Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 6

Consensus for the following two steps?

As per request on the main page see this summary of the current proposed actions:

1. Implement Sandbox2 without CI/Niue - e.g. this will result in the following changes to status quo: adding new (3rd) section (UN members) and sectional sorting criteria improvement, A-Z sortability (allowing for inclusion criteria/neutrality non-default view), adding coloring and coloring sorting criteria
   • agreed addition, that is not in Sandbox2: putting a temporary footnote after the "Vienna formula" link in the sorting criteria section with something like "Besides the listed 194 entities member states of some Vienna formula organizations are also the Cook Islands and Niue, currently listed in the New Zealand entry." - and then, inside the NZ entry, to add to the CI/Niue notes the list of organizations that they are members of such as "Cook Islands, member of FAO, etc."
   • practical steps: starting with Sandbox2, adding the missing entries by copy-paste (plus wikicode add) from the current article, hiding (by wikicode) CI/Niue (until their coloring is decided, see next step), adding the missing external links/etc. sections by copy-paste from the current article and from Sandbox1
2. continue discussion of proposals for CI/Niue coloring and try to resolve it within a week. Alinor (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment If you have an agreed addition that isn't in Sandbox 2, just put it in Sandbox 2. It's a sandbox, edit it, finish the work there so it can just be copy pasted over to the main page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a temporary addition, only for 1 week. Also, Sandbox2 can't be pasted over the main page - many of the UN states are missing. Anyway, this is a technical issue - I don't think it is necessary to be done "in advance" (the current Sandbox2 clearly shows the proposed changes, why should we copy there over 100 additional rows?), but anybody can do it if he wants.

The question is - does somebody oppose to the above steps, or we have consensus and can proceed with their implementation? Alinor (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then make Sandbox2 able to be pasted over the main page. You'll have to do the same work either way, and it would be much better for the agreement if the full item is sandboxed. Consider finishing the sandbox as the first step of implementation if you will, step 0. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But it would be a waste of time if there was no consensus for the proposal. Nightw 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - based on Sandbox 2, with the only alterations to the table itself being adding all other states currently left off, additional text in the New Zealand box and removal of Niue and Cook Islands for the time being. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment, but you knew I was going to do that. The issue with the IMF and the World Bank has still not been addressed. I'll cross-post my previous statement here, again, as nothing has changed. Nightw 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Admission to the General Assembly represents a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions, meaning it has avoided rejection by any of the 5 permanent Security Council members, which collectively represent the major spheres in multipolar politics. But admission into the IMF or the World Bank can be blocked only by the United States. It's fine to hypothesise as to whether Kosovo would have been admitted anyway, but the disproportionate voting systems of these two particular agencies is still in effect regardless, and it is unconductive to our efforts to produce the most impartial list possible. Nightw 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the colouring scheme ("has/hasn't invoked an 'All States' clause"), and I'm very sure the average reader would also be scratching his head. Do we have sources for that kind of claim? I'm also not looking forward to editing a minor point from what would have previously been a single section, but I can get over that one. Other than those points it looks pretty good, and I commend your efforts and your perseverence. Nightw 14:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Night w, I am really amazed - I thought you agree with the coloring - as it is showing exactly that Kosovo is different from rest-of-Vienna. This was discussed long time ago, why haven't you told earlier that this distinction is not enough for you?

As for scratching heads - the coloring legend already links to a place where this is explained, if required a footnote can be added here.

About the "All states invokation" - we could make the effort to find 1 source per each state showing that it is member/signatory to some organization/treaty that uses this clause.

Whould you agree with that? Alinor (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As Alinor stated, the compromise over the Kosovo issue was to sort it according to Vienna, but colour it according to "all states" to show that it's different from the other Vienna states. The "all states" status is just whether or not they have been invited to sign a treaty by the UNSG. Verification would only require us to find a treaty (that relied on the all states clause) that they have signed. TDL (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no longer about Kosovo, or its colour. It's about those agencies where a single state is able to block an admission on its own. It introduces an imbalance into the list. Nightw 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet you are OK with using UN membership as the sole criteria, where in your words "a single state is able to block an admission on its own" (ie the UNSC veto)? The list is already highly imbalanced, expanding the list of organizations we consider de-emphasizes this imbalance. TDL (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's why many organizations are used, not only those with "minority blocking powers" (those are UN, IMF, WBG - AFAIK). Also, "minority blocking powers" will be an issue if a state is "blocked" from membership in those organizations and hasn't applied to some of the "normal voting" organizations. There are no such cases currently (only Taiwan is blocked from the UN, but it is also blocked from the "normal voting"). Anyway, section2 doesn't have such issue, as it includes many "normal voting" organizations. "minority blocking powers" apply only to section1 (UN).

Actually, we have the opposite case - a state that managed to join a "minority blocking powers" organization first. If it was "minority approval procedure" it would be clear - the US, as a minorit, apporves and Kosovo joins. But this is not the case - the US could "block", if the wanted, the application of any state for IMF/WBG membership, but they could not "apporve" it on their own.

In fact, for IMF/WBG, the problem is not in "minority blocking power" - but in "minority approval possibility". As IMF/WBG votes are according to trade/economic percentages - a small number (just 9 - US, Japan, Germnay, UK, France, China, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Canada) of states has more than 50% of the votes. But reading IMF voting it seems that "major decisions require 85% supermajority" - I don't know if new members "approval" is considered major decision - if it is, the US could "block" such decision on its own (veto). I will later calculate what is the minimum number of states required to "approve" 85% (the wiki page lists up to ~70%) - to see exactly how much states it includes. But let's assume for the moment that the number is around 40 (the top20 have 70%). This is clearly a "minority of states" (regardless if you measure against 192 or 205).

So, membership in the IMF/WBG can be achieved "without majority support". OK, but does this affect sandbox2 criteria? The answer is - yes, but only if there is a state member only of the IMF/WBG (some would add "and depending on the number of states that voted in favor"). Currently there is only one such case - Kosovo (and I think there was a link showing that it was accepted with 96 votes "for" - total IMF members were 185 then if I count correctly). I think that the coloring clearly distinguishes it - and also refrains from using "complex" criteria (such as "colored so-and-so if it is only a member of minority-approval organizations and was voted in favor by less than 50% of the states in this list").

Resume: "minority blocking" and "minority approval" cases (UN, IMF, WBG) are problematic only if they are "requirement/reason" for listing and are not problematic if they are only "one of many". In sanbox2 there are 2 such problems: individual occurrence - for Kosovo (issue is addressed by coloring); general problem with the criteria for section1 (issue is not addressed, as it is considered "advantageous" by some editors and the split of Vienna was required for their support). Alinor (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I keep repeating, "admission to the General Assembly represents a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions"—5 states, at least 3 of which regularly disagree with eachother... As any analysis of a cross-sectional study will tell you, five is a far better sample than one. We might as well just base the list on the CIA World Factbook! Alinor is now telling me that there isn't a WP:POV issue until what can happen does happen. Rubbish! Nightw 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am telling, that the NPOV issue is in section1 (UN) and there will be a NPOV issue in section2 (rest-of-Vienna) only if it includes a state member only of IMF/WBG (and voted in favor by a minority). Additionally the section2 NPOV is issue is addressed by the coloring - because "All States as defined by the UNSG" (coloring criteria) is a "representation of a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions".

Also, "representation of a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions" is also the admission into the rest of the Vienna list organizations, not only the UN.

In short - I don't understand what your concern is - you oppose having a separate section for UN members, because of UNSC veto; you oppose using a non-modified (but verifiable) Vienna, because of IMF/WBG "minority approval" and "US veto", even if the coloring used clearly distinguishes such sneak-trough cases; you oppose any usage of Vienna formula, because you don't consider admission in these organizations as "representation of a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions"? Alinor (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make any sense Night. You suggest that 5 vetos is better than 1. So why not go to the extreme. By your logic, if 5 is better than 1, 192 must be better than 5 right? Maybe the main list should be states who are undisputed. Move Israel, PRC, the Koreas into the Other states since they are opposed by another state.

When Israel was admitted to the UN despite universal opposition from the muslim world, where was that political position represented? Three entire continents are unrepresented on the UNSC permanent members. The UNSC is most certainly not a good cross-section. That's why there is so much discussion at reforming it. We might as well make the main list the "List of states recognized by US+UK+France+Russia+China".

You suggest that "As any analysis of a cross-sectional study will tell you, five is a far better sample than one" but this is not relevant to the discussion since the UNSC doesn't decide who gets admitted. They decide who DOESN'T get admitted. We know that states need 2/3 support in the UNGA to be admitted, so if 1/1 or 1/5 veto states oppose a state then how does that make a better cross section? The more veto's the more likely a single state will block the consensus of a majority of states. So compared to a "no veto" organization, the comparison is 50% (~95) is better than 1. Having extra organizations with a veto doesn't make the problem worse, since membership in these organizations isn't a necessary condition. If the US vetos a states IMF application, you can be damn sure they would do the same thing to their UN application. But the "no veto" agencies do help solve the problem. If a state gets vetoed in the UN/IMF/WB they can apply to the WHO where there is no veto. TDL (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The section "members of a UN organization, but not the General Assembly" is problematic. I still prefer the two list option--members + Vatican City versus non-members. It's cleaner and places all non-members in the same place without a POV evaluation of what international organizations are better than other international organizations. It is also "a United Nations", not "an United Nations". Even in British English, "united" starts with a consonant phonetically ([j]), so it would be "a" in all cases. --Taivo (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what your position is. You state that it's POV to evaluate which international organizations are better than others, and then you suggest that we should treat UN membership more important than other organizations. The point of the Vienna formula is that the UN has decided which international organizations are important (the Vienna organizations), so it's not POV to rely on this definition. I agree that a 2 list option is much better, but unfortunately there was no consensus for any of these options. TDL (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.N. General Assembly is different from all other international organizations. There is no competing organization and membership in the General Assembly is universally recognized as the mark of a "recognized state". It is, by its nature and acceptance, the NPOV list. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict with TDL and Tavio

What is problematic about Vienna formula (you refer to it by "members of a UN organization, but not the General Assembly")? It used by the UN itself [1] and by many international organizations and treaties, it is verifiable as both wording and resulting members list (check the links).

How does "members + Vatican City" "places all non-members in the same place"? Vatican City is non-member.

"a POV evaluation of what international organizations are better than other international organizations." - yes, I agree that it's better if all Vienna states are in the same section, but other users insisted on separeting UN from the rest of the organizatons - and we came to the current compromise proposal.

"U.N. General Assembly is different from all other international organizations."? What is the difference?

"There is no competing organization " - I don't understand, what do you mean?

"membership in the General Assembly is universally recognized as the mark of a "recognized state"." - this link from the UN office of Legal affairs states the same thing for the WHO Assembly.

The NPOV list is a single not sectioned list. Any sectional division uses some POV - UN POV/Vienna POV, UN membership POV, etc. Alinor (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Vienna organizations don't have competing organizations either, who competes with the UPU or the IAEA? And membership in these organizations is also considered a mark of a "recognized state". The UN legal affairs [2] states "a number of those States became members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community." Also, the evidence is that states consider it important, just look at how strongly the US advocated against Palestine getting WHO membership. And if you advocate for the utmost importance of UN membership, then Vatican City fails this metric. TDL (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll summarize my position. I see no good reason, and have read no valid arguments, to change the list from the 2-part list that it has been to some artificial 3-part list. The majority of our English-speaking readers will automatically assume that the list is UN-based, so why add some nebulous middle ground? Our readers will be looking to answer much more simple questions than "Does this entity meet the criteria of Vienna or not?" Even though Vatican City isn't officially a member, it is universally accepted as a "non-member for other than political reasons", that is, if it ever applied for membership, there would be no question of admitting it. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the UN link provided above? It clearly shows that the UNSG (and the member states of many international organizations) disagree with you. Alinor (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If we go for a 2-part list it should be Vienna/others - but as I said, some editors were opposed to the UN POV on the subject and insisted on UN membership POV. Alinor (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The "good reason" is that you can't tell me what "widely recognized" means. If you can't tell me what it means, how can we expect readers to understand what it means? Having a vague, unverifibale sorting criteria requires editors to do OR to decide which category each state falls into. Worse, WP:Weasel words are designed to "disguise a biased view". We pretend we are presenting sourced info, but it's really just the opinion of a half dozen editors on the talk page.

If the majority of English-speaking readers assume that the list will be based on UN membership, then lucky for us we already have a List of United Nations member states for them to consult. This page, on the other hand, is for an entirely different purpose.

As for VC, you are going to have to provide sources supporting your claims that they are "universally recognized" and that there would be "no question of admitting it" to the UN. Can you give me a source showing that Nauru recognizes VC? Also, this isn't a WP:CBALL, so we can't just assume that they would get membership if they applied. If we could verify these claims it would be easy to make the list. Unfortunately, verifcation of such claims has proven impossible. Hence, we are left with imperfect (but verifiable) alternatives. TDL (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I've seen no good reason presented to change the list from the way it is currently constituted. IMHO, it is only an attempt to add subtleties of recognition to the "Other States" category and, therefore, will reduce readability and usability. It introduces variables into the "Other States" category that can potentially lead to several different lists of "Other States" and will add confusion and potential conflict--"My state isn't in level 3a, but in level 2c", yadda, yadda. The difference between this list and the U.N. member list is that this list has "Other states"--non-members. This is a poll to judge consensus. My view is "oppose". This is currently a clear list. I see no reason to change the nature of the current list and turn it into a wikilawyer's nightmare. --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If the status quo is so clear to you, then why can't you just explain what "widely recognized" means? It's certainly not clear to me. If you could explain this, and we could verify it, then I'd not be opposed to the status quo. But if you can't, then the list is nothing more than a POV.

This proposal certainly wasn't an attempt to subcategorize the "Other states". If you followed the discussion, you would know that every editor preferred a two categorie split. Unfortunately, we couldn't agree on where to draw the line between the main list and the other states. The three category split was a compromise by everyone, one that no one was particularly fond of from an asthetic point of view but that addressed the major issues. TDL (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the notion that the proposal is made in order to split "other states" in two is totally wrong. The proposal can be considered to split "widely recognized states" in two (Vienna UN members and Vienna non-UN members). It all boils down to "widely recognized" = "member of some Vienna organization" (UN is a Vienna organization too), but as some editors want to emphasis UN membership - we agreed to separate UN members from their natural place. After reading your feedback here I think we made a bad decision, we shouldn't used 3-section split as it causes confusion and misleads readers that "Vienna-non-UN Vienna states" have less acceptance in the "international community" than "Vienna-UN states". This is wrong - there are many sources showing the opposite. Alinor (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better definition of the two sections would be 1) those states whose sovereignty is not disputed--that would be all the U.N. members plus Vatican City, versus 2) those states whose sovereignty is disputed. But, in any case, a three-way split just causes confusion. Whether it was intended or not to split up the "Other States", that is the practical effect because U.N. members are all unified in the first part of the list and "Other States" are divided into the two latter parts. Vatican City's sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and should be in the top of the list, IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This idea has been considered but it doesn't work. For one, many UN member states sovereignty IS disputed (see PRC, the Koreas, Israel, etc, etc, etc...) and thus they would belong in the second list. Secondly, it's not clear whether some state's sovereignty is disputed or not. TDL (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

Here we go again. A way way back I tried to formulate a criteria for "undisputed" vs. "disputed", but it was cumberstone, prone to OR accusations and very hard to verify. If you have an idea how to do this - then OK, but otherwise we can't use it. "UN+Vatican" is not a criteria - this is an arbitrary end-result selection by wikipedia editor(s). We have discussed all this extensively already... Also, some of the UN members are disputed, so even "UN"="undisputed" is wrong.

Tavio, have you readed the discussions? We have gone trough all this already... I agree that two sections is better (Vienna/others), but others don't. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree with this solution doesn't mean that I haven't checked in and read the discussion. If a state has U.N. membership then that trumps all "sovereignty claims". I have yet to see a single solid argument for abandoning the status quo. It's all just lawyering as far as I'm concerned in order to allow X or Y into the list, when it would not normally be included. Sorry, I assume good faith, but I think that looking too long in the microscope at a piece of bark has blinded you to the forest. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on WP:V is hardly wikilawyering. This is a core principle of wikipedia. If you can't back up the "widely recognized" claims, it doesn't belong here. TDL (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Tavio, you say "U.N. membership then that trumps all "sovereignty claims".", but this is incorrect. Example - Koreas claim each other, Israel is "not recognized as state" by ~20 other states, etc.

Also, there is no advocating "to allow X or Y into the list" - if you refer to CI/Niue inclusion - there is (was?) consensus for their inclusion in a separate discussion. This proposal is about replacing the current pseudo-criteria utilized for sorting with a criteria that is verifiable and actually utilized in the real world. Alinor (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

General remark - this whole process is getting out of hand - discussing, discussing, reaching consensus with one group of editors, then comes a new group and all has to start from the beginning... This can go on forever. Maybe we should just delete the unverifiable weaselish pseudo-criteria from the status quo and resort to a simple single list - made according to the inclusion criteria of the article. Then, those who want to distinguish their preferred group of states can do this by providing a verifiable sectional or coloring sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will go for that. There was strong opposition to a single list during the last canvassing.

However, I agree in general with your frustration. This is exactly why I really think we need professional help. Currently there are too many cooks for us to build a consensus. There is no consensus in favour of the status quo, but we can't get a consensus behind any specific proposal. Mediation (or ultimately arbitration) would give us some structure, where a neutral party can separate the legitimate arguments from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If we can't agree in mediaiton, then an arbitrator would impose a solution on us. Not an ideal solution, but at least it would end the debate. TDL (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think editors involved in this page and others about similar topics might be straying dangerously close to tag teaming in order to establish ownership of the article. I think it would be nice if editors who come to vote show at least a passing knowledge of the discussion at hand. Involved editors have gone to great lengths to make a proposal that will address all (reasonable) points. Ladril (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely odd comment Ladril, on the one hand you imply that editors in this page are become to much like owners, while on the other hand you say we should exclude other editors who you think should have enough knowledge on the subject that you deem adequate. Just a comment, I don't think anyone is saying those here did not work hard. Outback the koala (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but while far from impeccable, I seriously doubt my English is that bad. I absolutely never even suggested we should exclude anyone from discussion (actually, while I often disagree with Night w, I have invited him over for discussion in this very talk page before, and he has reciprocated). What I'm saying (and the talk page guidelines seem to agree) is that it is the responsibility of individual editors to read previous debates on a particular issue before jumping in to discuss a change. Not doing so is a lack of respect for people on both sides who have taken the time to actually get acquanited with the debate and its implications. Ladril (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally took that in a different way then it was meant. Thank you for explaining it out. Just a misunderstanding. Again, apologies. Outback the koala (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the status-quo? It is weaselish and unverifiable and seems constructed by (arbitrary) selection of what state goes in what section. I assume that the editors initially constructing the status quo division were using common sense, but by failing to define sorting criteria/non-weaselish description of the sections - they made the sorting process prone to common misconceptions (such as "UN membership = sovereignty/sovereign state") - and by nature these are hard to distinguish from common sense and also very entrenched.

I think, since we already identified a major shortcoming/problem with the status quo - problems with weasel/verification - the fall back is the "inclusion criteria" (thus simply single list). Since we can't agree how to divide the states, then we shall not divide them at all. Of course, a single list arrangement can not last too long - as common sense implies that "some states are more of a state than others" - so, when a user comes (one of us or somebody else) and raises the issue - and there is a proposal different from "commonly accepted as states, namely in my opinion X, Y, Z - go in section1; disputed, namely in my opinion A, B, C - go in section2" - we can adopt it. In the meantime the format of the table can be prepared - with sortability tags/wikicode, etc. - so that it is technically easy to implement whatever sorting and coloring criteria are chosen. Alinor (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support This goes a long way to addressing the sorting issues. The WP:Weasely and WP:Unverifiable status quo is eliminated, in favour of a WP:LSC which is unambiguous and objective, and for which the status of each state can be easily verified. TDL (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose First, I oppose any use of the so-called "Vienna Formula". I oppose different colouring of entries on the page. I oppose the proposed 3 list system. I oppose changing from the status quo for this proposed sandbox2. While extensive, and really painstaking, discussion has gone on, I actually am more in favour of a 1 list solution than what is proposed here. The sortability issue was substantial - and the proposed changes address this and reflect this concern well, however distinguishing between widely recognised states(I dont think its a weasel word) and others was left to the colouring scheme that was based on UN membership rather than on it actual status. I do think the embedded multiple lists was an ingenious solution and could be implemented in a one list solution in the future. I feel a big problem here was alot of the work was motivated to allow us to include CI/Niue, which some here feel very strongly about- this side steps the issues about inclusion by creating a new category that both will fit nicely into, avoiding further discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I could support a single list with color coding for U.N. membership. This list needs to be simpler, not more complex. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As per Weasel word, the definition is "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." "Widely recognized" satisfies this definition to a T. It presents the impression that "nearly everyone considers these entities to be states" but the words are entirely ambiguous. If they aren't weasle words, then please tell me what they specifically mean.

It's no different than saying "Many people support Obama" or "Some feel that Obama has done a bad job". These words don't have any specific mean, and are just an attempt to "disguise a biased view". TDL (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Outback the koala, the work was not motivated by "wish to include CI/Niue". The current (former?) consensus for their inclusion is in a separate discussion. The work here was motivated by the ambiguity of the status quo description of the sections. This was realized when that prevented the CI/Niue discussion to agree past the point of "they should be included" - we argued about the section, where they should be placed, but soon realized that it is impossible to have meaningful debate about that - because the sections themselves were flawed and undefined.

"by creating a new category that both will fit nicely into," - the new category (UN members) was created as a compromise with those editors that insisted on the "UN membership POV". The natural (IMHO/common sense/weasel) division is such that adopts the same criteria that is utilized by the UNSG (the so-called "UN POV") and by many other international organizations, treaties and their respective member states (I think that this can be verified to include 195 of the 205 entities - and claim, but can't verify of course, that the other 10 would also utilize it - if allowed by the other 195) - the common criteria applied by international treaties/organizations are two: "All States" and "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," ("Vienna formula" in short). As you can see in the link provided - some of these organizations are established before the UN or have wider membership (wider = more states) than the UN. One of the organizations is also simultaneously older than the UN, includes non-members of the UN and has the same number of members as the UN.

I don't think that a dozen editors on Wikipedia (me included) are more knowledgeable than the UNSG and the governments of 195 states - so I think that if there is to be a division it should be "Vienna"/others and/or "All States"/Others(here "All" includes only those that have already been accepted in a treaty/organization under this clause). The sandbox2 proposal utilizes both (one for sections, the other for colors), but has the unwelcome additon of "UN membership POV". Unwelcome IMHO, but welcome according to other editors - we should build consensus and make compromises, right? If you can convince the "UN membership POV" editors to accept the "UN POV" - then I think that we will agree on a 2-section division.

What about making a single sortable undivided list, but with additional columns (and/or colors) for "membership" and/or "recognition" and/or "All States invokation"? The default-sort view can be different than A-Z (such as UN->rest-of-Vienna->etc.) - or it could be A-Z. Alinor (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. First point is that this breaks WP:COLOUR, in that information is provided based only on colour. This is a problem for blind users who use screen readers, which can't cope with things that are different colours.

Second point, we appear to be treating Kosovo as though it were universally recognised or close to it. This fails WP:NPOV IMO. We appear to have a formula that allows us to put Kosovo with other entities in similar situations. If so, we should use it. The choice of division is not an excuse for a non-neutral list.

Based on these points, I do not believe I can support this proposal at this time. Pfainuk talk 20:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a certain relationship between being a member of a UN specialized agency and a "pedigree" of statehood as recognized by the rest of states. The USA, for example, has used its leverage to prevent Palestine from joining any of the UN specialized agencies in the past [3]. Ergo, citing the fact that a certain state belongs to certain organizations is just that, a heuristic that has to do with statehood. You could argue that by listing Kosovo in the UN specialized agencies you are giving undue weight to its statehood, but if that's the case, the same is true of the 'UN+Vatican' category. I'd say that what is being proposed amounts to a deepening and improvement of the current setup, not as an outright conceptual revolution, if you get what I mean. Ladril (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points on colour, I'd prefer to do away with it completely. Unfortunately, some editors have insisted upon colour because in their opinion the list wouldn't be neutral without it.

As for your second point, the status quo formula allows for states that don't have close to universal recognition to be included in the main list as well. Consider Israel when they joined the UN and were not recognized by many states. So this criticism applies equally to the status quo and the proposal above. TDL (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The coloring information can be provided by a footnote after the legend such as "Colored as "invoked" the All states clause are states that have joined an organization, signed or acceded to a treaty that uses this clause. Such are all the UN member states, CI, Niue and the Vatican City." This will also serve as description. Also, "non-invokation" could be mentioned in the extants of Kosovo and 9others - or in all extants. Alinor (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the above comments make me feel better, seeing several others have concerns about all these changes. I think the point about colouring by "all states" is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, i never thought about colour blindness issues. As i have said several times, i still think colouring based on UN Membership would be a good idea, with the simple two section split - UN members / non UN members. But noting Vienna status in the description of states that qualify. That would be one of my preferred solutions that deals with the neutrality issues relating to cook islands/niue and Kosovo. I am also glad im not the only one who thinks this whole exercise has been to get Niue and Cook Islands inserted, which makes the current proposal rather odd as it leaves them off for the moment, but bound to be inserted soon if the proposal is agreed to. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A lie believed by two people is still a lie. Rather, I'd say some people are using this proposal as an excuse to try to prevent CK and Niue from being added, but that's a different conversation entirely. Ladril (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A 2-section split of UN/non-UN is based entirely on "UN membership POV" that is in contradiction to the established practices of the UNSG ("UN POV") and most (all?) of the states in the list.

If we can't agree on sectional/coloring sorting criteria, then there should be no sections at all (we will simply implement the inclusion criteria+special cases description in the extants) - until we have some consensus proposal. The status quo is failing WP:V and WP:WEASEL, so it should go in any case. Alinor (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything at all wrong with the status quo, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or readability and usability. It is a logical, reasonable, and eminently verifiable list that is NPOV. Claims that it isn't verifiable are just red herrings, IMHO. Get 10 readers together who aren't from Kosovo, Taiwan, or Northern Cyprus and they would be unable to find a recognizable POV in this list. Either keep the status quo, which is one list based on U.N. membership or uncontested sovereignty and another list of states that meet neither criteria, or make one list and separate U.N. members by color coding, bold notes, or some other visual/textual marker and I'd support it. Three lists is unacceptable for reasons of user friendliness. --Taivo (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Get 10 readers together who aren't from Kosovo, Taiwan, or Northern Cyprus..." You've said it yourself. It's a list skewed against certain states. How can you argue, in the same paragraph, that it is NPOV? Ladril (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Because nationalists are the worst POV pushers and the least objective readers on Wikipedia. There is no way for them to judge NPOV unless it fits their particular POV. Of course, not all editors from Kosovo, et al. are rabid nationalists, but there are enough of them to make the evaluation of NPOV that relates to them very difficult. Just as if you were judging a beauty pageant, you wouldn't have a contestant's relative as a judge. --Taivo (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the list is "eminently verifiable", then why can't you just add some sources to the article that verify the claims? This would solve all my concerns. The status quo has been around for years, and remains unverified, leading me to believe that it's not possible to verify. I've repeatedly asked, but you still can't even tell me what "widely recognized" means? Does this mean universal recognition? Majority recognition? 2/3 recognition? Some arbitrary % so as to get an answer that agrees with your POV? If you can't even tell me what it means, it's theoretically impossible to verify.

As for your comment about "Get 10 readers together..", surely I don't have to explain to you why 10 readers wouldn't be a RS. You need to find 10 RS that support your claim, not 10 readers.

As for your one-list with UN members highlighted idea, I'm not fundamentally opposed to it, but I know some editors are. One hybrid proposal that has been discussed (which I think addresses many of your concerns) is a 2-categories setup (Vienna/Other) with only UN members highlighted. TDL (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Because nationalists are the worst POV pushers and the least objective readers on Wikipedia." But Kosovo is not a state according to nationalists alone. It's a state according to seventy other states. In my book, a state recognized by seventy other states is "internationally recognized" even if that recognition is not unanimous. And according to the dictionary, "internationally" means: "1. Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations: an international commission; international affairs.

2. Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame."

This is why we're arguing that the label "internationally recognised" is vague, weaselish and counterproductive: because there is no clear-cut way of determining whether a state is "internationally recognised" or not. Even Northern Cyprus qualifies using the dictionary definition above. Sorting states according to a formula which states themselves use to determine participation in the concert of international states seems a much better option than what we have now. Ladril (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For those who insist "widely" isn't a weasel word, you might want to check out WP:WEASEL, where "widely" is specifically mentioned under "Words that may introduce bias". The whole point is that our job is to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves." (WP:NPOVFAQ) Whether or not a state is "widely recognized" is a matter of opinion. "Vienna formula" status is a fact. TDL (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please actually use the comments I've posted--the main list should be (as it is now) those states that are either members of the U.N. or whose sovereignty is uncontested. Both of those are easily verified. "Other States" would be those states who are not U.N. members and whose sovereignty is disputed. It's not the complicated rocket science that those who advocate something different are trying to push here. The status quo works perfectly fine and has worked perfectly fine for a long time. KISS applies here. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So, say, if Israel decides to leave the UN today it would move into the "other states" section, since its sovereignty is contested and it's not a UN member any more. Not very convincing. Ladril (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and relying of whether sovereignty is contested or not is not easily verified, despite what you might say. Does the PRC recognize VC? I'm not saying they don't, but if you want to claim this you are going to have to back it up with RS. TDL (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And if the sun changes direction and crashes into the earth tomorrow, would I still get paid on the first? That's about as likely as Israel leaving the U.N. Please be sensible in your comments. And the issue, Danlaycock, isn't whether a nation has universal recognition, but whether its sovereignty is disputed. The only country that has a basis to dispute the Vatican's sovereignty is Italy. Italy doesn't dispute the sovereignty of Vatican City. PRC disputes Taiwan's sovereignty, Serbia disputes Kosovo's, Georgia disputes South Ossetia's, etc. Your arguments are just getting unreasonable. This is a simple issue that you're trying to make difficult for no real reason that you have adequately demonstrated. Our readers want something reliable, but comprehensible. You're just pushing incomprehensibility into a list that is perfectly verifiable and comprehensible as it is. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Instances of states leaving the U.N. are not unheard of [4], so it would be extremely sensible not to assume we have a crystal ball and know everything that's going to happen. Besides, as TDL has mentioned, recognition or non-recognition of states is often an unclear matter, since in the cold War states often would not recognise each other for ideological reasons (this is one of the main reasons the All States and Vienna formula were adopted in order to seek universal participation in multinational treaties). Also, knowing whether the Holy See is universally recognised is an extremely tricky question (it wasn't until the eighties when the number of states having relations with it increased from forty or so, and today several states do not have relations). What we need is list criteria that are not dependent on highly contingent factors such as the ones you describe. Ladril (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Taivo here, neither of the two Koreas was an internationally recognised state before 1990, when they joined the United Nations. Ladril (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You continue to confuse the issue of recognition (which I have not raised) with disputed sovereignty (which I have). Please try to respond to what I have actually written rather than what you wish I had written. You have no argument whatsoever over my issue of "disputed sovereignty" because it is clear and easily verified. You can't argue against it, so you choose to argue about something else that I'm not saying. That's typical arguing tactic for someone who cannot counter what has been said. And given your example of Korea, before 1990, under these criteria--U.N. membership or undisputed sovereignty for the top list, everyone else in the bottom list--the Koreas would have been in the "Other States" list because they neither had U.N. membership nor was their sovereignty undisputed. Each claimed the other as part of their sovereign territory. What's the problem with that? You seem to think that being in the "Other States" list somehow diminishes their existence. It doesn't. It just says that their sovereignty is disputed by another state and they are not U.N. members. Your continued insistence on some sort of byzantine combination of factors in order to divide the list is a means to obscure clarity. You're not presenting any realistic arguments for why this list needs to be complicated when the status quo is simple and verifiable. --Taivo (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"You continue to confuse the issue of recognition (which I have not raised) with disputed sovereignty (which I have)." I don't continue to raise anything. The important thing is that the page says that diplomatic recognition is a sorting criterion ("internationally recognised states"). Yours is one interpretation, but it's not what it says on the article. If you think yours is a better one than what is being proposed, then you'll have to convince the other users of its usefulness. Ladril (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You're selectively use logic leaves my head spinning. You state that putting the Koreas in the "Other states" doesn't diminish their existence, and yet you've opposed the proposal above on the grounds that putting Kosovo in with the Vienna state isn't neutral since it enhances their existence. You can't have it both ways. Just like you said about the Koreas, all putting Kosovo in the main list says is that they are a member of a Vienna organization. Period. So what is your problem with this?

It's all well and good to say that it's clear whether a state is disputed or not, but the reality is that it's not so clear. Is Palestine disputed by Israel? I think the answer to that depends on how you define "disputed". There are no competing claims to sovereignty; Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over the whole of Palestine and has negotiated towards to a two-state solution. Sure they haven't recognized them, but as you've repeatedly pointed out that's not what we are talking about. I'm not trying to suggest that they are undisputed or belong on the main list, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's "clear and easily verified" that they are disputed without clarifying what you mean by disputed.

What you are suggesting is that somehow recognition by the "former sovereign" is far more important than any other factor, when there is no basis for this. If Georgia settled it's dispute with Abkhazia tomorrow, but every other state refused to recognize them, that wouldn't make them "widely recognized". They would still need to be accepted by the international community. There are examples in the past of states where there were no competing claims on sovereignty, and yet they were widely unrecognized due to the perception that they were puppet states. As a more current example, the status of CI/Niue is undisputed by NZ. The questions are "what is there status" and "does the international community accept them"?

And I fail to see how UN members + no dsiputes with other states is simpler than members of a UN specialzed agency. TDL (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict with TDL

The status quo is not verifiable (unless you can verify it somehow - see below), thus it also isn't simple - are CI/Niue "widely recognized"? Israel? Kosovo? Palestine? China? North Korea? Nauru? Tuvalu? Vatican City? Even if you answer somehow (yes/no) to all states I bet that there are other editors here that will disagree with you. That's because everybody has its own common sense definition of "widely recognized" - 50% of 205, "UN member", 2/3 of 192, "UN observer", "recognized as state by UNSG", "recognized as state by UNGA", "recognized as state by UNSC", "recognized as state by WHO GA", "no territorial dispute over the territory-as-a-whole by another state", "no sovereignty dispute by another state", "universal recognition", some count the number by including non-declared recognitions - others don't, etc.

The Vienna list is not complicated - its very simple - just read here for the list of organizations and check their memberships here. Everything is sourced/verifiable - both the wording of the definition and the lists of member states of the organizations.

Tavio, you say that you don't speak about recognitions, but about disputed sovereignty. OK. So, would you show where it is written that "widely recognized" means "UN member with disputed sovereignty or non-UN member with undisputed sovereignity or UN member with undisputed sovereignty" (I hope I didn't misinterpreted your words, but that's what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong)? Then, would you show where it is written what is "disputed sovereignty"? If you look in the archives you will see that I tried to formulate such description (looking very similar to your logic above), but it was mostly dismissed by the other editors as complex, bordering OR/SYNTH and as unverifiable. Also, such logic is inheretly flawed as its major component is "UN membership POV" (considered to break WP:NPOV - see concern expressed above by Night w - about UNSC "minority blocking" powers). Another problem with "UN membership POV" is that it is in contradiction with the "UN POV", so the argument "UN membership POV" is the most important, because the UN is the most important organization is flawed, because the POV of this most important organization (and many others) is the UN POV ("Vienna formula", "All States"). Anyway, if you have a sources descibing this logic it would make it verifiable, but if you don't - then its only the common sense of some Wikipedia editors - and this breaks WP:V and WP:RS. Additionally the status quo breaks WP:WEASEL, but I assumed that you will provide a proper description/definition instead of "widely recognized". Alinor (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My user name is TAIVO. Please have the common courtesy to take two seconds to spell it correctly. I am not talking about "wide recognition". Please read my comments before you continue down that path, although I realize that since you have no valid counterarguments to my actual points, you use what you have even though it's not applicable. This is very simple, and I fail to understand why you all want to make it complicated. Actually, I assume that the underlying motivation is to move Kosovo out of the "Other States" category despite the fact that its sovereignty is disputed by Serbia. But you might have other motivations. It doesn't really matter whether you do or not. This is a very simple issue and passes usability and verifiability tests--the main list consists of U.N. members plus those states with undisputed sovereignty (that is only Vatican City at the present time). "Recognition" doesn't play any role in it whatsoever, so your counterarguments are all moot. Palestine's sovereignty is still under dispute since a final agreement has yet to be reached on borders, etc. In order to be sovereign a state must have fixed borders, which is something Palestine does not have at the present time. It is getting close, but it isn't there yet. Every state that is not a U.N. member and has disputed sovereignty is an "Other State". You still have yet to provide a single solitary reason that stands up to close examination that the status quo list is not perfectly usable. It has simple, straightforward criteria and is verifiable. I have said what I have to say on the matter and you have no valid counter-arguments. The criteria that you have offered above to replace U.N. membership is complex, uneven, difficult to verify, and subject to massive POV. Only U.N. membership is simple, verifiable, and clearly comprehensible to any reader. Add to that the simple criterion that a non-U.N. member can be in the top list if its sovereignty is not disputed and there you have it. Clear, concise, and comprehensible. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:AGF? I highly doubt that Alinor intentionally misspelled your username. I've probably done the same thing in the past. A simple "Please..." would probably have solved the problem. Based on this it seems to be a rather common mistake.

If you had followed the consensus making process you would have been aware that there was no agenda to get Kosovo on the main list. I've supported proposals which included them in both the main and other sections. I could care less which states go in which categories. All I insist on is that it should be "obvious" which category each state belongs in, as opposed to the status quo where we need a vote on the talk page to decide. The problem with your position is that you know what the "right list" is before you even start the process. Your agenda is to keep Kosovo in the "Other states" section, even if you can't justify it. Any criteria which disagrees with your POV is automatically "non-neutral", even if it's widely used. The #1 clue that you can't write with a NPOV is that you "know" your POV is neutral and correct and everyone else is biased, but you can't back up your position with RS. If it's so obvious that the "Vienna formula" isn't neutral, why don't you just give us some RS which state that? We've provided sources where the UN itself (UNSG) states that relying on UN membership alone isn't neutral due to the UNSC veto.

So under your proposal, when does Palestine graduate to the main list? When their borders are settled? When a peace agreement is signed? When Israel transfers complete control to the PLO (which may be never)? You've made clear that neither Israel's recognition nor UN membership is necessary. After every step closer to "statehood", it would become more and more unclear where they belong. We'd have to have another vote on the talk page to decide if they'd passed our threshold. And I'll ask again. Where does Ci/Niue fit under your proposal? NZ considers them to be independent, so there is no dispute over their status. Shall we add them to the main list?

And "no disputes" isn't sufficient to eliminate all states which are "widely unrecognized", as I suggested above with the Georgia/Abkhazia scenario. TDL (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you don't understand about my position. I have stated it over and over that "widely recognized" isn't relevant. Only U.N. membership and undisputed sovereignty. But you keep dredging up the "widely recognized" red herring. Until I start saying "widely recognized" as a criterion, then you can leave that herring in the can. "Undisputed sovereignty" also means that if West Anglia and the U.K. agree to West Anglia's sovereign independence, it doesn't matter what France or China think about. And I was also clear that underlying agendas didn't matter to me. If Israel and Palestine sign a peace treaty that establishes Palestine as an undisputed sovereign state, then the "disputed sovereignty" tag drops. Same with Georgia and Abkhazia. It doesn't matter if India doesn't recognize the treaty, as long as the relevant disputants have agreed, then sovereignty is no longer disputed. There's nothing unclear at all about that. U.N. membership would probably follow pretty quickly as well. It's simple and unambiguous, unlike the Byzantine list of "If X, then Y, unless Z, but on the other hand A, but not B" that is the proposal here. Status quo is, and has been, my position and there has, as yet, been nothing to convince me otherwise. The status quo is simple, clear, concise, and easily verifiable. --Taivo (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where did I suggest that you were advocating for "widely recognized"? I get your position. Your OPINION is that only UN membership and undisputed sovereignty is important. But again, that's your OPINION not a FACT. I have no idea what you don't understand about that. OPINIONS and FACTS aren't the same thing. Please provide a RS to back up your position that only UN membership and undisputed sovereignty is important. My OPINION is that this is ludicrous statement. If a state is UNIVERSALLY UNrecognized, but has no dispute with their former sovereign, they don't belong on the main list. There has to be some measure of acceptance by the international community. It IS important what France or China thinks. This is, afterall, why you give a "waiver" to UN members isn't it? You make it seem like there is a black and white "Dispute or no dispute". Real life is far more complicated than this.

Again, by your criteria CI/Niue belong on the main list since there is no dispute with NZ. You agree with this?

Maybe you just don't understand the Vienna formula. It's actually very simple. We take 18 lists and merge them into one, deleting duplicates. It shouldn't be that hard to grasp. Certainly far less complicated than agonizing over the often complicated status of a state. TDL (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, sorry for misspelling your name.

"underlying motivation is to move" - no, I don't have any motivation to move states between the sections. I have the motivation that we use a criteria that isn't open to interpretation - so nobody can even think of such moves.

Also, it seems that in your arguments above you don't use the status quo as written, but as you understands it - in the status quo it is not written anything about disputes. It is entirely based on recognition - the main section is for "internationally recognized ... widely recognized", the other section is for "not widely recognised". That is the entire description of the status quo. In addition it has the remarks showing what states fulfill (according to the editors writing it as no source is given) these 'criteria' - in the main section go 192 UN members and Vatican, in the other section go the rest 10 states.

All your assertions/claims that the status quo is build on "lack/presence of UN membership and lack/presence of disputes" are actually just your assumption about the logic used by the editors that written the descriptions. And since you agree with them - you see it as a "very simple issue and passes usability and verifiability tests" and "It has simple, straightforward criteria and is verifiable." - just keep in mind, that not everybody ("any reader" as you say) agrees with that "hidden logic" (as it is not written in the status quo). As I said, long time ago, I have already proposed that we write YOUR (or at least very similar to it) logic, but this proposal wasn't accepted. As you can see in the linked discussion - the issue is not so simple as you (and I, back then) make it look like - first, when you try to actually codify this logic it is not so easy and I had to resort to multiple caveats (that, looking at your comments above you wouldn't like), have to use UN membership POV, and still the resulting criteria wasn't entirely unambiguous and thus was still open to interpretation - thus fails the prime benchmark - verifiability. If you can make a better codification/description of your logic - OK, show it. But please don't claim that the current status quo criteria based on "internationally/widely recognized" and without a single use of the "dispute" word is such. It simply isn't. And contrary to your assertion that " "Recognition" doesn't play any role in it whatsoever." - it plays a role in the status quo criteria - it actually is the core part of it. As I said above - I agree that "presence of recognition" and "lack of dispute" are related, and in practice give similar results - but the written text of the status quo uses recognition and not disputes.

So, I wait to see your proposal for a "lack of disputes/UN membership" criteria - to see if it will comply with WP:V, WP:WEASEL, WP:RS, etc. - but the status quo obviously fails these (presence of 5 pages revolving the issue shows that). Alinor (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Also, it seems that in your arguments above you don't use the status quo as written, but as you understands it " This is pretty much the problem. Every one of the pro-status quo people thinks they know perfectly what the sorting criteria are, but when you ask them to pin it down, either each gives a completely different answer or is unable to phrase it. Ergo, the current sorting is neither clear nor neutral.Ladril (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting note about IMF/World Bank

As per the IMF's website, "To become a member, a country must apply and then be accepted by a majority of the existing members." [5] So it seems that the "unequal voting shares" don't come into play for IMF membership applications. Also, as per the World Bank's site "To become a member of the Bank, under the IBRD Articles of Agreement, a country must first join the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Membership in IDA, IFC and MIGA is conditional on membership in IBRD." [6] Meanwhile, membership in the ICSID is only open to states which are either members of the IBRD or are a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice [7]. Thus, WB members are just a subset of IMF/ICJ members so they will necessarily already be "Vienna state" before joining the WB. And since the IMF website indicates that no state can join without the support of the majority of members, all the concerns about these organizations are no longer justified. TDL (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, and we have [8] the hard numbers for the 2009 vote: 185 IMF members, 138 participating in the vote, 96 voting in favor (42 agains?). At this time Kosovo had 58 "declared" recognitions.

So, according to the above no "minority approval" was applied for Kosovo IMF/WBG membership (and it is not even theoretically possible). So, the only "minority" issues are with the "minority block" for the UN (it seems that the IMF/WBG "15% minority block"(USA) does not apply to membership decisions - but even if it does - the IMF/WBG are not in separate section - they are together with multiple other organizations that don't have such "minority block").

Also, this leaves as Kosovo-specific issues that should be addressed only the "Russia/Serbia+like-minded-countries opposition" (it seems the number of these states is 134 or less, where 134=205-71 recognizers, but if we take into account the 96 vs. 42 IMF vote it may be less than 134) and "non invokation of All States clause" there is no other Kosovo-specific issue that should be addressed. The number of recognizers is already mentioned in the extant. Some editors question the "notability" of the "All states clause invokation", but I think that we should not disregard the fact that more than 2 years after declaring independence Kosovo is not a member/party to any such organization/treaty - and these are quite common and with wide membership. And this is already reflected in sandbox2. Alinor (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM

Since it's clear that this discussion isn't going to produce a consensus, I'm going to go ahead a file a WP:RFM. Everyone who has been actively involved in the discussion will be invited and asked to agree to mediation. RFM's can only go forward if all editors agree to mediation, so please only oppose if you've got a really good reason. I'll post a link here and on each user's talk page once the RFM has been filed. TDL (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM is live here. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to proceed with mediation. I've added everyone who has been involved in the discussion in the last month or so. Others who want to participate can add themselves. TDL (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Where should I post comments on "additional issues"? I don't know if my comments are considered "added by other parties" or not. Also, should we "reply" to comments made there or we have "exhausted" our right of reply by filling the 5 pages here?

I would like to add a comment that there is aways the option for "start from scratch" - remove sections and invite everybody to propose a meaningful sorting criteria for sections/coloring. In the meantime the list is to be based on its inclusion criteria only. Alinor (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've never been a part of a RFM before, so I can't really say I'm sure. But I've looked at the most recent RFM assigned Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Restoring Honor rally (interestingly BW is involved in this one too), to try and get a sense of how the process works. Also, there is a guide to the process here. If you want to add "additional issues" that are in dispute and need to be resolved I think that this fine, but I don't think that this is the time or place for arguing over the issues. Once the case has been accepted by a moderator, he will open a discussion on the talk page where we can continue to argue over the issues. TDL (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Total states: 195"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While we wait for the RFM to be accepted (what's going on, why isn't it already?) - see here for a list of states - 192+Cook Islands+Holy See+Niue = 195. I know that we have already mentioned the CTBT, but the table with numbers on that page is very straightforward to pass by... Alinor (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) On this page there was a reference pointing to an offline source where Boyle (Professor Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois) allegedly stated that 'about 130' countries recognize the State of Palestine. Night w recently added a source showing that later Boyle specified the number to be 127 [9] - this is the source. There it is written: "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine." UN members are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine, but what is interesting here is the 195 figure. I assume that Boyle is having in mind 192+Cook Islands+Holy See+Niue = the 195 states according to the "All States" formula applied by the UN Secretary General (that are also members of the Vienna list organizations). Alinor (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Am I to understand that not only are you using this quote to disprove Boyle's credibility as a source, but also to support the "Vienna formula" as being used by legal professionals? I'm pretty sure it has been to be or the other. Nightw 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, both are correct. The quote shows a lack of care for detail (the incorrect "195 members of the United Nation") - so it is highly unreliable if we want to use it as precise answer to the question "who is recognizing SoP". UN membership is much easier issue and if he doesn't give correct figure for this - we can't rely on his figure for SoP recognition - an issue that should be very throughly examined because of unambiguity in the related statements. Basically as he misreports UN members from 192 to 195 maybe he is misreporting the SoP recognizers from 137 to 127 or from 107 to 127. Simultaneously it is interesting why he used exactly these numbers and not some others (I don't claim that he is totally incompetent, just throwing numbers around or something like this - I just say, that his numbers should not be regarded as 100% factually correct). A potential error in the 127 number can be attributed to an improper interpretation of some source (or usage of a quote outside of context, etc.) - for example if he used a statement by some foreign minister that his country "recognizes the Palestinian state right to exist", but didn't check that afterwards a reporter asked "But does your country recognize the State of Palestine, as declared in 1988 by the PLO?" and the minister answers "No, but we fully support the PLO in their struggle to regain control over the Occupied Palestinian Territories and their efforts to establish well functioning administrative structures trough the PNA, that will become the foundation of a future independent and Palestinian state, where there will be exemplary democracy and respect for the human rights of all its inhabitants, etc. etc." Now, the so far confirmed error is in the 195 number. I explained my assumption above. Maybe he used the number that he commonly uses when referring to "all states", but didn't want to go into detail what this number includes and how is it compiled - so he just said "195 UN members" as almost all of the 195 "all states" are UN members. Anyway, I posted this here only as a interesting mistake - I don't propose to use this source as a reference for All States/Vienna formula/SoP recognition/whatever. We already have other reliable sources showing wide usage of All States/Vienna formula. Alinor (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I suggest you stop wasting the mediator's time with your regressive speculations. This is not the place for them. Nightw 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought this is a proper place for these links, but if we are supposed to preserve the discussion at standstill until the mediation has began - OK, I will wait. Alinor (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorting criteria - continuation of discussion

Starting from Sandbox3i2 and MEDCAB I propose the following changes to 3i2:

• sorting columns to be moved to the right
• an explanation of 'sovereignty dispute' to be added as footnote
• sources&explanation for the 'UN system/3i2 criteria' column to be added in its footnote.
• one more sorting column to be added - showing who is recognized as State by the international community - using [10]/[11] - state parties to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG
• 3i2 has some bold/italics difference between the states - I propose that all are the same (as in the status quo), but if bold/italics will be applied - the criteria for this should be clearly defined and explained as footnote or otherwise.
• we should select the 'default sort' view - either by one of the sorting criteria utilized or alphabetical. I propose alphabetical - as compromise and in order not to have a 'preferred' criteria pushed by us upon the reader (without any source to back our 'preference').

Taking in account the UN OLA source [12] where 'recognition as State by the international community' is discussed I propose instead of 3i2 column we use two simpler columns (with yes/no cells): UN membership, Vienna organization membership.

I see the following options about sorting:

1. sections automatically following the selected sorting column; three sorting columns: [13]/[14]; 3i2-criteria; Dispute
2. sections automatically following the selected sorting column; four sorting columns: UN membership; [15]/[16]; Vienna membership; Dispute
3. sections not following the selected sorting column (dividers go to the bottom) - the same 3 or 4 sorting criteria as per options 1 and 2, but one of them applied to the sections and the rest - to columns.

What do you think? Alinor (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have avoided this debate for some time now, first of all id like to say i support the 3i2 version. Will have to take time to work out the implications of the additional changes proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The "third column" (international status) proposed by Alinor has been rejected many times during the course of the mediation. It is based on questionable legalistic notions and is something that is ill-defined and virtually impossible to verify. Indeed, the combination of the two columns already present (UN system and sovereignty disputes) already gives a solid measure of international status without trying to verify Alinor's vague "entered into a treaty" proposal on his third column. It adds no new useful information that is not already contained in the two extant columns of Sandbox 3i2. His proposal for "yes/no" columns for UN membership has also been rejected during the mediation because it, in essence, replaces the UN system column (which Alinor has never accepted despite a broad consensus in favor of it) with his "treaty participation" column (which has been rejected by the consensus during the mediation). In other words, it changes the fundamental nature of Sandbox 3i2, which is the consensus version. Footnotes to clarify the meaning of the columns is something that must be done anyway. Moving the columns is cosmetic. Sorting the list by UN System participation as a default is what most editors during the mediation thought would be the best way to avoid giving the "Disputed States" equal status with undisputed states. In other words, Alinor's proposal for the columns here (adding a third column for "international recognition"--which to him means "have they signed a treaty"--and making UN membership yes/no) is in opposition to the consensus that was built during mediation and has already been rejected multiple times during the mediation process. It is his repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to the consensus that developed in favor of Sandbox 3i2. I oppose it still. --Taivo (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The 3i2 as it is seems very reasonable, a big improvement on the current article. This dispute has dragged on so long, we should just implement 3i2 as it is now with out some of the above changes proposed by alinor which i too have some concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

About the alphabetical arrangement proposal. A number of editors were completely opposed to even having a single list, and others (me) were not happy with the idea. Making it alphabetical would completely destroy the whole point of the dividers, which was to compromise for having a single list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If we don't use alphabetic arrangement for the default view and if sectional dividers automatically follow the selected sorting column (e.g. there is no separate sectional divider criteria), then we will have to select one of the columns as 'default'. This will erase big part of the 'single sortable list advantage' (e.g. neutrality and reader decision instead of Wikipedians-POV-forcing). Anyway, we can try to do that, but first we have to know which are the columns - option 1 or 2? Alinor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, without the UNSG column or another way of displaying the real world 'other10 vs. the rest' division I object implementation of 3i2. Recognition as State by the international community should not be avoided only so that a few editors at a MEDCAB are happy.

3i2 is not "the consensus version" and besides - its fundamental nature is not changed by the UNSG column proposed - this is just one more column in addition to the 3i2 column and the Dispute column. Are you implying that the 3i2 column-criteria is somehow 'more important' or 'preferred' than the dispute criteria, UN membership criteria, Vienna criteria, UNSG treaty criteria? Any source for that?

The UNSG column proposal is not vague, ill-defined or impossible to verify. Verification: [17]/[18]. Definition: state party to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG. Explanation: being such shows that the state in question is considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as State by the international community"[19].

In order to reach a compromise we all should make some concessions. Single sortable-columns list (with sections following selected sorting column) allows for all sorting criteria to be represent in an 'equal' way. This is kind of requirement because we don't have a suitable source that can 'force' a selection upon us. A compromise should be easy to reach - by having multiple columns representing different sorting criteria (in the end - the reader decides what to use). I think option 1 and 2 above are quite reasonable compromises. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, you are writing as if the entire mediation did not happen and did not come to a resolution. You are wrong. A consensus was developed around Sandbox 3i2, you just objected to it. Unlike every other editor who compromised around 3i2, you remained resolutely opposed and never budged. Your suggestions on columns were rejected by the editors in the mediation for all the reasons I mentioned above and you resolutely practice WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT since there is not a single one of your suggestions or arguments stated here that was not already discussed in full and rejected during the mediation. You are still wearing blinders. Alinor, a compromise has already been reached. Just because you don't like it and never budged, doesn't make it any less of a viable solution here. --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the results of the Mediation, Sandbox 3i2 should be implemented in full with appropriate footnotes explaining the meaning of the two sortable columns--"Participation in UN System" and "Sovereignty Disputes". --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to this with so long as one very minor but important change is implemented to its structure, that the dispute section only include state which are claimed in whole by another state, if that specification is not included its going to become unmanageable rather quickly due to the immense number of states that claim a minor portion of the territory of another.XavierGreen (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe XavierGreen that that is the current set up already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If thats the case then i support it fully, pardon my ignorance on the issue i dropped out of the mediation discussion once i felt it was going no where though it looks like something good came out of it after all.XavierGreen (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, XavierGreen, it was explicitly discussed and agreed to that the "Sovereignty Disputes" column is specifically where one state claims the whole of another state. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, please stop pretending there is some "MEDCAB conclusion/consensus". The mediation was closed without reaching consensus - read the closing comment of the mediator.

Also, what I propose here is to have one more sorting column. Previously I was proposing to use separate criteria for sections and columns. So far only you object - and in my 13:12, 16 May 2011 comment I address the issues you raised (see bold words).

If someone isn't budging this is you. 3i2 has two columns for sorting criteria. I propose to add a third. Why is this a problem for you? Alinor (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, please stop denying the rough consensus that has formed. In the discussion on mediation page, only two editors openly objected to the principle of 3i2 and didn't want it to move forward, you and Night W. Since the end, a further two editors, BritishWatcher and XavierGreen, have expressed support for 3i2, adding further to those in favour. Other editors have voiced opposition to your third column, but you have continued to push it. Continued WP:BLUDGEONing of the same points will only result in editors taking less and less interest in what you have to say. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, what you are proposing is to substitute the Vienna formula criterion for a "summary of practice of the United Nations" criterion. That adds little informative value to the page and is impractical for a number of reasons. Adding a further column would only confuse the general reader. In a nutshell, this is why I cannot agree to your concerns. We get that your position is we should follow UN legal practice for sorting the list; the position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership (a+b+c) as the most logical and useful categorization. Ladril (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chip, let this go; work to make changes within the consensus framework. This is the most productive way to move forward. The third column has pros and cons, but we have walked away from that with 3i2. If you don't discuss, your concerns will not be taken into account because other editors in general may be more inclined to ignore them. Outback the koala (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, 'rough' maybe, but Taivo speaks as if it's the MEDCAB conclusion when it isn't. And I haven't proposed a third column at the mediation page - there I was proposing using different criteria for sections and columns (because I didn't saw that these are coupled together - as TDL recently explained).

Ladril, no, I'm not proposing "substitute the Vienna criteria for ..." - a) 3i2 supporters try to say that the criteria isn't Vienna; b) I don't propose to 'substitute' the 3i2-column, or the Dispute column - I propose that in addition to those two we also show the 'UNSG deposited treaty state party' (with result matching the most commonly found in the real world other10 vs. the rest distinction). See 13:12, 16 May 2011 comment above for explanation and sources.

"position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership" - the 3i2 camp denies this. As you can see 3i2 doesn't mention Vienna at all. Also, it doesn't have a Vienna column (Vienna column means yes/no division - 194/yes and 9/no).

Currently 3i2 has two columns - for 3i2 criteria and for Dispute criteria. I understand that 3i2 camp thinks that their column is more important than the dispute column, that their column should be the 'default', 'preferred' and forced upon the reader sorting criteria. Adding one more column/criteria wouldn't "confuse" the reader, but it will give him additional option what sorting to use - thus 3i2 camp 'preference' and forcing wouldn't be as 'successful' as in case no more options are present. This position isn't NPOV and also isn't backed by any source. The advantage of single sortable list is to allow readers to select sorting criteria and to avoid arbitrary forcing by Wikipedians. We should allow the readers to decide what is useful for them.

IMHO the 3i2-criteria-column is unworkable for many reasons (see mediation page or ask me to repeat), but I'm willing to make a compromise and accept it - if we also present to the reader other criteria (such as UNSG-treaties, Vienna, UN membership). The 3i2-camp aren't willing to budge at all. There is no reason not to have both 3i2-criteria and UNSG-treaties columns - besides unwillingness to compromise. Alinor (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, the "3i2-camp" will very soon start ignoring you. They don't need to compromise with you on implementing 3i2 because the WP:CONSENSUS at the mediation already decided to do that. Your very statement, "see the mediation page or ask me to repeat" shows the nature of your current interaction--constantly repeating what has been rejected time and time again throughout the mediation process and now here. You have now been told by several different editors from the mediation that you are wrong in saying no consensus was reached to implement 3i2. I don't know the Wikipedia programming language well enough to do it myself or else it would already have been done. The word "compromise", Alinor, doesn't mean what you think it does--"I'll keep saying the same thing over and over until you get tired, go away, and then I'll push my agenda through". --Taivo (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The MEDCAB was inconclusive. Unfortunately consensus was not reached there. You continue to speak as if it's otherwise.

My statement about see there or ask for repeat is about specific issue (problems with 3i2-criteria-column), do you suggest that I repeat the same thing in every post? Alinor (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the most serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I think I have ever encountered. The mediation was absolutely conclusive and you have been told by multiple editors now that it was (including by the mediator at the end of the mediation). The WP:CONSENSUS was that we implement 3i2. You are like the birthers in the US now--you will deny until your dying day simply because you are incapable of accepting the truth. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, it seems as if you didn't actually read the mediators comments on the MEDCAB page. For your benefit, here are the key points:

"I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections"

"I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants"

"Further discussion of the issue by the involved parties at this point has no reasonable expectation of being successful."

"it has large consensus"

"Editors consistently find new grounds for objecting to proposed compromises, and refuse to move forward on viable but imperfect proposals." (Hint: Ludwig was talking about you here)

I've tried to be patient with you, and listened to your concerns. But given that you've refused to move past your demands that your personally invented criteria be included in some way, in spite of near universal opposition, you've left us with no choice but to move on without you. Of course you're free to continue to oppose, but please read WP:CONSENSUS. One lone opposer, no matter how loud, doesn't mean there is no consensus. TDL (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to cite me some partial comments. The result of the MEDCAB is inconclusive. That's the fact. How many editors support or object some proposals is a separate issue. What is my demand? To have one more criteria column (one backed by sources unlike the 3i2-column) - what is the problem with that? Why can we have '3i2 criteria' and 'dispute criteria', but not 'UNSG treaty criteria'? Alinor (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There are many, many problems with the "UNSG treaty" criteria you invented. These concerns have been clearly presented to you repeatedly by numerous editors. Of course you haven't LISTENED to any of these concerns in the past, so I suggest going back to the archives and re-reading the arguments. I'm done arguing with you about this, as you're just going to ignore what I say anyways.

There is a clear consensus to move forward without your additional column. I'm preparing a full 3i2 sandbox and plan to put it to an implementation poll shortly. You're welcome to prepare your own sandbox and put it to a poll as well. I think it's obvious that your proposal will be nearly unanimously rejected, but if you're unable to see that then by all means put it to a poll. TDL (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The mediator stated that 3i2 should be implemented. Do we really need another poll to come up with the same conclusion? --Taivo (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not have another poll. Consensus for 3i2 has already been achieved at mediation and has only been reinforced since. The consensus should be implemented as soon as is practical. It is unfortunate that the consensus is not unanimous, but there seems little benefit to the encyclopædia in continuing this discussion ad infinitum. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, the 3i2 criteria is Vienna. That's what a "formula" is, a result achieved through an operation a+b+c. In this case "The “Vienna formula” attempts to identify in detail the entities eligible to participate in a treaty. The “Vienna formula” permits participation in a treaty by Member States of the United Nations, Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice and States Members of specialized agencies or, in certain cases, by any other State invited by the General Assembly to become a party."[[20]]. On the other hand, "States that have invoked this formula" (whatever "invoking" means, I cannot find this in any source) is a whole different criteria. Users here feel they can build a compromise around the Vienna formula. Since this post will most likely provoke another repetitive response, we should probably finish the discussion now. Ladril (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC) "There is no reason not to have both 3i2-criteria and UNSG-treaties columns" Yes there is a reason: we don't want an additional column on roughly the same thing only to satisfy one user's unsupported view of how to classify the states (to this you will respond with your UN treaties list, which is not a clear criterion, only circumstantial evidence). I myself don't like this Vienna classification much (as I've said multiple times before, I'm quite happy with a list in alphabetical order). However other users feel the need the classify the states in some way, and using the whole UN system seems to me better than using just the UN General Assembly. This is why I'm supporting the proposal.Ladril (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This isn't going anywhere. We've been having the same discussion for months now. Alinor isn't going to compromise unless he get's his personally invented criteria included in the list in some way. But many other editors are strongly opposed to this. If we compromise to Alinor, then we'd lose many other editors support. Alinor, if you want to propose an additional column then you're welcome to continue this discussion after implementation as it would be very simple to add if the 3i2 structure is adpoted.

I'll try to make a full sandbox version of 3i2, with all the states included, so that we can have a final implementation poll or something. I won't be able to get around to it until later today, and it might take me a while depending on how busy RL is, but I'll put it here if anyone want's to help. TDL (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's better if done carefully. Don't do it in a rush. Ladril (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: The sandbox has been moved here by an overzealous deletionist. TDL (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, 3i2-criteria isn't Vienna - Vienna isn't mentioned in 3i2 and there is no source in 3i2 about the 3i2-column-criteria. Also, Vienna criteria gives a yes/no result - not the convoluted 3i2-criteria column cells. So, obviously the 3i2-column-criteria is a mix/synthesis of Vienna and something else (if it's a mix of Vienna and UN membership, then I suggest using two columns - one for Vienna and one for UN membership. Anyway, I could agree on keeping the convoluted 3i2 unknown mix - as compromise if the other issues are addressed)

"unsupported view of how to classify the states" - I wouldn't call that way the referring to [21]/[22]. I wouldn't call 'other10 vs. the rest', the most commonly utilized classification 'unsupported'. I wouldn't call the UNSG practice 'unsupported view of Alinor' - especially when it considers who is "recognized as State by the international community"[23] (see 13:12, 16 May 2011 above)

TDL, the above is not OR, but sources - unlike the 3i2-criteria-column which in 3i2 lacks any source and so far seems like SYNTH/OR/arbitrary picking by Wikipedians.

I object 3i2 implementation before the additional column is added (or before recognition as State by the international community is explained somewhere else - text, other article, etc.), before columns are moved to the right, before criteria explanation footnotes are added (for dispute, for 3i2 sources, for bold/italics distinctions - if these are kept). There is no need to rush implementing something unworkable. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one, Alinor, so it should be implemented and then tweaked. How many editors have to tell you that they reject your major "improvements" before you decide that you will work together with other editors rather than continually fighting for something that there is a consensus against? At this point, you have lost all credibility. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only one, but this doesn't matter. 3i2 has many flaws and that's the reason why it shouldn't be implemented without corrections. Alinor (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

3i2-criteria gives convoluted cell results, but it also appears to be a mix of the "UN membership POV" (a common misconception) with the "RoK POV" and made to look like the Vienna-criteria. Also, it's inconsistent - sectional dividers don't follow criteria column cell differences. And of course this isn't explained anywhere in the proposal. The 3i2-criteria doesn't have any source. Anyway, since some of you like this flawed synthesis so much I can accept it - if we add the UNSG treaty column - so that we show the real world state distinction of other10 vs. the rest (as in the status quo). Alinor (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

How many times and by how many editors does your "third column" have to be rejected before you get it? It is not going to appear in 3i2 and 3i2 is going to be implemented because that was the result of the mediation as stated by the mediator. --Taivo (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in to this late, but would it be possible to have an additional column for Diplomatic Recognition which just shows the number of countries recogising it? The 3i2 certainly seems an improvement on the current version. The thing that really bothers about the current version of the article is "official statehood (which means: having a seat at the UN)" which makes it seem as if 'official statehood' was invented in 1945 or something and makes it seem as if Switzerland wasn't fully legimitate until 2002. Munci (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with that is the basis on which to pick the numbers. Does recognition by an entity that is itself universally or near-universally unrecognised count as diplomatic recognition? If we say yes, we support their POV that they are legitimately and legally sovereign (a POV that, by definition, is rejected by all or almost all of the international community). If we say no, we take the POV of the other side. This is why it is better to use a notes column for this purpose - to give the reader the information and allow them to make their own minds up. Pfainuk talk 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Another problem is that those numbers are often not readily available. In addition, lacking a definite number, other questions pop up. Does having some form of diplomatic relations count as recognition as a sovereign state? What form? Can a state be considered to recognise another if they have made no statement towards that fact and have no diplomatic relations? All questions that can be debated with varying levels of consensus, but all probably intractable problems for this proposed column. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Knowing exaclty how many states recognize a specific state is a very difficult task in most cases (some entities, such as Taiwan or Northern Cyprus, are less problematic than others, however). "Number of recognitions" is usually unreliable/hard to compute. Also, some countries do not make official statements of recognition, so their recognition must be deduced in other ways. This is why the International recognition of Kosovo page is sloppily done. Ladril (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It would be best ust go with that 3i2 one then. Munci (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and for Munci, the "Seat at the UN" was only added recently [24]. I've just reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Chipmunkdavis. Munci (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Kosovo's placement on the list

Overview

• This request for comment is in regards to a recent change to the sorting criteria at List of sovereign states.
• A proposal was accepted following a process of informal mediation, and the list was altered accordingly. The previous version can be seen here.
• It has been noted, however, that there are outstanding issues that require a wider input in order to avoid overturning a community consensus.

Issue

The proposal accepted was to sort entries according to each state's membership in the United Nations system. Under the new sorting criteria, there are three sections under which entries are arranged:

1. States with membership in the General Assemby;
2. States without membership in the General Assembly, but with membership in one or more related agencies;
3. States without membership in any United Nations agency, including observers.

Kosovo is a member of the IMF and the World Bank. Under the new sorting criteria, it is placed into the second of the three sorting sections, alongside the Vatican City.

Given that the qualifyer of this is sovereignty, several editors expressed the concern that this would be an undue representation of Kosovo, a state whose sovereignty has not yet been officially recognised by a majority of states.

Survey of community consensus

Current practice across the project seems to present Kosovo as a "partially-recognised" state, along with countries like Palestine, Abkhazia, the Sahrawi Republic ("Western Sahara") and the Republic of China ("Taiwan"). It is often listed in italics (example) or in a separate section (examples here and here). Listing it with more weight than other less-than-widely-recognised states would obviously depart from this convention.

Question to be answered

Accepting the criteria for sorting entries, do the results sufficiently comply with Wikipedia's policies neutral point of view?

Notes

Links to related discussions

If you truly wish to delve into the horrifying background of this discussion, the archives linked at the top-right-hand-corner of this page all pertain to this subject. The recent mediation case can be found here, with archives linked in a similar spot. Nightw 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on participation

At the conclusion of the recent informal mediation, the mediator "strongly recommended" that any further debate should not involve those editors party to the mediation case. The following editors have been asked to keep their participation to a minimum:

• Alinor (talk · contribs)
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• Danlaycock (talk · contribs)
• Jiang (talk · contribs)
• Ladril (talk · contribs)

• Night w (talk · contribs)
• Orange Tuesday (talk · contribs)
• Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
• Pfainuk (talk · contribs)
• Taivo (talk · contribs)
• XavierGreen (talk · contribs)

List of notifications

• WikiProject Kosovo
• WikiProject Serbia
• WikiProject Countries

• WikiProject Politics
• WikiProject International relations

All members of WP:WPCPART:
Acs4b, Aexon79, Ahuskay, Alton, Amakuru, Rebecca, AxG, Cradel, BionicWilliam, Bonzostar, Booksworm, Brion VIBBER, Buaidh, Caboose The Vehicle Destroyer, Colipon, Creez34, Funandtrvl, Flatterworld, Enzomartinelli, Gr8opinionater, Dwarf Kirlston, Gryffindor, Dwaipayanc, Indoles, Internazionale, Italiano111, Jamie_C, JanderVK , Jaw101ie, Jdforrester, Jerrch, Jiang, World, Kaal, Kurykh , Macarion, Maltesedog, Loopygrumpkins, Karabinier, Joy, Mav, Naveenpf, Miranda, MJCdetroit , Mhsb, Mic, Naryathegreat, Nick C, Nightstallion, Olivier, Spudtater, R45, R-41, Rennell435, SenatorSteve, Smoth 007, Skittleys, TakuyaMurata, Tea with toast, Sven70, Taifarious1, The Cunctator, The Transhumanist, Tos, The Way, CanonLawJunkie, VodkaJazz, Manager0916, Therequiembellishere, Duanedonecker, ترجمان05

Comment from uninvolved admin

Ok, let's try it this way. I have been completely uninvolved in this situation, and have no particular opinion on the results. Therefore, I have removed all comments from the parties listed above, and will continue to do so. I find Night w's summary of the issues to be a reasonable attempt at neutrality, so I'm leaving it as it stands.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Question: Accepting, for the moment, the criteria for sorting entries, and considering that entries in lists are conventionally arranged according to their relevance to the subject (in this case, sovereign states) ... does Kosovo's arrangement in the list sufficiently comply with Wikipedia's policies neutral point of view?

Please answer "yes" or "no" here, and discuss possible solutions below. Nightw 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes —Nightstallion 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes —SenatorSteve (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• No —WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• No —Rennell435 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) ....and neither does Vatican's.

Discussion

• I see that the list seeks to divide entities which are of uncertain status into the two unofficial categories of 'partially recognised' and 'minimally recognised'. Any entity of uncertain status is bound to be a unique case with its own history, and I wonder whether we make a rod for our own back in seeking to make this distinction (while the distinction between undoubted sovereign states and the uncertainties is a much clearer one). That being said, if it is sought to distinguish self-governing states which are not UN members between 'partially recognised' and 'minimally recognised', then Kosova is accurately placed in the former category. Of non-UN member states it is plainly recognised as sovereign by a far wider range of other states than its nearest rival. I'm coming to this without any previous involvement although I have taken an interest in the complex web of Balkan politics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• The list itself may be flawed, because there are gray areas requiring editors' judgment. Why not have separate lists such as member nations of the UN? TFD (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reduce from 3 to 2 categories, and use Status text column - I've reviewed the mediation, and studied the list of states in List of sovereign states. I see no benefit for the table to have two distinct sorting categories for non-UN-member states (namely UN-related, and Other). Collapsing the two non-UN-member sorting categories into one would cause many disputes, particularly the Kosovo issue, to disappear. The key question is: What benefit does the reader derive from these three sorting categories? Answer: information about the state's status and recognition. Okay, but the table in List of sovereign states already has two prominent columns expressly for that purpose (titled "Membership within the UN System" and "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty"). The presence of those columns obviate the needs for distinguishing the two "non UN member" categories. I am not suggesting that detail about Kosovo's status be eliminated, merely that it be captured as text in the"Further information on status.." column (and in fact that column already says "Kosovo is a member of the IMF and the WBG..."). Ditto for all the other states in the "other" category. --Noleander (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Niue and the Cook Islands are members to some of the UN specialised agencies too. 116.49.131.7 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd want to take this opportunity to address the problem faced by dependent territories. They are, along with sovereign states, treated as countries all across Wikipedia on many lists with sections by country, navigational templates, categories by country, as so on and so forth. Yet they're removed frequently. It would be preferable to have a list of countries (either converting from this list or having a separate one, or even within the Wikipedia: namespace), so that all these country-based lists, templates and categories could have an authoritative point of reference. 116.49.131.7 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think that only really binding thing should be UN membership. I completely agree with Noleander's attitude, and dont know what exactly reader have from 3 categories. Only 2 are really relevant in real life, and wikipedia should follow that. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• UN membership isn't relevent throughout most of the time of the existence of the UN. Philippines, NZ, Belorussia, India and the Ukraine were members before independence. Whereas Switzerland, West Germany, South Korea, and so on and so forth weren't members for a long time since the UN was founded and their independence. We now got the examples of Niue and the Cook Islands (and of course Kosovo), and we don't know what'd happened with South Sudan. Peter Geatings (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• What Noleander said sounds about right to me. —Nightstallion 08:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Noleander! Making 2 columns and using a Status identifier. SenatorSteve (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above that splitting UN membership into 2+ categories seems a bit over-complicated. I can see other grey areas too, like whether the Vatican City is technically a member of any organisation (because Holy See ≠ Vatican City). I like Noleander's solution also, which would also eliminate this and the Kosovo thing. Rennell435 (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The notion of reducing the number of sorting categories from 3 to 2 (that is, combine the two small portions at the bottom - "UN-related" and "Other" - into one sorting category) is probably a good thing to do ... pretty non-controversial. At some future date, we could even consider eliminating the sorting categories altogether, and just use color-coding and the Status column text to convey UN-vs-not information. However, I do not propose eliminating all the sorting categories at this time, because that may introduce confusion and stall progress. Personally, I have no objection to eliminating the sorting categories, but it may be more prudent to go step-by-step. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Noleander makes a valid point. Non-membership should be collapsed into a single category, pending full collapse of the categorization to make room for some other distinguishing mechanism (like color coding or additional information. A country's status relative to the UN is really obvious already, with a color coded column. The "Sovereignty Dispute" column is also a little superfluous, but we're already getting into too much color coding, so I don't recommend but only point out that it may be unnecessary to keep. Caboose The Vehicle Destroyer (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it would be more meaningful to classified the Holy See and the Vatican City, Niue, the Cook Islands, and Kosovo under the UN category, if the number of categories is to be reduced to two. All these are recognised as sovereign states by UN and/or by at least one of its specialised agencies. Peter Geatings (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And i think that none of the should be there, but in the second category, non-UN members. Only countries that are full members of UN should be up. All ofter entities should be placed below, with explanations why are those not above. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with WhiteWriter that "full membership" is a better distinction: it is easier to grasp than "full membership or recognized". Again, I point out that eventually eliminating the sorting categories altogether (that is, going all the way down to 1 sort category) would permanently eliminate this kind of endless discussion: let the "Status" column do the heavy lifting. But, for the short term, going from 3 down to 2 is a good first step. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What should now be done with South Sudan, until it attains its full UN membership? Peter Geatings (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

During the RfC, I think most participants appeared to prefer simplification in the form of fewer sections. The proposal by Noleander gained substantial support. What are the issues with replacing the current criteria with this? Nightw 04:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Vatican City is now down on equal footing with South Ossetia and Transnistria. That has always been the problem--there are states that enjoy wide support, but which are not members of the UN at the present time. Right now there are two--Vatican City and Kosovo (Palestine is not fully sovereign). To group Vatican City and Kosovo with Transnistria is not appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the Vatican City, but hardly on Kosovo, a state that's been denied recognition by a substantial majority of the world's states. Under Wikipedia policy, entries are categorised proportionately to their categorisation in reliable sources. If an item's inclusion in a list is significantly disputed by reliable sources it should be categorised accordingly. Nightw 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

But you can't single out Kosovo from how it ranks vis a vis the others. There are four levels here--UN members, Vatican City, Kosovo, and the others. There's just no way to get around that. Kosovo has been recognized by a significant number of states unlike South Ossetia and Transnistria, including multiple Security Council members. That puts it on a different footing. There's just no way to collapse these sections into two without giving short shrift to either or both Vatican City and Kosovo. Kosovo is on a different plane separate from Transnistria et al. --Taivo (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean I can't? Isn't that what you just did in that comment? What you've said is based on original research and shoddy logic. In your view, recognition by 76 states including 3 out of 5 SC members constitutes some esoteric "separate bracket", but Palestine's recognition by ≥ 119 states doesn't because it's "not fully sovereign", nor does the SADR's recognition by ~83 states for some unknown reason. A "significant number" is not a majority until it's a majority, and our policies regarding lists explicitly state that views are represented proportionately; minority views are given less prominence than those of the majority. Nightw 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

By "you" I meant the generic "you", not you personally. But the difference between Kosovo and the other "other states" is that Kosovo is a member of UN-related international organizations. It is simply different. SADR isn't recognized by any Security Council members (I could be wrong on that one) and Palestine is not completely sovereign. There are problems with all these states, but being admitted to membership in a UN organization does put Kosovo a leg up on the others. All these lists are WP:OR by their very nature, and you know that. And the comments in the RfC did not address Kosovo specifically, so you can't really push the "results" of the RfC as a justification for your opinions on placing Kosovo. Indeed, many of the comments were not related to reducing the number of sections, but controlling the number of sortable columns and complaining about gray areas. I don't really read a clear consensus there. --Taivo (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've said my piece--that I support the list as it currently stands with three sortable vertical columns and three labelled horizontal sections. You haven't convinced me otherwise, NightW, and the RfC really didn't address that issue with any real consensus as I read the comments. --Taivo (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, you said above there are four levels. Can we perhaps make it four levels then? Kosovo is different to Transnistria, but it can't really be similar to the Vatican/Holy See, which is accepted as an Observer state by the UNGA, with access to UN documents and a presence in the UNGA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, but others were uncomfortable with four levels. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A breakdown of points, as I see things:

1. I would agree in principle with reducing from three to two categories.

2. I agree that UN membership is a category of enough importance to organize the list. Thus having a category for UN members makes sense.

3. I think it is better for the reader if we make the distinction as Noleander originally proposed in his edit to the page: UN members above and non-members below. Otherwise we have to spend a lot of time and effort making judgment calls about which nonmember states go above and which don't.

4. The Holy See/Vatican differs from Kosovo, Palestine, etc. in that it has a wider degree of international recognition. That's true and I am willing to concede that we make a stronger effort to denote it in the list somehow. However we should not be moving items from one category to the other based on number of recognitions. That requires making judgment calls that border on original research.

5. I agree that recognition by the UN General Assembly of Palestinian statehood - when and if it happens - will be a major event. However I would also argue that Palestine already has an observer entity status at the UN that places it further up the statehood scale than most other UN-members. I propose that Palestine should have the same green colour as the Holy See and Kosovo. Palestine is also in a very different international situation than Somaliland and that should be denoted.

6. Finally, I stand by the proposition that Kosovo, by being admitted into two UN Specialized Agencies that seek universal participation, is further integrated into the international community than most other non-UN members.

So my proposal at this time is:

a. Two categories, one for UN members and one for non-UN members.

b. Applying the green legend for Vatican, Palestine and Kosovo, and the yellow legend for all the others.

c. Writing text in the Holy See entry, specifying that it is an entity with near-universal diplomatic recognition (or something to that effect).

Would this be a better compromise? Ladril (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that 2 categories is better than the present state. A multiplicity of categories causes more problems than it solves. Having 3 or 4 categories will lead to endless bickering about which states belong where, and what the categories should be. All the problems go away if we move down to 2 or 1 categories, and let the Status column (and color coding) contain the details about the state (UN member or not, etc). --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO those that are eligible for membership of UN specialised agencies, namely, the Holy See / the Vatican City, Niue, the Cook Islands and Kosovo should fall within the UN category with a special note. Meanwhile, South Sudan is for the time being in the middle of no where. Peter Geatings (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who are we to define who is eligible? Anyway, in my opinion as long as the categories we have are defined it shouldn't matter how many. My main issue with mixing the Vatican with the others is not about recognition, but about the fact no other country disputes it's sovereignty, unlike all the others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Lots of states dispute the sovereignty of Israel or the PRC, and you don't seem uncomfortable with mixing them with the Vatican. The issue is, creating a category for "disputed states" does not seem like it will work. Ladril (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, all of you should just go to the main point. List of sovereign states, so, state, that is fully recognized internationally, without questions or problems, that function completely autonomously from the rest of the world, and that are members of the UN, and that none question anything about it. Kosovo is not sovereign state, its north is disputed, and governed from Serbia, and it is widely unrecognized. Palestine is out of question, and Vatican is simply not UN member. Those states are not sovereign, in its fully meaning. Thats why we should follow only UN membership, and not to invent our own rules. Sovereign state must be UN member, with vast international recognition. That is the best way. -_WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Israel/the PRC and the others in my opinion is sort of conferred in what WhiteWriter has said. They're members of the UN, legally equal players on the international stage. I look at it not as a category for a general vague group such as disputed states, but rather as states whose dispute has resulted in their inability to participate in the international system. The PRC and Israel do not have this problem. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This list should present that. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chip, you had an idea earlier to include in the first section non-member states whose status was undisputed. This would include the Vatican, and it would also now include South Sudan. I thought that was a perfect solution, and it's not overly-complicated for the reader to understand as the status column makes it blindly obvious. Nightw 16:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"I look at it not as a category for a general vague group such as disputed states, but rather as states whose dispute has resulted in their inability to participate in the international system." Kosovo is a member of the IMF and World Bank, and thus not "unable to participate in the international system". Ladril (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to that idea Night W, but it doesn't seem that supported. @Ladril I agree, which is why I would in a three category system have Kosovo in the middle category. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the adoption of arbitrary criteria to sort the list what makes me uncomfortable, and this "UN members+undisputed non-members vs. disputed non-members" proposal seems to me as flawed as "internationally recognized vs. other" (the previous status quo). It's all well and good to point out that the UN members and Vatican have a voice in the international arena that the "other 10" do not have, except that's not exactly true. While not formally accepted as a state, Palestine has an observer status at the United Nations which is very similar to that of the Holy See. If we adopt Night w's proposal, it will be difficult for me to argue against not moving Palestine to the top section as well (again, it is disputed, but so are Israel and the PRC). This is one of several reasons why I feel that proposal is not a very good idea. I don't see the point of forcing this "ten disputed non-UN member states" category on the reader as if there weren't other considerations to take into account. This is why, if the list really ought to be divided somehow, it should be in a simple and straightforward way: membership, either with three or two categories. No possibility of arbitrary placements there. Ladril (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestine could not be moved to the top section because it does not even meet our criteria of "sovereign state"--controlling its own borders (its borders are not even legally defined), for example, or other aspects of sovereignty. It's simply not sovereign by definition no matter what its role in the UN is. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither is the Vatican. The sovereign entity is the Holy See. Ladril (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. It's a non-issue anyway since the observer seat has never been officially accorded to the State of Palestine. It's the seat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, thus designated an observer entity and not a state. It doesn't affect this list. Nightw 05:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And the difference between "Vatican City" and "Holy See" is simply one of labels, not reality. Vatican City controls its own borders and meets all the other characteristics of sovereignty. It just isn't a member of the UN (the only undisputed sovereign state that is not, assuming that South Sudan gets membership next week as planned). --Taivo (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No sir. The distinction between the Holy See and the Vatican for sovereignty purposes is indeed relevant. See [25]. Ladril (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Ladril. It's a labelling difference. The official name of the state may be X, but for the purposes of Wikipedia and our list, we use common English names and the common English name for this state is "Vatican City". It is a state in Rome with clearly-defined and self-defended boundaries, its own department of state, its own relations with other nations, its own head of state, and no sovereignty disputes. That's the difference between Vatican City and Palestine--Palestine has no defined borders and is not in complete control of its own state. --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither is Somalia. But this isn't a factor. The criteria is clear: "b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state". If you want to propose a new sorting system based on entrys' fulfillment of the declarative theory, then go ahead; otherwise, as things stand, it makes no difference to how entries are sorted and you therefore cannot yet use this to preclude any item's rearrangement. Nightw 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

When the UN did change the name of Palestine at the UN, they did so acknowledging the declaration of the State of Palestine in 1988. This reinforced the status of Palestine as a state at the UN, even if recognition is still lacking. See [26]. The point is, I don't see why we have to give so much weight to the Catholic Church, ahem the Vatican, because of its UN status when Palestine also has observer status and participation in all six UN main bodies. Or rather, if we give so much weight to the Catholic Church's status in international affairs, why do we have to forcibly downplay that of Kosovo, the Cook Islands, etc. Ladril (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because Kosovo's status as a state is still, officially, a minority view. The list should represent that. Regarding Palestine, the opinion of Quigley is an opinion, and a uniformly pro-Palestine one at that; this list is based on facts. You and he can theorise about allusions all you wish, but the seat is accorded to an organisation, not a state. Nightw 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree with that interpretation of the guidelines. Just like physics articles should be based on the writings of specialists in the subject, articles such as this one ought to be based on reliable sources on the topic, i. e., the writings of specialists in international law or international relations (like Quigley). Diplomatic recognition, on the other hand, is not cognition. It doesn't have anything to do with the actual facts; it's just a political position. We cannot use political positions as criteria for truth or validity. Ladril (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

From WP:QS, "[P]ublications expressing views that ... rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion" are "unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" (let alone about themselves). Portraying the State of Palestine as an observer at the UN despite the fact that the seat is accredited to a completely different entity, all on the basis that Quigley, a paid associate of the Palestinian government, thinks it was "implied" is, as anyone with half a brain will tell you, ridiculous. As for the second point, please explain how voluntary membership in an organisation is better as "criteria for truth or validity" regarding whether a state is sovereign than the collective official political position of all the world's government's? Nightw 16:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You sure you're not confused? This [27] is the John Quigley I'm talking about, a professor of international law at a very respectable institution, and the work is published by Cambridge University Press. More than meets the reliable sources guidelines. That seems to me a lightly-made accusation of partisanship.

Regarding editorial process on the encyclopedia: what is usually done here is that each user trying to adjudicate for herself whether an entity meets or not the criteria for statehood. This is complete disregard of the reliable sources guideline and should be avoided from now on. We have to let external experts in the subject, who are paid for writing professional analysis on each topic, have their say. True, as in everything pertaining to social life, there is an element of opinion in their analysis. But the only way to avoid bias is to research as many professional articles as one can find on one subject, and if there is a controversy among experts in the subject, then describe it in the encyclopedia, without engaging in it. This is what due WP:weight means. I'll let this sink in and then we can proceed with your other questions. Ladril (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's arbitrary. But what about member states + observers? Nightw 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ladril. We can't just take two arbitrary concepts and merge them together to put forward a new idea. That's OR. If being undisputed is important, then let's sort the states by: disputed versus undisputed. If people don't like using specialized agency membership, and think it's only UN membership that's important, then we can do: UN members versus non-UN members. But we can't WP:SYN the two concepts together to create some new category. Personally, I think Noleander's more ambitious proposal, to get rid of all the divisions and let the "info" column and colouring explain the subtle differences between states, is the best solution since any choice of divisions is going to be controversial. TDL (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And now they want South Sudan in the top category as well. These whimsy decisions make the page extremely hard to work on. To my knowledge, Niue is neither a UN member not disputed by any other state, but I doubt that if it gets its own entry they will want it in the top category. Ladril (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We are now running afoul of the same problem that these discussions have always run afoul of. We regularly start a discussion on one issue, say, the placement of Vatican City, that an editor thinks can be easily resolved. The first day the comments focus on Vatican City, but on the second day someone writes, "But if we treat Vatican City this way, then why don't we treat Kosovo that way?" And soon, by the third day at the latest, Cook Islands, Niue, Palestine, and occasionally Somalia or Taiwan have been dragged into the discussion fruitlessly. A few days later someone starts a new discussion on Kosovo, seeking to narrowly focus the discussion, but by the third day Vatican City, Palestine, Cook Islands, and Niue have again entered the conversation. If one had the curiosity, one could go back through the archives and identify each and every regularly contributing editor as Pro-Vatican, Anti-Kosovo, Anti-Cook Islands, Pro-Palestine, or Pro-Vatican, Pro-Kosovo, Anti-Cook Islands, Anti-Palestine, etc. (By "Anti" and "Pro" I refer to whether a particular editor thinks they should move up or down the list.) Our positions rarely, if ever, change on the relative placement of these entities on the list here vis a vis the uncontroversial entities. These positions then color any discussion of how many categories or columns there should be and how they should be sorted. But it all fundamentally ends with what we think of these four key states--Vatican City, Kosovo, Cook Islands, and Palestine. I don't have a solution the impasse here. Indeed, I don't know that a solution is actually possible because every solution involves someone's pro/anti gauge. A single alphabetical list? No, the anti-Kosovo crowd is offended. Two categories based on UN membership? No, the pro-Vatican crowd is offended. Three categories (as now)? No, the anti-Kosovo crowd objects. Etc. As I said earlier, I've not seen a single fundamental position change in six months. Right now, the 2-category "solution" is simply the previous status quo (with didn't have sortable columns) that moves Vatican into the "other States" category. So the pro-Vatican crowd is offended. We'll talk about that for awhile until the next compromise arises, which will then offend the anti-Kosovo crowd, and so it goes. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)