 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
At the talk page of List of countries and dependencies by population there is an ongoing discussion which indirectly relates to the discussions we are having here. In particular, we have (this is a partial quote):
..I note also the question of what constitutes a "generally recognised" sovereign state has come up. The problem is that the phrase "generally recognised" is not clear enough to be useful. If we need to distinguish the generally recognised from the unrecognised - and we do - then the only way to do it without WP:OR is through an external standard. Just as ten years ago we had to define the equally-problematic "countries and dependencies" based on an external standard. At List of sovereign states we have archive after archive after archive going over this precise point in a long and detailed discussion, and we eventually reached a compromise consensus based on UN status. It's not a perfect standard, but it's as good as you're realistically going to get.Kahastok talk 22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, editors here need not necessarily be bound by the discussion at another page but this commentary from someone who has been involved with List articles for some considerable length of time deserves attention.
Selfstudier ( talk) 12:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a valid opinion, but there are people objecting to it. We need to have a consensus, and apparently a simple discussion is not sufficient. We need an RfC to determine the consensus, and I don't think the current mess of an RfC is going to end with any result other than "no consensus". “ WarKosign ” 12:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have not the faintest idea how one goes about cancelling an RFC, do we have a consensus for doing that? And then there is the question of how to word a new one if the existing one is cancelled. Or should we just wait until it ends and then do another? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, if the RfC is canceled so that it can be reworded and resubmitted, the main article should return to the status quo ante that existed prior to the UN-category-based edits that have been rejected in the Survey (so far, several people have voted for B or C but none have voted for A).
AuH2ORepublican (
talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, this is what WP:NOCONSENSUS says. Actually, while current RfC is ongoing, the article should go back to the stable version that existed before recent changes. “ WarKosign ” 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, if the RfC is canceled so that it can be reworded and resubmitted, the main article should return to the status quo ante that existed prior to the UN-category-based edits that have been rejected in the Survey (so far, several people have voted for B or C but none have voted for A).
AuH2ORepublican (
talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, no it shouldnt, the last edit was AutoH2ORepublican self reverting not so as to allow the RFC but because he was breaching the 1RR (enforceable or not). You can go back to there if you want, before that it was normal editing process to rid the article of OR material for which the article was already tagged.
Selfstudier (
talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Stable version, it should be "the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war", so something like this version. “ WarKosign ” 05:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, no it shouldnt, the last edit was AutoH2ORepublican self reverting not so as to allow the RFC but because he was breaching the 1RR (enforceable or not). You can go back to there if you want, before that it was normal editing process to rid the article of OR material for which the article was already tagged.
Selfstudier (
talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no current "edit war", the only person who before the RFC met the definition for edit warring was AutoH2ORepublican and he self reverted before the RFC was set up. This [ Edit] is the one that AutoH2oRepublican attempted to twice revert (it was introduced by myself, reverted by AUtoH2ORepublican and then he was reverted by a different editor who he also reverted before self reverting to "allow the RFC"). I do not object to rolling back to that edit (without prejudice, because it will need to be discussed).
Anyway, we are getting somewhat off the point which is how to proceed with resolving the issues. If you want to rollback/protect it needs an administrator to do that and as I have already indicated, I would like an administrator (the same administrator?) to study the issues and propose a procedure, whether that be another RFC or any other way of dealing with this (dispute resolution might be better for keeping discussions from deteriorating into a type-anything-anywhere affair and lead to an RFC in a more orderly way).
I have an idea that could perhaps be considered to try and simplify the problem, that we first make a new RFC addressing only the question of whether or not the first section should be titled "Generally recognized sovereign states", "United Nations member states" or something else and see what happens with that.
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The RFC has expired and shows a rough consensus for C ie something else (or cancelling the RFC which didn't happen). Rather than straightaway starting up yet another RFC, who would be on board with not having any division at all, just a simple alphabetical list? Selfstudier ( talk) 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Matthew hk ( talk) 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer to have current division, perhaps with slightly changed phrasing to eliminate OR. Combining the lists and adding a column would work, but it would waste a lot of horizontal space on information that is irrelevant for most of the countries. “ WarKosign ” 16:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, both of you have violated the 1RR sanctions over the period of April 10–11. I am choosing not to block either of you at this time because I hope that this can be resolved with discussion here. Any further edit warring will be met with blocks.
As for the actual matter at hand, I am inclined to believe that Selfstudier's original edit does not contravene the prior RfC (which I had closed). While the text that Selfstudier was disputing was included in the proposal which gained a weak consensus (and was also the status quo ante), there was no actual discussion of the inclusion of the phrase Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states, including most major industrialized countries
, thus I think it's unreasonable to think that the prior RfC blocks disputation of this claim (and as always, consensus can change, especially a weak one). However, as JungerMan has objected to this change, the expectation is that you now discuss the matter here, rather than edit warring. signed,
Rosguill
talk 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ Rosguill: My apologies. The article has been tagged article wide for OR for some time now. The unsourced material that I removed I believe to be OR and the language non-neutral. After this removal was reverted, I chose to apply a cn tag to instead provide the opportunity for a citation to be provided. I had not really expected a tag to be reverted having already explained on attempted removal what the problem was in edit summary. When it was reverted, I not unnaturally objected but quite forgot the 1RR in the process. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys why is Taiwan and Palestine not grouped with the rest of the countries on this page while in the "asia" page they are? Can someone please explain? Im kind of new to wikipedia and I don't know how it works here. thanks.
Samar al-hejazi ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)~
- You can also look at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, no consistency with that one, either. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Across Wikipedia lists what you find is sometimes contradictory local consensus that depends on the editors for a given page. The only way to change local consensus is by way of some procedure like an RFC with the outcome for list articles being something akin to a bet in a casino or buying a lottery ticket. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article "List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories by Continent." the following information about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is given in the section for Pakistan:
"Pakistan is a federation of four provinces and one capital territory. Pakistan exercises control over certain portions of Kashmir, but has not officially annexed any of it,[29][30] instead regarding it as a disputed territory.[31][32] The portions that it controls are divided into two territories, administered separately from Pakistan proper:
Azad Kashmir
Gilgit-Baltistan
Azad Kashmir describes itself as a "self-governing state under Pakistani control", while Gilgit-Baltistan is described in its governance order as a group of "areas" with self-government.[33][34][35] These territories are not usually regarded as sovereign, as they do not fulfil the criteria set out by the declarative theory of statehood (for example, their current laws do not allow them to engage independently in relations with other states). Several state functions of these territories (such as foreign affairs and defence) are performed by Pakistan.[34][36][37]"
Therefore, since Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are neither constituent parts of Pakistan nor sovereign states, they should be listed in the "Dependencies and other territories" section of this Wikipedia article. Agreed? Atelerixia ( talk) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, they are not treated like that in any other source. CMD ( talk) 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus on the main sovereign states page is to treat them akin to dependent territories, because they are not integral parts of Pakistan. XavierGreen ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
| This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
At the talk page of List of countries and dependencies by population there is an ongoing discussion which indirectly relates to the discussions we are having here. In particular, we have (this is a partial quote):
..I note also the question of what constitutes a "generally recognised" sovereign state has come up. The problem is that the phrase "generally recognised" is not clear enough to be useful. If we need to distinguish the generally recognised from the unrecognised - and we do - then the only way to do it without WP:OR is through an external standard. Just as ten years ago we had to define the equally-problematic "countries and dependencies" based on an external standard. At List of sovereign states we have archive after archive after archive going over this precise point in a long and detailed discussion, and we eventually reached a compromise consensus based on UN status. It's not a perfect standard, but it's as good as you're realistically going to get.Kahastok talk 22:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, editors here need not necessarily be bound by the discussion at another page but this commentary from someone who has been involved with List articles for some considerable length of time deserves attention.
Selfstudier ( talk) 12:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is a valid opinion, but there are people objecting to it. We need to have a consensus, and apparently a simple discussion is not sufficient. We need an RfC to determine the consensus, and I don't think the current mess of an RfC is going to end with any result other than "no consensus". “ WarKosign ” 12:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- I have not the faintest idea how one goes about cancelling an RFC, do we have a consensus for doing that? And then there is the question of how to word a new one if the existing one is cancelled. Or should we just wait until it ends and then do another? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, if the RfC is canceled so that it can be reworded and resubmitted, the main article should return to the status quo ante that existed prior to the UN-category-based edits that have been rejected in the Survey (so far, several people have voted for B or C but none have voted for A).
AuH2ORepublican (
talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, this is what WP:NOCONSENSUS says. Actually, while current RfC is ongoing, the article should go back to the stable version that existed before recent changes. “ WarKosign ” 19:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Once again, if the RfC is canceled so that it can be reworded and resubmitted, the main article should return to the status quo ante that existed prior to the UN-category-based edits that have been rejected in the Survey (so far, several people have voted for B or C but none have voted for A).
AuH2ORepublican (
talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, no it shouldnt, the last edit was AutoH2ORepublican self reverting not so as to allow the RFC but because he was breaching the 1RR (enforceable or not). You can go back to there if you want, before that it was normal editing process to rid the article of OR material for which the article was already tagged.
Selfstudier (
talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Stable version, it should be "the most recent version of an article that was not affected by an active content dispute or edit war", so something like this version. “ WarKosign ” 05:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, no it shouldnt, the last edit was AutoH2ORepublican self reverting not so as to allow the RFC but because he was breaching the 1RR (enforceable or not). You can go back to there if you want, before that it was normal editing process to rid the article of OR material for which the article was already tagged.
Selfstudier (
talk) 23:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no current "edit war", the only person who before the RFC met the definition for edit warring was AutoH2ORepublican and he self reverted before the RFC was set up. This [ Edit] is the one that AutoH2oRepublican attempted to twice revert (it was introduced by myself, reverted by AUtoH2ORepublican and then he was reverted by a different editor who he also reverted before self reverting to "allow the RFC"). I do not object to rolling back to that edit (without prejudice, because it will need to be discussed).
Anyway, we are getting somewhat off the point which is how to proceed with resolving the issues. If you want to rollback/protect it needs an administrator to do that and as I have already indicated, I would like an administrator (the same administrator?) to study the issues and propose a procedure, whether that be another RFC or any other way of dealing with this (dispute resolution might be better for keeping discussions from deteriorating into a type-anything-anywhere affair and lead to an RFC in a more orderly way).
I have an idea that could perhaps be considered to try and simplify the problem, that we first make a new RFC addressing only the question of whether or not the first section should be titled "Generally recognized sovereign states", "United Nations member states" or something else and see what happens with that.
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The RFC has expired and shows a rough consensus for C ie something else (or cancelling the RFC which didn't happen). Rather than straightaway starting up yet another RFC, who would be on board with not having any division at all, just a simple alphabetical list? Selfstudier ( talk) 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Matthew hk ( talk) 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer to have current division, perhaps with slightly changed phrasing to eliminate OR. Combining the lists and adding a column would work, but it would waste a lot of horizontal space on information that is irrelevant for most of the countries. “ WarKosign ” 16:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Selfstudier and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, both of you have violated the 1RR sanctions over the period of April 10–11. I am choosing not to block either of you at this time because I hope that this can be resolved with discussion here. Any further edit warring will be met with blocks.
As for the actual matter at hand, I am inclined to believe that Selfstudier's original edit does not contravene the prior RfC (which I had closed). While the text that Selfstudier was disputing was included in the proposal which gained a weak consensus (and was also the status quo ante), there was no actual discussion of the inclusion of the phrase Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states, including most major industrialized countries
, thus I think it's unreasonable to think that the prior RfC blocks disputation of this claim (and as always, consensus can change, especially a weak one). However, as JungerMan has objected to this change, the expectation is that you now discuss the matter here, rather than edit warring. signed,
Rosguill
talk 21:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ Rosguill: My apologies. The article has been tagged article wide for OR for some time now. The unsourced material that I removed I believe to be OR and the language non-neutral. After this removal was reverted, I chose to apply a cn tag to instead provide the opportunity for a citation to be provided. I had not really expected a tag to be reverted having already explained on attempted removal what the problem was in edit summary. When it was reverted, I not unnaturally objected but quite forgot the 1RR in the process. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys why is Taiwan and Palestine not grouped with the rest of the countries on this page while in the "asia" page they are? Can someone please explain? Im kind of new to wikipedia and I don't know how it works here. thanks.
Samar al-hejazi ( talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)~
- You can also look at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, no consistency with that one, either. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Across Wikipedia lists what you find is sometimes contradictory local consensus that depends on the editors for a given page. The only way to change local consensus is by way of some procedure like an RFC with the outcome for list articles being something akin to a bet in a casino or buying a lottery ticket. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article "List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories by Continent." the following information about Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan is given in the section for Pakistan:
"Pakistan is a federation of four provinces and one capital territory. Pakistan exercises control over certain portions of Kashmir, but has not officially annexed any of it,[29][30] instead regarding it as a disputed territory.[31][32] The portions that it controls are divided into two territories, administered separately from Pakistan proper:
Azad Kashmir
Gilgit-Baltistan
Azad Kashmir describes itself as a "self-governing state under Pakistani control", while Gilgit-Baltistan is described in its governance order as a group of "areas" with self-government.[33][34][35] These territories are not usually regarded as sovereign, as they do not fulfil the criteria set out by the declarative theory of statehood (for example, their current laws do not allow them to engage independently in relations with other states). Several state functions of these territories (such as foreign affairs and defence) are performed by Pakistan.[34][36][37]"
Therefore, since Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are neither constituent parts of Pakistan nor sovereign states, they should be listed in the "Dependencies and other territories" section of this Wikipedia article. Agreed? Atelerixia ( talk) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, they are not treated like that in any other source. CMD ( talk) 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, consensus on the main sovereign states page is to treat them akin to dependent territories, because they are not integral parts of Pakistan. XavierGreen ( talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)