the most important measure of sovereignty by the most important world body that judges such things) plus undisputedly sovereign non-member entities (of which there is currently only one--Vatican City--but in the recent past would have included Switzerland and others). --Taivo (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I don't agree with most of your comment. For example you put two non-sourced statements and combine them as your own explanation of the status quo pseudo-criteria "UN+VC". "UN which means ..." - any source for that? "plus undisputedly sovereign non-member entities of which there is currently only one" - any source for that? Any list of "undisputedly sovereign entities"? Another is issue is with the 'scholarly sources' - a source can be preferred over the official UN OLA website only if had gone trough scientific peer review - not any text written by a 'scholar' can be preferred. And where are those sources? Please, add them to the lists of sources. So, far I have seen only one criteria actually utilized in practice in many international organizations and treaties to show who is recognized as state by the international community (bold text is a quote from official UN OLA website giving the answer) - the Vienna formula. You can find many slightly different theoretical definitions of what is a state - CTS, DTS, different lists, etc. - and we already have adopted such as inclusion criteria and have a list of such entities. What we search now is not what is a state, but who is recognized as state by the international community - because, you know, there are states that aren't widely recognized. Regardless, they still are states and are included in the list (per the definition/inclusion criteria adopted), but the international community at large doesn't recognize them as such. In your position there is a contradiction - you label UN as the most important organization, representative of the whole international community, a gatekeeper of statehood or whatever, but at the same time you disregard the definitions that the same most important organization uses and you want to use some different not-utilized-by-the-UN definition (I call this non-UN position "UN membership POV" because it's akin to a common misconception that UN membership equals sovereignty and/or statehood). And you don't provide any reason why we should deviate from the "UN POV" (the definition of "recognized as state by the international community" utilized by the UN). Alinor (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, you continue to ignore every single point but your own. You have not read the scholarly sources which Danlaycock provided above. When Sandbox3 was offered above and we started discussing it, you put up your own sandbox rather than discussing the one that was already there. You continue to treat the UN's Office of Legal Affairs as the Holy Grail of sources. You have not budged one inch from your position in any way. I'll make this simple--1) The UN Office of Legal Affairs is a primary source, neither scholarly nor peer-reviewed, and is not the basis of membership in the UN General Assembly. 2) There are three scholarly (peer-reviewed) sources that have been cited already, none of them use the Vienna formula or the UN Office of Legal Affairs as sorting criteria (but all of them refer to UN membership. 3) Do you have any references whatsoever that any of the sovereign states we've listed in "Other States" have undisputed sovereignty? (No, you don't.) --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) No. I don't have access to the Danlaycock sources and asked you (or somebody else) to provide quotes of the relevant parts of the definitions/lists there (see 11:33, 22 March 2011). I haven't ignored Sandbox3 - the first comment on it is mine where I explain what problems I see in it (see 10:24, 24 February 2011) and I participated in the subsequent "revisiting this" and "restart" Sandbox3 sections pointing to the same/similar problems. I don't treat UN OLA as Holy Grail, but I think you treat UN membership as a Holy Grail. If you have other sources please add them to here, here and here so that we can see at a glance what we have (this is related to your simple2). On your simple3: I haven't said anything about "undisputed sovereignty" - this is a phrase you put up trying to explain the status quo pseudo-criteria (but strangely it isn't in the article) - I just say that it's no more WP:V complaint that the "UN+VC" pseudo-criteria itself. On your simple1: [the criteria described at UN OLA] "is not the basis of membership in the UN General Assembly." - nobody said it is and this is irrelevant - we don't ask how it's determined "who has membership in the UNGA", but "who is recognized as state by the international community". And I think you are opposed to the UN practice (even the UN doesn't claim that recognized as state by the international community are only UNGA members, on the contrary it says that UNGA is one of the 18 memberships that should be taken into account), because you wrongly mix these two. Alinor (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Alinor, you're going to have to do your own library work on those Danlaycock articles. They are long and the whole articles concern the issues surrounding the determination of what a list of sovereign states would look like. Most local libraries have interlibrary loan capabilities. Until you actually read them, however, your continued clarion call to treat the UN Office of Legal Affairs as a scholarly source rings hollow. --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC) If have already done that, why don't you just write a few quotes with the relevant content? Not to copy the whole source, just the most important parts. I don't understand how you propose that we use sources without knowing what their content is. Maybe you have seen these, but I haven't and that's why I asked you to extract the relevant content. Besides these offline sources don't you have any other useful source? If you have - please add it to the relevant list above. I don't say that UN OLA is a 'scholarly source' - I say that it's source on the official website of a very important international organization (you seem to agree about it's importance) and more reliable than random mass market maps, atlases, texts of journalists, bloggers, individual 'experts'/'scholars'/'scientists', etc. that are neither peer reviewed nor official. And I say that what is actually utilized in practice by many international organizations and treaties (showing the positions of governments and diplomatic corps around the world) is more important than common misconceptions repeated in mass market products and media. Another benefits of UN OLA source are that the criteria it gives can be easily verified both as exact wording and as resulting list of states and that UN OLA uses very similar wording to that of the status quo unsourced separation description (the topic of this discussion) - it can be applied as source for it with minimal changes to the article. That's because it deals exactly with the problem we try to solve - and not with something else like many of the other sources. So, it's the most WP:V and WP:RS of all solutions I have seen so far. Anyway, I suggest that we all keep in mind that the problem we have to solve is not to find criteria for who is a sovereign state (inclusion), but for who is recognized as state by the international community (sorting). Any sources for that? (other than the UN OLA already proposed) Alinor (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Proposed change The status quo article begins with: This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty. The list is divided into two parts. It is arranged alphabetically, and contains 203 entries, as of 2011: The internationally-recognized sovereign states section lists 193 states, consisting of all member states of the United Nations and Vatican City. The other states section lists 10 states which have de facto sovereignty or independence, but are not widely recognised diplomatically by other states. Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. For more information on the criteria used to determine the contents of this list, please see the "criteria for inclusion" section below. References I propose that we change it in the following way: This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty. The list as of 2011 contains 203 entries and is divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically: The "internationally-recognized sovereign states" section lists 193 states, which are considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" and at the same time have successfully invoked an "all States" treaty clause. The "other states" section lists 10 states which satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but are not widely recognised diplomatically as an independent sovereign state. Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. For more information on the criteria used to determine the contents of this list, please see the "criteria for inclusion" section below. References Discussion This proposal would not result in moving of any states between the status quo groups. By adopting it we simply replace the problematic wording of the status quo separation that lacks a separation criteria with wording that is supported by sources. Alinor (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Can we not have text along the lines of "invoked the all states treaty clause" because it's obscure legal writings which probably should be avoided on wikipedia. Any chance of instead of just naming the all states clause of something explaining it? The current lead is tiny, we've got plenty of space. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Agreed, per WP:JARGON. If the lead is being reconstructed, I'd also note that it's preferable to avoid directive phrases like "please see here" (as is done in the last sentence), since it mucks up prose. Nightw 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Night w, this sentence isn't changed by the proposal. This is a list, so I'm not so concerned about prose, but anyway, we can remove it and instead reword the sentence above the numbers as: The list as of 2011 contains 203 entries satisfying its criteria for inclusion and divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically: 1) ... 2) ... The list is compiled according to the criteria for inclusion and as of 2011 contains 203 entries divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically: 1) ... 2) ... Also, the sentence about "compiling such a list ..." can go right after the lead sentence. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis, we can reword it, move it to the footnote, or move the footnote to the text. What about a rewording: "... ratified an international treaty open only to "States".[note]" "... joined an international treaty as a "State".[note]"?. Alinor (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Proposed change ammendments Taking into account the above discussed issues I propose the following redaction: This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty. Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. The list is compiled according to the criteria for inclusion and as of 2011 contains 203 entries divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically: The "internationally-recognized sovereign states" section lists 193 states, which are considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" and at the same time have successfully joined an international treaty as a "State". The "other states" section lists 10 states which satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but are not widely recognised diplomatically as an independent sovereign state. References Discussion What do you think? Alinor (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Since list brings us to the same result as "UN+Vatican City", then I still think the simpler status quo wording, which is understandable by a third grader, is preferable to some long convoluted definition with multiple "if...then" clauses. --Taivo (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Is "recognized as States by the international community" a quote from something? The way it's been phrased would suggest that it's a direct quote. Nightw 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, the goal is not to get "different resulting list", but to have a real separation criteria - not a blanket statement "We, Wikipedia editors, decided that "internationally-recognized sovereign states" includes UN members+Vatican, no more and no less". Also, I don't see any "if...then" clauses, let alone concoluted and multiple - the change is small and also pretty easy to grasp - it says about section1: 'considered such by UNSG and joined a treaty'. Night w, yes, "recognized as States by the international community" is a quote from the UN OLA source about the UNSG practice - it's linked in the footnote, but if you want we can also place it right after the quote. Alinor (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, every one of those "is a X" and "is Y" or "is Z, but not Y" are "if...then" clauses. It's a rat's nest for people to try to work their way through. Saying "UN member + Vatican" is ever so much clearer, more understandable, and simpler. We're not here to write legal documentation, we're here to write things clearly so that everyone can understand. You've worked very, very hard to say "UN member + Vatican" without saying it, but the tortuous piling on of clauses to get there is the problem. And your "easy is grasp" is only your opinion of your work. Ask any 8th grader which is easier to grasp: your wording or "UN member + Vatican City". Here's a simple example of not writing common English: "have joined an international treaty". In standard English usage no one "joins" a treaty. You join the UN, you sign a treaty. And how do you "unsuccessfully" sign a treaty? Does the pen break without a replacement? That's an example of the legalese that will inhibit common understanding. --Taivo (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) There is no "is Z, but not Y" in the changes proposed here - if you refer to section2 description - the status quo has the same structure "is Z, but not Y" (here it's kept and slightly reworded). Saying "UN+Vatican" is a blanket statement by Wikipedians and not a separation criteria. That's why the only sure thing is that it can't remain. That's what this whole discussion is about. Not to change the list, not to move states around. Only about specifying the separation criteria used to arrange some states in section1 and others in section2. Using something "clearer, more understandable, and simpler" that actually is not a criteria is a "rat's nest" - it seems simple, but is unworkable and not informative. We can't use it, especially when it's not supported by sources and is just a blanket written by Wikipedians. So, this is not an option and there is no use comparing it to any actual criteria. I haven't worked hard to say "UN+Vatican" - I tried to formulate in brief form what the source describes in multiple sentences. Coincidently this doesn't require changes to status quo arrangement and only a simple rewording of the section1/2 description bullets is needed. "You join the UN, you sign a treaty." - actually this is not 100% correct, because some states 'accede' or 'accept' treaties without 'signing' them. Signing is usually limited to a short initial period - and not all who 'join' the treaty do it during that early period. In the initial variant of the proposal I used "invoked an "all States" treaty clause", but since it was considered obscure I changed it to more everyday language as "joined" (so that it covers Signature/Ratification/Acceptance/Accession/Succession). I won't object changing "joined" to "signed" or "participates" if others insist on that. We write an encyclopedia and not a text for 3th or 8th grade textbook. Some things are more complicated than others and not everything can be explained using the simplest everyday language. Alinor (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Hang on. If joining just one of the "Vienna organisations" (something quite Jargony) means that something goes in the top list, wouldn't that result in Kosovo making the top list? I can't see that going down well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, the Republic of Kosovo has joined IMF/WBG, but so far hasn't signed/acceded any treaty and the UNSG as depositary hasn't taken any decision about acceptance or non-acceptance of such act as State. See UN Treaty database. Somebody can speculate what such decision will be, should be and why, etc. but so far, more than 2 years since the RoK declaration of independence, there is none. So, the proposal here results in no change to the status quo sections, no move of Kosovo. We don't make any moves based on our own speculation - we wait for confirmation in practice. Alinor (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Also, please not that the proposal for section1 bullet description change doesn't use "Vienna formula" - it uses "... considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" ..." (that's the question we want to answer - section1 is called "internationally-recognized sovereign states") and 'Vienna formula' is only mentioned in the footnote explaining that - and actually since it's a list of organizations - they are also listed right after the Vienna formula link - no need to go to the article itself. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, if a consensus is reached in Wikipedia, then we can say whatever we want. And if that's "UN + Vatican City", then so be it. You are arguing solo here, so it's your responsibility to shift consensus in your direction. You say "considered by the UNSG"..., but what's the difference? We say "UN member + Vatican City". You are using the UNSG as a marker and we are using UN General Assembly membership as a marker. You are still arbitrarily selecting one criterion over another just because you don't like General Assembly membership as a criterion. --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, we can't just do things because WP:ILIKEIT. The status quo violates the WP:5P, so whether or not the majority of editors like it, it needs to go. If you can't verify it, it doesn't belong here. If you can find a RS which states that "All UN member states and the VC are widely recognized, and all other states are widely unrecognized", then by all means the status quo can stay. But to date you've yet to provide a single source to back up this position. And degree of difficulty isn't an excuse to do OR. If no RS explains this simply, then it's irresponsible for us to pretend that things are simple. No one is arguing that Quantum chromodynamics should be rewritten because an "8th grader" couldn't understand it. Sometimes life is complicated. We should strive to explain these complications, not sweep them under the rug so that children can understand the article. TDL (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC) No, Danlaycock, you haven't read the status quo properly. The status quo is "UN membership + Vatican City". It doesn't say anything about level of recognition in dividing the list. UN membership is quite easily verified. And Alinor's combination of factors is borderline OR itself. Indeed, unless we simply copy some list from X source and divide it as X source divides it (or not), then anything we do here is borderline OR. And Wikipedia should not be written on a PhD level. It must be written, as much as possible, on a level so that the majority of readers can understand it easily. That level is about 8th grade level. So when confronted with two statements that give the same result--Alinor's and the status quo--we should select the statement which gives the majority of readers the easiest time understanding. Indeed, the UN is the source for both Alinor's deferentiation and the status quo's. --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Perhaps we're reading different status quos? It seems pretty clear to me: "The internationally-recognized sovereign states section lists 193 states, consisting of all member states of the United Nations and Vatican City" and "The other states section lists 10 states which have de facto sovereignty or independence, but are not widely recognised diplomatically by other states." Where are the sources saying that the UN and VC are the only "internationally-recognized sovereign states" and everything else is "not widely recognised diplomatically by other states"? Of course UN membership is easily verified. No one disputes that, but that isn't the point, nor has it ever been. The OR is the implication that UN membership automatically makes a state "internationally recognized", and without UN membership a state is "not widely recognised diplomatically" (unless of course you happen to be the VC). Until you produce sources to support this claim, it's OR plain and simple. Please see WP:BURDEN. It's your responsibility to verify these claims if you want to keep them in the article. If you can't, then they need to be removed. I agree with you that ANY division of the list is borderline OR and takes a particular POV, hence why I've supported a single (possibly sortable) list. But of course there is a strong opposition to this since it doesn't agree with some editor's POV. I'm pretty confidant that it doesn't require a PhD to understand "This is a list of states which have signed a treaty". Note that I'm not a big fan of Alinor's current proposal, but it's an improvement over the status quo. If you don't like this proposal, then fine. But we need to move past the "The status quo is fine" arguments. It's not. It needs to be fixed. Why don't you suggest ways that this proposal could be improved, or better yet make your own proposal, as opposed to repeatedly dismissing the need to change the status quo? That line of argument isn't going to help produce a compromise. TDL (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Danlaycock, I don't recall that "strong opposition" to the single list you proposed above. I recall opposition to Alinor's continued push to use Vienna as a sorting criteria, but not the sortable single list as a whole once your option was proposed. I think that what happened was that your very clear proposal got overwhelmed by the multiple objectionable sandboxes that Alinor kept laying on. Perhaps if we went back and looked at your single list with its two sortable columns, without the static of multiple alternatives, we might get a better read on the single list option. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, there is no consensus for "UN+Vatican", actually the reason we have this discussion is that "UN+Vatican" contradicts Wikipedia policy - as said above it's a blanket statement by editors, "I like it", not sourced, not a criteria - but a directive result, etc. And the status quo "UN+Vatican" is not "we are using UN General Assembly membership as a marker" as you claim - UNGA is mentioned nowhere in the status quo (and rightfully so, as explained above). Maybe you assume that "UN+Vatican" is somehow related to UNGA - but this isn't written in the article. I'm not selecting "one criterion over another" - I'm proposing one criteria and the status quo doesn't have any criteria - that's the problem. In fact, I'm proposing a criteria that preserves the status quo. Alinor (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, my proposal - actually for a very small change - just a rewording of the bullets describing the sections, so that a sourced criteria is provided for this division - this proposal uses a direct quote from a reliable source. And doesn't change the resulting arrangement of states. And I don't think a PhD is needed to understand it - I don't have a PhD, do you? As explained the status quo doesn't have a criteria - so my proposal is to add a criteria to the status quo. So, the status quo can't remain - one way or another it will be changed - either by adding some criteria (the one I proposed or another one) or by removing the arbitrary separation by blanket statement - thus resulting in a single list where Somaliland is presented in the same way as France (this obviously is unacceptable, but at least is based on a criteria - the inclusion criteria. Obviously such 'no separation' arrangement wouldn't last too long, because many editors would object it - and hopefully they will come up with a separation criteria). You again mention "UN membership" as if it's the status quo separation criteria. It isn't - as you see section1 includes non-members of the UN - the Vatican City. Alinor (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) TDL, I agree that my proposal is not a perfect or ultimate solution. Actually, it's biggest advantage is that it consist of a minimal change to the status quo - addition of criteria in section1 description. I propose that we implement it, as least controversial short term solution to the major status quo problem - lack of any separation criteria. Subsequently better criteria/arrangement and bigger changes to the whole article can be discussed. Alinor (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, I mentioned multiple issues with the Sandbox3 that you refer to. It's not "Alinor pushing for Vienna" (whether I actually do so is one thing, but you haven't provided any source in the lists of sources above and you haven't given any source answering the question "who is recognized as state by the international community"). And as I said above to TDL - we can discuss bigger changes to the article, but since they are more complicated and controversial - let's correct what we can with the minimal addition I propose here - and then continue the discussion about big changes. Alinor (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) In case you haven't noticed, Alinor, all your paragraphs of verbiage generally go unread by most of the editors involved here. And, yes, I actually do have a PhD. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) As do I (almost anyways) so maybe I'm just incapable of thinking like an 8th grader anymore, but I really don't see how using treaty signatories is all that complicated. Afterall, UN membership is just a name for those states which have signed the United Nations Charter, so it's really no more complicated than what you propose. @Alinor: I agree that this is an imporvement over the status quo. I'd support it as an interm solution if you could get a consensus behind it. However, that doesn't appear likely to happen at the moment. TDL (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, others around here don't have PhDs and don't have problem understanding it. So, obviously it's not so complicated that a PhD is required. TDL, the only editor who voices opposition is Taivo and the reasons he uses are "3th and 8th grade wouldn't get it" (others disagree with this) and "I like the status quo more - even while it doesn't have a criteria, but a blanket statement" (this obviously isn't an option at all). If there are no other objections I suggest that we implement this interim solution. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) No, Alinor, I am not the only one who objects right now. I am the only one writing yesterday and today, but, if you look above, there are still others who object. Just because they don't write in response to every single one of your posts doesn't mean their objections have ceased. --Taivo (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) The others have raised some issues with the initial variant and asked a question and I think that the issues have been addressed in the revised variant and the question has been answered. You are the only one still objecting. Alinor (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Sandbox 3 (again) Danlaycock, can you summarize what the objections were to your single sortable list proposal? --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I tried to summarize all the the concerns voiced about my single sortable list here. Personally, I don't see any of these issues as being all that serious, and I'd be willing to compromise on all of them to get a final solution. However, it didn't seem to lead to much discussion. Maybe this is just because people aren't that concerned with these minor issues? Also, there's the "no single list under any circumstances" crowd which voiced their position here. It seems unlikely that they'd ever support this proposal under any circumstances due to alleged POV concerns. TDL (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Although not part of the crowd, I do feel that a single list would be POV, however I also would be quite willing to compromise if somehow the distinctions are made clear (sorting preferably, bolding maybe). However, I don't see how highlighting them a different way would assuage Alinor's long list of concerns. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, it would be hard to simultaneously address these issues, the single-list-is-POV concerns and all other issues that get involved (such as moving/adding particular states, etc.) That's why I suggest that we implement the limited addition proposal now and continue working on the comprehensive overhaul of the whole list. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Danlaycock, it's been a long time since that initial question on a single sortable list. That question was also being asked in the middle of a whole bunch of other questions and it may have gotten lost in the shuffle of trying to respond to everything. I'd like to get a new perspective from everyone involved on the single list question again. Since seeing your proposal, I've changed my position, for example. --Taivo (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC) And the issues identified in the 08:03, 14 March 2011 comment should also be addressed - for proposals see Sandbox4, 5 and 6. Alinor (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Well I'm certainly willing to discuss it further. I'll repost the issues to be decided below to try and restart the discussion. @Chipmunk - I'm not opposed to using bolding/colours/asterisks/notes/sorting to address the POV concerns. I think this is certainly a reasonable compromise without having a rigidly divided list. TDL (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Issues So I've tweaked my previous proposal based on the responses I've received. The latest version is found here. I've bolded UN members and italicized states with no UN affiliation to further differentiate the states. The concerns raised previously here are: The "Disputes" column: Do we need it? What should the column title be? What should the wording of the footnote be? How do we deal with Palestine, which isn't claimed by anyone? The categories: Do we need a separate colour/category for UN Observers, or should they be lumped together with the other agency members? Colouring: Should the entire row be coloured, or just the cell under the heading that determines the colour? Should UN members remain uncoloured, with just the remaining states be coloured to prevent colour overload? When this was last discussed, it seemed that we generally agreed on keeping a separate disputes column for sorting, and labeling Palestine "Occupied by Israel". What other concerns do people have? TDL (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I like this approach. We can haggle over colors, but I don't think that more than two sortable columns are necessary. Either "Disputes" or "Sovereignty Disputes" works for me as that second column label. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC) TDL, yes there are more issues, see 09:31, 28 February 2011 comment. Problematic are also the "UN affiliation" heading; coloring criteria that duplicates column criteria - different separation methods should not use the same criteria. Generally Sandbox3 is too much UN-leaning ("statehood/international recognition = UN membership" POV, common misconception, not supported by sources) and has too many colors. Alinor (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) How can you possibly object to the UN affiliation column when you, yourself, use the UN Secretary General as your sorting criterion? Personally, I'd like to hear from anyone BESIDES Alinor on this. We know that he'll object to anything that he didn't propose. --Taivo (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I don't object the column - I object its heading - see 09:31, 28 February 2011 comment. Also, what I proposed is not "use UNSG", but "use a source that answers the question which entities are widely recognized as states by the international community?, and not just any random source, but the official UN OLA summary of UNSG practice as depositary of multilateral treaties". Also, it's very strange to accuse me of objectionism - I have supported all sensible ideas - including the idea to have a single sortable list with multiple columns allowing for flexible sorting criteria. IMHO I have made multiple attempts to contribute to these proposals, to correct any problems so that consensus is reached. The same is with the limited addition proposal - seeing that we were stuck I proposed something different - a limited addition/change - so that we preserve as much of the status quo as possible. Then I implemented improvements to the initial variant - as requested by others, who had reasonable concerns. If there is somebody that throws objections easily and indiscriminately - it's you who use reasoning akin to "I don't like it". Alinor (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I would like to hear comments besides Alinor here on the single sortable list proposed by Danlaycock/TDL. --Taivo (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone. I realize I'm not an official participant in this discussion but I was involved in this dispute a while ago and I thought I'd weigh in now. Hope that's okay. I've looked around a bit and it seems like there are a few different answers that most commonly given to the question "how many sovereign states there are in the world?" Broadly speaking they are: 192 (UN Members) 193 (192 + Vatican) 194 (192 + Vatican + Kosovo OR 192 + Vatican + Taiwan) 195 (192 + Vatican + Kosovo + Taiwan) 203 (The whole shebang) The current version of the page also introduces 200 (recognized by a UN member) and 202 (recognized by any other state). It seems to me like the problem here is that there are too many different possible answers and they're all more or less equally valid and citeable. If you were to choose one then you would be giving it undue weight over all the others. And since there's no answer that's clearly "the best", the decision would ultimately come down to the personal preferences of the handful of editors involved in this discussion. Given all that, I can really only see two possible ways of formatting the page and still staying in line with WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR. 1) Split the list into "UN Members" and "Non-UN Members". It's true that not all states recognize all UN Members, but in terms of secondary sources there's pretty much universal agreement that the 192 UN members are sovereign states. In the second section you would list the 11 non-member states in alphabetical order and directly explain why some sources consider them sovereign and other sources don't, with citations and all that good stuff. Stuff about "level of recognition" or whatever would be absent from the sorting criteria. And I want to stress that this wouldn't be deciding that UN Membership is "THE sorting criteria", but rather starting from a point of agreement and then explaining where the disputes are. 2) Use a single sortable list. TDL's proposal of using one column to distinguish between UN Members, General Assembly Observers, Specialized Agency members, and non-members seems like a really sensible solution. I would tweak it by only putting the colouring in a single cell, like they do on List of Prime Ministers of Canada or List of Presidents of the United States. It might also be worth trying to incorporate the classification from List of states with limited recognition somehow. Oh and I don't really think you need the italics if you have the UN column and the colour right there in the list, but that's just me. In my humble opinion, either of those solutions would be neutral and fairly represent all points of view. They would also be verifiable and easy to maintain. And you have a much better chance of forming a consensus around a method that embraces multiple points of view than you do with any single sorting method. In any case, I wish you all the best and hope you find a resolution to this soon. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "I realize I'm not an official participant in this discussion" Anyone is free to join. Ladril (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "It might also be worth trying to incorporate the classification from List of states with limited recognition somehow. " I also proposed this at some point, but for some reason users who give much relevance to diplomatic recognition don't want to see it on this list. Ladril (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC) The question is not "how many sovereign states there are in the world?" - we already have an answer to that - the inclusion criteria. The question we discuss is which entities are widely recognized as states by the international community? Answering this with "UN members" is POVed and not supported by sources. The List of states with limited recognition basically uses "UN members" (and further subdividing the rest again according to recognitions by UN members), so it's the same. Using a single sortable list is possible - if the issues identified above are efficiently resolved. Alinor (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC) We have AN answer to the question of how many states there are, but it's only one of many possible answers. And outside of wikipedia it's pretty a uncommon one at that. Most sources prefer an answer in the 190s. Whatever form this page takes, we need to embrace the fact that there are multiple points of view on that question. As for wide recognition, that's only the question if we choose to make it the criteria by which we divide the page. There's nothing that says we have to divide the page in that way. If you're splitting the page into UN members vs. non-members without saying that you're splitting the list based on recognition then there's no problem at all. There's nothing POV about saying "these states are members of the UN" or "these states are not members of the UN" as long as you're not implying that UN membership means anything more than UN membership. It's a very convenient, widely used, and verifiable way of classifying states. And finally some of your objections to the Sandbox3 list don't seem to be actual problems. The thing with the colours duplicating the column happens all over wikipedia. See List of Chancellors of Germany for example. If anything you're not supposed to use colours without duplicating that information somewhere or else you'll make trouble for visually impaired readers. And if the label "UN Affiliation" is problematic for you then how about something along the lines of "Level of participation in the UN System"? That would effectively encompass members, observers, members of specialized agencies, and ICJ/IAEA members. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Also mixing multiple sorting criteria in one column is another thing that's widely done on Wikipedia without much of a problem. See States and territories of Australia, where there's one column which distinguishes External Territories from Internal Territories from States. Or List of parties to the Genocide Convention, where one column distinguishes states which acceded to the treaty from states that ratified the treaty from states that automatically became a party to the treaty when they became independent. Seems to me like having one column for UN Members, UN Observers, and Specialized Agency members wouldn't pose that much of a problem. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC) The inclusion criteria may be or not be what's commonly found elsewhere - but let's not complicate the discussion more than it already is by going into inclusion criteria. Let's focus on the sorting criteria. I don't agree replacing "international recognition" with "UN membership". Splitting the page into "UN vs non-UN" is exactly the "UN membership POV" that should be avoided - and that's avoided in most international treaties and organizations. Even the UNSG doesn't use "UN membership POV". Using the same sorting criteria in two separation methods (columns + colors) is like "endorsement" of this particular sorting criteria. The advantage of single sortable list with multiple separation methods is that we can use multiple separation criteria without having to choose/endorse any one of them. Otherwise the single sortable list is unacceptable (some object it even in its less-controversial variants). The examples that you give are different, because there is not "dispute" there over what sorting criteria should be used. "UN Affiliation" is problematic, again because of the "UN membership POV" - the meaning of Vienna formula is to show non-UN affiliation, so it's the opposite. I suggest using "UN membership" (yes/no) column + coloring according to Vienna - or Vienna column + UN membership coloring. Also, keep in mind that not all of the Vienna formula organizations are "specialized agencies" - the UN, ICJ and IAEA aren't such. And mentioning UN observership - an unofficial practice (see 21:04, 18 February 2011) - is problematic in itself. Alinor (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Anyway, soon it will be 1 year going into this dispute - MEDCOM, MEDCAB, etc. - so I suggest that at least we do what we can right now - the #Limited addition proposal - to add a sorting criteria to status quo section bullets, so that the article can be in a better shape during the discussion for the bigger overhaul with the single sortable list, where the bigger changes have to come trough lengthier discussion. Alinor (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Okay so a few points here: Again, you can't really use colour on its own due to accessibility issues (people with screen readers and the like). It's not a matter of "endorsing" one thing over another, it's a matter of ensuring that visual information is also conveyed in a non-visual way. It's the same reason flagicons always have to be accompanied by country names. I don't see any practical difference between your proposal of a single column and TDL's proposal single column. Right? In your column you would have three possible combinations: "UN Member Yes + Vienna colour", "UN Member No + Vienna colour", or "UN Member No + Non-vienna colour". If you express those three categories in words (as TDL does) that's effectively the same thing. Would your concerns be alleviated if the colour was only confined to the column it corresponded to? Like so? Being an observer state is an official status. See here: [14]. Vienna states aren't unaffiliated with the United Nations, they just aren't member states. All the Vienna organizations, including the ICJ and the IAEA are part of the United Nations system. But again if the word "affiliation" is what's problematic we can just use a different phrasing. The problem of the ICJ not being a specialized agency is kind of moot, since there's no state right now which is a party to the statute of the ICJ without being in a specialized agency. In the event that such a state comes into existence, we can just put "Party to the statute of the International Court of Justice" in its UN column. Easy. Finally, UN membership isn't a "POV", it's a verifiable factual description. Either a state is a member of the United Nations or it isn't. Saying something like "Only UN states are widely recognized" is POV. Saying "These states are members of the United Naitons" is not. Just because the member vs. non-member classification isn't used for treaties doesn't make it an invalid for all other purposes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Welcome back to the discussion Orange. I agree with everything that you've said. The issue with the status quo isn't the fact that it relies on UN membership to sort the states. The problem is the claim that all UN members are "internationally-recognized", and every other state (except the VC for some unspecified reason) are not "not widely recognised diplomatically". If we wanted to go to a strict UN member/non-member division that would be acceptable, as long as we didn't try to claim that these were the only "widely recognized" states. And as for Alinor's arguments about Colour, Orange is correct. WP:COLOUR: "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information." So you can't use one criteria to colour and another in the column. All information must be evident without the use of colour. The colouring is only to highlight important information. Orange's sandbox is one way to eliminate the perception of a preference for one sorting criteria over the other. (I suggested this option in my list of issues at the top of this section). However, there are other editors who want the distinction between UN members and everyone else to be very visible so I'm not sure if they would support this. TDL (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC) It's possible to have the colour draw the eye at a glance without having it take over the entire row by doing something like this: Talk:List of sovereign states/Sandbox3d. Hopefully we can all agree that within the context of a single sortable list the UN status should be clear without appearing to be the only important factor. And as long as we all assume good faith on that front then it's just a matter of tweaking the layout until we find the right way to convey that information. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC) I don't object if Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna-non-UN is expressed by text in a column, but I disagree with labeling the column "UN affiliation" or "UN system" - as explained in the source Vienna formula was conceived exactly in order to avoid UN affiliation as criteria.[15] "Vienna states aren't unaffiliated with the United Nations, they just aren't member states." - no, most of the Vienna states are UN members(clearly UN affiliation) - the UN is one of the Vienna formula organizations. Also, the "specialized agencies" label doesn't include UN, ICJ and IAEA - that's the issue - not whether there are states members of specialized agencies, but not of UN/ICJ/IAEA. Sandbox3c is also overloaded by colors. If we are not going to use color separately from column (e.g. to use different sorting criteria for the two separation methods), this doesn't mean that we have to color each column with different color for each text resulting in 6-7 colors. Coloring is useful if it's applied to rows, not to individual cells. Instead, we aways can go without coloring, if needed. Sandbox3d duplicates one of the column colors in front of each row and so implies that this column criteria is the "prime" criteria - so this problem isn't solved. "UN observership" is something unofficial/ad-hoc - "The status of a Permanent Observer is based purely on practice, and there are no provisions for it in the United Nations Charter."[16] - see the discussions prior to MEDCAB for more. "Only UN states are widely recognized" is POV - yes, that's we need to avoid. On the other hand we should not avoid the question "which entities are recognized as states by the international community?", since it's central to the topic of the article - it should be addressed somewhere (in text/footnote, as criteria or somewhere else). What do you think of #Sandbox4 - with or without the coloring (and with last column heading changed to simply "dispute", without adjective like in Sandbox3 and with a footnote)? Alinor (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, you're doing it again--throwing out your options before we have fully discussed Danlaycock's proposal and seeing what we can do to fix it. Everyone, please let us finish discussing Danlaycock's proposal and seeing if there are consensus problems with it and if it can be made workable. If not, then we can move on to discuss Alinor's proposals. This, Alinor, is what muddying the waters means--throwing out your sandboxes without us fully having come to a point of finishing with Danlaycock's sandbox. I don't have any problem with "UN Affiliation" or "UN System" as a label for the column in question. That's exactly what we're marking there--UN membership, observer status, or participation in a UN organization/treaty. It would be mildly disingenuous to label it something else just because Alinor doesn't like the UN. Everything in that column revolves around the UN. It is the plain meaning that most readers will perfectly understand--"How does this entity relate to the UN, the single universally recognizable organization that deals with states as states?" I don't think there's too much color at this point. The point of the color is to highlight information that is replicated in the text, not replace information in the text, but I'm not entrenched in any particular color combination. --Taivo (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, the ICJ and the IAEA are part of the United Nations System, which is a different thing from "the United Nations". In that sense, it is literally impossible to be a Vienna state without somehow participating in the United Nations system. And anyway, there are currently no states which only participate in the ICJ or IAEA so even if this was a problem it would only be a theoretical one for the future. Nothing in that source says observer status is unofficial, it just says it isn't provided for in the UN Charter. Permanent observer states have to apply for and be granted that status, and once they have it they are recognized as such within the United Nations. That's official. (To use an example from elsewhere, there's no provision for the position of "Deputy Prime Minister of Canada" anywhere in the Canadian Constitution, but that is still an official position that a minister can have.) And I would say whether or not it's official is slightly besides the point anyway. The real question is: is it verifiable? And the answer to that question is clearly yes. You say having that little column of colour at the start of the row implies primacy of that criteria, but that's just a matter of personal interpretation on your part. Someone could just as easily say that alphabetical order is the "prime" criteria since that's what how the list is sorted by default. List of Prime Ministers of Canada has a similar column of colour, but the defining criteria there is obviously numerical order. Anyway, the whole point of having the colour in there is just to help more visually oriented readers who find a big table difficult to process at a glance Most importantly, we're not playing "whose criteria gets the top spot" here, we're just trying to find a way to include everything. That's the entire point of a sortable list. It is impossible to have a list where something isn't "first" depending on how you read it, and if we get hung up on that level of micro we're never going to be able to come to a consensus. I agree with Taivo on sticking with Sandbox3 for the time being. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Here's a possible compromise solution for the observer question. How about we change Vatican's label to say it's an observer state AND a member of a specialized agency AND a member of the IAEA? That way we establish that it satisfies Vienna criteria but also clearly indiciate that it differs from the other Vienna state (Kosovo). Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, stop your "muddying the waters" accusations - Sandbox4 and Sandbox3 are almost the same - I just pointed to Sandbox4 instead of describing with words the subtle differences between these two. Should I post it as Sandbox3x in order this to be more clear to you? You're the one "muddying the waters" by broadening the scope of the discussion and making consensus less likely. "the UN, the single universally recognizable organization that deals with states as states?" - that exactly what the sources disprove. Should I give you quotes again? Alinor (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Orange Tuesday, yes, it's impossible to be Vienna state without being member of a UN System organization, but if we use "UN system" as column then the cells should take into account all UN System memberships, which they don't do in Sandbox3d. I don't think that it's practicable to do that. UN observership - if we start taking into account observerships it will get very complicated, because Vienna organizations also have observers. Many things are verifiable - but the question is which of these should be displayed in the column. I see no need to show such ad-hoc measure like UN observership - the column has too many options even without it. Alphabetic sort is the natural sort of any list. And of course adding numbers to a list gives it entirely different nature (1st prime minister, 2nd prime minister). If we had some central place "granting statehood" we could use the dates when each state got its statehood and arrange them by numbers - but as you can see by the discussions on Wikipedia pages about "List of countries by date of establishment" any ordering-by-time would be practically impossible to agree on. Yes, we're not playing "whose criteria gets the top spot", that's why no criteria should be used twice. Vatican differs from Kosovo in the fact that Kosovo is member of a Vienna organization, but so far (2 years after independence) its "status as State" hasn't been "checked" by applying the Vienna formula to it - Kosovo hasn't acceded/signed/ratified any treaty that requires the UNSG or another depositary to check whether it's "recognized as State by the international community". Somebody can only speculate what the result will be. Putting in one cell "observer AND specialized agency AND IAEA" seems impractical and distracting. It seems both of us perceive this column differently. If the column is "just showing who is UN member, not implying that those are the ones recognized as States by the international community", then there is not need to display there anything else than a simple yes/no for UN membership. If the column is to be utilized as something more, thus implying the 'degree of recognition as State by the international community', then we should stick to the sources and the column should have options such as Vienna+Treaty(UN+VC)/Vienna and no Treaty(Kosovo)/No Vienna and no Treaty(9others). Alinor (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox3e

Extended content

Okay I don't want to overload this discussion with words but how would people feel about something like this? This is basically the same as 3d with a few changes to address some of Alinor's concerns: Vatican's UN column includes information on the specialized agencies and the IAEA (i.e. Vienna status) in addition to the observer status. The number of colours has been reduced to four to reduce "colour overload": Blue for UN members, Yellow for Vatican, Green for Kosovo, and Red for disputed states. Everything else is just blank white. Also, those section dividers are gone. They looked nice in ascending order but in descending order they got all messed up. I think the colour makes the groups distinct enough to not need dividers, but if someone knows how to get them working in descending sort I'd be totally fine with having them in. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Looks good. Only minor issue I see is that some of the UN cells seem a bit crowded. Maybe we could introduce some acronyms (UN SA), or perhaps just compress the "Information" column a bit since most states have lots of whitespace there. Just a suggestion. I should be able to make the section dividers sort properly. I'm not opposed to dropping them, if people feel that the colours are sufficient. I'll take a look at it. TDL (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC) One way to save a few characters could be to name the specific specialized agencies instead of talking about them generally. So Kosovo would be "Member of IMF and WBG" and Vatican would be "UN observer state, member of ITU, UPU, WIPO, and IAEA". I don't know if that gets a bit too jargony though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Support Orange Tuesday proposal in general. Open to tweaks to address Alinor's concerns. Ladril (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC) FYI, Sandbox3 now has properly sorting dividers both in ascending and descending order. (The only way I could come up with to do this is kind of a wiki-coding mess, but we can always move it into a template or something to clean it up). The only trick is that if you sort the UN column, then you need to sort the alphabetical column first before sorting the disputes column. Otherwise, the dividers don't sort properly. TDL (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I know I'm out of synchronization with the current stage of the discussion, but I would like to make a pronouncement on why I think a new sorting proposal is sorely needed. Taivo states that the current sorting is good because it puts UN members and undisputed states in one category, and non-UN disputed states in the other. That's true if you are speaking about recent years, but it doesn't apply to earlier years. We should be looking for a solution that spans the whole Wikipedia project (including the lists of sovereign states in previous decades, see for example [17]). If the categories were as Taivo says, then the list of sovereign states in 1990 would have to have the two Koreas in the 'other states section', together with Taiwan and Palestine. This is because they were not UN members at the time and they are disputed. Would you find such a solution correct? I wouldn't. This is why we need categories that are clearer than those we are currently using. Despite what some users claim, there is no hidden agenda here besides improvement of the encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I would caution against trying to go one size fits all for the historical lists. The main list of sovereign states is a snapshot of how the world is at a single point in time (i.e. the present day). Each one of those historical lists is a picture of an entire decade's worth of evolution. Introducing even a single binary category to a list like that presents a lot of logistical problems, to say nothing of the complex categories we're currently considering here. And of course, the world is constantly changing. Something that makes perfect sense here in the year 2011 might be wildly anachronistic for the 1950s. There's always room for improvement on those pages, for sure, but they should be considered on their own. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Your caution is valid. However, you'll also agree that all those pages are a mess, and that is mainly because of a lack of project-wide standards for state inclusion and classification. Since apparently we're the subgroup of users most interested in sorting issues, we should strive to do something that, if possible, will inspire the other pages to do better. The idea I am trying to convey is not "let's adopt a solution for all the historical lists NOW", but rather, "here is yet another, long-term reason why the current status quo is not as good as some users think it is". Ladril (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I don't think the status quo will survive this process. I personally like Danlaycock's Sandbox 3 proposal that we're tweaking here. But I also agree that while our solution here may work in a broad outline for the past, I'm not going to base my consideration of this list on how well or poorly it works for the past. The past is the past and to apply modern considerations on the past is not necessarily beneficial in my view. --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The current TDL proposal seems to be approaching consensus, so the debate on whether what we're doing now will work for historical lists is better left for later. On that I can agree. It would be naive, however, to assume it won't have repercussions on other pages. It's also naive to think there won't be any sort of backlash from users who work on other, related pages (such as the historical lists already mentioned). This is why I am arguing that it's best to have a clear, consensual idea of the reasons for doing it. It's not just a compromise for the sake of it. There is a rationale for wanting to change from the current list organization. Ladril (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC) There are basically no editors who regularly work on those historical pages, so I wouldn't worry about backlash on that front. I'm pretty much the sole editor for most of the decade pages and I don't even have them bookmarked any more. As long as we're thoughtful with our changes and we recognize that all these different pages all have slightly different needs, I don't think there's going to be a problem. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC) One reason to mention the historical pages is that several of them apply the "Internationally recognized/Other states" formula. Soomer or later, this change is going to impact on them. I'm trying to make the point that moving away from the current paradigm will also improve the historical pages. But let's leave this aside for the moment. Ladril (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I expressed my concerns at 07:05, 16 April 2011 - before reaching the new sandbox. I will repeat some of these here: Dispute column - maybe I missed it somewhere above, but have we agreed on footnote text describing what kind of disputes are mentioned in this column? Coloring. If we are going to use it at all (using it "amplifies" one of the criteria, thus reduces the advantage of "impartiality" of the single sortable list and "forces" our selection at the readers. This wouldn't been an issue if coloring uses a criteria not replicating any of the columns), then IMHO we should 1) use the neutral color for the most common type of entries (otherwise we will get a blue page) and 2) color the entire row instead of cell-by-cell or cell-in front+cell behind, etc. Most of the "UN-whatever" and "dispute" cells will be the same, so the "special cases" will stand out among the "common cases" and will be easily distinguishable/recognizable even without coloring. "UN system" column. Sandbox3e cells doesn't match the heading - the Vatican participates in other UN system initiatives besides the UN/specialized agencies/IAEA and the UN members participate in other UN system initiatives besides the UN Organization. Also, if we are going to mention the number of "specialized agencies memberships" this should be for all and not only for some of the entries (there are some UN members with only a small number of participations). We need to agree whether this column is to "simply show who is UN member" or it's there to show 'degree of recognition as State by the international community'. These two are mutually exclusive. So, which one is it? (depending on the answer some issues may be addressed while others raised) Alinor (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I'm still not keen on the idea of a single list. Unless the default order was arranged according to the Constitutive theory (rather than alphabetically), it gives too much weight to entries that would commonly be omitted from such a list published in reliable sources. I've yet to see a reliable source that puts Somaliland right after Somalia in a list of countries. The myriad colours are distracting; reducing the number of colours used might help (i.e., 2 cats rather than 4). The "disputes" column is ripe for complications. Is it necessary? Nightw 08:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The format looks okay, but like Nightw I am not happy with a straight alphabetical list, and have not seen that anywhere else. Additionally, to reduce colour clutter, I suggest that the category with the largest number of states (ie UN member) is left uncoloured, while Abkhazia etc. are coloured instead. The disputes column I believe we never came to a conclusion on in debate before; judging by the presentation is is about when one state claims the other is not an independent state, in which case it is better labelled sovereignty dispute or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 1. "I am not happy with a straight alphabetical list, and have not seen that anywhere else". See Somalia and Somaliland together in the German Wikipedia here [[18]]. That page, BTW, has featured list status. Does it really look that sucky? The italics seem to work well to distinguish a state from a de facto state. 2. "...it is better labelled sovereignty dispute or something similar". I also agree with this position. "Sovereignty disputes" seems like a better heading. Ladril (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC) By anywhere else I meant WP:RS, and unlike the German one the current sandbox has no italics or anything. I'd be willing to accept italics as a compromise at this point... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) To be fair, you have not seen the "Other states" section, or the List of states with limited recognition anywhere else either. The issue at hand is that Wikipedia is producing the most comprehensive list of states available anywhere, and that's something to be proud, not afraid, of. And I'm also willing to accept the italics if that makes users feel better for the moment. Ladril (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I haven't seen the exact structure and list we have, but a Freedom house report for example has a disputed territory list, similar to ours but including both halves of Kashmir and Tibet and without Taiwan and Kosovo (which are located in the main list) and dividing Palestine. Hopefully then we can compromise on Italics then. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I'm aware of several other lists of de facto states as well (all of them, however, incomplete in some way or mixed with other things that are not states). The point stands that, to my knowledge, no one else has the same exact list we have here. That's no reason to stop producing the best list we can, even if that requires a piecemeal approach based on reliable sources. Ladril (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC) @Night: I'm willing to consider alternate default sort orders. (Not sure if others are, but it's not a big deal to me.) See some of the newer sandboxes (such as Sandbox3f) for a less colourful version with 3 cats instead of 4. If you have a suggestion of a way to divide the states into 2 cats that everyone would be OK with, I'd be happy to hear it. But after years of this debate, no such categorization has been found hence the need for 3-4 cats. The disputes column is at the request of Taivo. I could live without it, but I'm not opposed to including it. TDL (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC) NightW, I think the purpose of the alphabetical sort isn't to replicate what would be in a typical source (that wouldn't really be possible anyway since there's no single list that all or most sources agree on) but rather to look at all the sources and then list all the things they consider states in a neutral way. So it's not "this is a verifiable list of sovereign states which we took from a reliable source" but rather "this is a list of states which we can verify as being sovereign in a reliable source." I think either of those approaches can be in line with WP:V and WP:NOR provided everything is worded correctly. But I think this illustrates what I was saying earlier. Alinor looks at this list and says that UN Membership is being overemphasized as the main criteria, while you look at this list and say that alphabetical order is being overemphasized as the main criteria. This suggests to me 1) That the list is at least somewhat balanced between these two approaches and 2) We could never really make a list which assuages all of everyone's concerns on this front anyway. At some point a list has to appear on this page in some kind of initial order, and that order is going to correspond to some people's idea of how the list should look more than it does others'. So rather than going back and forth about whose criteria gets "top billing" let's just try to work towards a single system where multiple different points of view are embraced and presented fairly. Chipmunkdavis, my understanding of the disputes section is that it's for when another state asserts sovereignty over the state in question. The states with an entry in that column would be Abkhazia, China, the Koreas, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, and Transnistria. Depending on how the criteria is worded, Israel and Cyprus might also qualify. Alinor, the UN whatever column isn't about "degree of recognition by the international community"; that's far too complicated to explain in a single binary column. Nor is it just about showing who is a UN member and who isn't. Rather it's about getting at something which approximates the Vienna criteria for an audience that isn't as well versed in the jargon as we are. So we have states that are UN members, states which are not UN members but still participate in the UN System through membership in a specialized agency or the ICJ/IAEA, and states which don't have any UN-related membership at all. How specifically we word each of the entries is tweakable, but the important thing is coming to an agreement in principle on what those categories should be. In the same way, the heading of that column doesn't have to be "UN Affiliation" or "UN Participation" or anything else. But it would be really helpful if you were to suggest a label that you might find acceptable to describe what we're getting at in this column. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Disputes column - the tricky states here are: Armenia, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine - would you add these to the sandbox (you can see my proposal on these in Sandbox4/5/6)? This is related to the column heading - "sovereignty dispute", "major dispute", "dispute" and potential footnote about it. Arbitrary speaking there are three groups: UN+VC/Taiwan+Palestine+Kosovo (the "important ones" - commonly mentioned in various sources all over the world as state or something-like-a-state)/other7 (those are mentioned as state or something-like-a-state less often and mostly in more focused sources - such from/about their regions or from states that recognize them). Of course I don't see how we can replicate this 3-degree arrangement in a WP:V and WP:RS non-arbitrary/blanket statement way. UN whatever column - if it's "something which approximates the Vienna criteria", then it's about answering the question "who is recognized as state by the international community". That is group1 (UN+VC) from above or "wide recognition/regular states" vs. "the rest/limited recognition/other10" (notable3+other7). The cornerstone of both Vienna formula and group1/regular states commonality is that it's not related to UN membership, but to a more diverse group of notable international organizations (notability is not arbitrary selected, but based on sources - UNSG and international treaties) - that's why headings such as "UN affiliation/system" kind of defy the purpose of the column (if it's not "only about who is UN member"). If we are going to have such "recognized as state by the international community" column it has to be based on the answer we have in the sources (see here). Your question for heading suggestion is valid, but not an easy one, but I will try. Column heading suggestions (resulting in yes/no cells - yes for UN+VC, no for other10): International community recognition[footnote] UNSG recognition[footnote] Acceptance by the UNSG[footnote] I know that these are not perfect, but the correct wording 'considered by the UNSG to be recognized as States by the international community' can be given in the footnote. On the other hand, "International community recognition" can be also utilized for creating a UN+VC/Kosovo/other9 arrangement with cells "Member of UN or Vienna organizations, joined UNSG deposited treaty", "Member of UN or Vienna organizations, but not party to a UNSG deposited treaty", "Not member of the UN and other Vienna organizations, not party to a UNSG deposited treaty" - but such arrangement requires bigger "decision" on our own - we have to single out Kosovo from the other9 (and more importantly from Taiwan and Palestine) ourselves. In addition it's more complicated than the simple "yes/no". Still, if the column is not there to answer the question "who is recognized as state by the international community", then we can use simple "UN membership" with yes/no. Then we will provide the source and answer to this question elsewhere. Alinor (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

3f

Extended content

To address some of the concerns above, I've done another pass here: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3f. Two changes: This one does a slightly different tack to the UN column, you guys can tell me if I'm going in the right direction. Now the column has three categories: 1) Member-states, 2) Non-member states, and 3) Non-member states with a caveat. Vatican's caveats are its observership, and its membership in UPU, ITU, WIPO, and IAEA. Kosovo's caveat is its membership in IMF and WBG. The rationale behind this is not "let's list everyone's specialized agency membership" but rather "Let's indicate that two non-member states are distinct from the others by virtue of membership in some UN-related organization/agency/whatever". The new label of the column is "UN Membership" but with a footnote which says: "This column indicates whether or not a state is a member of the United Nations. It also indicates which non-member states participate in the United Nations System through membership in the International Court of Justice, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations." As always I am open to changing the label of the column, the wording of the footnote, or the wording of any particular entry. The colours have been altered. There are now only three, and they show up less often. UN member states are plain white, non-member states are yellow, Kosovo/Vatican are green. In the disputes column, disputes are still red and undisputed states are still white. I preferred the old UN column. More specific, and if we say Somaliland is a non-member state it implies (to me) that the UN recognises it as a state. I like the new colours. One tiny point, the "Sovereignty disputes" column should be "Sovereignty dispute", as each state only has one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Would "Not a UN member-state" be a more appropriate label for Somaliland etc.? Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I can't see that altering the connotations. As I said, I preferred your 3e one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Can you suggest of a way of saying that a state is not a member of the United Nations without that connotation? What specifically do you prefer about the 3e proposal and why? Also, there are examples of "non-member state" being used in this way elsewhere on wikipedia: here, here, and here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I liked the 3e proposal's UN column mainly because of the title and the fact it describes the participation in the system, and I preferred the ability to simply say "none". I do however, like the specific organisations given in sandbook F. I will not oppose either sandbox due to connotations which I alone see. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with Chipmunk's point. Why not just say "No membership" or something like that? Other than that, I like the new sandbox. TDL (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I don't see the connotation here with calling a state a non-UN member. I don't see an issue with it - it seems like neutral language to me.Outback the koala (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC) According to the UN Somaliland isn't a non-member state like VC. The UN views them as a non-state, part of Somalia. Non-member state implies that they are a state which just hasn't chosen to join as of yet. TDL (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC) "No membership" would be a pretty elegant solution since that would also cover UN, ICJ, IAEA, and the specialized agencies. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I prefer Sandbox 3e, and here's why. "Participation in the UN system" is closer to reality than "UN membership". This is because, contrary to what some users seem to think, the specialized agencies are not offices subordinated to the General Assembly and the Security Council. Each one is an international organization in its own right. They are called "the UN system", because the UN plays a vaguely defined coordinating role with respect to them, but they are not subject to the decisions of the of the United Nations Organization. Thus trying to downplay them is useless. Ladril (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC) One concern that was raised with that label, and I think it's a pretty reasonable point, is that when you say a state is a UN member, that's not the full extent of their participation in the UN system. What we need is a label which encapsulates the idea of "UN Member OR Non-member that still participates in the UN system OR No membership" but I'm struggling to figure out what that is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Coloring - it's an improvement, but the redundant zero column should be removed. Why do we need coloring at all? Disputes column - do we need it (I don't object it, but it should be described in more detail what it includes and what cells Armenia, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine will get) and even if we do why should we color it? For the UN column see 09:05, 17 April 2011 comment above. I really think the additional columns should include as simple and less diverse cells as possible - yes/no being the perfect ones (but it's hard to come up with a column label resulting in yes/no). We already have one column with extensive descriptions - details can remain there. Alinor (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with Night w, above. WP:NPOV states that [n]eutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The viewpoints that are discussing in this case are as to whether an entity is a sovereign and independent state or not. If so, an entity belongs on this list. If not, it does not. The central issue here is what to do when this point is disputed. In most cases, by far the most prominent viewpoint in the international community is that the entity is an independent sovereign state. There are, in some cases, significant minority viewpoints that would dispute this. We should thus, in these cases, be treating the POV that they belong in the list as most prominent, while noting the disputes. The trouble is that there are a few cases where this does not hold. In some of these, we have a situation whereby by far the most prominent viewpoint in the international community is that the entity is not an independent sovereign state, but there exist significant minority viewpoints that dispute this. And of course there are degrees of disputedness. But, given the different weight requirements, we simply cannot neutrally give all entities included on the list similar weight. Doing so would give undue prominence either to the viewpoints that dispute the sovereignty of widely-recognised states, or undue prominence to the viewpoints that support the sovereignty of little-recognised states. While both are possible (indeed, they can both occur simultaneously), the relative imbalance in numbers means that we are more likely to give undue prominence to the viewpoints that support the sovereignty of little-recognised states. We have to find a half-way house between inclusion and non-inclusion (hence the existing split). The different weight being given to included entities needs to be obvious even to someone who has not read the information column. Moreover, for reasons of accessibility, we can't signal such weight differences solely or primarily through colour-coding or by other stylistic means. I'm afraid that I do not feel that this proposal succeeds in giving appropriate weight in this case. Other than that, I agree with those that say that it is not neutral to describe an entity such as Somaliland as a "non-member state" of the UN, because that presupposes that Somaliland is a state. Pfainuk talk 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC) So, Pfainuk, boiling down your comment, is it fair to summarize your position as opposing a single sortable list? --Taivo (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, "I agree with Night W, above"--there's one heck of a lot of "above" above. What statement do you agree with? If I'm reading you correctly, you don't oppose a single list because it does not do enough to highlight the difference in international involvement between Somaliland and France, you oppose it because the number of reliable sources that can be brought to bear to support Somaliland's inclusion are smaller than the number of sources that can be brought to bear to support France's inclusion? Is that a correct assessment? --Taivo (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Yeah - sorry - it is a bit above. It is not the level of international involvement that is important per se. It is the standings of the arguments in international opinion that is important. There is no argument that France is not a sovereign state, so that is clearly the predominant view. OTOH, the only authority that argues that Somaliland is a sovereign state is the Somaliland government. While one might argue this source and that source to suggest that it does or does not meet the inclusion criteria, the predominant view internationally is clearly that it is not a sovereign state. This proposal does not adequately split these two positions, relying as it does on inference from UN status and on the reader reading the information column. That said, if it can be demonstrated that this proposal would match the prevailing attitude of reliable sources when compiling a list of sovereign states, (so, not counting reliable sources that make a specific case for the statehood or lack thereof of a given entity here but do not attempt to compile a list), then this would, based on WP:UNDUE, change my view here. Pfainuk talk 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Sigh. My friend, as I have told you many times before, you are trying to force an erroneous interpretation of the NPOV policy. This policy states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The emphasis I made is important, because the political positions of states are hardly reliable sources. Due weight means assessing the points of view of third-party scholars and analysts who are experts in the subject, NOT - again - the political positions taken by states. Your position sounds to me like saying we should we giving more weight to astrology than to quantum physics, just because there are more people who believe in the former than those who believe in the latter. Due weight is not popularity; it is supposed to reflect *scientific consensus* on a subject. Thus we cannot exclude Somaliland or somehow suggest it is not a state because other states do not consider it to be one. On the other hand, if you can prove that the predominant viewpoint among scholars is that Somaliland is not a state, then there is no reason why they should be in the list. But AFAIK, there is an ample consensus about the existence of Somaliland as a state. This it why they are there in the first place. Ladril (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not talking about popularity among the public here, which is what your astrology example would seem to suggest. I am talking about the positions taken by other sovereign states - which I remind you is the single determining factor of statehood according to one of the two competing theories involved here. Even in the case that the scholars you refer to take an opposite view to the vast majority of states in the world, we must still be willing to give appropriate weight to the POV of those states. Given the politics of these disputes this seem logical from a practical perspective as well. I find the idea that we can find a few reliable sources and say that their view is neutral and that Somaliland is a state, regardless of the fact that every other state on the planet says that it is not, to be a touch odd. It certainly wouldn't be giving due weight to all significant viewpoints. But as I said above, I am open to persuasion through the use of lists of sovereign states compiled by outside sources. I feel that these are more appropriate than sources that argue one side or other in a dispute, since those lists are essentially what we are trying to replicate. We shouldn't be trying to create something entirely new here: we should reflect existing practice in outside lists. Out of curiosity (since it doesn't affect my arguments above), what sources are we using to justify including Somaliland in the list? This is currently the only source that the article cites, and it claims neither that Somaliland meets Montevideo nor that Somaliland is a state (only that it claims to be). This does not justify inclusion based on the inclusion criteria provided by the aticle. You claim that there is "ample consensus" that is a state, so the burden of evidence would fall on you to demonstrate this. I would note that the lack of outside recognition (which is mentioned by the source) would seem to argue the opposite. And I would note that in discussion at Template talk:Africa topic last year we had sources arguing that Montevideo's criteria were met and sources arguing that they weren't. Pfainuk talk 14:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Figuring out what's prevalent in outside sources can be tricky. I did a bit of google book searching and compiled a few sources from 2009 or later (after Kosovo's independence) that tried to either enumerate or list all the sovereign states in the world: User:Orange_Tuesday/Sources. There wasn't much widespread agreement, but basically: the UN members are in all sources; Vatican, Taiwan, and Kosovo (in various combinations) are in some sources; and all the others aren't in any sources (well I found one 203 but the wording makes it sound like it was just citing our page). I get the idea of basing the page on what sources say but how exactly would you propose we go about that? And how do we square that with all the other possible ways of organizing a page? UN membership, Vienna criteria, level of international recognition, and disputed vs. undisputed all create different categories. How do you propose we accommodate all these different points of view if not on a single list? Alinor, we use colour just to help readers who are more visually-oriented make sense of a very large and complicated table. This is common practice on many wikipedia articles. You wouldn't lose any information if you took the colour out of List of Presidents of France, for example, but having that color there helps people take it all in at a glance. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Also, I understand why you want simpler columns but yes/no is just unrealistic given how complex all of this is. If you want a column to only be something that has a nice undisputed verifiable list, like UN membership, that is the kind of thing that can be treated with a binary yes/no. But all of the other possible criteria we've been discussing here require more complicated answers. There's just no way around that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, I find your comment that what states think of other states is a reliable source to be odd. That's like having a talent show and having the competitors judge one another without neutral judges involved. There are too many irrelevant political factors involved for any state to objectively judge whether another state is a state. The U.S. and Russia have equally competent people who can neutrally determine whether Kosovo meets some set of criteria for statehood, but in the end, the experts are ignored and the political factors put the U.S. on one side and Russia on the other. So what states think of other states is not an NPOV assessment and cannot be a reliable source. Indeed, what states think of other states must be considered a primary source, which Wikipedia disfavors in favor of secondary sources--the neutral, preferably scholarly, analyses of the primary sources. NPR had a series of reports on piracy and what Somaliland is doing about it this week. In the reports, the reporter (who can be considered a secondary source by Wikipedia guidelines) made the comment that Somaliland is more of an actual state than Somalia is (because it has a stronger central government, it controls its borders better, etc.). So there is a reliable source that knows the primary sources--other states' official positions on Somaliland, the factors that determine what constitutes a state, the relative positions of both Somalia and Somaliland, etc.--and made an independent analysis and came to an independent conclusion. Those are the sources that Wikipedia finds more valuable than what states think of each other. --Taivo (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC) "Out of curiosity (since it doesn't affect my arguments above), what sources are we using to justify including Somaliland in the list?" It does affect your argument a lot, and yes there are several. If you want to dispute the inclusion of Somaliland on any list of states, however, you'll have to start a thread about that topic on the relevant page. I believe Outback and Nightw participated in a mediated debate on that specific subject, and you're encouraged to read it in the archives before starting the discussion anew. And sorry, but no. Political positions taken by states are not reliable sources on practically any subject, since they are coloured with the interests of the parties involved. And yes, giving the weight you want to give to them is like saying vox populi trumps scientific consensus, which is unacceptable for an encyclopedic work. Also, if you check my previous Wikipedia contributions (including the lead of List of states with limited recognition) you'll find that I am very aware of the existence of the constitutive theory of statehood. It is referenced in the literature because states with little recognition have a limited capacity to act as states in the international arena, but it's not defined as an existence-meter. Most modern scholars take a distance from that theory, citing cases like Taiwan, which can perfectly exist as a state despite having little recognition. There is a good reason why I'm telling you your proposal amounts to vox populi. States, like corporations and organizations, are nothing more than collectivities of people. And they have passions and dislikes and interests, and they often act irrationally, like individuals. States are not impartial or neutral conveyers of opinion. This is why there are courts and tribunals for mediating issues between states. We cannot consider them reliable sources, sorry.Ladril (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Ladril and Taivo are correct. Other state's aren't WP:RS on the issue of what is a sovereign state. They are directly involved in the issue, and thus they would be a WP:Primary source. WP policy specifically states on the use of secondary sources that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I think it's pretty obvious that this is a far more complicated issues. Thus, you need to provide Tertiary RS that make the claim that Taiwan isn't a sovereign state because PRC doesn't recognize it. If you don't have such a source, then it's WP:OR to make that conclusion based on primary sources alone. Pfainuk, if your concern is just over due weight, do you have any suggestions on how the proper weight could be applied, without a rigid division of the list? I think everyone is willing to consider additions to make the distinction clear, such as bolding/asterisks/etc. So what alterations to this proposal would you suggest to get your acceptance? TDL (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC) This is partly why I don't comment here much. The response here is a 7kB wall of text. I'm not going through it point-by-point. I would note that people are saying that I need sources to point out that Somaliland's inclusion doesn't have any. You say that Somaliland statehood is the consensus and say that sources are required to disprove it. Wrong. Per WP:BURDEN all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs sourcing. It's obvious that this point is likely to be challenged (indeed, I think we all know two editors who are likely to challenge it) so if you want it included, you need to be able to demonstrate that it belongs. If you're not willing to source the point, you have no argument to suggest that it belongs. And this doesn't just go for Somaliland. For several of these cases - where a general consensus that they are states is claimed - there is surprisingly little backing for this in the article. None of this affects the fact that we cannot neutrally take a side in these political disputes. Which is what you do by failing to give adequate weight to the POV that they are not states. TDL asks what suggestions I have without a rigid division of the list. Well, the changes he suggests are stylistic, and we cannot do this by stylistic means alone for reasons of accessibility. My response would be to point out that I have always opposed the single-list approach for precisely this reason: I can't see a way in which adequate separation could be given in a single list. Pfainuk talk 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, how exactly would you like to see the list split? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, you misunderstand WP:BURDEN. As far as I'm aware, you've never challenged the inclusion of Somaliland. If you are, then here is an academic source which claims that Somaliland is a "De facto independent states not recognized by other states". Do you have any academic RS to the contrary? If not, then this issue should be settled. Now I'm challenging your suggestion that there is widespread opinion that Somaliland isn't a sovereign state. Do you have any academic RS to back up this claim? WP:BURDEN requires that you present some, or else these claims should be removed from the article. The burden is on you to prove that such disagreement exists in reliable academic sources, which you've yet to do. And where does WP:ACCESS suggest that asterisks aren't accessible? TDL (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Somaliland's listing as a de facto sovereign state has been covered before in multiple venues and the result is always that there are enough reliable secondary or tertiary sources that list it, that it is worthy of inclusion. We include it, however, in italics with a note that its sovereignty is disputed. I believe that we have a template to that effect similar to Kosovo's template. But I believe that Pfainuk's concern isn't necessarily over inclusion criteria, but over how do we mark the differences between states that are included without debate and states that require sources. Asterisks before those disputed states, as well as the comment in the "Disputed Sovereignty" column that will be required for these states will sufficiently address that concern. They will be noted a) with an asterisk, b) with a note in the "Disputed Sovereignty" column, and probably c) with additional information in the main information column. --Taivo (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC) An additional way to address Pfainuk's concern would be to make the default sorting on the "UN Participation" column. This will automatically place the non-members at the bottom of the list. --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) These all seem like reasonable compromises to me. TDL (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) My feeling at this stage that a rule of UN member-states, plus any non-member whose sovereignty is not actively disputed (defined on the basis of whether another state or coalition of states actively claim that non-member's entire territory as their own), should go in the first list. All others should go in the second. In today's world, assuming the current list, this is effectively UN+Vatican - but it allows for Vatican-like situations to occur in the future. This would seem to me to give an appropriate distinction between those states where sovereignty can be taken as the predominant international POV, and those where it cannot necessarily. That is not to say, however, that I would necessarily oppose other configurations - only that I feel that this one is the one that creates the fewest POV concerns. Pfainuk talk 21:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC) I'd be happy to consider such a setup if you could produce a RS which supported the claim that "UN member-states, plus any non-member whose sovereignty is not actively disputed" = "predominant international POV". But without sources, this is just your opinion of what the international POV is, and hence WP:OR. Until such time as you can find these sources, we can only consider setups which are based on verifiable facts, not editors opinions about those facts. TDL (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, if the list was changed so that UN membership was the default sort rather than alphabetical order, would that provide enough separation? Or is the single list itself unacceptable in any configuration? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC) "The response here is a 7kB wall of text." You are not exactly the most concise participant, if you don't mind me saying so. "I would note that people are saying that I need sources to point out that Somaliland's inclusion doesn't have any." I, for one, don't recall having said that. I said this page is not the appropriate venue for the debate. You are quite correct to say that the burden of proof is on the people who want Somaliland included, but in order for this to be discussed you need to start the debate at the appropriate talk page, not this one. You also need to check out previous debates Wikipedia has had about this. But that's enough about Somaliland for the moment, I guess. Ladril (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC) @Pfainuk: I did some research about your suggestion. Here are some quotes from the academic RS I quoted above which specifically dispute your opinion: "Diplomatic recognition is obviously too weak a criterion. Many states lack formal diplomatic recognition, but are nonetheless treated as state actors. The fact that many states initially refused to recognize the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China does not mean that these did not constitute "states" qua actors in the international system. Similarly, in many cases states recognize "legitimate governments" that do not possess actual control over their territories." "Membership in international organizations furthermore cannot be a sufficient criterion, as many undisputed states are not UN members (e.g., North and South Korea prior to 1991 and Switzerland). Furthermore, some members of international organizations are not commonly considered states (e.g., Western Sahara/Polisario in OAU)." The suggestion that members of the UN are automatically accepted by the international community as sovereign states, or that states which are not formally recognized are not sovereign states, just isn't supported by sources. I'd also like to point out that your proposal suffers from just a serious WP:UNDUE concerns as the ones you've directed at the sortable single list. How do you suggest giving due weight to the significant minority of states which don't recognize Israel/PRC? Based on your argument that differing opinions "needs to be obvious even to someone who has not read the information column", and that all other forms of differentiation aren't sufficient due to WP:ACCESS, you'd need a whole other section for "UN states with significant disputes". And how is it due weight to claim that the predominant international POV is that Palestine isn't a sovereign state, when >2/3 of states recognize them? I think the issues you raise about due weight are rather WP:POINTY. The disputes are indicated in numerous ways: information in the status column, info in the UN membership column, info in the disputes column, sortability of these last two columns, colours, bold/italics, possibly asterisks, etc. The only people to whom the dispute wouldn't be obvious is a colour blind and illiterate reader using a browser that can't display bolding, italics AND asterisks. Is it really worth fighting over the tiny fraction of a percent that this subset of readers makes up? TDL (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Orange Tuesday (in response to 16:53, 17 April 2011 and previous comment): most of the entries will have one and the same text in their "UN column" cells, so visually-oriented readers will easily spot the few "differing" entries - these will stand out from the crowd (without the need of colors). Also duplicating the UN column in front of the table (zero column) makes this criteria the "preferred" one and thus negates the advantage of single sortable list. As I explained the topic of presidents associated with time of presidency(number)+party affiliation(color) is different from the topic of sovereign states. disputes column - why do we need to color it (thus resulting in more colors)? Also, we have to agree on the footnote text explaining what it shows - and we have to see what cells Armenia, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine will get. UN column - a binary yes/no could be achieved trough any of the proposed headings in my 09:05, 17 April 2011 comment. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Not everyone process visual information the same way, and in table with over 200 entries it can be easy to skip over things. Really it doesn't have anything to do with the sorting criteria, it's just a style thing to make the list flow a little better and to help clarify things for the reader. Colour is used on a lot of tables on wikipedia. We can remove the zero column if everyone agrees but again I want to stress that the idea of the "preferred" criteria is down to your personal interpretation of the layout. If you look at other users they are of the opinion that the list does not sufficiently distinguish UN members from other states. You can't all be right here, and this discussion is not going to move forward if people aren't willing to find some kind of common ground on the sorting thing. "recognition by the international community" is certainly not a yes/no thing. The page which deals with this question on wikipedia employs four categories, and each entry is accompanied by a lengthy paragraph. If we could answer this question in a verifiable yes or no way then this debate probably wouldn't have gone on as long as it has. I suppose the UNSG ones are yes/no, but for a reader who hasn't spent a year studying this stuff it's probably going to be a bit opaque. The reason I like 3e and 3f is that it actually explains the criteria and why the states qualify for it. "UNSG recognition" and "Membership in the UN, one of its specialized agencies, the ICJ, or the IAEA" are fundamentally identical categories. But a reader who is unversed in the subject matter can look at the latter and actually make some sense of it without having to trawl through footnotes and citations. Plus the latter gives us easily verifiable sources to work from. We don't have a list of states which are "UNSG recognized", but we do have a list of members of the UN, a list of members in each specialized agency, a list of parties to the statue of the ICJ, and a list of IAEA members. Finally, this whole "yes/no" thing isn't really backed up in WP policy, it's just a matter of your personal preference. I understand where you're coming from with simple columns, and I obviously want to make things as concise and simple as possible, but I don't think arbitrarily restricting ourselves to binary columns is going to help anything. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Coloring is useful if the whole row is colored. But since there were objections in using different criteria for rows coloring from the other sorting criteria applied at columns this is not an option (because it will require us to select one of the other sorting criteria and to duplicate it trough colors, thus making it "the preferred" by us criteria). If all insist to have colors (do they?), then the colors should be kept to a minimum and be constrained to the cells of the column whose criteria is used for the coloring. But the zero column is unacceptable - it duplicates the other column and thus makes its criteria "the preferred" one. If we don't use "International community recognition", "UNSG recognition", "Acceptance by the UNSG", then why not using "UN membership" (again yes/no column) and explain the "International community recognition" somewhere else? The list of states with limited recognition pages doesn't use any source for its separation criteria applied - basically a form of "UN membership POV" and has the same problem as the status quo List of sovereign states - the problem we discuss here how to fix. And we can answer the question "who is recognized as State by the international community" in a verifiable way - see here - and whatever revision we do to the page this information has to be included - it's the core of the topic. No year of studying is needed to understand it and even if it was - we are writing an encyclopedia, not a 3rd or 8th grade schoolbook - complicated things also should be described, not only the "easy" ones. Difficulties we encounter in explaining something is not an argument to skip an issue and present it in a misleading way. Especially with the sources we have. ""UNSG recognition" and "Membership in the UN, one of its specialized agencies, the ICJ, or the IAEA" are fundamentally identical categories." - no, they aren't. The former is backed by real world actions and real world sources (e.g. UNSG actually treating an entity as a State and accepting it as such State party to an international treaty deposited at the UNSG). The latter is Wikipedia editors acting as if they are the UNSG and deciding themselves (e.g. we apply the Vienna formula as if we are the UNSG). While the facts should be presented (e.g. memberships in Vienna organizations - these should be mentioned in the details cell/second column) we should not go ahead of the real world and make conclusions such as "because X is member of a Vienna organization it's recognized as State by the international community" - we have to wait for the UNSG to make this conclusion first and then cite it/cite the treaty membership list where he accepted somebody. Alinor (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Colours can be applied to a single cell instead of an entire row. This is widely done on Wikipedia and does not contravene any rules or policy. Your limited addition proposal does not definitively answer whether or not a state is "recognized by the international community", it merely provides one of many POVs on the subject. If we were to act like those criteria provide us with an unambiguous and undisputed answer to that question we would be breaking WP:UNDUE. Again, you're assuming that I'm using the UN column to imply "recognition by the international community". I'm not. I'm saying we should use that column as a sorting criteria in and of itself with no other meaning behind it. On its own it is a verifiable and useful classification for sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Coloring a single cell - I don't say that it's against policy, but that it doesn't look good in this case. "one of many POVs on the subject." - actually it's the only POV we have (the other POVs are not about "who is recognized by the international community", but about "X POV: who is recognized by X") and quite frankly the UNSG is quite a notable POV. I'm not assuming - I asked what it shows and the reply was 'something like Vienna' and Vienna is about "recognition by the international community". I don't agree that this column is "in and of itself with no other meaning behind it." - why would we mention it if it has no meaning? Alinor (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) OK. Another long bit. I'm sorry that TDL feels it WP:POINTY to suggest that our readers with special needs should be catered for with an appropriately accessible article. I would view this group as just as important as any other, and would note that Wikipedia rules are quite clear that we cannot use purely stylistic means to convey important information for this reason. I chose the UN because it was cited by all of Orange Tuesday's sources (indeed, the 192 UN member states are the only constant in them). It seems to me that a source that is actually trying to do what we are doing is more relevant in this case than trying to apply criteria set out by sources that seek to define a state but that are not trying to do what we are doing (indeed, I view this as borderline WP:OR). Based on the numbers at list of states with limited recognition, I would also note that no UN member state has less than 85% recognition from other UN member states. This is significantly greater than any entity that is not a UN member state, other than the Vatican. The numbers are not, in and of themselves, a determining factor, but it is a useful point to note when arguing that this one is recognised by x% and that one by y%. It also suggests that the weight given to each side in the political disputes that do exist ought to veer more toward the POV that they are states than the POV that they aren't. But as I said before, it's a suggestion, and not the only thing that I would accept. My position is clear: that we must give appropriate weight to each side of each the political disputes in all cases, that this weight may be different depending on the state concerned and that the distinction must be obvious at first glance. I do not feel that this sandbox does this. Pfainuk talk 20:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk, the Orange sources about "who are the sovereign states" (inclusion criteria, we don't discuss these) and not about "who are recognized as states by the international community" (sorting criteria under discussion here). Pfainuk, most states that are considered by the UNSG to be recognized as States by the international community do not have anybody declaring a non-recognition of them (thus they are absent from list of states with limited recognition) - but they don't have 100% formal recognitions either - in some combinations such as Bhutan-Monaco the two sides don't care too much for the existence of the other - or don't have the resources to do anything about it - so they haven't officially announced any position - recognition or non-recognition. That's why using numbers isn't very practical (maybe even impossible) - regardless whether it's theoretically justified or not (this is also debatable). Pfainuk, so what's your opinion on this limited addition proposal? Alinor (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Please Pfainuk, your accusation that I'm ignoring readers with special needs is very uncivil and way off base. In fact, I've bent over backwards to try and address these concerns. WP:COLOR states: "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information." This is most certainly true of every proposal that I've suggested. I've attempted to convey the same information in a multitude of ways: sortable sections, bolding/italics, UN column text, disputes column text, information column text. Also, colours can be selected which have high contrast and are distinguishable by the colour blind. In fact, I've made SO much effort to emphasize this information that the some editors have complained because it's TOO emphasized and complicated (3G). How can you please everyone? TDL (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Please tone it down. Nobody is being uncivil, yet. I realise that we're trying to make this as verifiable as possible, but there's a decent argument to be made towards the existence of a more (most?) predominantly accepted bunch of names that sources cite as being sovereign states, and we should try our best to match it. I can use a perfectly verifiable criteria to categorise religious beliefs by plausibility, but it won't necessarily be NPOV simply because I can verify the criteria. I know I haven't provided any alternative ideas and that my participation in this mediation discussion has been sporadic at best; this is mainly due to time limitations, and I will try to be more active here from now on. But my support for any proposal made here will largely boil down to its results matching those of the current list. You may perceive this as POINTY or as IDONTLIKEIT, but I cannot justify splitting Kosovo from the rest simply over IGO memberships. I'm stuck in one place for a few weeks, so I'll try and come up with something radical in the next few days. If not, you'll have to drown out my objections with wall after wall of text. I had to search for a good 10 minutes to find my last comment. Nightw 02:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC) You might have skipped over this amidst the walls of text, but have a look at User:Orange Tuesday/Sources. The idea of UN+VC being the "predominantly accepted bunch of names" doesn't quite correspond to what's in the secondary sources. It's one arrangement, but Taiwan and Kosovo show up fairly commonly and Vatican City is often absent. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Pfainuk accused me of being deliberately insensitive to the needs of handicapped readers. How is that not an uncivil personal attack? If you disagree with my arguments, then fine. But it definitely crosses the line to attack my integrity because we disagree. Especially so, since I've gone to great lengths to try and address Pfainuk's concerns about WP:ACCESS, such as by adding the accessible symbols in sandboxG as a cross reference for the colour blind. I suspect you wouldn't appreciate it if I suggested that you wanted to exclude Kosovo because you're a racist, right? No one likes to have their integrity called into question. I never claimed that it was pointy to argue that the concerns of handicapped readers should be taken into account. I suggested Pfainuk's interpretation of WP:UNDUE was pointy. WP:COLOUR states that: "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information." This is exactly what we've done in every proposal to date. Every piece of information is conveyed in more than one way. Pfainuk was arguing that using colour AND sections AND the two sortable columns AND bold/italics AND asterisks wasn't sufficient to address WP:UNDUE concerns. To me, that's is a pointy interpretation of the policy. TDL (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continued at #Continuing discussion from 3f

3g

Yet another sandbox where I've tried to address the concerns raised above. I've reinserted the sortable dividers, which now work both in ascending and descending order. The default sort order is set to the "UN column". Also, I've added big ass asterisks to the UN member states in the first column, which was previously only used for colour, to address the WP:ACCESS issues raised above. UN member states are bolded, and states with no membership are in italics. I really don't see any way that a reasonable editor could claim that this is WP:UNDUE anymore. We've gone to great lengths to try and present the disputes, in a 6-fold redundant way. TDL (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Looks good, but I think you are falling into the same trap told in the [19] Fable of The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey, that is, creating sandbox after sandbox to please everyone who comes by. I think this an exhausting and unproductive approach, whose most tangible result has been users complaining about "too many sandboxes". Let's not proceed as if you need to incorporate everyone's objections - we are working towards consensus, not unanimity. Ladril (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider putting this (or another recent sandbox) up to a poll. I agree that we'll never be able to please everyone, but I think we're getting close to a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. TDL (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't interpret as if I'm trying to exclude anybody, but would the poll approach be productive at this stage? We have had several polls already and their result always is the same people clinging to their stated positions. Wouldn't it be a better idea simply to assess which proposal (in the 3e-3g range) has gained more acceptance, and go with that? People are still free to comment, but no one has veto power here (except Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee). Ladril (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I find this much worse than the rest sandbox3 and if I remember correctly we attempted similar arrangement in the past. It is focused too much on UN membership and that makes it unacceptable. Also, the zero column (whether with asteriks/colors/whatever) is duplicating the another "UN column" - thus it's redundant - why do we need the zero column? Also this sandbox doesn't address the question "what is mentioned in the 'sovereign dispute' column?" or what will Armenia/Cyprus/Israel/Palestine have in their cells of this column. Alinor (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we could perhaps keep discussion on one sandbox for awhile, then if conversation languishes for a day a poll should be taken. Let's not rush into more sandboxes or polls. Please come up with the rationale for making Kosovo equal to Vatican city, I'm okay with it as we have that nice red box at the side, but I reckon a clear position needs to be made which we can later post in a FAQ or something. The only thing left for me is that Israel and Cyprus are not yet sorted out; I don't think that their sovereignty dispute column should be coloured, as as far as I can tell no-one is claiming them. However, there may be a need for something more nuanced if others object. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest using "International community recognition", "UNSG recognition", "Acceptance by the UNSG" or "UN membership" for column heading (see 09:05, 17 April 2011 comment above). All of these result in simple yes/no cells supported by sources. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking Chipmunk. The rational is just that they're the only two states which aren't UN member states, but are members of a specialized agency. We could go back to a 4-cat layout (UN member/observer/agency member/no membership) so that they aren't equal, but others opposed this because of colour overload.

I agree with you on Israel and Cyprus. Unless I'm mistake, neither are claimed in whole by other states so I don't see any need to colour their disputes cell. TDL (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a defensible position, as from my experience on articles with Kosovo involved one will be needed. I'm not going to object to the 3-cat layout, if other editors think it is better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You people agree that, for the moment, we consider 3e and 3f as options? 3g does not seem to have gained favour. Ladril (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We're getting close. --Taivo (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll support any of the sandbox3's. TDL (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. The dividers are a bit wonky on this one still (try alphabetically sorting and they all end up at the top) but I agree in principle to the sandbox3 approach in general and any of the sandbox3s specifically. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately that's the only way I've been able to get it to function properly. It's not perfect, but it's the best I could do. TDL (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm fine with dividers but not if they don't really divide properly. That's just going to be confusing when people start sorting. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I've been trying really hard here to understand people's concerns and address them with subsequent sandboxes but I don't see this dispute moving forward if some editors won't start offering larger compromises. If we make any attempt to sort the single list then some editors complain that it has become too weighted towards whatever criteria we use to sort it. But if we do not sort the list then other editors complain that all the entities on it are treated too equally. It is impossible to create a proposal which addresses both of those concerns simultaneously. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Moderator? Any suggestions on moving forward? Should we take a poll to gauge the waters? --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I get the sense that the moderator is tied up in something else right now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with 3g anyway Taivo. As I see it, we have a dichotomy between those with Alinor's view and the Pfaink/Nightw view, and I feel that 3g seems to be the most suitable compromise in terms of structure between the two, default sorting to show degrees of participation in the international system but with the ability to sort it alphabetically. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTvariousC)

Chipmunkdavis, I was unclear. I'll support any of the set 3e/3f/3g. I was agreeing that we were getting close. --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you a reason against 3g: it's visually so complex that it hurts the eye and may be difficult for the general, non-expert user to understand. Ladril (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another reason: it's too redundant. A category split to say essentially the same thing you are using a column to say is useless. With all due respect, this proposal amounts to treating the reader like a moron. Strange as it sounds, it suffers from two ills: it tries so hard to be clear that it turns out being unbearably complex. Ladril (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And if I may, there is yet another reason against it: a very similar proposal was rejected during talk page discussion by the core group of people who believe a single table gives undue weight to several states. Frankly, I don't think anything but the status quo will convince them. Ladril (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I proposed this small addition to the status quo. Alinor (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I could accept 3g (provided you get rid of the asterisks - nobody is going to understand why they're there), but not 3h. 3g is not ideal - I don't think it handles Kosovo well and I think that's a point that would come back to haunt us - but I think it's the best resolution we're realistically likely to get at this stage in proceedings. 3h does nothing to deal with the problems I have noted with 3f - indeed, in some ways it's significantly worse, because it uses lots of jargon and relies on the reader knowing what the "UNSG" is (or going through footnotes of footnotes) and why it's significant. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, as noted I have been busy with a truckload of crapulence elsewhere, and haven't been paying enough attention here. I'm a little dismayed to see the proliferation of sandboxes. part of the art of compromise is voluntarily restricting ourselves to one outlet so that we're all working on the same thing - producing multiple sandboxes just tends to solidify the positions. That being said, though, it does look like this sandbox has has fairly broad (if not absolute) support. Is Alinor the only one who objects to it?

Here's how I suggest we move ahead. let's have an actual vote (not a poll) in which we will decide which of these sandboxes will be the starting point for proceeding. everyone gets to choose their favorite sandbox (or you can choose two, if you like, and give a half vote to each). after the vote, we will all focus on improving the sandbox that gets the most votes, and the other sandboxes will be mothballed. I'll set up a vote below - if anyone has any problems with this approach lets discuss it down there. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

3h

Extended content

Yet another sandbox - includes all special cases. I'm keen to reduce colors even more from what's present in this sandbox. Alinor (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with Pfainuk's concerns above. Too jargony, relies on the reader trawling through footnotes to understand what "UNSG recognition" is and why it's significant. I worry it goes too far in the direction of obscuring UN membership. I also feel like your objection to colour really just comes down to the fact that you just don't think colour looks good. I mean, fair enough if that's the case, but personal preference on a style issue isn't exactly a compelling reason to do something. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Agreed with Pfainuk/Orange. This doesn't do anything to address the valid concerns raised by other editors. TDL (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC) ick. Nightw 02:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC) This isn't much of a change in the right direction and I do not support this version. Outback the koala (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) "obscuring UN membership" - so, what about a column "UN membership" then and addressing "recognition by the international community" elsewhere? Alinor (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

3i

Alinor, apologies if I'm stepping on your toes with this but I had it written up as you posted 3h, and I think it's valuable as an iteration on the 3e/3f/3g set: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3i. Ladril EDIT: a version with sortable dividers can be found here: this version

• "zero column" and asterisks removed, but UN info moved to 2nd column to preserve the "at-a-glance" division between UN and Non-UN.
• Dividers removed (this is only because they don't work properly but again I have no objection to functional ones if we can figure out how to do them). Sorting order preserved from 3g.
• Italics on Abkhazia etc turned to plain text instead. We use a lot of italics on this page for foreign words and I worry that introducing them in a new context might be confusing. Wouldn't object to putting them back if people think that won't be a problem.
• Heading of UN Column changed to "Membership within UN System" to keep "UN System" but make it clear that we're only concerned with membership in the various bodies. Just floating this wording to see if it makes this column more palatable for anyone, wouldn't object to any of the old ones if they are preferred.
• Kosovo and Vatican UN entries back to more generic wording (partially to preserve info from old divider and partially to make it clear why they're grouped together). Specific information for specialized agencies/ICJ/IAEA has been preserved in the information column but is now included for all states and not just the special cases.
• Put Vatican before Kosovo in the list. Thought this might soften the blow of putting Kosovo and Vatican together? Again don't really have a preference one way or another on that change.

I realize people are worried about all these sandboxes cluttering up the discussion, so let's try some structured questions: 1) does this draft raise any NEW problems for you? 2) IF you had problems with 3d/3e/3f/3g, does this draft go towards addressing them? 3) IF you found 3d/3e/3f/3g acceptable, do you also find this one acceptable? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep things alphabetical within each section, but I could live with this if it helps to produce a consensus. Other than that, it looks good. Perhaps one solution to the sortable dividers issue is that if we removed the text from the dividers, and just made them blank gray rows, they'd be less confusing when they were bunched up at the top. Just a suggestion. (I just get the feeling that without these dividers we'll ever achieve a consensus). TDL (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This one is a lot neater and seems to address the problems. Support. Ladril (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If the dividers don't have to have labels on them then this version will sort properly. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks spectacular. I might suggest doubling the dividers up, just to make the division a big clearer, but I think we might have a winner here. TDL (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I preferred 3l, but I can live with this if it brings more acceptance from some users. A question though: do the "specialized agencies" links lead to the respective "foreign relations" pages? In those pages we can make lists of agencies, and thus avoid cluttering up the table. Apologies if this has been explained before. Ladril (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--this looks much better. Support --Taivo (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections, but I think the phrase "UN member state" is redundant. A UN member is supposed to be a state, so "UN member" is enough.--Jiang (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is as good as any of the others, so I'll support. Clever formatting. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I must've missed it. Why were the 2 end columns moved into the centre? I preferred them to side. I also prefer the version without the dividers. Nightw 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As a replacement for the small column to the left. It's so people can more easily tell UN from non-UN at a glance. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems we're near a consensus here. Clearly state which version you prefer in the poll below: 3i without dividers Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3i or 3i with dividers this version: Ladril (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I like this one. Outback the koala (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: If you prefer one version, could you also state whether you'd be willing to accept the other version as a compromise? That way we don't need to do another poll. Thanks. TDL (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I would not be in favour of the divisions as they are here because it groups VC and Kosovo into the same section when I beleive they are much more different considering Kosovo's recognition number. It makes it seem like they are at par. The version without the breaks at least leaves sorting in the hands of the reader. Outback the koala (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Object - "UN membership POV" is pushed here to the next level - by moving the column to the front of the detailed description column. "UN System" column is not consistent - for some states it mentions only UNO, but not any other of the UN System elements. For other states it mentions some UN system elements, but not others. If the list is going to be arranged non-alphabetically then it has to be with dividers - and inside each divider it has to be alphabetical - otherwise we are making some custom order piece-by-piece. It should be explained somewhere what the dividers separate (by divider heading or otherwise). There is no explanation what the dispute column shows (and what the tricky states will get). Also, I don't find colors useful, but others maybe like them. And again - what's the goal of the UN column? To be "something like Vienna" (then this should be explained in the footnote - and other corrections are needed) or to be "UN System memberships" (then it should be explained why this is important and why are only some of its elements taken into account). Alinor (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are all reasonable concerns, and they can be addressed without much trouble when we actually get around to working on one sandbox. If you want to, pick one or the other in the poll below. Ladril (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the concerns are about the eventual dividers, so it depends on how/whether these are addressed. Alinor (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I could accept a *brief* explanatory text in each divider and judging from [20], so could you. but please let's not go back to the whole colour/asterisks mess from Sandbox 3g. This seems to be your main concern. Ladril (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, every single UN member is also member of one or more related agencies. This is explained in the footnote to the column. We could theoretically mention that membership for all 192 members (as we currently do for Vatican and Kosovo) but that would be redundant and add to clutter. UN Member+Agency/Agency Only/No membership is a consistent and verifiable division though.

I feel like you're being endlessly nitpicky on stuff like column order and it's making it difficult to reach a consensus. We've done a lot to accommodate your view on the UN, including removing the zero column and sticking with a single sortable list. It would be nice if you could try to meet us half way on formatting, especially given the level of support this proposal has from the other editors. Anyway I hardly think mentioning UN status and sovereignty disputes first is giving undue weight to those things. If you look at the current list, UN membership is always the first thing mentioned in the information column. Think of this like parsing that current version of the information column into three smaller columns.

Having text in the dividers doesn't work given technical limitations. We can explain the various columns (and how they're divided) in the lead section when we actually start drafting the page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you find the text of the Vatican/Kosovo entries acceptable if the link in "related agencies" (linking to specialized agencies) was changed to "related organizations" (linking to UN System)? Again the specific division criteria would be explained for the user in the lead section and the column's footnote. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary - this latest sandbox proliferates the "UN membership POV" - why should the sorting columns be moved to the front? This sandbox doesn't do anything to address my concerns (such as describing "dispute", etc.) - it opens new ones instead. For example - dividers criteria should not duplicate one of the column criteria. Unlike coloring in this case WP:ACCESS doesn't prevent us from using different criteria - and in order to avoid "preference pushing" we should do exactly that.

So, one possible solution I see is to use 3i with dividers based on "State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG" (e.g. considered by the UNSG to be recognized as State by the international community) vs. "others". This can be described in the lead (and backed by the sources we have) as you suggested. Alinor (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons for opposing the status quo is the need to avoid categories such as "other states" (which, if you are honest, amount to nothing more than miscelleanea, and miscellanea are to be avoided according to list guidelines). Now you're proposing we go back to such a categorization. As for the dividers duplicating the function of the column, I don't think it is a big deal; the layout of Sandbox 3g was a extremely complex, but this one is unobtrusive and serves to express different degrees of integration with the international community. Ladril (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

UN membership is not a "POV", it's a verifiable fact. It's only a POV if you say something controversial ABOUT UN membership. This layout implies nothing controversial about UN membership. It merely says: A) UN Membership is a thing which exists (a factual statement) and B) UN Membership is one of several ways by which you can organize a list of states (a neutral statement, backed up by a variety of sources). You seem to be assuming that if I put the UN membership in the second column I am somehow implying something about international recognition or whatever. But I'm not. That's something YOU are reading into this list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not "miscelleanea" - divider1 will be "State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG" and divider2 will be "Not a State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG".

"UN membership POV" is a POV/common misconception contradicting the sources when the verifiable UN membership is used to imply that these are the entities recognized as states by the international community, no more, no less. What I suggest is using "UN membership" (the verifiable fact) for the column (resulting in yes/no cells) and using "State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG" for the dividers. What do you think about this? Alinor (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The dividers need to match the column. In any case I think you need to stop pushing that deposited with the UNSG criteria. Other editors have already rejected it on the basis of being jargony and difficult for the reader and obscure. You're the only person that seems to like it. We need to find things that a lot of people are going to accept, not just push our absolute favourite criteria to the exclusion of everything else. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary - the dividers need to be different from all the columns - otherwise the column they are the same with becomes the "primary" column and the "preferred" sorting criteria - thus removing the main advantage of single sortable list - NPOV. Regardless what criteria are used for the columns none of these should be repeated in the dividers. Being party to UNSG deposited treaties is the only verifiable answer that we have so far - so while other things are notable (such as UN membership) this should be also presented - regardless whether as column, divider, text or otherwise. It's not obscure in any way and neither is it complicated. And non-coincidentally it gives the same result as the status quo and the majority of lists out there. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, when you sort the list the dividers change. That's the point of the dividers. If it's sorted by dispute the dividers split disputed and undisputed. If you sort by alphabetical order there are no dividers. The only reason the dividers appear in the UN column by default is that's how the list is sorted by default. This is not about assigning primacy to any one sorting criteria. Also again I direct you to User:Orange Tuesday/Sources. There is no "majority of lists" that splits UN+VC from the rest of the states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What the sources show is that UN+VC are "universally accepted", "recognized by the international community", "widely recognized" or whatever you want to call it - and some the rest are sporadically included in some cases, by some sources, etc. Taiwan, Kosovo and Palestine much more so than the other7.

The list is sorted by UN column by default? Why isn't it sorted alphabetically as any normal list? This is even worse than I thought. And you say there is no "primary criteria" - when you have one signle criteria applied to "default sort", "column" and "dividers"? Alinor (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I also felt that the default sort might be an issue. But this won't be a massive break from the current page and the reader will be able to sort whatever way they want. This isn't perfect, but I'm willing to bend to accept this version because I think it's as close as we are going to get to something, as is. Outback the koala (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll

1. . Ladril. With dividers. Will accept without dividers. EDIT: since this seems to be approaching a tie, I change my vote to "without dividers". Still open to "with dividers". Ladril (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
2. . Prefer with dividers, but will accept either version. TDL (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
3. . No preference. (EDIT: With dividers I guess but this isn't really a concern for me either way. I just want to go with whatever is the least controversial) Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
4. . Without. Outback the koala (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC) - but willing to accept with. Outback the koala (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
5. . Support 3i with or without. EDIT: With dividers, but can very easily live without them. --Taivo (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
6. . Object. Alinor (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
7. . Strongly prefer dividers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
8. . Prefer no dividers, but can live with them.--Jiang (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
9. With. They're ugly. But they're needed for defining exactly where the categories are broken. It would also help editors aswell, since we're likely to get drive-by "alphabetisers" unless we explicitly show that the arrangement is deliberate. Nightw 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
10. . Strongly prefer dividers. Pfainuk talk 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Update - judging by the comments from users above, this will be a tie, so people who voted "no preference" (Taivo, Orange Tuesday at this point) are encouraged to highlight the one they would prefer in the poll above. Ladril (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Update Dividers seem to have the edge so far. Ladril (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial assessment

Sorry if this seems premature, disruptive or like I'm putting words into people's mouths, but from reading everyone's last comment I dare anticipate the following result (counting people who have not voted yet):

Alinor- with dividers. Pfainuk - with dividers. Nightw - without dividers. Jiang - I dare say without, but he will tell us. Britishwatcher - I believe the result of talk page discussion with him was something very similar to the version with dividers, am I correct?

So unless something changes, the anticipated result seems to be a narrow win for "with dividers". Feel free to collapse or ignore this if it causes rashes. Ladril (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote on preferred sandbox

A vote to choose a preferred sandbox from the various sandboxes offered. please list the sandbox you prefer (or at most two, where each will get half a vote). Whichever sandbox wins will become the prototype, and all our efforts will focus on modifying, balancing and improving that sandbox; the other sandboxes will be mothballed.--Ludwigs2 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sandbox 3i Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sandbox 3i --Taivo (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• <your vote> <your sig>

I think we will get the final result by simple majority from the poll above. Several of us will be yielding in the case of a tie. Ladril (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The sandboxes are "almost" the same - each has some specific difference - could somebody summarize what these are, so that we can choose? Maybe one of us can list what is common in all sandboxes (or what's changed in comparison with the status quo) - and then each author of its sandbox to explain what more is in his design(s). Alinor (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No sandbox before 3i seems to have attracted people to a consensus, so it seems a bit useless to me to incorporate all of them into a new poll. This is just one person's opinion, of course. Ladril (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The poll above is basically on 3i with two modification options. We have left 3a-h in the dust as we moved to 3i. --Taivo (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If I can judge the discussion above it seems like 3i is the most acceptable so far, with two possible stumbling points being the dividers and the grouping of Kosovo with VC. Why don't we acknowledge that we haven't quite reached a consensus in those areas, put them aside for the purposes of this poll, and see if we can get an agreement on 3i in general? Then we can move ahead with it as a baseline like Ludwigs2 suggests. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I believe we already have a general agreement on 3i. The majority vote so far seems to be for the dividers, so that should partially assuage the concerns about due weight which have generated the opposition to changing the status quo. The Kosovo issue is tricky, but I don't think it's such a stumbling block. I'm willing to discuss it with Outback on her (or my) talk page, if only to stop the 'walls of text' dynamic prevalent here. Ladril (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We could always go back to a 4-cat layout (UN member/observer/agency member/others) to separate VC and Kosovo if that helps to address Outback's (and other's) concerns with having these two states are grouped together. It means 1 more colour, but that seems like a minor compromise to end a 2 year long debate. TDL (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mixing the Vatican with any other state is bound to generate a protest from somebody, because the Vatican has very different characteristics from all other states. It also doesn't seem right to me to create a new category for Kosovo just because some don't like it being placed next to the Holy See. That seems POVish to me (Who knows, the Taiwanese may not be too happy to see themselves placed in the same category as Nagorno-Karabakh). There are somewhat equally valid arguments both for and against placing Kosovo and the Vatican in the same category, but I tend to lean in favour. Ladril (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I see three possible ways of doing Kosovo/VC in 3i. 1) Put Kosovo and VC together and in alphabetical order, 2) use TDL's 4-cat layout, or 3) split the difference like in the current 3i2. I'd accept any of those approaches, but some editors might have a problem with one or more of them. How about after everyone weighs in on the dividers we have another poll on those three options? Then maybe we could work from whichever of them is least controversial. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What worries me is that the Kosovo issue might make us lose the momentum we have gained towards a hard-earned consensus. So far only a couple of users have expressed reservations about it, while the rest seem happy - or at least, not unhappy - with the dividers. If we stall too long on Kosovo, we risk again running into the "please everyone" wall. I'd say let's agree on one of the two versions, as we are doing now. Nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone. The Kosovo entry can be discussed and, if necessary, changed in the course of the next several days. Hell, if that's too much to bear, we can even agree to have Kosovo with the rest of limited recognition states for the time being, and pretend for a while it's not a member of any UN Agency. But I don't want to go down the 1000 sandboxes route again, and I think I'm not alone. Ladril (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification. My proposal is: let's agree on a Sandbox first, without putting it in the article itself. After we have made the compromise on the sandbox, we debate the place Kosovo will have in the new table. But I would not like users using Kosovo as an excuse to continue pushing POVs about how best to organize the entire list. Ladril (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh no I agree. Right now the most important thing is locking down a rough consensus and moving forward with 3i. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest is using "UN membership" (the verifiable fact) for the column (resulting in yes/no cells) and using "State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG" for divider1 and "Not a ...." for divider2. I don't think we should "tailor-adjust" our proposal to fit a particular entity in either category. Any transfer between the three groups UN+VC/Kosovo+Taiwan+Palestine/other7 will be objectionable with valid reasons - and unfortunately the Kosovo+Taiwan+Palestine/other7 separation is hard/impossible to justify with objective criteria/source, so I think the safe thing to do is to have UN+VC/other10 (as in the status quo) dividers.

The Kosovo placing is not tricky at all - it's yet (more than 3 years after independence) to be accepted as State party to any international treaty, let alone such deposited with the UNSG, so for the time being it can remain together with Taiwan and Palestine and the other7. Of course its membership in IMF/WBG will be mentioned in its extent cell. Alinor (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct to assess Sandbox 3i with dividers as the consensus? Ladril (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From the visual side of things, but not the sorting criteria it uses. But we haven't discussed whether people prefer those small columns in the middle or to the side. I preferred them to the far right, and I think that Alinor said he preferred it that way too. Nightw 12:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We can vote on the columns the same way we did the dividers but I would really like to start from a place of general agreement on something before we start up more discussions and polls. Would it be fair to say that 3i with dividers is the rough consensus at this point, acknowledging that we haven't come to an agreement 1) on how Kosovo and VC should be grouped and 2) the position of the columns? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Other things that need to be sorted out, if I'm not forgetting something - description/composition of "dispute column", composition of "UN column" (both heading and cell contents). Alinor (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute column is China, the Koreas, and the 10 states classified as "other states" on the current list. That's been laid out multiple times and as far as I know it isn't a point of disagreement. It also seems to me like most people find the UN Column's heading and cell contents acceptable, with the caveat that the Kosovo/VC decision might change some specific wording we use. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a breakdown of points, according to my view:

1. All the work towards this consensus cannot result in a purely cosmetic arrangement. Declaring this is an insult to the intelligence of all participants. The underlying, substantial issues must be addressed.

2. Both the status quo and 3i have the intention of classifying the states according to integration with the international community.

3. The status quo has ill-defined categories that, in the opinion of several users, do not convey such integration really well. The UN membership/participation in specialized agencies/no UN participation classification (Sandbox 3i) seeks to address this problem.

4. The "internationally recognized states" category is useless and POV because it leaves out states with substantial recognition. The "other states" category is also useless because it is a miscellany of information. Miscellanea are to be avoided according to the manual of style for lists [[21]]. At least some of the states in both status quo categories (Vatican, Kosovo) can and should be organized in a better way. This is what is being proposed with 3i, not more or less.

5. Some users defend the "other states" category because they think moving Kosovo a step closer to the UN member states is POV. This argument is slippery because the opposite argument can be used with the same ease: denying Kosovo (or any non-UN member state that makes inroads towards further integration with the international community) a place in the list can be construed as anti-Kosovo POV. Categories which list verifiable facts serve to achieve as neutral a point of view as possible.

6. The Sandbox 3i proposal is good because it mixes in a rather simple way several criteria for establishing integration with the international community: UN membership, participation in UN system organizations and diplomatic recognition. The status quo proposal tries to use only two of those, and it doesn't even do this well.

7. If your only reason for opposing the criteria in 3i is "I don't want X state moved a category", well, that's a pretty weak and POVish justification to my eye. Sorry.

Am I missing something? Ladril (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

zero tolerance for personal comments. drop it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reading glasses. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good faith. That's the third time in this thread alone that you've accused nameless participants of "pushing POVs". You're welcome to provide arguments of your own, but accusing editors of "pushing POVs" will not be tolerated. Nightw 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Fine, don't tolerate it. So what? Ladril (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC) So if you cannot grasp the concept of mutual respect, then other participants like myself will likely refuse to interact with you, which may result in a stalemate in the mediation. Nightw 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Considering the resume you have made for yourself (including this very page), with continuous name-calling and adjectives towards more than one person you have a personal beef with, I don't think anyone will take your complaints about "lack of mutual respect" seriously. As for a stalemate, you seem to be misunderstanding your position; you do not have personal veto power here. As a participant you are required to work towards a consensus, which is what the majority of people here are doing now. Whatever the result (change or no change), it can take place with or without you. Ladril (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC) "...will not be tolerated" Oh, and I forgot to add: even threats. That's a wonderful resume indeed. Ladril (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC) The only "beef" I have here is with your general attitude, although it's far from personal. It appears it's the opposite for you, bordering on a perpetual grudge. That's sad. Nightw 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Pot, please meet kettle. The spillover here of your ongoing, wikipedia-wide, personal BATTLE with Alinor has been extremely disruptive to the mediation process. It's very hard to keep WP:AGF when you've described editors as "pathetic" and "constant whinging [sic]". Perhaps if you respected other editors, then you'd find that respect being reciprocated. Let's focus on the content and the arguments, as opposed to personalizing the debate. TDL (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Oh, should I dig up everything I have on you, too? And then present the diffs here? Is that what this discussion has degraded into? Another user here has just accused others (not just me) of "POV pushing". Whether you dislike my general behaviour is irrelevant here since incivility is an entirely different thing to AGF and accusations of POV. I assume Pfainuk was also lumped in the category of "POV pushers". Does he deserve this? Oh, of course he does he said something you didn't like; he must be pushing a POV. Excuse me for objecting to a baseless attack on mine and others' integrity. Ladril recently made a post encouraging more comments and further input. If you then go and call everyone that disagrees with you a "POV pusher" then you won't get any more input. But then don't be surprised if they oppose your proposal because their concerns haven't been addressed... Nightw 00:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

alright guys, I think we are at a crossroads here. two points I want to make:

1. (and I cannot stress this enough) NO ONE IS TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OF A PERSONAL NATURE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. PERIOD. I am going to prejudicially redacting any and all such comments from this point on, because we will have none of that here.
2. You all have to face the fact that one or more of you is not going to get what you want. There is no way around that, because what you want is mutually exclusive. so one of the following will of necessity have to occur for us to move ahead:
   • one or more of you cave in on minor points and let the other side win (major points for nobility)
   • you all agree to take a vote and bind yourself to the results - losing sides agree not to get in the way, but restrict themselves to fixing the problems with the winning result
   • You all agree to let me (or some other independent third party) make the choice for you, and bind yourself to that result; as above, once the choice is made you don't get to question it, you just have to move forward.

Discussion is just circling the bowl over trivialities right now - Frankly, I think you're all just being stubborn. I really think you should all agree to do one of the above, otherwies we should open a discussion about moving to arbitration. so, which way do you want to go with it? --Ludwigs2 23:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of these options. I don't think we're going to need an independent party, though. There is very broad consensus already on 3i. --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a vote would be the simplest way to move forward. I'd accept a third party if it came down to it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Taivo. Based on the discussion here and the poll , I think we've got a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS in favour of Sandbox3i2 with some minor details to be worked out. By my count:

• 8 editors are willing to accept it: Orange Tuesday, me, Ladril, Taivo, Jiang, Chipmunkdavis, Outback the koala, Pfainuk
• 2 editors who seem fundamentally opposed to this setup: Alinor and Night w

Apologies if I've misrepresented anyone's position. Personally, I think this is as close as we're going to get. I suggest moving forward with sandbox2i as the prototype and trying to address the remaining minor issues. Each of the remaining issues can be put to a binding vote. TDL (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that this is mediation and the issue id 'hot', I would prefer to hear that Alinor and Night accept this as a working compromise before we move ahead. Otherwise we'll just end up with more stubborn contestation. If they don't accept it, then I'd like to hear them offer some way out of the deadlock (perhaps a small change which will make them happier and not disrupt the majority opinion). --Ludwigs2 02:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the holdouts: Just because something is implemented now doesn't mean it can't be changed in the future. Perhaps those opposed to the changes could allow them to implemented "under protest". Then this discussion could be pulled up as argument against the status quo being inviolable consensus should an effort be made to change things in the future. With what is currently in use, almost any change is better than no change.--Jiang (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig, in my recollection, we did not seek a mediator to act like a high school hall monitor, nor do I think the role of a mediator is simply to call for poll after poll. My expectations about what a mediator is supposed to be here could be wrong, but one of the roles I expected a mediator to fulfill would be that of a different pair of ears being more receptive to the arguments being expressed here. Some users on both sides are just stubborn, and this is why I was reluctant to participate on this at first, but I held some hope for the mediation. But, if as mediator you do not fulfill the role of having messages from both sides reach their intended destination, I do not know what you're doing here (no offense). This not about winning or losing, as you seem to think; it's about communication, and communication is what you should be facilitating here. So far, besides repeated calls for civility, I've seen little on your part to do it here.

Nor do I intend to stoop to a personal barrage with this particular user. I have however a history of patiently enduring continuous abuse which has to stop at some point. Trust me, I can perfectly wipe my own ass, but if no one takes the time to educate him about appropriate forms ASAP, he's going to cause a lot of trouble both to himself and to the encyclopedia. But that's enough about this topic as far as I'm concerned. Ladril (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another thing re Ludwig's comment: I don't think things have gotten to the extreme where we have to yield to an outside decision. True, we have a couple of stubborn posters, but the majority seems to be communicating adequately so far, and we do not have to have unanimity to proceed. My hope still is that we can reach a reasoned consensus that is acceptable to both parties. I do not believe in solutions imposed by insistence and/or stubborness - I don't believe they are going to help the encyclopedia any. Ladril (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's give Ludwig a bit of slack as he is volunteering his time here. We're so close to the end so let's try to keep the focus on wrapping this up. I think Ludwig's suggestion that we should briefly hold off on moving forward to see if Alinor or Night have any last minute minor changes that would address their concerns is reasonable. I can't say that I'm optimistic, but as always I'm willing to listen. TDL (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, in my assessment the problem here is not a matter of miscommunication. I think you all have thought this through well, I think you all express yourselves clearly, I think you all understand what everyone else is saying. You just honestly disagree, and disagree to an extent that you've been unable to find a way to work through it. I'm happy to be your 'extra pair of ears', if that's what you want, but I don't believe that will be helpful, because I don't think I can tell anyone here anything they don't already know, or phrase things in such a way that people might accept something they currently do not accept.

Honest-but-rock-solid disagreement of this sort leads to exactly the kind of back-and-forth that we see here, where people on each side each make good arguments, but simply cannot accept the arguments the other side makes because they start from different premises. it's an agree to disagree situation, except you cannot agree to disagree because you are working on a common project. so it gets stuck. The only way out of that 'stuckness' is for one or both sides to give up something they are currently not willing to give up for the sake of the greater good. Now it's best if everyone is willing to compromise a little, and 2nd best if someone is willing to sacrifice a point for the big picture - those actions build good will and produce good outcomes. but if not, then the alternative is for everyone to commit to a fair procedure for deciding and commit to the procedure's outcome. Agreeing to commit to the outcome is important, because that allows people to give up on things when they normally wouldn't, and let's the process move forward.

It's pretty clear that there's a rough consensus here. but the roots of that rough consensus were in place long before the mediation started, so nothing much has really changed. What I'm trying to do here is get the holdouts to commit to the process so that they are no longer holdouts but instead become an overruled minority position. As a minority position they can start working within the majority framework to make the article better and will be able to influence he outcome more effectively. That's how the article will move forward, and how we will get a stable outcome rather than a perpetually contested page.

If you want me to stop being mediator, all you need to do is ask. I have been distracted lately by other things, and not paying as much attention as I might, so I could see the justice in that. However, if you don't want me to step down, then please allow me to do things the way I think best. --Ludwigs2 05:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the situtation for sandbox i2 and I am willing to accept it. I now support i2 based on the well put responses to my concern; I dont see any other way to incorperate VC and Kosovo and not have them in the same colour area given the counter-arguements. Although I would prefer that we get another colour; this would look like crap plus noone would go for (I remember this from months ago and dont want deja vu). The divisions do look ugly as is, but they go away upon sorting, which is a good thing. Outback the koala (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if we end up agreeing on this, I propose that we take from the current list's section entited "Information on status and recognition of sovereignty" and copy and entries with no new changes into the new "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty" in order to make transition smooth and have no sneakiness or disputes that may asrise from any "misunderstandings". Outback the koala (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Outback that the current information should be copied as is into the new sortable list. @Alinor (below), "rough consensus" is where the great majority of editors are supporting one version even though it may need a tweak here and there. "Consensus" also doesn't mean unanimity. --Taivo (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for compromising Outback. One of the issues we can discuss, after moving forward with I2, is whether we should use a 4-cat layout, to separate VC and Kosovo and address your concerns. Personally, I'm OK with an extra colour/category, but let's save that debate until everyone agrees to accept I2 as a prototype. TDL (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is "rough consensus" - there is a group of editors who support "anything" based on UN/non-UN Vienna/others division and at the same time without using "Vienna" name (e.g. trying to come up with their own "definition/heading/wording" instead of Vienna formula - on grounds of "too hard to understand" and similar). There are other editors, like me, who are no so keen on this solution. Counting "6 vs. the rest" and similar doesn't seem productive to me.

I don't object the general layout of the sandboxes and as seen in the previous discussions - I was one of those pushing for such "UN/specialized agencies/others" before - but the current proposals (and most of the older proposals too) have multiple issues - some of them small and stylistic, others more important. Combining all of these problems makes me unable to accept any of the currently presented sandboxes. I explained the problems I see multiple times. Should I list them again? The replies that I got range from "no reply" to some explanation that isn't implemented in subsequent sandboxes (for example "There should be a footnote or other explanation about what the dispute column includes" - but such isn't added to the sandboxes. This leaves it open to interpretation and future&present debates. I don't think I ask for something big and/or unreasonable - but still - no result).

I have proposed multiple times possible solutions - move columns to the right, use "UN membership" column and "UNSG deposited state party" dividers, etc. This is what the sources show us anyway, but still so far I haven't seen any reasonable (IMHO) objection. Only "it's complicated". I think it isn't. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, given the fact that you've supported almost this exact layout in the past, why is it so unacceptable now that you're willing to oppose consensus? You may not think you're asking for anything unreasonable, but the clear consensus is that what you continue to advocate for is unworkable. No one likes "UNSG deposited state party" for a variety of valid reasons that have been expressed to you. You can disagree with their reasons, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If you've got some new suggestions which aren't going to break our majority to implement, then great. But this poor horse is dead, please give him some dignity and drop the WP:STICK. TDL (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor can't obstruct consensus (nor do I think this is his intention). There seems to be a majority consensus now for a specific proposal, and if Alinor wants to be in the minority that is his right. Individuals do not have veto power here, and the consensus can still go on. I'm happy to continue to discuss sticking points with users who do not want to conform, but not because I believe we need everyone's permission and seal of approval; rather, I do not want the eventual consensus to feel like an imposition. It should be as reasoned as possible. Ladril (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to have been a lack of clarity about my position expressed earlier in this discussion (I refer to TDL's comment of 01:11, 21 April 2011):

• I do not feel that 3i2 is a perfect solution and would not feel able to say "support" unreservedly. I feel in particular that putting Kosovo where it is is likely to cause problems in the future (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with those who may dispute it). Putting the Vatican above it may help marginally in this regard, but does not resolve the issue.
• I feel that 3i2 goes a long way to resolve the legitimate concerns that the existing criteria for dividing the list are not adequately based in policy.
• I feel that 3i2 (including dividers) provides reasonable compromises on the general point in dividing the list as per my previous arguments. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement on other proposals.
• I do not feel that there is much to be gained from the perspective of the encyclopædia from my holding out here. This has been a very (very) long dispute and the encyclopædia benefits from its being resolved, even if not all editors are totally happy with the result. So, while this solution is imperfect, I am willing to accept it for the purposes of consensus. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think several users who support the proposal have also said that they'd be willing to have Kosovo and VC in two different categories if that's the sort of thing that would help ease people's concerns on the Kosovo issue. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help from my perspective - particularly given that the dividers are not overly intrusive. Pfainuk talk 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't like having four categories. Not because of stubborness, but I believe lots of people will be opposing such a categorization in the future, and we will be reverting to three categories rather soon. As Hermann Hesse wrote: "let's not jump over a chasm in two steps". This proposal amounts to creating a category just for Kosovo. Heck, I dislike the proposal so much I'm willing to go with Nightw's UN members + UN observer + others instead (I don't intend to push this proposal, this is just an illustrative comment on how much I dislike having four divisions). If the majority chooses this I guess I'll have to go along. Ladril (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely why we all need to agree to bind ourselves to the results of a vote or something. The back and forth isn't going to end. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Alinor: let's be clear - you are not unable to support any of these sandboxes. You choose not to support them. You have reasons for choosing not to, sure: what you need to realize is that you're not going to be able to satisfy all of your reasoning at this point in time. this is because the situation in the real world is unclear; we can't make it perfect if they can't.

You need to start thinking about what you want to compromise on, because if you do not give in on some of the details, sooner or later the group will decide that you are never going to agree to anything, and then the situation will shift from a consensus model to a policy model, and some version will be implemented without regard to your objections. It's just a general rule of life that if you keep saying no until you get exactly what you want, you most likely won't get anything at all. The hard thing for you right now is to create some suggestion which both others and you can accept - you know all the things they won't accept, now find something you might be able to convince them on.

My general suggestion is to use what is utilized in the real world and to use what the sources show. In the past I was one of those advocating for UN vs. VC+Kosovo vs. the rest (utilizing membership in Vienna organizations), but now, after I looked at the sources it's clear that we should not 'usurp' UNSG authority and apply Vienna ourselves. We should use what the UN Treaty database shows that the UNSG has already decided - UN+VC vs. the rest. We should explain that Vienna formula is a major consideration and we should note Vienna memberships in the extants. But we should not separate Kosovo from Taiwan and Palestine by our own decision.

Particular details on how this is implemented are a separate issue - by coloring, by dividers, by column, by something else. I don't object any of those and I support the 'single sortable list' concept (with or without dividers) - in general. But the particular proposal above has additional problems - unrelated to Vienna/UNSG - I have mentioned these multiple times - but everybody focuses on UNSG/Vienna only. Alinor (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we please just agree on some way to move forward? The discussion is stalled right now and I don't think it's going to move forward unless we all agree to a vote or a third party or something. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the holdouts are unwilling to compromise here. Unless they come forward soon with suggestions that address their concerns, which don't break the WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS we've established in favour of sandboxi2, we'll have no choice to move forward without them. I don't want to leave anyone out of the process, but at the moment I don't see what other option we have. TDL (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They both have made valuable contributions to the page, after all. I haven't lost hope in dialogue yet. But I also agree they ought to be more open to the perspectives of others. Ladril (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Going forward based on the latest sandbox - and putting aside the UNSG for the moment - any comments on the other issues/problems identified so far? Alinor (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Limited addition proposal

Extended content

Please state your opinions of the proposed above limited addition to section1 bullet description and the other slight rewordings in the nearby sentences that come along with it. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC) No. I'd like to see Danlaycock put his single-list proposal out there again for discussion and revision. I'd also like you to keep from fouling the waters with multiple opposing sandboxes. The previous discussion bogged down by getting confused over your multiple options. --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, nobody is "fouling the waters" - what I did was to show some problematic issues in Sandbox3 and to propose ways to resolve them. Ludwigs2, please move Taivo's comment to the Sandbox3 section - this section is for opinions on another proposal. Alinor (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Since Taivo edits my comments [22], that's why it seems the below is needed. Alinor (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Ugh. Your constant whinging is getting tedious. Nightw 11:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Limited addition proposal - to add a sorting criteria to status quo section bullets

Please see below the proposed redaction of the section1 description bullet and other slight rewordings in the nearby sentences that come along with it:

This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty.

Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. The list is compiled according to the criteria for inclusion and as of 2011 contains 203 entries divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically:

1. The "internationally-recognized sovereign states" section lists 193 states, which are considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" and at the same time have successfully joined an international treaty as a "State".
2. The "other states" section lists 10 states which satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but are not widely recognised diplomatically as an independent sovereign state.

References

This addition will not result in any changes/moves/additions of states in the list or their arrangement between the two sections. The status quo will be retained - we will just add a sourced sorting criteria instead of the current blanket statement in section1 bullet description. See also above. Substantial and unrelated to this 'limited addition proposal' overhauls of the article are also discussed above - these can be implemented separately later, pending reaching consensus on some issues and details about these bigger changes. Alinor (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on the proposal itself

• Danlaycock - Oppose TDL (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Alinor - support, 07:07, 10 April 2011
• Ladril -
• Taivo - Oppose --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a complete waste of time. Since a consensus already exists for Sandbox 3i, this proposed edit is pointless. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Pfainuk -
• BritishWatcher -
• Chipmunkdavis -
• Outback the koala -
• Night w - support, 00:02, 21 April 2011
• Jiang -
• XavierGreen -
• LlywelynII -
• Orange Tuesday -

Procedural and other issues

Extended content

Alinor uses this to bypass the mediation process here. Until this mediation is completed then no changes to the status quo should be made. The status quo division is exactly what is described--UN membership + Vatican City vs. all others. Danlaycock's single sortable list proposal is gaining consensus and when it is implemented (assuming that it continues to gain consensus), it will replace the status quo. Until this mediation is complete, no changes should be made to the article unless they have a consensus. This proposal of Alinor's does not have a consensus at this time. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC) The status quo uses unsourced and weaselish blanket statement by Wikipedia editors implying that "internationally recognized sovereign states" are UN members+Vatican, no more, no less. This should be corrected - and this should be done regardless of the more broad and bigger changes to the list and arrangement discussed elsewhere on this page. Actually this is the main topic of the mediation and of the dispute. So, if anybody is trying to bypass the mediation that is you, who try to dillute to subject of mediation and to venture into more complicated discussion - maybe so that no conclusion can be reached and the status quo (unsourced, weaselish, blanket statement) that you supports (with "I like it" reasoning) can be kept unchanged. Alinor (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The point of this mediation, Alinor, is to address the issue. As such, it is wrong to try to apply halfway measures or intermediate measures. When the mediation is over, we will apply whatever the consensus agrees to. But piecemealing the implementation of a single editor's preference is an end run around the mediation process. At this point, you are the only one with ants in his pants to do something. That's not how mediation works--we talk here until a consensus is reached and then we make the consensus change. --Taivo (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC) When you try to dilute attempts to address the issue by trying to force others to venture into bigger change that's less likely to get consensus - then measures are needed to put us back on track. I hope this is not the case here, but so far you have shown too much stubbornness and "I don't like it" reasoning, so I'm not sure. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, I think the problem with this proposal is that it's designed to preserve the status quo, which is something that a lot of editors found unacceptable. I think it would be more productive to put all of our efforts towards establishing a new consensus. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The biggest issue in the status quo is not that the states are divided, but that the division is arbitrary, without a criteria. That's what this proposal solves. Some editors would prefer a single alphabetic list (sortable or not) - as NPOV application of the inclusion criteria, but others reject that idea and perceive it in the opposite way - as pushing of minority POVs (minority of states that recognize the other10). Both groups have valid arguments and that's why are kind of "stuck". The limited addition will at least add a sourced separation criteria to the status quo - a significant improvement IMHO. This doesn't prevent the single list vs. separate list discussion to continue. Alinor (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Unwanted Distraction from main task. Alinor, don't you read the comments of others? It was clearly pointed out to you that when we are diligently working on a final consensus on sandbox 3e/f, this is an unneeded distraction. It is also not your place to mark anyone else's support or opposition here. --Taivo (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) The two discussions are not exclusive of each other. If you don't want your position regarding that one shown, fine. Alinor (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, when you post a poll, you do not post others' votes for them. If Danlaycock wants to participate in this distraction, he can do so himself. --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Taivo, please don't interfere with my comments and I also don't agree with collapsing this section. If Danlaycock objects mentioning his comment he can say/edit so himself. Alinor (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC) This is not a distraction, but a workable solution (because it consists of minimal change - thus is not so controversial as the bigger overhauls discussed above) to the big problem of the status quo. Alinor (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, just in case you're wondering, we're not ignoring you. We're just trying to reach a consensus, which by definition is a group endeavor. We won't be able to accomodate every last concern expressed by everyone, but we are trying to move forward with something that will be reasonably acceptable to the majority. Ladril (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I just reviewed the proposal, and I think it is unnecessary at this point. We're already having too much trouble reaching an agreement in the proposals above, why should we get swamped in this provisional solution? I frankly don't see the need. This is unnecessarily pointy and bureaucratic. Ladril (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Nobody is forced to participate here, but I think it's valuable that we see the fall-back option. Alinor (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Everyone - please keep focussed on the larger picture. We are working on a significant overhaul of the article, so we should not get tangled up in editing the article at the same time as we are working here. this means try not to work on the article itself, unless you really think that there's something that needs to be done. remember, any edits there are likely to be undone when we are finished here, and short-term problems on the article itself (while not desirable) are acceptable in the interests of smoother discussions here. If some one does work on the article itself, let it go unless you really think that it's a huge problem; this for exactly the same reasons given in point 1. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, and keep the ball over here as much as humanly possible. --Ludwigs2 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, it makes little sense to waste our effort on a group of edits that will only be staying up for a short period. You are within your right to want to make improvements to the article, but the group consensus seems to be that there are other issues waiting in line to be discussed. Ladril (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC) This is OK, I just object collapsing the section at this stage. Especially by the editor who objected the proposal from the start. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, every single editor is telling you that this section is a distraction and is ignoring it other than telling you that it's a distraction. Do you have a problem comprehending this? That means collapse and I am not the only editor to collapse this. No one, and I mean no one, is going to support editing the article while we are nearing the end of this mediation. Leaving this long dead section uncollapsed makes it difficult for editors to see the sections where discussion is actually taking place and which are relevant to reaching the desired consensus. And, Alinor, I didn't collapse this section until it had received zero comment for three or four days. That made this a dead issue. --Taivo (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I said I object collapsing it at this stage. Since there is a disagreement if anybody is to collapse it in our case here that can be only Ludwigs2. Alinor (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Alinor, the moderator has already told you above that this is a dead issue and a distraction. Drop it. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC) If he wants this collapsed he can collapse it himself. And whether it's a dead issue isn't so obvious - see issued opinions. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE. One of the reasons no one is paying attention to you, Alinor, is that you continue to play with this section despite that fact that no one has bothered to vote in your poll. All the "votes" there were placed there by you and not by the people you claim are voting. Drop it. --Taivo (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey could the two of you maybe just calmly back away from this whole section for now? I don't think edit-warring over whether a section should be collapsed or not is particularly helpful. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Involvement - a motion

A proposal above seems to be approaching consensus, and so we're reaching what I see as a critical point. However, it's all boiling down (again) to a group of 4-5 users *thinking* they have reached a consensus. Judging from previous talk page discussion, I have noticed a pattern, though. Several users seem content to let the debate go on for pages and pages, maybe in the hope it will peter out and no changes will be made. When consensus is just around the corner, they chime in to say, "I don't like it", and then the never-ending cycle begins again. Can I make a polite request that editors from the two sides who want their voice to be heard on this matter get involved ASAP? Few things are more frustrating than to have debates going around in circles for eternity.

We are all aware that Wikipedia editing is consensus-based, but the policies also state that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please don't make this process bureaucratic. Thanks.Ladril (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: debate is going on at section 3g above. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Update: now in 3i above --Taivo (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

As I assume I am very close to, if not part of, the chiming in group of users I'd like to apologise here. I do try, the problem for me is that I don't want to comment without benig able to think it through carefully and often the discussion moves at such a fast pace with sandbox after sandbox and new proposal after new proposal, it's hard to get a handle. Is it Orange Tuesday's or TDL's proposal that you think has consensus, or are they the same? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC) TDL seems to have cast his lot with Orange Tuesday above (subsection Sandbox 3e above). I think consensus is near at that point. Ladril (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) The current discussion revolves around a structure first presented in sandbox3. There have been a bunch of minor modifications and additions in subsequent sandboxs. Just add a letter after the 3 to see them (sandbox3b, sandbox3c, etc.) The most recent version is sandbox3f, but some of the features from previous versions (such as the sortable dividers in the original proposal) could still be reincorporated if people want them. TDL (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Ladril, yes, that's why I have proposed the limited addition above - previous wide-ranging seemingly-consensus changes were refuted at their final stages right before implementation, that's why I think we should at least do that small addition. So far, besides Taivo "I don't like it" nobody has objected it. But as you said this may be the "silence tactic". Alinor (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I think Orange Tuesday is trying to address your concerns above. Why don't you try participating in the discussion of his/her proposal? Now you have, that's good. Ladril (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, I don't object single sortable list - in principle - and as you can see in the archives before mediation I was proposing one such variant as final solution - but of course others objected and we have gone back to square one. The limited addition and the single list proposals are not mutually exclusive. We can implement them consequentially or even simultaneously. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks Ladril, I finally understand when our mediator said that "...you all say so darned much about everything." I find myself falling behind because of the volume of text and RL time needs - but I will try and stay engaged. Outback the koala (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I assume he has not seen a Cook Islands discussion, then. Ladril (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC) There is just too much text - much of it repetitive - here for the rest of us to digest. Perhaps archiving much of the page, and creating a summary of arguments and agreements, would help us?--Jiang (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC) For the time being just look at the summary of the dispute at the top of the page and the sections labeled Sandbox 3e and 3f. If you have questions they can be answered in those threads. Ladril (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC) And you can take a look at the Limited addition proposal. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC) No, Alinor, there's a reason why Ladril did not suggest the "limited addition" section--because it is a distraction. Other editors have told you that already. Please read the comments of others and focus. The task at this time is working on a single sortable list, not playing your game on the side. --Taivo (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC) It's not up to you to define our tasks and please stop making distractions from the discussions. Alinor (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Organization

Extended content

Since most of the group is currently discussing Sandbox 3e/f, would anyone object if I moved them here to the end (where people tend to expect to see the current active discussions)? --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Leave it as is - just help collapse sections where there is no discussion pls. Outback the koala (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Since Alinor refuses to have his dead discussion collapsed, would anyone mind if I moved the active discussion here to the end so people can get to it quicker? --Taivo (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) The thing is, I asked the mediator to join us at 3g section above. If that link is broken he might get lost. I'd say leave it up there while the mediator and maybe more people come join. And while you're at it, please uncollapse "Involvement - a motion". I'm not defending it because I started it, but it seems to have worked well to attract uninvolved users back to the fold. If it is invisible, people will later claim nobody gave them notice of the status of the debate.Ladril (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC) No problem with the uncollapse above. It got sucked into the general collapsing of threads following the active thread. --Taivo (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo

No more sandboxes from now on please. I believe the category "member of a UN specialized agency" is quite reasonable. Referencing history again, before 2002 it would have accomodated the Vatican, Switzerland and the Koreas. The issue to discuss here is: is putting Kosovo next to the Vatican a violation of NPOV? Ladril (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think in the context of the list, "member of a related agency" or "member of a related organization" is a more general wording that can encompass the specialized agencies and the IAEA. (And lest anyone thinks including the IAEA in there is OR, the UN's own website does occasionally group them together: [23]). The only thing it doesn't cover is the ICJ, but the ICJ parties are identical to the UN members right now so maybe we don't have to.

Really I think either way would be fine. You can justify grouping them together by saying you're only taking agency membership into account or you can split them apart by saying you're also taking observer status in the general assembly into account. Whichever of those solutions is less controversial is fine by me. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for such controversies - I suggest is using "UN membership" (the verifiable fact) for the column (resulting in yes/no cells) and using "State party of an international treaty deposited with the UNSG" for divider1 and "Not a ...." for divider2.

Also, the UN/dispute columns should be put back at the right side of the table. Alinor (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still, as I've always been, in favour of GA members + GA observers + rest. Nightw 09:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, your proposal seems confusing to the general reader. We should strive for clarity as much as NPOV. Ladril (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Complicated things need to be explained, not avoided. This is an encyclopedia - and the general readers reads it to get additional information and not to see the things he already knows. Regardless where - we need to provide the answer to "who is recognized as State by the international community" - and that's the answer the sources show. The dividers are a suitable place to present this information. And it also solves the "Kosovo issue".

Anyway - it's not so confusing - a state is either party to international treaties or it isn't. And we check those deposited with the UNSG for multiple reasons: UN is one of the "most notable/important/whatever" international organizations with almost worldwide reach; this avoids obscure treaties (such as signed between NKR, Abkhazia & co or some TRNC-Turkey treaty, etc.); is very easy to verify - the UN Treaty Database has a search/filter function where you can search for treaties for where a specific party participates. Alinor (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to avoid anything. The point is, I don't agree that dividing states by the "party to international agreements" criteria is useful for this list (it might be the basis for creating a different list). When I said we must strive for clarity, my meaning was that UN system participation is a more useful criterion for the general reader than in the criterion you are proposing. Most readers will get quite easily that the UN participation criterion is being used as a measure of integration with the international community. But if they see a list divided by "participation into a treaty" the idea will not be conveyed with the same ease. A list of states "parties to international agreements" will be of more interest to students of international relations or international law, and would make a great idea for a separate list. IMO, it's not so good for the "mother" list of states. Ladril (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, the point is, it doesn't matter how great your proposal is. Things here work on consensus and the reality is that people don't like your idea. This horse is dead, it's time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. If you want to continue to push for this, then keep it in the section you created not every section you comment in. TDL (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who's response is that Kosovo and VC can't be placed side-by-side for NPOV issues, you need to provide an alternative to differentiate between the non-UN members who are "generally accepted" and those who have "little to no acceptance". Insisting that Kosovo be listed beside Somaliland until such time as they gain UN membership is most certainly not NPOV. They could be recognized by say 190/192 UN members (excluding Serbia + Russia), have their UN membership vetoed by Russia, and you'd still list them next to Somaliland. How is that NPOV? The current proposal bases the middle section roughly on >50% recognition (the threshold for joining one of the specialized agencies). If you want a higher threshold, to exclude Kosovo, then great let's hear your ideas. But please don't suggest that it's NPOV to exclude a state solely because the opposition of a single veto holding state. TDL (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see 08:10, 21 April 2011 comment below

Continuing discussion from 3f

Note: discussion continued from #3f

Right, well there's no sense in taking jibes from a faceless stranger personally. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pfainuk, but in this particular case colours—as long as there is sufficient contrast between the text and the background to be visible in greyscale—are in fact adequate on their own... Orange I apologise for tampering with your sources page; I've added a few sources and corrected a few discrepancies between your assertions and publication dates. Question, though: say there isn't a predominant version of the list, regardless — how do I overlook the fact that Kosovo is not considered a state by the vast majority of world governments? And that placing it in a category ahead of others in a similar situation (some better, even) would be WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Kosovo's membership in UN agencies is verifiable, yes, but it does not automatically set it apart from the others in terms of its legitimacy as a sovereign state—the subject of the list. Nightw 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for the mistakes on Orange's source page. I added a bunch today, and speculated on the possible states without looking at the publication date. My bad.

"Kosovo is not considered a state by the vast majority of world governments" - source please? Yes only 75 states have formally recognized them. But to suggest that ALL of the remaining states don't consider them a state is OR. Only 141 states have recognized Montenegro. That doesn't mean that it's "not considered a state" by the remaining 61 states. It's unclear what fraction of states recognize Kosovo, but it's entirely possible that more states have explicitly recognized their independence than have explicitly recognized Serbia's claim to the territory. If you have a source which clarifies this situation, it would be very helpful.

"Kosovo's membership in UN agencies is verifiable, yes, but it does not automatically set it apart from the others in terms of its legitimacy as a sovereign state" - So then does the PRC's membership in the UN automatically set it apart from the other 10? The answer to these two questions is inextricably linked. Let's take a look at what the RS have to say:

• "Kosovo formally joined the IMF and World Bank. This gives Kosovo increased international legitimacy, which is important since support for its 2008 declaration of independence has been questioned by some." [24]
• "The IMF's acknowledgment of Kosovo's independence is the first by a premier international institution and a boost for Kosovo's legitimacy" [25]

It appears that the sources disagree with you. TDL (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo, Taiwan and Palestine are all commonly mentioned as state or something-like-a-state in many sources (unlike the other7). The Republic of Kosovo managed to get membership in one set of intergovernmental organizations who happen to be part of the Vienna formula (IMF/WBG are complementary to each other), but more than 2 years after declaring independence it still isn't party to any international treaty, let alone party as a State to a treaty deposited with the UNSG. So, we should not on our own separate Kosovo from Taiwan and Palestine. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Details and sources for non-recognition of Kosovo can be found at the article International recognition of Kosovo#States which do not formally recognise Kosovo as independent, which details the position of each state (even in those cases where it is stated that they are "considering recognising", this inevitably implies that they consider it important to do so, but that they have not done it for whatever reason). As many in this debate before me have argued, memership in the General Assembly implies a state's acceptance into the international community. The same cannot be said for U.S.-funded intergovernmental organisations, whether or not they officially be agencies of the UN. It may improve its standing, but it does not imply any overwhelming level of acceptance, especially when the majority of states have verbally denied such acceptance. Nightw 09:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that article. However, as you can clearly see from the title of the section, "States which do not formally recognise Kosovo as independent", it's incorrect to claim that all of these states don't consider Kosovo to be a state. If you want to make the argument that the "majority of states have verbally denied such acceptance" you're going to need to produce some sources to support this. Counting up states, based on vague statements made over an extended period of time, is WP:SYN. And using states such as Dominica, who's FM said "we recognize the right of the Kosovo people to self-determination and having their place in the family of free nations", as evidence of this is a gross mischaracterisation of their position.

"U.S.-funded intergovernmental organisations" - what is the relevance of this? 22% of the UN budget is funded by the US [26] as well.

"It may improve its standing, but it does not imply any overwhelming level of acceptance" - Right, that's precisely why they were placed somewhere between the "overwhelming acceptance" (UN membership) and "no acceptance" (no membership) sections. If you agree that it lends them some legitimacy, then why are you so opposed to indicating this? TDL (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because one could just as easily argue that some legitimacy is leant to SADR through its acceptance into the African Union, or to Palestine by its acceptance as a member state of UN-ESCWA. Same thing, different organisations. Attempting to display Kosovo as though its membership in select organisations makes it more legitimate than would membership in any other organisation? Might be verifiable, but it's not NPOV. And re your arguments about verbal non-acceptance, whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, since everything you're saying could just as easily be applied to any other state in that category. Nightw 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Fortunately for us, RS have published a list of organizations which they deem to be the most significant (Vienna formula). Your argument only valid if we are picking the organizations to use. We're not.

I only picked out Dominica as one example. There are plenty of others who voice support for Kosovo's independence, but which haven't formally sent a letter declaring their recognition. Ascribing a POV to them without sources is unjustified. TDL (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TDL. The "states which have not recognized Kosovo as independent" category conflates states who refuse recognition with states that have not yet defined a position (and let's not even go into states that have a policy of not making statements of recognition). We cannot assume Kosovo is only treated as a state by states who have made a formal statement. That's not the only measure of recognition.

The problem I see is that people have taken a web page from the Kosovo Foreign Ministry and taken it as an example of how recognition works in every case. That's not correct. It's understandable that in its struggle to acquire an international personality, Kosovo may want to list states that have made formal statements of recognition and/or relations, so as to show off the number and gain international legitimacy. However, that other states have not made such statements does not mean they are necessarily unwilling to treat Kosovo as a state. Ladril (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. As I pointed out above, Montenegro has only been able to get 141 recognitions and there was nothing controversial about their independence. Kosovo is closer to Montenegro than Somaliland when it comes to number of recognizers. TDL (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, these arguments can be applied to any of the 10 cases. It doesn't establish anything. Nightw 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't establish anything." Right, that's precisely my point. I'm not trying to establish anything. You're the one making unsupported suggestions to back up your position. If you can't support your opinion that "Kosovo is not considered a state by the vast majority of world governments" then your argument has no merit. TDL (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations is not a neutral organisation without agenda. It is not a RS for this kind of issue. It's opinion is one of many. And as I've said above, just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it NPOV. Nightw 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But you're proposing we use UN Member States + UN Observers as our criteria, aren't you? Why does the "UN agenda" violate NPOV when we're talking 194 states but not when we're talking 193? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's utilising membership in a hand-picked group of organisations, while there are plenty of other UN organisations where disputed states hold memberships that wouldn't be given any form of weight in our sorting criteria. It's like when we were discussing which organisations were important to mention membership in: anything outside the GA and the criteria got arbitrary. Why is membership in one of ECOSOC's specialised agencies more important that membership in one of its regional commissions? Why is membership in the UPU more important than membership in UNICEF? If you're answer is, "because the UN says so", why does their opinion get to dictate our criteria? Nightw 19:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. ECOSOC is a Council established under the UN Charter. The Specialized Agencies are not; each is an international organization in its own right. The UN plays a "coordinating" role with respect to them, but they are not subject to the decisions of the General Assembly or the Security Council (each has its own governance structure and membership regulations). Ladril (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"why does their opinion get to dictate our criteria" - And yet you support excluding a state from the main list because the UNSC ("a hand-picked group of states") says so? Why does the opinion of 5 states get to dictate our criteria? TDL (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why is membership in the UPU more important than membership in UNICEF?" Well one reason would be that "membership in UNICEF" doesn't exist. But generally speaking the thing that sets the specialized agencies+IAEA apart is their status as autonomous entities that work with the United Nations. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also ECOSOC doesn't "have" specialized agencies in the same way that it has regional commissions. Rather, the specialized agencies co-ordinate their activities through ECOSOC. Orange Tuesday (talk)

In reply to Dan, I've not claimed that my alternative is perfect, but clearly neither is yours. It just means that some adjustments need to be made. While membership can be denied, UN recognition of statehood is more easily attained. There's the outlet of going before the General Assembly alone, where there is no veto but resolutions are non-binding, or there's Res. 377, which overrides decisions made by the Security Council with a two-thirds vote. Nightw 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Res 377 is specifically limited to a "case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression". Since both Kosovo and Serbia have committed to a peaceful resolution of their issues this is clearly not an option. And there was a clear consensus in previous discussions that the UN can't recognize statehood.

I never claimed that this proposal is perfect. However, it's a significant improvement since it addresses the serious WP:V and WP:OR issues. All of your objections have been either: a) unsourced opinions or b) criticisms which also apply to what you're advocating for. These arguments don't diminish the fact that it's an improvement. If you've got suggested modifications, then by all means let's here them. TDL (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"US funded" The UN General Asssembly is not funded by the US? Ladril (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that calling UN agencies "US funded" is gross POV. I prefer the "Bhutan funded" label instead. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the IMF and Kosovo specifically, I think it does indicate some level of acceptance by the international community. Even though IMF has weighted voting generally, Kosovo's membership vote was on a country by country basis and the results were as follows: "138 of the 185 IMF member states took part in the vote. 96 of them voted for accepting Kosovo, 10 were against and 32 abstained from voting." [27]. The passage right after the results supports this point of view: "The result of the vote is of great political significance for Pristina. The independence of Kosovo has been recognised so far by 58 countries. Thus the vote at the IMF means that nearly 40 more countries have recognised it indirectly."

Those 96 IMF members represent exactly 50% of the UN members. And since three non-IMF members recognize Kosovo (Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Nauru), you could even make the case that a narrow majority of states do at least indirectly recognize or accept Kosovo's statehood. Now is this as clear cut as a typical UN member? No, of course not, but I think there is something to the argument that Kosovo enjoys a higher level of acceptance than the number in the Kosovorecognition template indicates. This is precisely why I feel that UN System membership is such a useful criteria. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This source states"...On the other hand, a decision of the GA (General Assembly) or other UN organ, taken in the routine performance of its functions and regarding an entity as a state, is a collective act binding even the dissenting states".[[28]] Ladril (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The UN Charter states (Article 63): "The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly. It may co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the United Nations." The agencies have a relationship with the United Nations. This doesn't mean they are subsidiary bodies of the UN. Ladril (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, gentlemen and ladies, I've read through all this, but it's not entirely clear exactly what the issue is. It sounds to me, who is fairly neutral on the issue of Kosovo, that you're arguing over the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. There is just a lot of needless poking at things without any real issue or any real arguments. Here's the way I see it based on Sandbox 3i. Kosovo will be sorted just after Vatican City and just before the states that are not members of anything. What is the problem with that? That's exactly where it belongs. There is a whole cline of levels of recognition ranging from Universally recognized (U.S., U.K., Russia, etc.) to universally unrecognized (Somaliland, etc.). Somaliland, for example, has educational exchanges with Yemen. Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia have a few big boys that recognize them and they recognize each other. Kosovo is a member of some international organizations. Palestine doesn't completely control its own sovereignty, but we still include it because it's more sovereign than not. Somalia is just a name for a space on the map without any real control, let alone sovereignty, but it happens to be a UN member. The Koreas have UN membership, but dispute each other's sovereignty. Israel is a UN member, but its sovereignty is disputed by the Arab World. What we don't want to do is try to make these distinctions so precise that we build an unintelligible and totally cumbersome system that requires daily maintenance to keep up with changing world events. Back up, friends, and see the forest. Kosovo is adequately marked as a non-member, non-observer of the UN, which places it below all members and Vatican City. It is also marked as a member of some UN groups, which places it above the totally-ignored states. It is right where it is supposed to be. Like I said above, this whole discussion is devolving into counting the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. It is pointless because it will not change the placement of Kosovo in our listing at all. --Taivo (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, on your user page you say you're a linguist. Don't come tell us classifying stuff (especially human constructs like languages AND states) is either simple or absurd. This debate about classifying states may seem absurd to outside observers, but most of the concerns raised both by Nightw and us are indeed questions that are also raised in international law texts (I know this because I've read them). The agreement in the literature seems to be that no classification is perfect, but that eventually something must be chosen. Anyone we thinks any solution we arrive that is going to be perfect is just deluding herself. What we're trying to do is to give reasons why we think a different proposal than the status quo will result in a better article. And BTW, here is a reference which says membership in a UN Specialized Agency signifies recognition as a state by the international community: [[29]]. Ladril (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, I'm not trying to take either side here, but I still don't see a clear statement of what the disagreement is and how it will practically affect the sortable list we're coming to consensus on. It seems as though the participants have brought long-standing issues that are overly subtle to this table, in my opinion, but have no real practical effect. It may seem very important in a theoretical sense to you and those involved, but is it really going to change the resulting list here? I don't see anything here that will move the position of Kosovo in the list when sorted by the UN participation column. It will remain below Vatican City and above the other outsiders looking in. --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're both right. It's not going to be perfect and these are important issues. But this discussion is heading toward the absract that I don't think will have an impact on the list, interesting though it is. I do share Nightw concerns about Kosovo which is why I hestitated to support sandboxi, but this page need to end before we become a journal entry unto ourselves. Outback the koala (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"alternative to differentiate between the non-UN members who are "generally accepted" and those who have "little to no acceptance"." - It's pretty easy. More than 3 years after independence RoK still isn't party to any international treaty, let alone one deposited with the UNSG. The lack of UNSG deposited treaty where RoK participates is an easily verifiable fact. And that's the difference between "wide international recognition" and "recognized in a limited way" states. Not in the exact number of recognitions, but in their lack of general acceptance among the international community resulting in minimal interactions. Yes, Kosovo is IMF/WBG member (IMF and WBG organizations are "tightly coupled"). But Taiwan is observer or participates under different forms/names in many more international organizations. Palestine also. I don't think we should "measure" these manually and firmly decide "Kosovo is much more integrated in the international community than Taiwan and Palestine" - this obviously is open to debate and there are different opinions. In the opposite direction we get the same result - we can't say "Vatican and Kosovo have similar level of integration in the international community" just because Kosovo got IMF/WBG membership - even when these are cited as part of the Vienna formula (also, using this fact without mentioning the Vienna formula itself is wrong - it makes it appear like editors choose the "notable" organizations by themselves). Alinor (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go before the real world - IMF/WBG membership is highly notable fact (and should be noted accordingly) especially because these are Vienna formula organizations. But regardless of it Vienna formula still hasn't been applied to Kosovo - Wikipedia should not be the first one to apply it. Alinor (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, I'm surprised to see you arguing this. We can indeed say membership in UN Specialized Agencies is a measure of integration into the international community because here is an external analysis that says so: [[30]]. This is why I don't find validity in your claim that this is a "hand-picked group of organizations". It's not hand-picked by us, it's hand-picked by external sources. Any criteria we use to sort the list, (including "internationally recognized vs. others") will be hand-picked, but some pickings will be better than others. Another reason why I think it's valid (here I go again): it may seem a bit awkward now that it only applies to two states, but in previous years we'll be having five or six different states in the "UN Specialized Agencies" category at some points, so it's a useful categorization to give the historical lists of states some uniformity. Ladril (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. I said that if we use Vienna formula without mentioning it (as the latest sandbox does) it seems like the editors picked the organizations. If we explain that we use the Vienna formula - then your reasoning applies.

And my point is that we should not be the first to utilize the Vienna formula in relation to a particular state. So far it hasn't been applied to Kosovo (by the UNSG or by anybody else). And actually that's what distinguishes it from the "regular" states like Israel or France. Alinor (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alinor that for us to apply the Vienna formula where it hasn't been done elsewhere would not be in line with our policies. And since Alinor's alternative relies on an actual list, he's even avoided using synthesis of putting two sources together to come to a conclusion, which isn't accomplished in the other proposal. Nightw 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What list? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no actual list. There's only a database of treaties. Alinor is suggesting that we WP:SYN all these treaties together to put forward the new idea that only states which have signed a treaty deposited with the UNSG are "internationally accepted". Plus s/he's using WP:OR to invent a criteria (signing a treaty = "international acceptance) and "hand-picking" which treaties are important (only those deposited with the UNSG). That's a whole lotta OR goin on. Sandboxi2 isn't SYN since we have sources which draw the conclusions for us (that Kosovo has added legitimacy because of their IMF membership) and the criteria is sourced. No new ideas there. TDL (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the source that verifies the criteria the same as the source that states that "Kosovo has added legitimacy because of their IMF membership"...? Nightw 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's one source. What source verifies the claim that signing a treaty makes you "internationally accepted"? What sources verifies the claim that only treaties deposited with the UNSG are important? What source SYN's this together to put forward the idea that "because France has signed ______ treaty they are "internationally accepted"? None of these claims are backed by RS. All of the equivalent claims are backed by RS in sandboxi2. TDL (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where? The only "RS" in the sandbox you've shown are the UNGCN list and an article on Nauru's recognition of Abkhazia... Nightw 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...you just quoted a source that I provided in your very last post that backs up the claims. [31]

So your answer to my questions is that you don't have any sources to back up you claims? TDL (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the source you're using to verify the criteria. I believe that source is this, which doesn't mention Kosovo, nor does it provide a list that we would copy. So the answer to my original question would be "no", the sources you're using to verify your criteria and make an entirely different claim about Kosovo are in fact separate, and the latter is even a publication of the U.S. government (not an independent scholarly publication). Unless a single source makes the claim, it's synthesis to suggest that a + b = c. The issue here with your proposal is that you're attempting to create a list that hasn't been produced by your source, and that there is one particular case to which the "formula" has never been applied. Nightw 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, as I've said many times before, you seem to be losing sight of the goal at hand. Our goal here is not to write a law journal, but an online encyclopedia meant for the general user. Sorting a list of states according to "has signed or ratified a treaty" is not of much interest to the general topic and is useless for the average user. Ladril (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. And the average user is gonna know what the "Vienna formula" is, and why membership in this organisation (but not that one) make an entry better qualified than others on a list of countries. Nightw 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, nobody has a list we can just copy. Everyone's list is different. That's the whole reason for this dispute in the first place. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this N times before. No one has the exact same list of states as Wikipedia. The insistence on outside lists is just stubborn. I'm willing to bet no one has the same list of philosophers Wikipedia does, but that has not prevented them from making their own list by combining from different sources. Ladril (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it appears clear that neither Alinor nor NightW is going to agree to anything here. Consensus is not always unanimous. While a poll that yields 5-4 is not a valid Wikipedia consensus, a poll that yields 8-2 is. --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If a majority agrees, we can move on from this part of the dispute and on to Cook Islands and Niue. I for one would appreciate having our mediator still alive for that. Ladril (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't died. yet. Though there are some on wikipedia what would like to see that change...

If we have an 8-2 poll then I'm behind marking that as established and moving on. NightW and Alinor can argue for changes within that new framework that might satisfy them. shall I mark this discussion as resolved?

I'll add, I'm halfway tempted to suggest that we take a 'slush pile' approach with things like Kosovo: simply have a paragraph at the beginning of the page that says something like "The following entities are excluded from this list because their status in the international community is indeterminate; this will be revised as the situation becomes clearer:" followed by a list of statoids that we refuse to address because we don't have clear sourcing. would that be too radical? --Ludwigs2 21:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be cautious and adequate, not radical. The Manual of Style for lists accounts for the possibility that one or more items may be difficult to sort, and even suggest placing them provisionally on the talk page. However, what would we be waiting for? For Kosovo to ratify a multilateral treaty? Doesn't sound pertinent to me. Let's hear the others. Ladril (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the chosen sandbox overall, but there are a number of issues still outstanding. I was told that we would discuss the placement of columns, and that a separate consensus would be reached on where and how to place Kosovo. A consensus on these issues has not yet been reached. Ludwigs' suggestion is sound. There's a fair justification, in my opinion, to wait for the criteria we would use to actually be used by our source in the case of Kosovo. That would resolve all concerns I have and the proposal would have my full support. Nightw 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. So let's move forward with sandboxi2 as the prototype, and conduct binding polls for the remaining issues, such as column order and whether or not VC and Kosovo should be split.

P.S. once CK and Niue discussion begins, could we archive this entire discussion? We still have a long way to go. Ladril (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

omg - yes. Outback the koala (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that mediation of that is necessary. As long as we have at least one official statement of recognition for each of the two states, they cannot be logically disqualified under the recently-adjusted criteria. Unless anyone were to voice an objection, they'll go in the same category as the Vatican. Nightw 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Outback, Chipmunkdavis and maybe Taivo seemed to be in opposition to their addition. Do they want to discuss this issue so we're sure a consensus develops? Ladril (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to exclude Kosovo at this juncture. We have 10 or so states that are not part of the UN system--they're included in the list with the marking in the UN column that they are not part of the system. Why exclude Kosovo? It's clear that 1) Kosovo is not a UN member, 2) Kosovo is not an observer state, 3) Kosovo is a member of one or two UN system organizations. That's what should be marked in the UN system column. It should not be excluded. The evidence for including Kosovo is stronger than the evidence for including Palestine, which has very muddy sovereignty since it does not control its own territory yet--just ask the Jewish settlers and the men building the fence inside "Palestine" whether Palestine controls its own territory. Cook Islands and Niue need more discussion because including them is as tricky as including Palestine. Kosovo should not be a problem entry here. The problem entries are Palestine, Cook Islands, and Niue. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, there's really only one entirely pragmatic reason for that: Kosovo is one of the entities that's got things bound up in knots here. If you guys cannot agree on how Kosovo should be presented, and reliable sources can't be found which clarify the issue, then it may be time to throw up our hands and admit that Wikipedia can't make a determination about Kosovo. There's nothing wrong with that - we don't have to make a determination if the real world can't get its act together enough to do it for us - and putting it into a slush pile will instantly solve all the wrangling over how it should be presented.

Maybe in a few years the situation in the real world will clarify itself and we can put Kosovo in its proper place in the list without any particular fuss. We can do that then. but right now it's causing way more conflict than necessary. --Ludwigs2 05:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree, Ludwigs2. Putting Kosovo in a "slush pile" is a cowardly way out to appease a distinctly minority view. The majority of editors here want Kosovo included in the list, not separated out like some red-headed step-child. We have a mechanism in Sandbox i2 to include it and label it in the UN System column. Just because two editors oppose that doesn't make it an unworkable position. There is a consensus for using Sandbox i2 and that sandbox had a workable solution for including Kosovo. Indeed, as I said above, there is more justification for including Kosovo than there is for including Palestine and Cook Islands/Niue. --Taivo (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, whatever you guys decide is fine with me. I'm just pointing out the obvious. If you all can reach an agreement through discussion or sourcing, great. If you all cannot reach an agreement through discussion or sourcing, then it is better to slush-pile it and wait for clarification in sources than to argue over it endlessly. We don't need to have a perfect list at this point in time. We only need to have a decent list, which can be improved slowly over time as people gather new information. do you see my point? --Ludwigs2 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds reasonable. Nightw 10:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a "List of sovereign states by membership in the UN system". There are other aspects to consider, one of which is a noticeable difference in levels of international recognition; it remains (at least formally) unrecognised by the majority and its legitimacy is questioned by a considerable portion of world governments. Separating it from the 9 others in the same situation is a concerning deviation from what reliable sources do; scholarly sources almost invariably lump them together ([32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]), as we currently do. You've all clammered for a more "verifiable" criteria. But just because you can verify a criteria doesn't mean it will be neutral. Showing that it's a member of this organisation but not that one? Doesn't portray anything about its contested status. It just shows that it's not a member of something. Nightw 10:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First, Kosovo has lived uneventfully on the status quo list for a while now. It's presence in the list is as unremarkable as Somaliland's presence on the status quo list. So adding Kosovo to a slush pile simply because it qualifies for an entry in the UN system column and Somaliland doesn't would be remarkable. And Night, your issue that Kosovo's contested status is not shown is wrong simply because right next to the UN system column is the Disputed Sovereignty column where Kosovo's problem with Serbia is clearly marked. In addition, the notes column on Kosovo will, as it does now, indicate the problems. But Kosovo, unlike the other "Other States", is a participant in the UN System of organizations. There are plenty of sources that use UN membership as a dividing marker. I think that your problem isn't with Kosovo, but with what is included in the UN System column. Removing Kosovo from the list and adding it to a slush pile is far more POV than including it with the appropriate notes in the article to what the UN System column includes. --Taivo (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, a consensus has been built around Sandbox i2, part of which is a column labelled "UN System". That's part of the compromise that was built--two sortable columns, one that shows UN System participation and the other that lists sovereignty disputes. Now that the consensus is for Sandbox i2, this continuing discussion about Kosovo is moot since its presence in both of those columns is clear. This attempt to move Kosovo out of the list entirely is a violation of that consensus around Sandbox i2 by one of the two editors that opposed it. We're clearly not going to get 100% agreement on anything here, but it was made clear that once a broad consensus was reached here, then further opposition to the major parts of that consensus was not going to influence the consensus. I[redacted]'m sorry, Night, but this continued push to get Kosovo out of the list is nothing more than opposition to the consensus that has already been reached around Sandbox i2. --Taivo (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposed setup already separates Kosovo from the UN members. Those who want to can sort the list by alphabetical order or by several other criteria. I think the proposal does its best to satisfy - if not please - everyone. Ladril (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo may "only" be recognized as a state by the 90+ states that voted for its admission into the IMF, but its distinction from the "other 9" goes well beyond that. Their acceptance into the organizations means they have a voice and a vote in the international community, and can influence decisions to some extent. None of the other nine fulfill this requirement. Compare with the Holy See: by the mid-eighties it had "only" established diplomatic relations with 53 states (how many of the others recognized it as a sovereign entity, we don't really know for sure), yet it already was a participant in international organizations and had more of an international standing than, say, Northern Cyprus. Ladril (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. [redacted]You're making your own distinctions. Participation in international organisations and a "voice in the international community" do not counter the highly-contested legitimacy of its sovereignty—the subject of the list, to which entries should be subjugated. Presenting entries by membership in a selected group of IGOs turns the list into a "List of member states of the United Nations system, by level of membership", which is not what this list is for. Either the default sort needs to be changed, or Ludwigs' suggestion needs to be examined and other caveats be added. Altering the sorting criteria is one thing, but changing the way we present individual entries is entirely another—splitting Kosovo off from the rest is a decision that goes against sources and that is clearly premature given that its status remains unclear for the moment in the international arena. Its controversial acceptance into 2 monetary organisations is not enough to dispute this. Nightw 03:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed highly relevant; that you don't like it is a whole different matter.

They are not distinctions made by me. According to this source [47] membership in UN Specialized Agencies is indeed used as a criterion to gauge eligibility into the international community. It was a criterion used to give the Holy See observer status, so if you deny it to Kosovo you'll also have to deny it to Switzerland and the Holy See. The problem is, the status quo assumptions get in the way of your argument here. You can't claim the Vatican is "internationally recognized" by virtue of being a UN observer since that status was partly due in fact to its membership in Agencies, and then deny the same definition to Kosovo. There is a logic behind all this. Ladril (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Kosovo is a party to a multilateral international treaty. Specifically, the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. Kosovo signed it on 29 June 2009. Furthermore, Alinor's proposed criteria would also cover Palestine, as it was allowed to sign the Agreement on International Roads in the Arab Mashreq as a result of its membership in ESCWA. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get confused please. ESCWA is a Commission part of the Economic and Social Council [48], which is one of the six main bodies of the United Nations (the other five are the Secretariat, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Trusteeship Council and the International Court of Justice) [49]. Since Palestine is not recognized as a state by the UN, I assume it cannot participate as a state in any UN Commission. The Specialized Agencies, as you can see in the listing or in this diagram [50] are international organizations that have agreed to have their activities coordinated by the UN under the principles of the Charter, but they are independent of the main UN organs. Ladril (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What would you all say to the following proposal: every state that you are currently disagreeing on (Kosovo, the Vatican, Cook Islands and Niue, anything else?) goes onto the slush with the note that they are excluded from the list because of sourcing problems, we implement the list and slush pile as given, then we go back and discuss each disputed locale one by one? would anyone disagree with that? --Ludwigs2 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. This extremely protracted discussion has to resolve the issues of those states, not endorse points of view slanted towards certain states. Also the "slush pile" proposals don't seem to be gaining a lot of popularity, [redacted]and I think some users are just willing to use any means at their disposition to stop the consensual approach from being implemented. Ladril (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would totally disagree with the slush-list proposal as well. It is simply another way to forestall the implementation of a consensus that has been reached already. Only one editor here supports the slush-list and that is the editor who also opposes Sandbox3i2. The slush-list is a POV push to remove certain states from the list and to, in essence, recreate the status quo two-part list by simply having those states in the list versus those states out of the main list in the slush-list. Indeed, unless all of the non-UN member states are in the slush list, then the slush list itself pushes particular POVs. --Taivo (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should agree to the list and then deal with the "slush pile" cases one by one, but I'd rather we didn't implement any changes until we were done with that entire process. We also definitely need to have some structure to those slush pile discussions so they don't drag on for a million years. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a suggestion, so I withdraw it. However, I don't think it's a good idea to neglect the 'practical wikipolitics' aspect of this problem. The goal here is improvement of the article: In my estimation, articles improve slowly and reasonably where discussion is sound and productive, but articles do not naturally progress in areas where discussion is stuck. In such cases, sometimes the only approach is to change the article and force discussion into a new direction. This can happen in several ways:

• discussants commit to bind themselves to particular decisions in talk, so that subsequent discussion start from there
• discussants incrementally change the article as they make decisions in talk, so that there's always some type of forward momentum
• one set of discussants assumes a majority position and boldly changes the article whole cloth, which forces the minority position to adopt new directions of discussion

So far, there is resistance to the first point whenever I raise it, and slow incremental changes are not happening because people keep going back to first principles to uproot them. I would really prefer we did one of these first two approaches, but pragmatically speaking, where we are headed is this: either we're going to sit here discussing things in circles in the hopes that people will come to agree to things they have never agreed to before, or we're going to sit here discussing things in circles until someone gets frustrated enough to unilaterally revise the article, after which this turns into a real train-wreck. All I can do is offer other approaches here - you guys have to decide for yourselves that you don't want the train-wreck solution and actively reach for something else. Jaded as it may sound, democracy happens when and where people decide that accommodating perspectives they dislike is better than suffering through the alternative. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, trying to accommodate perspectives has been going on throughout this discussion, but that has to be balanced at some point with the difference between 1) doing nothing because one editor won't budge and 2) moving ahead without that one editor. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. In fact, I actually believe that everyone here has the best of intentions, and that this case is stuck over people honestly defending what they believe is correct. Given what I've seen on other pages, my respect for all of you is very high, and I think it's unfortunate that things are stuck this way. My only point in the above was as a gentle reminder that sometimes everybody has to do something they don't agree with, because the result of not doing something one doesn't agree with is far more disagreeable. It's von Clausewitz, yah? - war is politics by other means. the problem will eventually get solved, one way or another, but I think we'd all like to see it resolved peaceably, collaboratively, and collegially. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Even in Congress or Parliament there are points after a protracted discussion where the Assembly has to agree that a particular point has been thoroughly discussed and agree to reach a decision. Discussion for its own sake leads nowhere. The way I see it, at this point we are very close to declaring that the Kosovo issue has been thoroughly discussed, adopt Sandbox 3i2 because that was the consensus, and move on to Cook Islands and Niue. Ladril (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't just settle the Kosovo thing with a vote and move on. The three options as I see them are 1) Group Kosovo and VC together as members of specialized agencies 2) Have a group for VC as an observer and a group for Kosovo as a member of a specialized agency and 3) Only have VC as an observer and put Kosovo in with the other non-observer non-members. I think we've shown that all three of these approaches are reasonable and verifiable sorting methods, it's just that everyone has a different personal preference. So let's do a simple instant runoff vote. We rank our preferences, figure out which is the least controversial, and adapt 3i2 accordingly. We could be finished with this in like a day. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We can. From my perspective - and maybe I'm not alone - the problem is this may be seen as a repeat of the previous polling exercise. If we already voted on Sandbox 3i2, why would I, as a particular editor, want to vote on another poll where one of the options is basically a return to the status quo? Given the interactions I've seen here, continued polling without careful thought is basically an opportunity for users in the minority to continue to cling to their positions, and to claim that "their concerns have not been taken into account". Calling for a poll for every minute detail of the final solution seems to me like trying to please everyone, which as we have seen, leads nowhere. Sometimes the route needs to be more straightforward. This is why I'm trying to gauge: is this Kosovo thing serious enough for anyone except Nightw so that Sandbox 3i2 needs to be modified yet again, or is this just a minority viewpoint? If I dare interpret from previous comments, it doesn't seem like everyone will be opposed, but we need to know exactly how many people think this Kosovo issue is a sticking point. Ladril (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This Kosovo thing is not a sticking point for me as long as we're including it as it is in Sandbox3i2 rather than putting it aside in some slush pile. --Taivo (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but we're at the point where we need the involvement of editors who are "in hiding" again. Some of them (such as Outback, for example) asked for discussion not to go on to the CK/Niue part. Presumably this was done so we could have more elements for a decision, but if those users never step in and take a position, the discussion will never end. This is why I should ask again: anyone else opposed to having Kosovo as shown in Sandbox 3i2? Ladril (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much by definition a vote isn't about trying to please everyone. The reason I want a vote is so we can point to the results and say "There. As a group we've decided X. It is a final decision, and now we can move past it." Until we have something definitive like that the discussion is just going to keep stalling or cycling. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean look I don't care if it's a poll or a unilateral decision or a coin toss or what but we need to bring this discussion to an end. We're not accomplishing anything right now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, there does not seem to enough interest in the poll (see below). Thus this debate. I'm not opposed to polls per se, but if what are our options?

1. Assume the poll above where 3i2 won is the new consensus from now on, or

2. Move this dispute to arbitration.

Anyone else have any ideas? Ladril (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If this thing goes to arbitration then I'm just going to bail. Life is too short. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The solution: just implement it (whatever "it" means). I've been active on this site since 2003. There existed a time when all the regular users of this site knew each other, and people were a lot bolder in implementing major changes to articles. If it were still 2004, proposed changes would have been either thrown in or shot down within the span of a few days, rather than waiting for a few months for a consensus to appear. Now there is such a thing as too much bureaucracy and too much discussion. What's going to happen if this is implemented? Is anyone threatening an edit war? This is a wiki - things can still be changed over time if people aren't satisfied. Think of it this way: consensus is relative; whatever you have here certainly seems to have more consensus than the status quo. I'm not exactly satisfied with what's been put on the table, but I support it because it's still better than what we already have.--Jiang (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Jiang. While everyone agrees that sandbox3i2 isn't perfect, it's acceptable to a wide majority of editors and a huge improvement over the status quo. Let's implement it, and see what changes produce a consensus post-implementation. TDL (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't perfect and it's worse than some of the previous sandboxes. And actually it isn't an improvement over the status quo. The status quo has one flaw (albeit serious). The sandbox3i2 has multiple flaws and some of them are serious. I don't see any point in implementing it with so many flaws. Isn't it better to correct these first? Alinor (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Alinor. You are thinking of some of the sandboxes you proposed (and which were rejected). Sandbox3i2 is superior to the status quo, and while not perfect, is better than the other sandboxes you proposed. --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I refer to sandboxes that I haven't made. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Consent to binding polls to resolve the remaining issues

Please sign below if you agree to move forward with sandboxi2 as the prototype. The remaining issues to be resolved (column order, whether to split VC and Kosovo) will be decided by a binding vote of all involved editors on a case-by-case basis. By signing below you agree to accept the result of these votes. TDL (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Would I be correct to presume that each vote will be preceded by discussion of the issue and a general agreement about when to commence such polls? I mean, polls don't "resolve" issues unless said issues are discussed first. This seems premature... Nightw 04:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Premature? We've been discussing this for 2 years now. 8/10 editors have agreed to use sandboxi2. There already is a consensus for it, despite your objections. Of course there will be discussion on the issues before a poll, but not endless discussion. We need to resolve this. TDL (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures

1. Accept TDL (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Accept --Taivo (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Accept --Ladril Ladril (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Accept --Jiang (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

---

• Comment: A binding vote seems unorthodox. Unless a broader participation can be achieved, any result to come of this debate cannot override community-wide consensus (see WP:CONLIMITED). Current general practice across Wikipedia makes only two distinctions between entries in state-based lists: widely recognised states and all others. Any changes to this list would automatically cause confusion for hundreds of similar lists. Whether current practice is appropriate should not be dictated by less than a dozen editors. Changes to the sorting criteria is fine, but should it result in changes to the presentation of individual entries, this would become a matter to be looked at by groups like WP:COUNTRIES and WP:ARBKOS. Nightw 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]I'm sorry, Night, but your comment here seems like sour grapes. If this was a concern of yours, then it should have been expressed at the very beginning of this mediation, before it became clear that your POV was in the distinct minority. Now that a consensus on Sandbox i2 has been reached, you enter this plea that our consensus is invalid because of the number of editors involved in the mediation. [redacted]If this mediation comes to an agreement, then you know that it will carry great weight in discussions throughout Wikipedia and it seems like you are now trying to sabotage it because it did not result in the resolution that you favored. --Taivo (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would have I expressed this earlier? This concept of a "binding vote" is entirely new to Wikipedia as far as I know. And, no, it won't carry much weight in discussions since only ~10 editors have been involved; again, see WP:CONLIMITED. Also, note that I have not declined above. I am merely bringing the concept into question. Nightw 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Taivo. This discussion has been ongoing for nearly two years. You've chosen to wait until after a consensus was reached to throw out these complaints [redacted]when you didn't get your way. Also Night's statements above are misinformed. There has been extensive efforts to solicit input from the wider community including (but not limited to)

• Notification of relevant wikiprojects: [51] [52] [53]
• A RFC: [54]
• Noticeboard discussion: [55]

The concept of a binding vote isn't new. Nor is it my idea. It was suggested bu Ludwig here as a way to resolve our dispute. If you've got a better idea, then great let's hear it. But if you object to a binding vote then you need to propose an alternative path towards a compromise. Dragging out this discussion until everyone gives up isn't an option. I'm trying to make a good faith effort to address your concerns (hence why I left the question of a Kosovo-VC split open). But if you don't agree to a way forward then we'll have no choice but to implement sandboxi2, which is already accepted by a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, as is in spite of your concerns. TDL (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to move forward, in WP's preferred method of discussion rather than voting. I'll agree to a poll when discussion concludes, and a consensus can be taken from that, but by no means will it ever be "binding"; see WP:Consensus can change. And my comment you refer to is not "missinformed", you just didn't read it properly. Nightw 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How are you attempting to move forward? You have offered nothing but I don't like it comments for Sandboxi2. Indeed, the way that I see your position is that 1) you object to a single list in any form because it places Kosovo next to Vatican City without some sort of major separation; 2) you don't seem to mind having the other "Other States" in the list because they have no international recognition, but you want to exclude Kosovo because it does have some recognition in terms of international memberships. You seem to be pushing a very POV position in regards to Kosovo. You welcomed Ludwig's suggestion to exclude Kosovo from the list, but it is highly POV to exclude one (and only one) state from this list simply because you don't like the way it's listed. This discussion has gone on for two years and it's time to wrap it up. [redacted]I'm sorry, but this smells like a stall tactic to avoid moving past the status quo. --Taivo (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How? Through discussion, presenting sources and arguments — arguments which you've pretty much ignored and are now attempting to render as "I don't like it". Ludwigs' reasoning behind selective exclusion wasn't what you say it was, and neither was mine—take a look back and read it again. Don't ignore other editor's opinions and then pass it off as something trivial. As for the accusation of POV, I've just about given up on deflecting those; might as well embrace it instead..."Косово је Србија", and so forth... *rolling eyes* Maybe I should get one of these eh, Taivo? Nightw 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Night, your sources have been read and considered, but now a consensus has formed around Sandbox i2 with Kosovo. Now you want to exclude Kosovo from the list without excluding any of the other "Other States" simply because you don't like it there. Excluding Kosovo from the list, unless you exclude every other "Other State" is POV. There's no consensus for excluding the disputed states and no consensus for excluding Kososo simply because it has achieved a higher level of international recognition than Nagorno-Karabakh. --Taivo (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Only" 10 editors? This is already the maximum limit of users that should be participating in a single discussion, according to Wikipedia guidelines. And we involved 13 people here. We also have to take into account the repeated calls for involvement made in several fora. At this point we can safely assume that whoever really wants to be involved is involved already. As a motion, I would suggest no further engagement of a single user in this section. Discussion about Kosovo's suitability can continue in the above section. For the moment let's seek a way to move forward. Ladril (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Another call for involvement

Debate is yet again stalling at the "one user strongly opposing" point. Several users have expressed a desire to move forward with other stages of the mediation, but when an attempt is made in this direction (see "Cook Islands and Niue" below), some users ask us not to discuss other issues yet. The mediator-endorsed proposal for polls above does not seem to have attracted group-wide interest. We are stuck again in a circle with the same for/against arguments going back and forth. At this point it is clear the active users will not be budging from their positions, so we're out of options.

Alinor, Nightw, we get your reasons for being against the proposal. We also have to keep in mind that we agreed as a group to adopt sandbox 3i2 as a solution to move forward. So this is a call for those editors who are not participating in discussion, but have asked us to wait, to get involved again. Both sides have expressed their arguments and I don't believe anything new of substance will be brought to the table. Read the discussion and make your mind. Am I correct to assume that this Kosovo issue is not a sticking point for everyone, and that we can proceed with the categorization present in 3i2? The two opposing users have had plenty of space to speak their minds, so I ask them to let others express theirs. If, having read the discussion, anyone still has objections with regards to Kosovo placement or column ordering, now is the time to say so. Otherwise we will have to assume a consensus by silence. Ladril (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the poll proposal above, to which I have just consented, could have been worded more clearly, that is, state exactly what content would be in each poll, and allow separate polls to be separately consented. I agree that a (set of) poll(s) is the best way to move forward - some implementation of change is better than the status quo. --Jiang (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the poll proposal above is vague and not well formulated. In essence it amounts to "let's vote again on what we've voted already". I'm not against the group expressing their point of view, but just like there can be too many sandboxes, the poll exercise can also be abused. As others have also pointed out, I would suggest not rushing into polls for the sake of polls. People seem to get tired of them as well. Ladril (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not been keeping up to date because this is a very busy time for me. My opinions stated above still remain, editors should feel free to quote any of my statements here. I don't agree with that poll proposal because binding editors to polls has never been our way, I dont see it as a good idea. As far as Kosovo goes, - wtf? We clearly all agree that it needs to be included just not how. Slush pile might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, lumping it in with SMOM et al will do no good. I feel that this minor hiccup will pass soon enough. Once CI/Nuie starts here in mediation I kindly ask the mediator to send a notification email as this is the other major half of the mediation that I will make pains to be apart of. Outback the koala (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I was away for a few days and it seems that there are some flares above. I haven't seen all the discussion above yet, but I would like to make a few comments.

1. I don't think that anybody objects SandboxX as a general idea of how to arrange the page. So there is no need for additional pools about that. But all of the Sandboxes have some issues - so none of the sandboxes is "ready for implementation". I have described the issues I see - and have proposed solutions to some of them. And those are not only about "UNSG/Vienna", but about other details (less important, but still notable). Nobody is responding to that and instead you seem to go into "We are the majority, Alinor&Night w are a minority, we win, we will do whatever we decided". You make treats or imply such about MEDCOM, ARBCOM, topic bans, etc. instead of discussing the issues.
2. Being a State party to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG is highly notable. Why? Because to become such a State goes trough the process of UNSG deciding whether it's recognized as State by the international community. The UN OLA source[56] explains that and states that in this process is utilized the Vienna formula. We have two options here:
   1. to apply the formula ourselves/make the decision ourselves (what the 'majority' are proposing - but their proposal fails to state that clearly, it even mentions neither 'Vienna formula' nor the UN OLA source) - thus going near/past the OR and SYNTH line.
   2. to use a source showing what decisions the UNSG has taken so far. You can use the "participant search" at the UN Treaty Database or take a treaty that has as wide participation as possible. For example this source - single list - you can call this a 'list of the widely recognized states' if you want - or 'list of internationally recognized states', 'list of states recognized by the international community', 'list of states parties to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG'.

However you manage the arguments the fact is that the participant States in the database are the UN+VC. No RoK/ROC/SoP. No other7. Maybe this is a coincidence, maybe not. In any case, we should not adopt a sorting criteria that is not reflective of the real world. Alinor (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"We are the majority, Alinor&Night w are a minority, we win, we will do whatever we decided" No one is adopting that attitude. Those claims are childish and immature. What we're saying is that individual participants must understand that the group needs to reach a solution. Endless filibustering (See [57]) is not going to lead us anywhere. This is why we're asking: is this Kosovo issue a sticking point for anyone else? Judging from what I can see, no one except for two users seem to have a problem with the proposed setup, so we can probably decide it has been discussed enough and move on to - hopefully - the last stage of the discussion: Cook Islands and Niue. Sorry, but this is not a bureaucracy, we're not required to run things through everyone's personal desk for approval. If you're not here to express your concerns, or if your concerns do not convince the majority, the group will eventually have to decide to move on. Everyone has been on the minority of a Wikipedia debate, there is absolutely no shame in that. Ladril (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, Kosovo is a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which was registered with the UNSG. Are we done now? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if they weren't a party to anything, Alinor's proposal would not be of much use. South Sudan is going to become an independent state in a couple of months. Let's say they join the UN or the WHO a few months later. Are we going to wait *until* they sign or ratify a treaty to add them to the UN category or the Specialized Agencies category? That would be absurd. Consequently, there is no reason why we should give this special treatment to Kosovo. The sorting criteria are clear: UN members+UN Specialized Agencies (members)+maybe UN observers+ none of the above. If you fit in one of the categories, you go in there, period. This "play the lawyer" game, in my view, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday, any source showing that this convention is deposited with the UNSG and not with IMF/WBG/USA/etc.? I didn't find Kosovo in the UN Treaty Database when I searched a few days ago.

South Sudan most probably will be quick to join multiple international treaties - as quick as it joins the UN and WHO. You can see the recent examples of Montenegro and Timor-Leste. I don't think that a few weeks delay in exceptional circumstances will hurt so much (we don't have "new state" established or joining the UN too oftnen).

UN members+UN specialized agencies+none is "play the lawyer"/"play the UNSG". Kosovo is just the example showing why it's wrong for us to make such decisions and why this would be OR/SYNTH - we are not the ones who should "apply" the Vienna formula. 3 years after independence it still hasn't joined any international treaty. Obviously there is 'something' more that we don't take into account, but that has real world diplomatic effect. Also - as I said before - arranging the article along the UN+agencies+none lines WITHOUT mentioning the UN OLA source (or another source explaining/using this arrangement) and the Vienna formula is hypocritical/looks-like-arbitrary-selection-of-organizations-by-Wikipedians. Also, it's OR/SYNTH to separate Vienna UN from Vienna non-UN states (such distinction is not made by the sources utilizing Vienna). I know many of the "UN membership POV" camp oppose the simpler "Vienna/non-Vienna" arrangement and I could accept the Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna as compromise (depending on additional tweaks/details) - but we all should keep in mind that it's already crossing the OR/SYNTH border.

It's not only the "Kosovo issue" - sandbox3i2 has several other flaws. It's a good general idea, but so many flaws make it unacceptable IMHO. I think these flaws are no so hard to correct (it seems 'Kosovo' flaws is the hardest, but let's ignore it for the moment) - but nobody is discussing this and everybody focuses on 'Kosovo issue'. Alinor (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, let's leave CI/Niue asside - I intentionally ignore them in my recent comments - per requests of multiple editors and the mediator. I think we should implement the sorting criteria changes without CI/Niue, let the dust settle, and propose some change about CI/Niue at the article talk page. We shall see whether mediation will be needed - I hope that we will reach consensus much quicker then (when nobody is disputing any of the criteria or the general arrangement of the list) than now. Alinor (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"I could accept the Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna as compromise (depending on additional tweaks/details)" - Great. If you're willing to accept this structure, then why don't we focus on the additional tweaks/details that you'd like to see made? I know that you've listed them previously, but could you perhaps start a new section with the specific points that you'd like to see addressed so that we could try and tackle them one-by-one? Your previous comments have become lost somewhere in the sea of text above by now. TDL (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try again:

• easy ones: The two 'sorting' columns should go to the right. Footnote explaining "sovereignty dispute". The example to include all 'special cases' (vatican, other10, UN6 - Armenia, Cyprus, etc.) Vienna formula and/or UN OLA source should be mentioned somewhere/somehow (or another source if the proposal isn't based on these)
• "UN column" is a total mess - both heading and cell contents. Multiple solutions are possible here, but I prefer "UN membership: yes/no"; section separation should not duplicate "UN column" - either another criteria should be applied to the sections or one of the two should be removed (sections or "UN column").
• "recognized as State by the international community" should be mentioned somewhere/somehow - along with the predominant list that the sources show (UN+VC) such as this example UN source - single list

Somewhere/somehow above isn't restricted to the list only - other parts of the article (lead or bottom section, footnotes, etc.) could also be utilized - or even another article (such as Sovereign state). Alinor (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"South Sudan most probably will be quick to join multiple international treaties - as quick as it joins the UN and WHO." You said it: "probably". We're not a crystal ball and should not be proceeding from strong assumptions. EDIT: the Cook Islands joined the WHO in 1984 but it did not ratify its first treaty until the end of that decade. This is why your proposal is impractical for informative purposes. "... we are not the ones who should "apply" the Vienna formula". From what I've read, the Vienna formula is not something that is 'applied', it's a list of requisites. And it hasn't been invoked since 1973, so if you want to use it for future cases it's unlikely to be of much use. Even then, we're not looking to 'apply' it here. It's just a guideline we use to help us justify our criteria. If you think that's synthesis or original research, you're free to your opinion, but there are sources that disagree with you. I don't mean to deceive you: I will not be supporting having to wait until a treaty is signed or ratified to place states on a category. My understanding is this sorting criterion is about membership. Let's hear a third opinion.Ladril (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, all international multilateral treaties have to be registered with the UNSG. Are you asking if the UNSG is the depositary for that treaty? No, it's the World Bank. But that's a different thing altogether than what you've been talking about and your UNTC source doesn't actually speak to that. And that criteria if it was used would include Palestine, as it is a party to the Agreement on International Railways in the Mashreq [58]. (see Article 11. The Secretary General acts as the depository for that treaty.)

I'm seriously begging you here to give in on your UNSG criteria. Literally no other editor has ever supported it, it doesn't appear to be used in any outside source, there's no interpretation of it that returns UN+VC, it doesn't imply "general recognition" like you seem to think it does, and it's not verifiable. If you agree in principle to UN/non-UN Vienna/non-UN division, then okay great. Please, please, please just agree to 3i2 as a starting point. Just a starting point. That's all. If we can just agree that it'll be the BASIS for the ultimate settlement then we can start drafting it up and tweaking it. But if you're not going to agree to something until it's perfect then we're never going to move forward and we'll be stuck forever. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have aways referred to 'deposited with the UNSG' - of course Turkey and TRNC or Kosovo and WBG or Russia and South Ossetia can sign some treaty. This doesn't mean that the state in question has "recognition as State by the international community"/"wide recognition" or whatever. It's PLO (designated "Palestine" at the UN[59][60]) that's party to the three Mashreq agreements[61] and ESCWA member[62][63][64], not SoP (the State of Palestine). So, the UNSG deposited treaty state parties results in UN+VC - and this is understandable since these are the 'regular' states - contrasted with the other10 (including the 3 'preferred' ones RoK/ROC/SoP). I already agreed with whatever sandbox as starting point - and listed above the issues that remain to be corrected in 3i2. Disregard UNSG for the moment if you like - and let's move forward on the remaining issues. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, you can't simultaneously claim that you don't use the Vienna formula and that what you do is not OR/SYNTH because sources show that what you do is the same as the Vienna formula. Also, if you claim that since 1973 Vienna formula is irrelevant (I'm not so sure about that), then, again, why do you propose that we use it? And finally - as I said above - whatever we do we should somewhere/somehow mention which states are recognized as such by the international community and which aren't. For this purpose presence in this UN list can be checked (or something like [65] if you want to see only states). As you can see - no RoK/ROC/SoP there and none of the other7 of course. We shall see what will happen with South Sudan - I assume that it will get mentioned there pretty quickly (maybe immediately after gaining UN membership). Alinor (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ladril, you can't simultaneously claim that you don't use the Vienna formula and that what you do is not OR/SYNTH because sources show that what you do is the same as the Vienna formula". That's an opinion of yours. We're indeed able to sort the list however we like, as long as the criteria are based on objective, relevant facts. There is a difference between using the formula as a guideline for sorting and using it as if we were treaty depositaries or a court of law. [redacted]This is the difference you don't (want to?) get. "...if you claim that since 1973 Vienna formula is irrelevant..." [redacted]You're putting words into my mouth. I never said it's irrelevant. I said no one has invoked it as such since then, so if you expect for it to be invoked for every single new state you can have a chair and sit waiting: it's not going to be of much use in the future. And again: the Cook Islands joined the WHO in 1984 but it did not ratify its first treaty until the end of that decade. This is why your proposal is impractical for informative purposes. Ladril (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go in CI/Niue for the moment. They are exceptional case for many reasons. Quite unlike Montenegro or South Sudan where you have a 'line in the sand' date and pre/post independence.

"however we like ... based on objective, relevant facts" - if this fact is the Vienna formula utilization in international treaties and organizations or by UNSG as criteria for 'recognition as State by the international community' - then this should be mentioned, but 3i2 fails to do that. So I ask - if 3i2 isn't based on Vienna, then what is it based on?

"it to be invoked for every single new state...waiting", "no one has invoked it as such since then" - what do you mean - that no post 1973 treaty uses the Vienna formula? And they use "any State"/"all States" instead? So, they place more weight on the depositary to decide who is a state and who isn't? This confirms what I said - the Kosovo example shows that membership in one set of Vienna organizations (IMF/WBG) is not equal to being 'widely recognized by the international community'. Obviously there is 'something' more that we don't take into account, but that has real world diplomatic effect. You can check this at this UN list and here (and also [66] and many other sources that don't place any of the other10 among the 'regular' states). Alinor (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Let's not go in CI/Niue for the moment. They are exceptional case for many reasons." Well, it's you who is suggesting we include them under the Vienna formula, so I don't get how you intend to push your proposal without taking them into account. "...if this fact is the Vienna formula utilization in international treaties and organizations or by UNSG as criteria for 'recognition as State by the international community' - then this should be mentioned". No, the objective facts are membership in organizations. You think that sorting the states by membership is POV, however you are pushing a proposal that is very similar. This is what is incoherent with your position. It essentially amounts to the playground tactic of "if we don't play like I say, I'll take my ball and go home". You are arguing that we should not list a state as a member of a Specialized Agency or the ICJ unless it expresses its intention to ratify a multilateral treaty. That position is illogical and unsupported by sources. We have, on the contrary, sources which state that membership in those spaces amounts to further integration into the international community. This is what we're looking to stress. Ladril (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

With either Vienna or 3i2 - the situation about CI/Niue is the same, so what's your point? 3i2 is Vienna (without stating it - or it's OR/SYNTH or it's backed by something that isn't mentioned). "the objective facts are membership in organizations" - how are you choosing which organizations to take into account? Which source do you use for that? UN OLA/UNSG/Vienna or something else? Or is the choice 'arbitrary picking by Wikipedians' and thus OR/SYNTH?

I don't say that sorting by membership is POV - I said that sorting by "UN membership POV" is contrary to the UN POV and to the real world practice. Also, I don't say "don't mention Vienna memberships" - I say 'mention Vienna memberships, but mention also whether it participates in UNSG deposited treaties'. "We have, on the contrary, sources which state that membership..." - I don't see such source in 3i2. That's what I said multiple times - if 3i2 is based on UN OLA/UNSG/Vienna - this should be stated there. If it's based on some other source - this should be stated there. If it's not based on any source - then it's OR/SYNTH. Alinor (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor: I'm going to take your statement above - "I already agreed with whatever sandbox as starting point - and listed above the issues that remain to be corrected in 3i2. Disregard UNSG for the moment if you like" [67] to mean that you explicitly accept sandbox 3I2. I believe NightW is the last editor who objects to it as a starting point, correct? Or did he agree to it as well? If there are no other objectors, then I'm going to mark this section as resolved - i.e. that we have firmly decided to use sandbox 3i2 as a starting point - and then I am going to close and archive the other sandbox discussions, and refocus this conversation on what we need to do to improve the heir apparent sandbox.

basically what I'm saying is - last call for objections to sandbox 3i2 before we ring the bell on this discussion and move forward. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I object (reasons mentioned all over the place above) if "move forward" means "implement 3i2 in the article". But if it means "discuss what changes are needed to 3i2" then I agree as I agree discussing whatever of the other sandboxes as "base". All of them are almost the same - it's irrelevant which one is used as "base for further discussions". All of them have different benefits/disadvantages. If we select X-as-base then we have to discuss issues A, B and C. If we select Y-as-base then we have to discuss issues A, D and E. If we select Y-as-base then we have to discuss issues B, C and D. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[redacted] --Taivo (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

is any of this repetition really necessary here?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ludwigs, Alinor's last comment makes it abundantly clear that he/she will never accept any compromise and that we will never achieve unanimity here. We already have a strong consensus among the great majority of active editors here to move forward and implement Sandbox 3i2 as you suggest. We can continue to tweak it with discussions of Cook Islands/Niue, but it's time to move based the roadblocks and replace the status quo. You have the majority of voices asking loud and clear to starting with the implementation of Sandbox 3i2. You also have voices loud and clear objecting to the continued stalling and failure to compromise. --Taivo (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC) [redacted]I'm not stalling anything - I explained what problems I see in 3i2 and so far you haven't addressed any of them. Of course you can sing the "majority wins" tune. Actually there is no "majority vs. minority". There are a few users generally liking 3i2 - some of these are willing to work towards compromise while others of these are issuing treats and prefer "force" their way forward. There are other users (smaller number) that don't like 3i2 very much - but willing to work towards compromise. The majority of users are either ambivalent or silent. We shall see where this leads. Alinor (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC) The place it will lead, Alinor, is the maintenance of the status quo. While adjustments have been made to Sandbox3i2 to accomodate some of your issues, other changes that you continue to demand (solo) have been rejected. When one of your demands is rejected, then you should move on. That is the time to compromise[redacted], not to continue to push your POV. The UN column is an example. The majority of editors have preferred to leave it as it is--a column that marks 1) membership in the GA, 2) observer status, 3) membership in a UN-system organization. But you continue to demand a yes/no column only marking GA membership. [redacted]This is the kind of thing that marks your "contributions", Alinor--when other editors clearly reject your position, you continue to demand it. That is a failure to compromise and constitutes stalling. Compromise is a two-way street--you have to also give when your ideas are rejected. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC) "adjustments have been made to Sandbox3i2"? I haven't seen a subsequent version with any adjustments. The latest comment listing the issues is at 12:13, 3 May 2011. And the "UN column" is a mess. It's titled "Membership within the UN System" and then mentions UN observership (an ad-hoc arrangement that isn't even envisioned in the UN Charter) - not membership; it also disregards any parts of the UN system outside of Vienna formula organizations - without even mentioning the Vienna formula itself or any explanation why exactly those organizations are utilized (it can be Vienna or something else - but currently it's none, thus - OR/SYNTH). Then it's cell contents are a mess too with awful constructions such as "Non-member observer state, but member of one or more related agencies". The problem with redundancy also remains - we should decide whether we use Vienna for the column or for the sections - and use something else for the other separation method (I suggest "UN membership: yes/no" for the column and either Vienna or UNSG treaty resulting in 2 sections). The other, minor issues are also not yet addressed. And again, IMHO our list should somehow reflect this UN list (and [68]) and the majority of sources that clearly separate the other10 from the rest. We can use sections, columns or something else, but we can't disregard this issue. Alinor (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Alinor, that UNTC list includes Palestine, the Republic of China, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Not to mention dozens of historical states (Czechoslovakia), dependent territories (Anguilla), subnational entities (Saskatchewan), supernational entities (European Union), and historically unrecognized regimes (People's Republic of Kampuchea). It's in no way a source for your criteria and I can't see any way of reading it which would yield UN+VC. The Convention on the Human Rights of the Child doesn't work as a source either, unless you want the criteria to be "Nations which have signed the CRC". As for the map, it's not exactly surprising that a document purporting to show the world in 2000 doesn't have Kosovo as a sovereign state. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Yep, [redacted]what Alinor is not getting is that a list "based on Vienna" is not going to include Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, etc. This is why we cannot do a list "based on Vienna", with the current inclusion criteria in place. This flinging of UN lists is useless to this position. Ladril (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Ladril, nobody is proposing Vienna as inclusion criteria (thus removing Abkhazia, NKR, TRNC, etc.) - we speak about sorting criteria. Using Vienna for the one of the columns or for one of the section is just as easy with the current inclusion criteria as it's using '3i2 arbitrary-selected-organizations memberships' for both the columns and sections with the same current inclusion criteria. What I propose is that we use the UN lists for the sections and for the column to use simple UN membership or Vienna/3i2 (Vienna/3i2 memberships will remain mentioned in the extents in any case - so using simple UN membership for the column will not deprive the readers of the information about Vienna/3i2 memberships). Alinor (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Orange Tuesday, entities not satisfying the inclusion criteria are irrelevant because they are not included in our list - so obviously they won't be sorted/arranged in any section (that's about: subnational, historical, non-state entities such as EU and other organizations, etc.) - that's why I gave the an example that doesn't include such (the CRC is open to States and not to other entities - Art.46 and 48). So, what remains (e.g. mentioned at [69] and satisfying the inclusion criteria/one of the other10) is "Palestine", SADR and ROC. As you can see in the sources from my reply 14:37, 3 May 2011 to your previous mention of Palestine - the 'Palestine' in the UN Treaty Database is the non-state entity PLO and not the State of Palestine.[70] For SADR there is no record in the UN Treaty Database (select SADR and click search: ". For ROC you can see at [71] that its ratifications are not adopted by the PRC following its 1971 recognition as the legitimate government of China and that for cases where PRC participates there is a "China" participant. ROC remains (as historical reference - invalidated following 1971 replacement by PRC) on these treaties where it has participated before 1971 and that PRC hasn't subsequently adopted (thus replacing ROC with "China"). Alinor (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor: This discssion has gotten to the point were it requires a sign of good faith and forward progress. So, I'm going to leave this decision up to you:

• You explicitly accept 3i2 as a reasonable starting place, we edit it into the article as the new consensus version, and then we come back here and start discussing revisions to it that will satisfy your concerns.
• You explicitly refuse to accept 3i2 as a reasonable starting place, in which case I will move that we close this mediation as irresolvable and suggest that the entire matter be sent to formal (binding) mediation, arbitration, or be handled in some more athoritative manner than is possible here.

There is no sense going around this block yet one more time. Please make your choice - don't waffle on it, just choose, so that everyone here can move on, one way or another.--Ludwigs2 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]Alinor, with your attitude you're only managing to lead this case on to formal mediation (after another 6-month wait if we're lucky) and then onwards to the Arbitration Committee. If it reaches the Arbitration Committee, you're extremely likely to achieve a sanction, which can range from a limit on the number of edits/reverts you can make to sovereignty-related articles to an outright ban on the topic (including talk pages). I know you're a valuable contributor to the site and I would not like to see that happen. If only you were willing to adopt a bit more of a collaborative spirit for this mediation... Ladril (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We can make this happen. We can take more views into account within this starting point. This will not be the end, but yet another beginning. Do it and push for more changes later. We've got to keep this going and not shut down discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of wreaking havoc to the article by implementing 3i2 while already knowing that it has too many flaws (see 12:13, 3 May 2011) - instead of correcting these flaws (or most of them) first (in 3i3 or whatever) and implement the corrected variant?

I agree improving over 3i2 as a base - and then implementing the improved variant. I object implementing 3i2 as it is currently. I don't think this MEDCAB should finish right now - I think we have good momentum here and we can reach a realistic consensus solution. I propose that we start with the "easy ones" points of 12:13, 3 May 2011 comment. Would anyone comment on those? Alinor (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, that was not an option I gave you. If you do not explicitly accept 3i2 and allow it to be edited in (with all of its flaws), then I will move that we close this mediation as unresolvable, and I will step down as mediator in any case. I understand that you object to implementing it in its current condition, yes. I am saying that you need to show good faith here, by allowing it to be implemented regardless. This mediation needs to make a concrete step, now, otherwise it will continue to bog down in pointless abstractions.

I'm going to ask for your decision again. I may see fit to ask one more time after that, but if I don't have a clear acceptance or a clear refusal at that point I will move to close the mediation. If you cannot compromise in favor of a reasonable but imperfect version such as this, then in my estimation no mutually acceptable compromise is possible in this dispute. --Ludwigs2 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree implementing 3i2 "as is" without additional amendments - it has too many flaws - one of which is not containing any source related to the sorting criteria. Also, it is "unfinished" - it doesn't show all special cases (vatican, other10, UN6) - so it's currently not fully known what 3i2 actually is. The only thing that I can say for sure about it is that it's not ready for implementation.

I don't think that I'm the "gatekeeper" here or the only one "not happy with 3i2", but if you ask for my opinion - see it above (choosing between your options I object implementing 3i2 in the article). I understand that you are tired of this mediation, but IMHO it's premature to close it now. Alinor (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, you were one of the main proponents for change. We have now a solution which noone is perfectly happy with, but seems much better than the status quo. If you don't agree to its implementation, than Ludwigs is perfectly within his rights to stop mediating. It's a pity to have the mediatior have to become a dictator, but I suppose it's reached that point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the status quo is weaselish and should be corrected. But 3i2 has so many problems (including lack of any source related to sorting criteria - just like the status quo). Actually 3i2 is worse than the status quo, because the status quo problem is only one, concentrated in a single place. 3i2 problems are multiple (some minor, some more important) and spread all over the place. Also, 3i2 is "unfinished" - I can't agree/object to a "proposal" without knowing what changes will result trough it - 3i2 doesn't show all special cases (vatican, other10, UN6) - so depending on who implements it the result may be different. Alinor (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it appears that since Alinor is not willing to compromise and back the consensus, the status quo will remain as is. Ludwigs has the right to refuse further mediation when one party is unwilling to proceed, despite the fact that all his/her arguments have been heard a dozen times and rejected each time by the majority. --Taivo (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, this discussion has ground to a complete halt while you've continued to push your "treaty signer" criteria [redacted]ad nauseam, in spite of universal rejection by other editors. We can't move forward if you refuse to accept that there is a consensus opposition to this. You've made your case, and it's been rejected by every other editor. [redacted]If you can't build a consensus behind your proposal then it doesn't matter how great you think it is. Continung to make the same arguments over and over again isn't going to change anyone's opinion. I'm happy to try and address some of your other concerns, but you need to respect the consensus of other editors when they disagree with you.

We've already demonstrated a consensus acceptance of sandbox3i2. We could implement it right now even without your consent but we've held off in an effort to make a good faith effort to address your concerns. However, if you don't show some willingness to compromise soon then the remaining editors are going give up trying to satisfy you and move on. Please just agree to accept the categories/columns as in 3i2, and then we can try and focus on your "easy ones" concerns. TDL (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Forget about "treaty signer" for a moment. What about all other problems of 3i2? It doesn't have any source for its sorting criteria (maybe there is one, but it isn't mentioned in 3i2). It has a redundant separation methods unnecessarily repeating the same criteria (or "pushing" it as the "preferred" one - thus negating the advantage of single sortable list - transfer of "criteria choice" from editors to readers). One of the columns is inconsistent (cell contents doesn't match column heading). Another column has undefined content (no explanation what it covers). The whole proposal is "unfinished" - it's not clear what will columns look like for all of the special cases (vatican, other10, UN6). The two sorting columns are awfully splitting the table trough the middle. Alinor (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't just forget about it. This is the most fundamental issue of the debate, how to categorize the states. There's no point arguing for weeks over the minute details of the sandbox if you're just going to oppose the categorization in the end. So are you willing to compromise and accept the categories and the "UN column" as in 3i2 or not? A simple yes or no please. TDL (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We can - I don't object mentioning 3i2 categorization. What I say is that we should also mention which states are 'recognized by the international community'/explain somehow that the world-at-large treats the other10 differently from the 'regular' states. That's the problem that prevented us from using Vienna ages ago and we can not simply dismiss it. Back then we didn't have [72] (and its illustration at [73]), but now we do. So, we can start discussing 3i2, improve it, and then look around and find the best place for the other10-distinguishing.

yes or no. What is the categorization of 3i2? Is it Vienna or it isn't? If it is - this should be mentioned somehow. If it isn't - it should be mentioned what it is (otherwise it's 'arbitrary picking of organizations'/OR/SYNTH). How do you expect a "yes or no" with unknowns like this and the undefined "sovereignty dispute" and the missing other10 and UN6 in the example? Alinor (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes or no, Alinor. All these "issues" you have are discussed ad nauseum above. We are at the crossroads here. You either join the consensus and constructively move forward with 3i2 or the consensus moves on without you. [redacted]Your "issues" have been discussed ad nauseum already--you are presenting nothing new. We have either addressed or rejected these issues. The "other ten" are dealt with in 3i2 by having an empty entry in the UN System column (or a "No participation" entry) plus a note in the Sovereignty Dispute column. Either you are willing to work with the community or you are not. Yes or no? --Taivo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, the UN sorting critera is three categories, producing a division of UN/K+VC/Rest:

1. UN Members
2. States which are not UN Members but are members of one or more autonomous organizations linked to the UN (those being the specialized agencies and the IAEA [74])
3. States which are neither UN members nor members of any of those autonomous organization.

The dispute category is two categories:

1. States which are either claimed in whole by other states (i.e. China, Taiwan, the Koreas, Abkhazia, Kosovo, N-K, TRNC, SADR, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria) or occupied by other states (Palestine)
2. Everything else.

These are not unknowns. This information is all going to be explained to the reader, either in the body of the article or a footnote. If you don't like the specific wording of any of these elements once they're implemented then we can discuss editing them. But this would be the structure of the page. Do you accept this or not? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

" We can take more views into account within this starting point. This will not be the end, but yet another beginning. Do it and push for more changes later." Pretty much my point of view. Ladril (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Alinor, when this process started I had already been waiting for a year and a half to have a decent CK and Niue discussion. This discussion has not taken place yet. If I can wait this long I assume asking you to wait a few days to resolve your concerns is no great sacrifice. Most of your concerns are likely to be resolved favourably anyway. Ladril (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can wait. I'm waiting currently. But responses above are either "all your issues are dismissed" or not about resolving the issues, but about repeating what I already see in 3i2. Most of the issues are about things that are absent from 3i2 currently.

The 3i2 doesn't include explanation what the "sovereignty dispute" column covers (according to the recent comment above Israel, Cyprus and Armenia will not get anything in that column - so I want to see the 'sovereignty dispute' description footnote so that we can check whether it fits this result - I have proposed such in the past but [redacted]keeping in mind the "anti-Alinor" position around here I will refrain from proposing anything right now, that's why I ask - what is the footnote wording?).

The 3i2 doesn't include explanation and source about its "main" sorting criteria (utilized redundantly for a column and for sections) - comments so far seem to somehow slide in the direction of "use Vienna without using it" and this seems to be a self-contradiction.

There are more issues, but let's leave them aside for the moment. Alinor (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed what the sovereignty dispute column was above. It roughly deals with states which have an active claim of another over their territory. Footnote wording is one of the things we can sort out once implementation is done. The point of this was to create a framework for further work, not create a perfect finished item. As for the supposed redundancy, basically every table uses one of its columns for sorting. For example, every rankings table, which has th erank listed and redundantly orders them the same way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alinor that the sovereignty dispute needs improvement. This is a position I fully support, but I understand we can accept 3i2 and a framework and then tweak it to address these concerns - nothing is set in stone. As to the "Vienna" objection, which seems to be your major gripe, you need to come to grips with the fact that your arguments for sorting criteria have been unpersuasive so far. By "persuasiveness" I don't mean "insistence". You need to show sources which directly - not circumstantially - support your position. Your refusal to get this is what is irking many posters here. Your attitude is essentially the same as those users who in the past have said "I'll never accept moving Kosovo/adopting a different categorization/including the Cook Islands and Niue/putting certain states together". Ladril (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, third and last request. are you explicitly willing to accept 3i2 and allow it to be implemented as is on the condition that discussion will continue for further improvements? You have two choices: yes or no. anything else you say will be interpreted as no, and in the case of no (explicit or implicit) I will move to close the mediation. make your choice. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, I've supported most of your points in this dispute from the beginning. But for the sake of getting something better than the weasel wording we currently have, I am supporting the current proposal. I don't believe that by digging our heels in at this point will allow us to achieve a better result at the end. It will only result in this issue being prolonged, but as things stand, the result isn't going to change if we go to mediation/arbitration. It would be more effective to implement 3i2 with reservations and have whatever changes you (and often I) favor implemented gradually. IMO, this is the best to hope for. Our only concern is the result - as it reaches the reader of the article - not the process, and sometimes some compromise at the beginning will be the only means to yield results at the end.--Jiang (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the dispute footnote would be something along the lines of "This column lists all states which are either claimed in whole by another state or fully occupied by another state". Again, there will be time to deal with the specific wording later, what's important is that you agree to the fundamental idea behind the classification. I am begging you to say yes here so we can move forward. We can mess around with the colour of the wallpaper once we have actually built a house. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I thought I expressed my position clearly and explicitly multiple times - I don't agree implementing 3i2 as it is currently. Also, I said - that I'm not the "gatekeeper" here. Alinor (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday, OK, about 'sovereignty dispute', but I'm not sure we should use the 'sovereignty' word. Because there are cases where sovereignty of a state is not recognized without staking claim over its territory or occupying it. What about 'major dispute[note]' or 'dispute[note]'? Alinor (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, about the "main" sorting criteria - you ask me for a source, but actually I'm not proposing anything right now. 3i2 doesn't include any source - and that's my question - is 3i2 based on Vienna/UN OLA or on something else? Whatever it's based on should be mentioned - otherwise it's 'arbitrary picking'/OR/SYNTH. Alinor (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jiang, Orange Tuesday, Chipmunkdavis, I can't agree with the redundant use of one sorting criteria by two separation methods. Whatever the 3i2 UN column criteria is it should not be duplicated in the sectional dividers - or vice versa. This is negating the main advantage of single sortable list (let the reader decide how to sort it) and makes this criteria the "preferred" one. And as I have said long time ago - separating UN from the rest of the Vienna organizations (UN is one of them) is a big compromise to the "UN membership POV" editors - using such UN-seprated-from-the-rest-of-Vienna for a single separation method is too much IMHO - but I can agree with that as compromise in order to reach consensus - but repeating this in a second separation method is crossing the line. I will regret if Ludwigs2 acts hastily and closes this mediation right now, when we are so close, but also I see some "digging the heels" in 3i2 - nothing is moving forward, even the simple request to return the two sorting columns to the right side of the table. I would have done such 3i3 myself - but I don't see a single answer whether these should be moved or not. So, [redacted]with such "digging the heels" I can't support 3i2 - [redacted]I assume that once implemented this "digging the heels" will continue - and current experience shows that in such hard-to-tackle situations an imperfect status quo remains for years. And having the argument "don't touch it - MEDCAB decision" wouldn't help the changes that are needed. I don't see any need to rush for implementation - what's the problem with improving it here instead of "live" on the article? If Ludwigs2 closes the mediation we can continue at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria - starting with 3i2 if you like. Alinor (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If Ludwig2 closes the mediation thanks to you, this is absolutely the last word you'll be hearing about this matter from me. Don't know about the others. Ladril (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, [redacted]you really haven't heard anything that anyone else has said. We have explained the sovereignty column to you several times [redacted], but you still refuse to understand it. [redacted]You are now stalling because the sortable columns are in the center rather than on the right? That's utterly ridiculous as a reason for rejecting it. Your reasoning is still what I suspected all along--you will reject anything that you don't personally author and will accept no compromises. You claim that you've compromised above, but yet you still reject Sandbox 3i2 for trivial reasons. That's not compromise, that's digging in your heels.

@Gentlemen/Ladies [redacted](not Alinor), if Ludwigs is going to close this mediation, then I suggest we take the consensus that we've built here and implement it. WP:CONSENSUS does not have to be unanimous. We have a working consensus and can tweak it once it's implemented. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if we were able to have more support for the current consensus. Personal protagonisms seem to get in the way, though. Ladril (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, I saw those explanations of the 'dispute' column. But in multiple subsequent sandboxes these explanations weren't included there. So, it seems they are not part of the proposed changes, are they? I wouldn't comment on the parts of your comment that are redacted-out.

Ladril, I'm amazed how this turned into "anti-Alinor" chase - "If Ludwig2 closes the mediation thanks to you,..." - I said multiple times that I'm not the "gatekeeper". I don't think you need my personal approval for everything - and I'm the one who proposed implementing changes (similar to those in 3i2) overriding single editor objections (BritishWatcher, Taivo). But at these past occasions there was aways some additional editors coming in the last minute and also objecting. In this case I see that Taivo isn't objecting 3i2, but what does BritishWatcher and others that haven't stated their opinion think about it?

Anyway, refusing to discuss reasonable concerns doesn't seem productive to me. Alinor (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"I saw those explanations of the 'dispute' column. But in multiple subsequent sandboxes these explanations weren't included there". Alinor, don't be obtuse. Since that column was continued without change from one Sandbox to the next (as it was), then there is absolutely no need to start the discussion or explanation anew with every single sandbox. Alinor, take responsibility for your actions. You did become the gatekeeper here, preventing the majority of editors from moving on to the task of implementing and improving Sandbox 3i2. I'm quite surprised that you mention my previous opposition to a single list. But when presented with 1) a group of sincere editors with a viable alternative and 2) a growing consensus around that alternative, I was quite willing to compromise and fully support a single sortable list. This is what we continually asked you to do as well--recognize that others had very good ways to present the information. They might not be exactly what we entered the mediation expecting, but they were excellent alternatives nonetheless. Flexibility, Alinor, is something that is valued in Wikipedia, not rigidity. And, Alinor, you seem to imply that my change of heart was recent--it was not. I have supported a single sortable list from quite early on in the list of Sandboxes during this mediation. --Taivo (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The dispute explanation isn't included in 3i2. That's the issue. It's like saying "let's write A" and when somebody identifies a problem with "A" you say "OK, it should be B" and then open a new proposal that includes (still) "let's write A".

I didn't qualify the timing of your position change. I just said that I'm the one making 3i2 proposals in the past and supporting implementing these - regardless of single editor objections. You are free to think that I'm the only one objecting 3i2 implementation (I don't object using it as a base for further discussion), but I don't think so. And also as I said - single editor objecting a "large consensus" is not enough to stop any change. The problem is that 3i2 isn't supported by such consensus. Just like the previous instances of the similar proposals were objected not only by BritishWatcher or Taivo, but also by others.

Flexibility is fine, but I don't see any of this in the 3i2 camp. You don't agree even to the simple restoration of columns to the right. Alinor (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor we're not opposed to changes, we just want to implement first and THEN change. You're refusing to let anything happen unless you're absolutely fine with every detail and it's impossible to work with. I mean [redacted]for god's sake who cares what position the column is in, or what the exact wording of a footnote is? Isn't the actual SUBSTANCE of the article supposed to be more important here? Implementing 3i2 doesn't mean closing off discussion forever, it just means that we stop endlessly making sandboxes and start working on improving an actual article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, no one has refused to move the sortable columns to the right. I can personally assure you that I share your distaste for having them in the middle. But these issues can (and will) be discussed post implementation. We need to agree on the major structure first before arguing about the details.

If this mediation is closed, then this discussion isn't just going to be restarted on the talk page. We've got a rough consensus acceptance of 3i2 (8/10 editors) already. We've made extensive good faith efforts to discuss your concerns. If the mediation fails, then the time for discussion will be over. It's you choice: should we keep discussing this here, or shall we be forced to abandond the mediation and implement 3i2 so we can all move on with our lives? TDL (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What TDL said. Closing the mediation will only make Alinor's concerns more difficult to address, but that's the route he's choosing to take. It isn't just "close the mediation and let's resume the previous dynamic". Alinor will have to begin the formal process of making himself heard from scratch, and without violating the forum shopping policy. Sorry, but that's the price of refusing to work collaboratively. Ladril (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing that I find most confusing is that Alinor strongly advocated for us to implement this as an interm solution while the discussion continued. But now when we propose that 3i2 be implemented as a first draft, Alinor insists that this is not appropriate and that we should only implement it once the discussion has concluded. TDL (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because that was a very small change to the status quo. 3i2 is the big overhaul - it can't be 'interim' solution. Also there is no consensus for 3i2 - yes more of us are supporting it than those that aren't, but this is no consensus (and we still don't have the opinions of some participants). You say 'we will implement 3i2 and then Alinor will have hard time convincing us to change it' and I don't find this productive. And besides the 'easy issues' in 3i2 there are the more important problems - it doesn't explain/source the criteria it uses in two of its separation methods (column, sections) and the usage of a single criteria by two separation methods is also problematic - redundant and pushy. Also, nobody of you proposes a place where the real world practice of other10 vs. the rest[75][76] should be mentioned (as I said this can be even outside of the list/table).

Anyway, since I see that above there is a certain attitude about my contributions to the discussion that I would call 'unproductive' I'm considering to reduce my participation. I'm opposed to 3i2 in its current form and my concerns with it are present in multiple comments above - if the 3i2 editors have genuine willingness to address any of these they can prepare 3i3 by themselves. Alinor (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, obviously this 'can' be an interim solution - it has large consensus, and almost everyone agrees that it's imperfect, so it could be implemented now on the understanding that it would be improved. You refused to accept that, because you were holding out for... for what, exactly? A perfect version? an interim version that satisfies some condition you're not expressing? The start of World War III, so that the list gets reduced to maybe two or three entries? the precise definition of 'interim' is 'for the intervening time', but you are acting as though this were to become the permanent revision and bucking against it. why is that? It doesn't really matter, since the mediation will close soon, but I'm curious. --Ludwigs2 17:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of implementing so flawed proposal? Why not improving it first and then implementing the improved version? And yes, I have seen how the implementation of a flawed proposal is subsequently perpetuated - and in the resulting edit-wars the passer-by admins that are unaware that the 'status quo' is actually 'a flawed proposal implemented following agreement by almost everyone that it's imperfect' tend to protect/restore it. Especially when some editors actually "like" this version and disregard its flaws. I'm sure following a long period of discussing 'what to change in the implemented 3i2' some of the editors supporting it above will say 'so, no consensus for changes, the status quo/3i2 remains'. I see no point in replacing the current flawed status quo with another one with no less flaws. Not to mention that the consensus behind 3i2 is not so big. Alinor (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you were willing to continue with the structured discussion then there wouldn't be any edit wars and the moderator would be able to help us prevent 3i2 from getting "stuck". Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to continue with structured discussion. I oppose only the implementation right now of 3i2-as-is. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the only way that continued discussion here can be productive is:

• A very small number of critical issues are defined--e.g., Kosovo, Cook/Niue, Palestine--and all trivial issues (like whether the sortable columns should be on the left, right, or middle) are ignored
• Issues are discussed strictly one at a time and not intermingled.
• Responses are limited somehow. Multiple paragraphs or mile-long paragraphs that say the same thing that's been said and ignored before only leads to further ignoring of posts.
• A time limit or some other limit is imposed so that these discussions don't drag on forever going in circles. The moderator (if Ludwigs agrees to continue under these strict conditions) can cut off debate and call for a poll on an issue at any time he feels that things are not moving forward.
• No whining if your point-of-view is not accepted by the majority or if you start to be ignored because you are not moving the discussion forward. --Taivo (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, part of participating in a structured discussion involves accepting the terms the mediator sets forward. In this case a precondition for continuing the discussion is accepting implementation of 3i2. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I already explained why I don't agree with implementing 3i2-as-it-is. I would be happy if Ludwigs2 continues his mediation efforts without such precondition. Alinor (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well from the thread below, it is clear that at least 3 participants would prefer not to implement anything until after issues have been resolved. There's certainly not a consensus for that. Is there even a draft we can look at yet? Nightw 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone "prefers" to implement before the issues have been resolved. But futher discussion is only going to help if all editors accept that 3i2 has broad support, and working with this as a base. Ludwig (and other editors) have repeatedly solicted imput from you and Alinor on ways that 3i2 could be tweaked to address your concerns, without breaking the consensus behind it. Unfortunately, you've yet propose any improvements, and Alinor is still insisting on his own, universally opposed "treaty signer" critieria. Ludwig's "implement first, improve second" proposal came out of frustration that you two wouldn't work with the majority. If you both commit to working with 3i2 as a base then I wouldn't be opposed to continuing the mediation. But, if you're just going to resume the criticisms without making realistic suggestions on how to fix these problems, then like Ludwig I don't see much hope in futher discussion producing a compromise.

If you want to show some good faith and re-kick start the discussion Night, then this would an excellent time to make some constructive suggestions on specific ways that 3i2 could be tweaked to address your concerns, while not alienating the majority in favour of it. TDL (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "accept that 3i2 has broad support, and working with this as a base"? I did this weeks ago. What do you mean "you've yet propose any improvements"? Have you just accidentally skipped over my suggestions, or are you ignoring them on purpose? You've never commented on any of the ideas put forth, you've simply criticised others' participation without comment on the substance of their suggestions, and now you're even denying the existence of these suggestions altogether. I've continued to show respect with regards to your contribution to the discussion. Please show the same respect for others'. Nightw 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You accepted 3i2 weeks ago? Last I heard (three weeks ago) all you had accepted was the "visual side of things, but not the sorting criteria it uses". Of course, since the whole point of this discussion is the sorting criteria accepting only the visual aspects isn't really progress. Since that time, you've continued to oppose any use of UN agency membership as part of the criteria ([77], [78]). This led me to believe you were still opposed to the sorting criteria as in 3i2. However, I'm happy to hear that you now accept it. So let's focus on finding solutions to the remaining issues.

I know you don't like the position of the sortable columns in 3i2. I completely agree with you on this point, but surely that's not something to hold up implementation over is it? I suspect this is a pretty uncontroversial change.

I suppose it's possible that I "skipped over" the post where you suggested a verifiable modification to 3i2's sorting criteria which was able to address your concerns over Kosovo and which I "ignored" or "never commented" on. However, I can't seem to find any such comments by you. The closest I see is your support for "Alinor's proposal", however that was discussed extensively and was strongly opposed by most editors. So how do you suggest we alter 3i2's sorting criteria? Can you please provide the diffs where you explained your proposal that I ignored so I can give you my response? TDL (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that nobody gave reasons not to use the UN list [79][80]. Some editors asked questions (about SoP, SADR and ROC) that I addressed subsequently. It was not "discussed extensively" - albeit maybe the lack of proper discussion amounts to being "strongly opposed" by some editors.

Keep in mind that I'm not proposing to use ONLY the UN list cited above, but to use BOTH it and Vienna memberships (or whatever the 3i2 criteria is - so far the 3i2 supporters haven't said were they took their criteria from - they refuse to admit that it's related to Vienna). We can use '3i2 criteria' for one separation method and UN list for another separation method (and we can have UN membership POV used for a third separation method - so that everybody is happy and so that we get as wide consensus as possible). Alinor (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, don't be dishonest. I gave you what I see as valid reasons for not using your ideas as is. If you're not willing to engage in truly intelligent conversation don't be surprised that the moderator is exasperated and that others hold you responsible for ir. Ladril (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've adressed both of those sources already. The first source is not a list of UN-recognized states, its a list of states which have signed one specific convention, namely the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It only lists the 192+VC because those are the states which have signed the convention. Prior to 2002, that list wouldn't have included Somalia. You can see an "incomplete" list of this type here [81]. The second source (the participant search one) contains the SADR, Palestine, the Republic of China, along with states which no longer exist, dependent territories, historically unrecognized states, and subnational entities. Even if you were to filter out all of the non-state organizations I do not see how you could possibly get UN+VC from that list.

You don't need any of that treaty stuff to get a verifiable list that contains UN+VC. You just need two sources: [82] and [83]. By the same token, you can get the list for 3i2's Vienna-like criteria by using these sources [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. And we decide on these specific organizations by consulting this source: [100]. Easy. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Alinor is arguing. He wants us to use his interpretation of two lists he found in a UN website to leave only the Vatican in the middle category. But if I remember correctly, we already said we would not be using external lists as straitjackets, because none of them are equal to the Wikipedia list (to be more clear, the problem with him using external lists are that none of them include Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, SADR, Palestine, Abkhazia, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh AND Pridnestrovie). Ladril (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Orange Tuesday, for SoP/SADR/ROC you can see my 07:35, 5 May 2011 comment (it's inside the red line[show] above).

You propose two options: 1. use UN members+UN observers lists - this is going straight into "UN membership POV" and disregards the "UN POV". 2. You finally give an explanation of 3i2 criteria - "membership in Autonomous organizations linked to the UN through special agreements"[101] - I would like to have an explanation what is the relation between this and a list of sovereign states? For example, for Vienna we have a source explaining that 'membership in Vienna organizations (UN+IAEA+ICJ+15more) is utilized by the UNSG when deciding which entities are recognized as State by the international community'.

Ladril, if you refer to South Sudan then how can you say that I'm not willing to engage a discussion? Check 07:18, 3 May 2011 to 07:56, 4 May 2011.

About your next comment - I don't propose that we use [102]/[103] for inclusion criteria. I propose that we use these for sorting criteria. In one of the separation methods (for example sections) - whoever is inside this UN list is arranged in section1, whoever isn't (other10) is arranged in section2. In addition we will have another separation method (for example column) using the 3i2-criteria (and/or Vienna and/or simple UN membership - we can have many columns if needed). That way we will leverage 'single sortable list' advantage and allow the reader to choose whatever sorting criteria he wants. Alinor (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment re Palestine on the list doesn't make sense. The "State of Palestine" isn't on the current list, "Palestine" is. And its entry clearly says: "Palestine, categorised under "other entities", has observer status at United Nations General Assembly and maintains a permanent observer mission at the UN Headquarters.". The Palestine described in that entry is the same Palestine listed in your source. So if you want to use that source you have to include Palestine. There is no way around that. Just accept that when you're talking about UN+VC, you're talking about members+observers and nothing else. It's so much simpler and it doesn't make it any less valid.

As for [104], its relation to a list of sovereign states is that it's a way of distinguishing one group of sovereign states from another, just like membership in the UNO itself is. Nothing really more complicated than that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I also ask: If you're okay with having the related organizations criteria and the UN+VC criteria in the same list, why would you object to 3i2? One of the options going forward for 3i2 is a four category separation which would have the 192 UN members in one category, followed by VC as a UN observer, followed by Kosovo as a member of a related organization, followed by the other nine. This would effectively split VC+UN from the "other 10" while still including criteria proposed in 3i2. It seems like a really good compromise between the two points of view. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

About Palestine. The point you raise about current Palestine extent text shows only that it has some problems that we have to correct (see here for potential solution) after we finish with sorting criteria and decision about CI/Niue. The article is a "List of sovereign states" and the only Palestine (disambiguation) that covers its inclusion criteria is the State of Palestine. The PLO and PNA do not cover the inclusion criteria - they do not claim to be states and nobody recognizes them as states. So, using [105]/[106] does not include SoP, SADR, ROC or any of the other10. And no, I'm talking neither about UN members+UN observers nor about UN+VC. I'm talking about those states that the UNSG has concluded that are recognized as State by the international community - we check that by checking whether the UNSG is accepting them as State party to an international treaty deposited with him. I don't know of any other place (besides the UN Treaty Database[107]/[108]) where we can check whether a state is "recognized as State by the international community".

"One of the options going forward for 3i2" - I don't object 3i2 in general, I object its current state. So, I will welcome a revised-3i2 if it addresses some of the problems we identified above. For example I object using one criteria for two separation methods (sections + column). Also, I don't think we need more than two categories. Criteria that results in three or more categories is more likely to be some SYNTH between multiple criteria - and these are better presented each by its own separation method (for example by multiple columns).

What about sections split by [109]/[110] and column for 3i2-criteria and/or Vienna and/or simple UN membership? Alinor (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"I object using one criteria for two separation methods (sections + column)" - Alinor, perhaps you don't understand how the sortable table works. EVERY column, when sorted, produces it's own divisions. When the "disputes" column is sorted, then the dividers are used to display this sorting criteria. It's not a matter of choosing a prefered sorting method, the user chooses the sorting method and the divides follow. How could we possibly implement your proposal? What would happen when the disputes column is sorted? Would the states still be divided by your "treaty signer" divisions, and then sub-sorted by "disputes"? How does that make any sense? You proposal doesn't work. Making the same arguments ad nauseam doesn't make the problems go away. If you aren't going to listen to other editors concenrs, then we might as well give up and implement 3i2 as is, because futher discussion is pointless. TDL (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you mean. I would have been helpful if you have said that earlier. OK, so there are two options: a) to have both 3i2 and [111]/[112] columns (actually I think it's better to have yes/no columns where possible - UN membership, [113]/[114], Vienna membership); b) to decouple sections from columns - sectional dividers will be present only when "sorted" by extent column - when sorted by some of the other columns - dividers will go to the bottom. Alinor (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, dividers already do change when different columns are sorted--they are tied to the topic of the column, not to the list as a whole. And yes/no columns are least useful because they cause too much clutter. The UN system column is perfectly acceptable as is since it usefully conflates what might be two (or more) yes/no columns. Having columns that are multiply flexible are far more useful than too many yes/no columns. We have told you this before and the consensus is against yes/no columns in general. Just another case of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Taivo (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, why are you repeating what TDL explained already above and what I already said I understood right above? Then speak about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Yes/no columns are much less cluttered and don't have complicated cell contents. Anyway, I will not object keeping 3i2-criteria (it's kind of arbitrary picking/SYNTH and as result of this - with complicated cell contents, but anyway, for the sake of compromise) if we also have a column for [115]/[116]. Of course I think '3i2 criteria' is much better to be replaced by two columns - one for Vienna and one for UN membership. Anyway, are there objections to using both '3i2-criteria' and [117]/[118]? Alinor (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, there have been objections, and the fact you keep asking questions like that is why Taivo mentions WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anyway, this mediation has been closed down, so if you have questions, I suggest bringing them up elsewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Where should we continue discussion? Outback the koala (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I already opened a section at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria#Sorting criteria - continuation of discussion. Alinor (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks! Outback the koala (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

Extended content

Taivo, why do you say "Cook Islands and Niue need more discussion because including them is as tricky as including Palestine."? Ladril (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Can I respectfully ask that we leave this discussion until after we have finalized the first part of the discussion? We've all agreed to deal with the issues separately, so I think it's best to put this off until we have 100% agreed on the first part. Mixing the two discussion has proven to be a recipe for disaster in the past. TDL (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC) OK we wait then. Ladril (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Please do not discuss this yet!!! Outback the koala (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close mediation

Given the above exchanges, I am of the opinion that this mediation is hopelessly deadlocked. Mediation requires a degree of flexibility and a willingness to accept proactive compromises from all parties, and those criteria are clearly not present in sufficient quantities for a true consensus to emerge here. I believe this dispute is going to have to be resolved by authoritative means. I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration. Further discussion of the issue by the involved parties at this point has no reasonable expectation of being successful.

Formal vote on closing the mediation. please signify with a {{tick}} or {{cross}} whether you would like this mediation to close. If you decide not to close the mediation, I will return the status to open so that another mediator can take over the case, hopefully with more success than I. --Ludwigs2 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - yes, if the 3i2 camp was willing to make 'any' change to their position we can move forward. What I see is refusal even to return columns to the right. On the other hand I don't think that Ludwigs2 has "failed" - on the contrary. But it seems he's tiered of us. If this mediation is closed I suggest continuing at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Alinor (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Qualified Yes. 1) Ludwigs, your mediation was not a failure, we have succeeded in building a consensus around Sandbox 3i2. 2) I support implementing that consensus immediately based on this discussion. 3) This mediation can continue to work on improvements to that consensus Sandbox or it can continue elsewhere if that is a more appropriate venue. 4) Further discussion should be based on Sandbox 3i2 as implemented, not on what editors would like it to look like if they could start from scratch. --Taivo (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Y Whatever. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC) EDIT: That was a bit too snarky maybe. I'm just frustrated. Thanks for your help, Ludwigs. I'm sorry we couldn't work something out. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks for your dedication, Ludwig. Ladril (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Also a sincere thank you to all editors with whom I have suffered brushes in the past, but have shown a more open and positive attitude to change. I think the end result won't be regretted. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• What Taivo said.--Jiang (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Ludwigs has done all a mediator can do, I hardly see how switching mediators would bring anything new. Most users have acknowledged that a rough consensus has developed around the final sandbox Ludwigs brought us to, so if the mediation is dropped I'm fairly sure that sandbox would go into play. Whether this moves up to higher levels of arbitration, is of course, entirely up to the discretion of editors who wish to bring it there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Sadly this seems to be the end. It was always my understanding that 3i2 would not go live or be implimented upon us agreeing on it, but we would improve it and change it here within that framework. Ludwigs did what he could and thats all we can ask, Thank You to him. I agree getting another mediator would be pointless, we have a consensus - we should go continue to improve outside this framework allowing implimentation hopefully later. Cheers to everyone else, I'm sure I'll be talking with you guys elsewhere. We didn't even get to CI/Nuie, which I thought would be the real sticking point. Outback the koala (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed with Alinor and Outback. I've already accepted the sandbox that the majority wants, with reservations (Kosovo and the placement of columns). Since a broad consensus has been developed around a particular sandbox, the mediation can be closed, but I oppose any form of implementation until the remaining points are resolved. We don't even know where half of the participants stand on these particular issues. Discussion can't go on forever, but I'd at least like to see a poll done, some ideas and alternatives thrown out, and to see it improved to a standard that all can (even reluctantly) agree to. Night w2 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm having a lot of trouble loading the page already. I'll be very grateful if somebody archives the oldest conversations. Ladril (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing mediation

I've let this motion go for a week, I think all the people who are interested enough to vote have voted, and I think there is consensus that the mediation should be closed rather than left open to await a new mediator. Consequently I'm going to mark it as closed, with appropriate commentary. If you decide to reopen it for some reason, it would be best to open a new request. --Ludwigs2 06:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)