|
As per request on the main page see this summary of the current proposed actions:
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)
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)
2. Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame."
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Starting from Sandbox3i2 and MEDCAB I propose the following changes to 3i2:
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:
What do you think? Alinor ( talk) 08:22, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
Accepting the criteria for sorting entries, do the results sufficiently comply with Wikipedia's policies neutral point of view?
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)
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:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't see how it's arbitrary. But what about member states + observers?
Nightw
06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
|
As per request on the main page see this summary of the current proposed actions:
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)
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)
2. Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame."
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Starting from Sandbox3i2 and MEDCAB I propose the following changes to 3i2:
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:
What do you think? Alinor ( talk) 08:22, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
Accepting the criteria for sorting entries, do the results sufficiently comply with Wikipedia's policies neutral point of view?
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)
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:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't see how it's arbitrary. But what about member states + observers?
Nightw
06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)