Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | List of sovereign states |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 23:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | TDL (talk) |
Mediator(s) | Ludwigs2 |
Comment | No apparent possibility of consensus. Editors consistently find new grounds for objecting to proposed compromises, and refuse to move forward on viable but imperfect proposals. |
|
|
The dispute is over the sorting criteria employed on List of sovereign states to divide the states into two sections: "widely recognized" and "other" states.
The current list breaks the 203 entries on the list into two sections: "widely recognized" and "other" states. However, no definition of "widely recognized" is provided. This WP:WEASELy term makes it impossible to WP:VERIFY whether a state satisfies the criteria or not. As a result, any choice of placement is necessarily WP:OR. For example, Palestine is recognized by at least 111 states (>57% of UN members) but is listed on List of sovereign states as a widely UN-recognized state with no sources to back up this claim. As per WP:LSC: "Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." The current use of "widely recognized" fails on all three counts.
A secondary issues is whether the states of Cook Islands and Niue should be included on the list, and if so in what section? Hopefully, a resolution of the primary issue will solve this issue as well.
All attempts to quantify "widely" have failed for two reasons. Any choice of a particular percentage of recognizing states is arbitrary (ie why 66% and not 50%?). Also, we have no idea how many states recognize most states on the list. (Or sources to back these claims up.) Thus, any sorting criteria based on the "number of recognizers" seems to be impossible to implement in practice. With this in mind, we have considered alternatives based on membership in international organizations, amongst other ideas.
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get past very basic issues. Several editors insist that the status quo is fine, and that "widely recognized" isn't a weasel word. Using this logic, they have rejected every compromise suggested to date on the grounds that they feel that the current division of states is "correct" and any modification to these groupings produces an "incorrect" list. However, as per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The status quo is unverifiable, and hence MUST be replaced with something that is verifiable. Even if the verifiable criteria is "wrong" (and this is only a matter of opinion) it's far better than a correct but unverifiable list.
Mediation should be helpful since it can focus the discussion on finding a verifiable compromise, as opposed to arguing over whether there is something wrong with the status quo.
Extended content
|
---|
Post your acceptance of mediation here:
Your acceptance of mediation (2nd round)[edit]Post your acceptance for the second mediator, Ludwigs2, below:
|
Extended content
|
---|
Wasn't this at the Mediation Committee already? Lord Roem (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not just use the UN member state list as a (theoretically) neutral objective independent list of sovereign states, listing all other sovereign states under "other" (Palestine, Taiwan, etc.)? That would seem to neatly get rid of the WP:OR problem while presumably making everyone just as upset with the end result, which is usually what a compromise results in. Banaticus (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
new mediator[edit]I am willing to take on this case, if that's agreeable to everyone. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of people make mention of two issues which need to be separated. I can make an educated guess about that, but I'd prefer if one of you would give a nice clear statement of what these two issues are. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Procedural question: I've never been involved in a mediation before. Will the solution to the two issues in question based solely on the contents of the "Discussion" session of this page? Where do we propose and rebut possible answers and what information is taken into consideration? --Jiang (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Immediate Issue[edit]We have one immediate issue for you, the mediator, to decide. How should the article be tagged as being under mediation? One editor is pushing a WP:POINTy dispersement of nearly a dozen "weasel" tags throughout the article on the same words wherever they occur. Other editors consider this to be pointy and overkill and suggest a single tag at the top as an overall indication of dispute, or, at the most, one or two tags in the lead, but not throughout the article. Please advise us as to the best practice here. --Taivo (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
request to participants[edit]Ok, I'm going to make this a formal mediation request: please, as much as possible, try to keep the discussion away from what other editors might do, think, believe, hope for, like, dislike, or etc. The more you talk about other editors, the more the discussion gets tangled in personal issues, and the more difficult it becomes to sort through content issues. I'm going to start asking people to redact personal claims as I see them (which you can do by striking the with html <s></s> tags (it looks
|
Extended content
|
---|
Ok, My apologies for being absent for a bit - real life and wikipedia distractions had me busy. But let's get back to business. The problem I see in all of the above discussion is that there is far, far too much original research going on. you are all trying to determine for yourselves what constitutes a state, and that's just not the way things work. With that in mind, I'm going to ask you all to present scholarly sources that give a list of sovereign states, along with their rationales for making the determinations they do. You can see an example of what I'm talking about here, where someone has presented a list of states based on the work of Dr. Paul M. Johnson: Dept. of Political Science, Auburn University. Two rules that you must follow here:
Please link as much as possible to keep down the volume of visible material, or if you need to present an entire list, use the ((collapse top)) and ((collapse bottom)) templates so that lists do not swamp the page. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with TDL about Vienna formula. In his 03:48, 17 March 2011 comment he provided an official list of states based on it (unfortunately it's from 1997). Ludwigs2, the source that you gave as example includes interesting (and useful IMHO) definitions of Sovereign state ("political organization ... possessing a local predominance of coercive power ..." and "A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy.") and explanation about " alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies " and I think these should be added to Sovereign state article. On substance - the list says "there are now 194 independent sovereign states" (and then includes 197 entries - so which is it?). It has a remark about "Palestinian territories and Taiwan" and is made after "the ending of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro" (Montenegro is the newest UN member) - so I assume that 194 = 192 UN members + "Palestinian territories and Taiwan". In addition the list includes Holy See/Vatican City and Tibet. That is 196. The 197th is a duplicated entry (Burma/Myanmar is listed twice). In addition if you look at [3] you will see that Wikipedia is mentioned as a source (yes, this is different page, but related - and IMHO all of the lists on this site are at least influenced by Wikipedia). Then the source says "The states marked with an asterisk are members of the United Nations", but the following UN members don't have asterisk - Kiribati, Montenegro, Nauru, Tonga, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu. The source is obviously made after Montenegro independence or at least referendum in 2006. It maybe is made before Montenegro UN membership, but there is no explanation why Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu don't have asterisk. One explanation can be that the person making the list was using older UN members list from after 1994 (Palau has asterisk) and before 1999 (these that don't have asterisk joined in 1999 and later). But this also doesn't match, because Switzerland and Serbia have asterisk and these joined in 2002 and 2000 respectively. So, it seems the person making the list was using older UN members list from after 1994, but marked Switzerland and Serbia with asterisk because these were "obvious" and "regular" states in his opinion. Whatever the real explanation is - such glaring mistakes and discrepancies show only one thing - such unofficial lists by "scholars", "map/atlas makers", "academics", etc. are OR/POVed themselves and aren't any better than Wikipedia editors arbitrary picks - unless they have gone trough peer review in scientific journals. That's why I think that we should stick to official lists used in international treaties and by international organizations. Alinor (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I am OK with looking into different lists - if there is explanation of the criteria/method used to compile it and if they come from suitable sources. So far, the only such list is the TDL provided [5]. Alinor (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with the majority viewpoint, and we've been through this approach before, Ludwig (check out the talk page archive and you'll see). This "list taken from a reliable source" approach doesn't work, because it forces us to adopt the limitations (edit for clarity: to copy the mistakes) of other sources, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. People here have developed, for example, lists of videogames without bothering to see if all of them are part of a list published somewhere else. Why should we be any different? Wikipedia is supposed to list items which are considered to qualify according to sources, it's not itself supposed to be a list of lists. Ladril (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Another 30 second google scholar search yielded this: A revised list of independent states since the congress of Vienna (Kristian S. Gleditsch; Michael D. Ward) which is a fully academic source that should have detailed rationales for inclusion. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this from where I am - can someone download a copy and post relevant portions? Let me point out the obvious point (obvious to me, at any rate) that you need outside, scholarly sources to point to, or you will never resolve this dispute. You can say that the problem is over ordering, you can say that the problem is over the position of Kosovo, but in fact the problem is that you are all doing original research to justify the results you want, and none of you are willing to accept the original research of the other sides. The simple fact of the matter is that if you use the results in a reliable source, there's nothing left to argue about except which source to use. It no longer matters if the list is right so long as the list is properly sourced and attributed. correct? --Ludwigs2 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been able to get my hands on full copies of the following academic sources: [7], [8], [9]. I'll try to take a look at them tomorrow, and give an outline of their contents. TDL (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Taivo above you say "You have only one source that marks Vienna, and, as I recall from the last time I looked at it, that source doesn't even say "Vienna", but simply lists other organizations that states are members of." and then accuse me of OR. I have given the UN Office of Legal Affairs link multiple times, but it seems that you haven opened it at all! If you had you would call "Vienna formula" Alinor OR. I'm not surprised that you are still opposed to using it - you think it's mine OR, where it's in fact the only criteria supported by WP:RS. I would refrain from qualifying your act of entirely ignoring this link despite my multiple references to it. Quotes from the source:
Have you seen this before? And this is part not of some obscure list compiled by unknown OR criteria. This is part of a text explaining the practice of the UNSG that is "Prepared by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs" and published at the UN Office of Legal Affairs website. And the part of it that we can use begins with the question "how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States?" If needed I can bring many official sources - international treaties and international organizations statutes - that include wording similar to "XXX shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice" [10]. Not unofficial atlases/maps, not unofficial and not peer reviewed scholar works, not unofficial OR by blogers, journalists, Wikipedia editors and the like. In conclusion - I don't know about "scholarly accepted" criteria - and this is irrelevant if it means some scholars outside of the official governmental structures, international organizations and diplomatic corps. What we have source about is the practice utilized by the UN and many other international organizations and treaties. This is what is actually utilized "professionally" in the World. This what governments and diplomats use. Not dormitory wall maps. Not schoolbooks. Not the general public. An encyclopedia should not be a compilation of common misconceptions, but per WP:V should rely on WP:RS. And I don't see anything more reliable than a UN Office of Legal Affairs text explaining "how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States?". Alinor (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
On primary sources[edit]Ludwigs2, you say that we shouldn't rely on "primary" sources - but in this case it is debatable whether there is a "primary" source in the first place (that's why we have this debate. The subject "List of UN member states" has a primary source - the UN - and we use it and nobody disputes the list. But the subject "List of sovereign states" is a different thing altogether). What I say is that the reliable sources in our case are the official sources - international organizations and treaties - and not unofficial maps drawn by individual people and similar things. Taivo, above you say "but official documents have no more weight than other reliable sources." - I see a problem here: what constitutes a reliable source in this case? A wall map? A news report (such as "Montenegro becomes the 192th state" when in reality a journalist just used some other press release and replaced 'UN member' with 'state', maybe to save space or to reduce repetition for stylistic reasons, because 'UN member' is used below/above in the same text)? A text by blogger? A text by 'legal scholar' that is not peer reviewed? An 'atlas of the World' for the mass market? - I don't think any of those is "reliable" for the topic at hand. Taivo, you complain that the UN source is the only one I support. OK, besides the UN Office of Legal affairs link, how many other sources do we have that describe the criteria for "statehood" in such a way that a WP:V list of states is easy to compile (a list can already be provided in the source, but most probably it would be outdated, that's why the criteria described should be easy to apply in a WP:V way)? Alinor (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
List of sources describing criteria for "statehood" with results possible to check in a WP:V way[edit]
List of sources describing criteria for "statehood" with results not possible to check in a WP:V way[edit]
List of sources providing "list of sovereign states" without describing their criteria for inclusion[edit]
Discussion about placement of specific sources in the above 3 lists[edit]moving comment to source discussion section Alinor (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Alinor, you have beaten "The UN Office of Legal Affairs" to death here. You mention it as a Holy Grail so many times that it is now meaningless. It is not our only source. The three scholarly sources that Danlaycock provided above are actually more reliable in the discussion than the UN Office of Legal Affairs because they are secondary sources, not primary sources like the UN list. You also call atlases unreliable sources, but you are quite wrong there as well. Most atlases that are published by Hammond, Rand McNalley, et al. are quite reliable since they have been prepared by the scholars hired by those companies and are peer reviewed to just as great an extent as the UN Office of Legal Affairs. Indeed, what is the UN Office of Legal Affairs document other than something prepared by lawyers and not peer-reviewed other than by other lawyers in the same Legal Affairs office. Every objection that you pose for an atlas can be posed for the UN document that you treat as scripture here. The only documents that are perfectly in tune with WP:RS are the three that Danlaycock has presented above--secondary, written by scholars, peer-reviewed, and published in a scholarly press. The UN document is not in that class. --Taivo (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Continuation of the discussion[edit]I agree with the notion above by Ludwigs2 and TDL that sources actually don't "rank" the degree of "stateness". The sources actually give "yes/no" about who is a state (and the rest obviously aren't) and if you are lucky they also give explanation about the utilized criteria. This is already solved in the article (we have a consensus inclusion criteria). But when it was done it was obvious that somehow "regular"/"widely recognized by the international community" states should be distinguished from the "other" states. In the status quo this is done in an arbitrary way (that gives a seemingly sensible result and IMHO that's why it was made so in the first place - the result matched editors "wish" back then and the article was edited in this way disregarding the lack of defined sorting criteria) of "UN members + Vatican City". I think that we should not aim to define a 'degree of stateness' or to rank the already included states in some way. We should simply replace the arbitrary pseudo-criteria "UN members + Vatican City" with something that in fact matches "widely recognized by the international community". So, I think that the question is "which entities are widely recognized as states by the international community" (e.g. who should be included in the current section1) - and you know that we already have the answer from the UN Office of Legal Affairs: "and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community". The same answer is utilized in practice by international organizations and treaties. I see no reason to deviate from that. Alinor (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment What will be the implications of the solution that is being proposed for the different lists of sovereign states by year? [11] Ladril (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Any opinions on 08:43, 22 March 2011 comment in relation to the present-time List of sovereign states? Alinor (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, you're going to have to do your own library work on those Danlaycock articles. They are long and the whole articles concern the issues surrounding the determination of what a list of sovereign states would look like. Most local libraries have interlibrary loan capabilities. Until you actually read them, however, your continued clarion call to treat the UN Office of Legal Affairs as a scholarly source rings hollow. --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposed change[edit]The status quo article begins with:
I propose that we change it in the following way:
This proposal would not result in moving of any states between the status quo groups. By adopting it we simply replace the problematic wording of the status quo separation that lacks a separation criteria with wording that is supported by sources. Alinor (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposed change ammendments[edit]Taking into account the above discussed issues I propose the following redaction:
What do you think? Alinor (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, Alinor, all your paragraphs of verbiage generally go unread by most of the editors involved here. And, yes, I actually do have a PhD. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandbox 3 (again)[edit]Danlaycock, can you summarize what the objections were to your single sortable list proposal? --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Issues[edit]So I've tweaked my previous proposal based on the responses I've received. The latest version is found here. I've bolded UN members and italicized states with no UN affiliation to further differentiate the states. The concerns raised previously here are:
When this was last discussed, it seemed that we generally agreed on keeping a separate disputes column for sorting, and labeling Palestine "Occupied by Israel". What other concerns do people have? TDL (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I realize I'm not an official participant in this discussion but I was involved in this dispute a while ago and I thought I'd weigh in now. Hope that's okay. I've looked around a bit and it seems like there are a few different answers that most commonly given to the question "how many sovereign states there are in the world?" Broadly speaking they are:
The current version of the page also introduces 200 (recognized by a UN member) and 202 (recognized by any other state). It seems to me like the problem here is that there are too many different possible answers and they're all more or less equally valid and citeable. If you were to choose one then you would be giving it undue weight over all the others. And since there's no answer that's clearly "the best", the decision would ultimately come down to the personal preferences of the handful of editors involved in this discussion. Given all that, I can really only see two possible ways of formatting the page and still staying in line with WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR.
In my humble opinion, either of those solutions would be neutral and fairly represent all points of view. They would also be verifiable and easy to maintain. And you have a much better chance of forming a consensus around a method that embraces multiple points of view than you do with any single sorting method. In any case, I wish you all the best and hope you find a resolution to this soon. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "I realize I'm not an official participant in this discussion" Anyone is free to join. Ladril (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC) "It might also be worth trying to incorporate the classification from List of states with limited recognition somehow. " I also proposed this at some point, but for some reason users who give much relevance to diplomatic recognition don't want to see it on this list. Ladril (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Okay I don't want to overload this discussion with words but how would people feel about something like this? This is basically the same as 3d with a few changes to address some of Alinor's concerns:
I know I'm out of synchronization with the current stage of the discussion, but I would like to make a pronouncement on why I think a new sorting proposal is sorely needed. Taivo states that the current sorting is good because it puts UN members and undisputed states in one category, and non-UN disputed states in the other. That's true if you are speaking about recent years, but it doesn't apply to earlier years. We should be looking for a solution that spans the whole Wikipedia project (including the lists of sovereign states in previous decades, see for example [17]). If the categories were as Taivo says, then the list of sovereign states in 1990 would have to have the two Koreas in the 'other states section', together with Taiwan and Palestine. This is because they were not UN members at the time and they are disputed. Would you find such a solution correct? I wouldn't. This is why we need categories that are clearer than those we are currently using. Despite what some users claim, there is no hidden agenda here besides improvement of the encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not keen on the idea of a single list. Unless the default order was arranged according to the Constitutive theory (rather than alphabetically), it gives too much weight to entries that would commonly be omitted from such a list published in reliable sources. I've yet to see a reliable source that puts Somaliland right after Somalia in a list of countries. The myriad colours are distracting; reducing the number of colours used might help (i.e., 2 cats rather than 4). The "disputes" column is ripe for complications. Is it necessary? Nightw 08:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
To address some of the concerns above, I've done another pass here: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3f. Two changes:
I agree with Night w, above. WP:NPOV states that [n]eutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The viewpoints that are discussing in this case are as to whether an entity is a sovereign and independent state or not. If so, an entity belongs on this list. If not, it does not. The central issue here is what to do when this point is disputed. In most cases, by far the most prominent viewpoint in the international community is that the entity is an independent sovereign state. There are, in some cases, significant minority viewpoints that would dispute this. We should thus, in these cases, be treating the POV that they belong in the list as most prominent, while noting the disputes. The trouble is that there are a few cases where this does not hold. In some of these, we have a situation whereby by far the most prominent viewpoint in the international community is that the entity is not an independent sovereign state, but there exist significant minority viewpoints that dispute this. And of course there are degrees of disputedness. But, given the different weight requirements, we simply cannot neutrally give all entities included on the list similar weight. Doing so would give undue prominence either to the viewpoints that dispute the sovereignty of widely-recognised states, or undue prominence to the viewpoints that support the sovereignty of little-recognised states. While both are possible (indeed, they can both occur simultaneously), the relative imbalance in numbers means that we are more likely to give undue prominence to the viewpoints that support the sovereignty of little-recognised states. We have to find a half-way house between inclusion and non-inclusion (hence the existing split). The different weight being given to included entities needs to be obvious even to someone who has not read the information column. Moreover, for reasons of accessibility, we can't signal such weight differences solely or primarily through colour-coding or by other stylistic means. I'm afraid that I do not feel that this proposal succeeds in giving appropriate weight in this case. Other than that, I agree with those that say that it is not neutral to describe an entity such as Somaliland as a "non-member state" of the UN, because that presupposes that Somaliland is a state. Pfainuk talk 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This is partly why I don't comment here much. The response here is a 7kB wall of text. I'm not going through it point-by-point. I would note that people are saying that I need sources to point out that Somaliland's inclusion doesn't have any. You say that Somaliland statehood is the consensus and say that sources are required to disprove it. Wrong. Per WP:BURDEN all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs sourcing. It's obvious that this point is likely to be challenged (indeed, I think we all know two editors who are likely to challenge it) so if you want it included, you need to be able to demonstrate that it belongs. If you're not willing to source the point, you have no argument to suggest that it belongs. And this doesn't just go for Somaliland. For several of these cases - where a general consensus that they are states is claimed - there is surprisingly little backing for this in the article. None of this affects the fact that we cannot neutrally take a side in these political disputes. Which is what you do by failing to give adequate weight to the POV that they are not states. TDL asks what suggestions I have without a rigid division of the list. Well, the changes he suggests are stylistic, and we cannot do this by stylistic means alone for reasons of accessibility. My response would be to point out that I have always opposed the single-list approach for precisely this reason: I can't see a way in which adequate separation could be given in a single list. Pfainuk talk 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Please tone it down. Nobody is being uncivil, yet. I realise that we're trying to make this as verifiable as possible, but there's a decent argument to be made towards the existence of a more (most?) predominantly accepted bunch of names that sources cite as being sovereign states, and we should try our best to match it. I can use a perfectly verifiable criteria to categorise religious beliefs by plausibility, but it won't necessarily be NPOV simply because I can verify the criteria. I know I haven't provided any alternative ideas and that my participation in this mediation discussion has been sporadic at best; this is mainly due to time limitations, and I will try to be more active here from now on. But my support for any proposal made here will largely boil down to its results matching those of the current list. You may perceive this as POINTY or as IDONTLIKEIT, but I cannot justify splitting Kosovo from the rest simply over IGO memberships. I'm stuck in one place for a few weeks, so I'll try and come up with something radical in the next few days. If not, you'll have to drown out my objections with wall after wall of text. I had to search for a good 10 minutes to find my last comment. Nightw 02:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Note: Discussion continued at #Continuing discussion from 3f
Yet another sandbox where I've tried to address the concerns raised above. I've reinserted the sortable dividers, which now work both in ascending and descending order. The default sort order is set to the "UN column". Also, I've added big ass asterisks to the UN member states in the first column, which was previously only used for colour, to address the WP:ACCESS issues raised above. UN member states are bolded, and states with no membership are in italics. I really don't see any way that a reasonable editor could claim that this is WP:UNDUE anymore. We've gone to great lengths to try and present the disputes, in a 6-fold redundant way. TDL (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If we could perhaps keep discussion on one sandbox for awhile, then if conversation languishes for a day a poll should be taken. Let's not rush into more sandboxes or polls. Please come up with the rationale for making Kosovo equal to Vatican city, I'm okay with it as we have that nice red box at the side, but I reckon a clear position needs to be made which we can later post in a FAQ or something. The only thing left for me is that Israel and Cyprus are not yet sorted out; I don't think that their sovereignty dispute column should be coloured, as as far as I can tell no-one is claiming them. However, there may be a need for something more nuanced if others object. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I've been trying really hard here to understand people's concerns and address them with subsequent sandboxes but I don't see this dispute moving forward if some editors won't start offering larger compromises. If we make any attempt to sort the single list then some editors complain that it has become too weighted towards whatever criteria we use to sort it. But if we do not sort the list then other editors complain that all the entities on it are treated too equally. It is impossible to create a proposal which addresses both of those concerns simultaneously. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe I could accept 3g (provided you get rid of the asterisks - nobody is going to understand why they're there), but not 3h. 3g is not ideal - I don't think it handles Kosovo well and I think that's a point that would come back to haunt us - but I think it's the best resolution we're realistically likely to get at this stage in proceedings. 3h does nothing to deal with the problems I have noted with 3f - indeed, in some ways it's significantly worse, because it uses lots of jargon and relies on the reader knowing what the "UNSG" is (or going through footnotes of footnotes) and why it's significant. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Yet another sandbox - includes all special cases. I'm keen to reduce colors even more from what's present in this sandbox. Alinor (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't much of a change in the right direction and I do not support this version. Outback the koala (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
Alinor, apologies if I'm stepping on your toes with this but I had it written up as you posted 3h, and I think it's valuable as an iteration on the 3e/3f/3g set: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3i. Ladril EDIT: a version with sortable dividers can be found here: this version
I realize people are worried about all these sandboxes cluttering up the discussion, so let's try some structured questions: 1) does this draft raise any NEW problems for you? 2) IF you had problems with 3d/3e/3f/3g, does this draft go towards addressing them? 3) IF you found 3d/3e/3f/3g acceptable, do you also find this one acceptable? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems we're near a consensus here. Clearly state which version you prefer in the poll below: 3i without dividers Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Sandbox3i or 3i with dividers this version: Ladril (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I like this one. Outback the koala (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Object - "UN membership POV" is pushed here to the next level - by moving the column to the front of the detailed description column. "UN System" column is not consistent - for some states it mentions only UNO, but not any other of the UN System elements. For other states it mentions some UN system elements, but not others. If the list is going to be arranged non-alphabetically then it has to be with dividers - and inside each divider it has to be alphabetical - otherwise we are making some custom order piece-by-piece. It should be explained somewhere what the dividers separate (by divider heading or otherwise). There is no explanation what the dispute column shows (and what the tricky states will get). Also, I don't find colors useful, but others maybe like them. And again - what's the goal of the UN column? To be "something like Vienna" (then this should be explained in the footnote - and other corrections are needed) or to be "UN System memberships" (then it should be explained why this is important and why are only some of its elements taken into account). Alinor (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Update - judging by the comments from users above, this will be a tie, so people who voted "no preference" (Taivo, Orange Tuesday at this point) are encouraged to highlight the one they would prefer in the poll above. Ladril (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Update Dividers seem to have the edge so far. Ladril (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this seems premature, disruptive or like I'm putting words into people's mouths, but from reading everyone's last comment I dare anticipate the following result (counting people who have not voted yet):
Alinor- with dividers. Pfainuk - with dividers. Nightw - without dividers. Jiang - I dare say without, but he will tell us. Britishwatcher - I believe the result of talk page discussion with him was something very similar to the version with dividers, am I correct?
So unless something changes, the anticipated result seems to be a narrow win for "with dividers". Feel free to collapse or ignore this if it causes rashes. Ladril (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
A vote to choose a preferred sandbox from the various sandboxes offered. please list the sandbox you prefer (or at most two, where each will get half a vote). Whichever sandbox wins will become the prototype, and all our efforts will focus on modifying, balancing and improving that sandbox; the other sandboxes will be mothballed.--Ludwigs2 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Am I correct to assess Sandbox 3i with dividers as the consensus? Ladril (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
1. All the work towards this consensus cannot result in a purely cosmetic arrangement. Declaring this is an insult to the intelligence of all participants. The underlying, substantial issues must be addressed.
2. Both the status quo and 3i have the intention of classifying the states according to integration with the international community.
3. The status quo has ill-defined categories that, in the opinion of several users, do not convey such integration really well. The UN membership/participation in specialized agencies/no UN participation classification (Sandbox 3i) seeks to address this problem.
4. The "internationally recognized states" category is useless and POV because it leaves out states with substantial recognition. The "other states" category is also useless because it is a miscellany of information. Miscellanea are to be avoided according to the manual of style for lists [[21]]. At least some of the states in both status quo categories (Vatican, Kosovo) can and should be organized in a better way. This is what is being proposed with 3i, not more or less.
5. Some users defend the "other states" category because they think moving Kosovo a step closer to the UN member states is POV. This argument is slippery because the opposite argument can be used with the same ease: denying Kosovo (or any non-UN member state that makes inroads towards further integration with the international community) a place in the list can be construed as anti-Kosovo POV. Categories which list verifiable facts serve to achieve as neutral a point of view as possible.
6. The Sandbox 3i proposal is good because it mixes in a rather simple way several criteria for establishing integration with the international community: UN membership, participation in UN system organizations and diplomatic recognition. The status quo proposal tries to use only two of those, and it doesn't even do this well.
7. If your only reason for opposing the criteria in 3i is "I don't want X state moved a category", well, that's a pretty weak and POVish justification to my eye. Sorry.
Am I missing something? Ladril (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
zero tolerance for personal comments. drop it |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
alright guys, I think we are at a crossroads here. two points I want to make:
Discussion is just circling the bowl over trivialities right now - Frankly, I think you're all just being stubborn. I really think you should all agree to do one of the above, otherwies we should open a discussion about moving to arbitration. so, which way do you want to go with it? --Ludwigs2 23:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I see the situtation for sandbox i2 and I am willing to accept it. I now support i2 based on the well put responses to my concern; I dont see any other way to incorperate VC and Kosovo and not have them in the same colour area given the counter-arguements. Although I would prefer that we get another colour; this would look like crap plus noone would go for (I remember this from months ago and dont want deja vu). The divisions do look ugly as is, but they go away upon sorting, which is a good thing. Outback the koala (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there is "rough consensus" - there is a group of editors who support "anything" based on UN/non-UN Vienna/others division and at the same time without using "Vienna" name (e.g. trying to come up with their own "definition/heading/wording" instead of Vienna formula - on grounds of "too hard to understand" and similar). There are other editors, like me, who are no so keen on this solution. Counting "6 vs. the rest" and similar doesn't seem productive to me.
I don't object the general layout of the sandboxes and as seen in the previous discussions - I was one of those pushing for such "UN/specialized agencies/others" before - but the current proposals (and most of the older proposals too) have multiple issues - some of them small and stylistic, others more important. Combining all of these problems makes me unable to accept any of the currently presented sandboxes. I explained the problems I see multiple times. Should I list them again? The replies that I got range from "no reply" to some explanation that isn't implemented in subsequent sandboxes (for example "There should be a footnote or other explanation about what the dispute column includes" - but such isn't added to the sandboxes. This leaves it open to interpretation and future&present debates. I don't think I ask for something big and/or unreasonable - but still - no result).
I have proposed multiple times possible solutions - move columns to the right, use "UN membership" column and "UNSG deposited state party" dividers, etc. This is what the sources show us anyway, but still so far I haven't seen any reasonable (IMHO) objection. Only "it's complicated". I think it isn't. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there seems to have been a lack of clarity about my position expressed earlier in this discussion (I refer to TDL's comment of 01:11, 21 April 2011):
@ Alinor: let's be clear - you are not unable to support any of these sandboxes. You choose not to support them. You have reasons for choosing not to, sure: what you need to realize is that you're not going to be able to satisfy all of your reasoning at this point in time. this is because the situation in the real world is unclear; we can't make it perfect if they can't.
You need to start thinking about what you want to compromise on, because if you do not give in on some of the details, sooner or later the group will decide that you are never going to agree to anything, and then the situation will shift from a consensus model to a policy model, and some version will be implemented without regard to your objections. It's just a general rule of life that if you keep saying no until you get exactly what you want, you most likely won't get anything at all. The hard thing for you right now is to create some suggestion which both others and you can accept - you know all the things they won't accept, now find something you might be able to convince them on.
Could we please just agree on some way to move forward? The discussion is stalled right now and I don't think it's going to move forward unless we all agree to a vote or a third party or something. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Please state your opinions of the proposed above limited addition to section1 bullet description and the other slight rewordings in the nearby sentences that come along with it. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Taivo edits my comments [22], that's why it seems the below is needed. Alinor (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Please see below the proposed redaction of the section1 description bullet and other slight rewordings in the nearby sentences that come along with it:
This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty.
Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. The list is compiled according to the criteria for inclusion and as of 2011[update] contains 203 entries divided into two parts, each of them arranged alphabetically:
- The "internationally-recognized sovereign states" section lists 193 states, which are considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as States by the international community" and at the same time have successfully joined an international treaty as a "State".[f 6]
- The "other states" section lists 10 states which satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but are not widely recognised diplomatically as an independent sovereign state.
This addition will not result in any changes/moves/additions of states in the list or their arrangement between the two sections. The status quo will be retained - we will just add a sourced sorting criteria instead of the current blanket statement in section1 bullet description. See also above. Substantial and unrelated to this 'limited addition proposal' overhauls of the article are also discussed above - these can be implemented separately later, pending reaching consensus on some issues and details about these bigger changes. Alinor (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This is not a distraction, but a workable solution (because it consists of minimal change - thus is not so controversial as the bigger overhauls discussed above) to the big problem of the status quo. Alinor (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, it makes little sense to waste our effort on a group of edits that will only be staying up for a short period. You are within your right to want to make improvements to the article, but the group consensus seems to be that there are other issues waiting in line to be discussed. Ladril (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Hey could the two of you maybe just calmly back away from this whole section for now? I don't think edit-warring over whether a section should be collapsed or not is particularly helpful. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
A proposal above seems to be approaching consensus, and so we're reaching what I see as a critical point. However, it's all boiling down (again) to a group of 4-5 users *thinking* they have reached a consensus. Judging from previous talk page discussion, I have noticed a pattern, though. Several users seem content to let the debate go on for pages and pages, maybe in the hope it will peter out and no changes will be made. When consensus is just around the corner, they chime in to say, "I don't like it", and then the never-ending cycle begins again. Can I make a polite request that editors from the two sides who want their voice to be heard on this matter get involved ASAP? Few things are more frustrating than to have debates going around in circles for eternity.
We are all aware that Wikipedia editing is consensus-based, but the policies also state that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Please don't make this process bureaucratic. Thanks.Ladril (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: debate is going on at section 3g above. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Update: now in 3i above --Taivo (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Extended content
|
---|
Since most of the group is currently discussing Sandbox 3e/f, would anyone object if I moved them here to the end (where people tend to expect to see the current active discussions)? --Taivo (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
|
No more sandboxes from now on please. I believe the category "member of a UN specialized agency" is quite reasonable. Referencing history again, before 2002 it would have accomodated the Vatican, Switzerland and the Koreas. The issue to discuss here is: is putting Kosovo next to the Vatican a violation of NPOV? Ladril (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
For those who's response is that Kosovo and VC can't be placed side-by-side for NPOV issues, you need to provide an alternative to differentiate between the non-UN members who are "generally accepted" and those who have "little to no acceptance". Insisting that Kosovo be listed beside Somaliland until such time as they gain UN membership is most certainly not NPOV. They could be recognized by say 190/192 UN members (excluding Serbia + Russia), have their UN membership vetoed by Russia, and you'd still list them next to Somaliland. How is that NPOV? The current proposal bases the middle section roughly on >50% recognition (the threshold for joining one of the specialized agencies). If you want a higher threshold, to exclude Kosovo, then great let's hear your ideas. But please don't suggest that it's NPOV to exclude a state solely because the opposition of a single veto holding state. TDL (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: discussion continued from #3f
Right, well there's no sense in taking jibes from a faceless stranger personally. Correct me if I'm wrong, Pfainuk, but in this particular case colours—as long as there is sufficient contrast between the text and the background to be visible in greyscale—are in fact adequate on their own... Orange I apologise for tampering with your sources page; I've added a few sources and corrected a few discrepancies between your assertions and publication dates. Question, though: say there isn't a predominant version of the list, regardless — how do I overlook the fact that Kosovo is not considered a state by the vast majority of world governments? And that placing it in a category ahead of others in a similar situation (some better, even) would be WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Kosovo's membership in UN agencies is verifiable, yes, but it does not automatically set it apart from the others in terms of its legitimacy as a sovereign state—the subject of the list. Nightw 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In reply to Dan, I've not claimed that my alternative is perfect, but clearly neither is yours. It just means that some adjustments need to be made. While membership can be denied, UN recognition of statehood is more easily attained. There's the outlet of going before the General Assembly alone, where there is no veto but resolutions are non-binding, or there's Res. 377, which overrides decisions made by the Security Council with a two-thirds vote. Nightw 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
"US funded" The UN General Asssembly is not funded by the US? Ladril (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The UN Charter states (Article 63): "The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly. It may co-ordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the United Nations." The agencies have a relationship with the United Nations. This doesn't mean they are subsidiary bodies of the UN. Ladril (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Guys, nobody has a list we can just copy. Everyone's list is different. That's the whole reason for this dispute in the first place. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with the chosen sandbox overall, but there are a number of issues still outstanding. I was told that we would discuss the placement of columns, and that a separate consensus would be reached on where and how to place Kosovo. A consensus on these issues has not yet been reached. Ludwigs' suggestion is sound. There's a fair justification, in my opinion, to wait for the criteria we would use to actually be used by our source in the case of Kosovo. That would resolve all concerns I have and the proposal would have my full support. Nightw 22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. once CK and Niue discussion begins, could we archive this entire discussion? We still have a long way to go. Ladril (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't supposed to be a "List of sovereign states by membership in the UN system". There are other aspects to consider, one of which is a noticeable difference in levels of international recognition; it remains (at least formally) unrecognised by the majority and its legitimacy is questioned by a considerable portion of world governments. Separating it from the 9 others in the same situation is a concerning deviation from what reliable sources do; scholarly sources almost invariably lump them together ([32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]), as we currently do. You've all clammered for a more "verifiable" criteria. But just because you can verify a criteria doesn't mean it will be neutral. Showing that it's a member of this organisation but not that one? Doesn't portray anything about its contested status. It just shows that it's not a member of something. Nightw 10:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that Kosovo is a party to a multilateral international treaty. Specifically, the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. Kosovo signed it on 29 June 2009. Furthermore, Alinor's proposed criteria would also cover Palestine, as it was allowed to sign the Agreement on International Roads in the Arab Mashreq as a result of its membership in ESCWA. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
What would you all say to the following proposal: every state that you are currently disagreeing on (Kosovo, the Vatican, Cook Islands and Niue, anything else?) goes onto the slush with the note that they are excluded from the list because of sourcing problems, we implement the list and slush pile as given, then we go back and discuss each disputed locale one by one? would anyone disagree with that? --Ludwigs2 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This Kosovo thing is not a sticking point for me as long as we're including it as it is in Sandbox3i2 rather than putting it aside in some slush pile. --Taivo (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Please sign below if you agree to move forward with sandboxi2 as the prototype. The remaining issues to be resolved (column order, whether to split VC and Kosovo) will be decided by a binding vote of all involved editors on a case-by-case basis. By signing below you agree to accept the result of these votes. TDL (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"Only" 10 editors? This is already the maximum limit of users that should be participating in a single discussion, according to Wikipedia guidelines. And we involved 13 people here. We also have to take into account the repeated calls for involvement made in several fora. At this point we can safely assume that whoever really wants to be involved is involved already. As a motion, I would suggest no further engagement of a single user in this section. Discussion about Kosovo's suitability can continue in the above section. For the moment let's seek a way to move forward. Ladril (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Debate is yet again stalling at the "one user strongly opposing" point. Several users have expressed a desire to move forward with other stages of the mediation, but when an attempt is made in this direction (see "Cook Islands and Niue" below), some users ask us not to discuss other issues yet. The mediator-endorsed proposal for polls above does not seem to have attracted group-wide interest. We are stuck again in a circle with the same for/against arguments going back and forth. At this point it is clear the active users will not be budging from their positions, so we're out of options.
Alinor, Nightw, we get your reasons for being against the proposal. We also have to keep in mind that we agreed as a group to adopt sandbox 3i2 as a solution to move forward. So this is a call for those editors who are not participating in discussion, but have asked us to wait, to get involved again. Both sides have expressed their arguments and I don't believe anything new of substance will be brought to the table. Read the discussion and make your mind. Am I correct to assume that this Kosovo issue is not a sticking point for everyone, and that we can proceed with the categorization present in 3i2? The two opposing users have had plenty of space to speak their minds, so I ask them to let others express theirs. If, having read the discussion, anyone still has objections with regards to Kosovo placement or column ordering, now is the time to say so. Otherwise we will have to assume a consensus by silence. Ladril (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not been keeping up to date because this is a very busy time for me. My opinions stated above still remain, editors should feel free to quote any of my statements here. I don't agree with that poll proposal because binding editors to polls has never been our way, I dont see it as a good idea. As far as Kosovo goes, - wtf? We clearly all agree that it needs to be included just not how. Slush pile might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, lumping it in with SMOM et al will do no good. I feel that this minor hiccup will pass soon enough. Once CI/Nuie starts here in mediation I kindly ask the mediator to send a notification email as this is the other major half of the mediation that I will make pains to be apart of. Outback the koala (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I was away for a few days and it seems that there are some flares above. I haven't seen all the discussion above yet, but I would like to make a few comments.
However you manage the arguments the fact is that the participant States in the database are the UN+VC. No RoK/ROC/SoP. No other7. Maybe this is a coincidence, maybe not. In any case, we should not adopt a sorting criteria that is not reflective of the real world. Alinor (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Let's not go in CI/Niue for the moment. They are exceptional case for many reasons." Well, it's you who is suggesting we include them under the Vienna formula, so I don't get how you intend to push your proposal without taking them into account. "...if this fact is the Vienna formula utilization in international treaties and organizations or by UNSG as criteria for 'recognition as State by the international community' - then this should be mentioned". No, the objective facts are membership in organizations. You think that sorting the states by membership is POV, however you are pushing a proposal that is very similar. This is what is incoherent with your position. It essentially amounts to the playground tactic of "if we don't play like I say, I'll take my ball and go home". You are arguing that we should not list a state as a member of a Specialized Agency or the ICJ unless it expresses its intention to ratify a multilateral treaty. That position is illogical and unsupported by sources. We have, on the contrary, sources which state that membership in those spaces amounts to further integration into the international community. This is what we're looking to stress. Ladril (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Alinor: I'm going to take your statement above - "I already agreed with whatever sandbox as starting point - and listed above the issues that remain to be corrected in 3i2. Disregard UNSG for the moment if you like" [67] to mean that you explicitly accept sandbox 3I2. I believe NightW is the last editor who objects to it as a starting point, correct? Or did he agree to it as well? If there are no other objectors, then I'm going to mark this section as resolved - i.e. that we have firmly decided to use sandbox 3i2 as a starting point - and then I am going to close and archive the other sandbox discussions, and refocus this conversation on what we need to do to improve the heir apparent sandbox.
basically what I'm saying is - last call for objections to sandbox 3i2 before we ring the bell on this discussion and move forward. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
is any of this repetition really necessary here? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Alinor: This discssion has gotten to the point were it requires a sign of good faith and forward progress. So, I'm going to leave this decision up to you:
There is no sense going around this block yet one more time. Please make your choice - don't waffle on it, just choose, so that everyone here can move on, one way or another.--Ludwigs2 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes or no, Alinor. All these "issues" you have are discussed ad nauseum above. We are at the crossroads here. You either join the consensus and constructively move forward with 3i2 or the consensus moves on without you. [redacted] you are presenting nothing new. We have either addressed or rejected these issues. The "other ten" are dealt with in 3i2 by having an empty entry in the UN System column (or a "No participation" entry) plus a note in the Sovereignty Dispute column. Either you are willing to work with the community or you are not. Yes or no? --Taivo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
" We can take more views into account within this starting point. This will not be the end, but yet another beginning. Do it and push for more changes later." Pretty much my point of view. Ladril (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Alinor, when this process started I had already been waiting for a year and a half to have a decent CK and Niue discussion. This discussion has not taken place yet. If I can wait this long I assume asking you to wait a few days to resolve your concerns is no great sacrifice. Most of your concerns are likely to be resolved favourably anyway. Ladril (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, third and last request. are you explicitly willing to accept 3i2 and allow it to be implemented as is on the condition that discussion will continue for further improvements? You have two choices: yes or no. anything else you say will be interpreted as no, and in the case of no (explicit or implicit) I will move to close the mediation. make your choice. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Alinor, I've supported most of your points in this dispute from the beginning. But for the sake of getting something better than the weasel wording we currently have, I am supporting the current proposal. I don't believe that by digging our heels in at this point will allow us to achieve a better result at the end. It will only result in this issue being prolonged, but as things stand, the result isn't going to change if we go to mediation/arbitration. It would be more effective to implement 3i2 with reservations and have whatever changes you (and often I) favor implemented gradually. IMO, this is the best to hope for. Our only concern is the result - as it reaches the reader of the article - not the process, and sometimes some compromise at the beginning will be the only means to yield results at the end.--Jiang (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, the only way that continued discussion here can be productive is:
Your comment re Palestine on the list doesn't make sense. The "State of Palestine" isn't on the current list, "Palestine" is. And its entry clearly says: "Palestine, categorised under "other entities", has observer status at United Nations General Assembly and maintains a permanent observer mission at the UN Headquarters.". The Palestine described in that entry is the same Palestine listed in your source. So if you want to use that source you have to include Palestine. There is no way around that. Just accept that when you're talking about UN+VC, you're talking about members+observers and nothing else. It's so much simpler and it doesn't make it any less valid.
As for [104], its relation to a list of sovereign states is that it's a way of distinguishing one group of sovereign states from another, just like membership in the UNO itself is. Nothing really more complicated than that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Taivo, why do you say "Cook Islands and Niue need more discussion because including them is as tricky as including Palestine."? Ladril (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Given the above exchanges, I am of the opinion that this mediation is hopelessly deadlocked. Mediation requires a degree of flexibility and a willingness to accept proactive compromises from all parties, and those criteria are clearly not present in sufficient quantities for a true consensus to emerge here. I believe this dispute is going to have to be resolved by authoritative means. I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration. Further discussion of the issue by the involved parties at this point has no reasonable expectation of being successful.
Formal vote on closing the mediation. please signify with a ((tick)) or ((cross)) whether you would like this mediation to close. If you decide not to close the mediation, I will return the status to open so that another mediator can take over the case, hopefully with more success than I. --Ludwigs2 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've let this motion go for a week, I think all the people who are interested enough to vote have voted, and I think there is consensus that the mediation should be closed rather than left open to await a new mediator. Consequently I'm going to mark it as closed, with appropriate commentary. If you decide to reopen it for some reason, it would be best to open a new request. --Ludwigs2 06:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)