Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC for final preference

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In order to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and reader-friendliness, out of the following options, which is the best method of dividing this list:

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Division Two categories:
 Two categories:
 Three categories:
 Four categories:
Produces
  • UN member states (193 entries)
  • Vatican, Palestine, SADR, Kosovo, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (11 entries)

Preview screen capture

  • UN member states, Vatican (194 entries)
  • Palestine, SADR, Kosovo, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (10 entries)

Preview screen capture

  • UN member states (193 entries)
  • Vatican, Kosovo (2 entries)
  • Palestine, SADR, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (9 entries)

Preview screen capture

  • UN member states (193 entries)
  • Vatican (1 entry)
  • Kosovo (1 entry)
  • Palestine, SADR, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (9 entries)

Preview screen capture

I prefer a preference vote at least for the first round, but willing to concede this may complicate the process. Nightw 10:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preference voting. Love it. Let's do it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, hold up. A user requested that I post a draft before it was made live. I'm happy to start it up, but is everybody happy with how I've done it? Nightw 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I'll list it then... Nightw 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
List from most preferred to least preferred please.
Struck vote. Appears to be vandalism. Nightw 22:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced through the IP's contributions and they don't seem to be a habitual vandal. There isn't any reason to think this is vandalism... Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was going off a quick glance at its talk page (and the order of its preferences). Nightw 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you argue, seemingly, that grouping "Non UN-Member states" or "observer states" and "Members of a UN Specialized Agency" is not synthesis... on what basis? Where's the source connecting the two as "equally sovereign". The UN treats GA observer states and GA member states as states, there are no tiers of sovereignty between them as you imply. Nightw 23:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're question isn't clear. You're asking why I'm OK with grouping all the "Non UN-Member states" together? That would be because "UN Observer States" are by definition also "Non UN-Member States". They're just a special type of Non UN-Member State, so I haven't grouped anything together. We can sub-divide the Non-Members into Observers, Agency Members, etc. but fundamentally they're all Non-Members. Similarly, it's not synthesis to group UNSC members with UNGA members since the former are just a subset of the latter. Here's a hint: if you need an "AND" in your category definition then you're doing OR by implying that two distinct classes of state are equivalent.
Just look at the Palestine situation. If they're denied full UN membership as expected, but manage to become an observer, how could you honestly argue that this is equivalent to full membership? It's clearly some limited form of recognition by the UN. Implying that they're equivalent is OR. TDL (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "and" that's being proposed—it's "or". Obviously you can't be an observer and a member at the same time. And "Non UN-Member States" isn't the criteria being proposed, nor is it the criteria used now. Rather it's, "either a UN observer state or a member state of a UN specialised agency". So I'm not sure how that differs from what you're arguing against, or from our general inclusion criteria. The UN does not recognise states; that is done by members on a bilateral basis. The only difference between member and observer status is, as you've admitted before: non-acceptance by a vetoing member or voluntary abstainance—neither is relevant to this list. Classifying them together is common sense, since the status indicates acceptance by the majority. Nightw 22:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the preceding votes are the only ones counted in the intermediate numerical results presented below. --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

[edit]
Please reply to any voting statements here.
There is, indeed, an elegance about the German list. It is, in essence, option "5" here--everything in one list without categorization. Since fewer POV-pushers read German, it probably doesn't get the nationalist POV traffic that the English Wikipedia gets, however :p --Taivo (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Isn't the view that Somaliland, Palestine and others are "sovereign states" a nationalist one? Rennell435 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is. So is the view that they're not :) Anyway, while I wish we could be all stotic and academic like Germans, and just say "A state is a state!", but considering we still have IPs deleting the redirect to Abkhazia I see that as unfeasible, as well as much less nuanced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's the purpose of this vote? I seem to get notified about one of these every other month.... Am I contributing to any kind of progress? Rennell435 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, this series of requests will be the last since we are putting it to a vote. Nightw 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got several concerns with this RfC.

  • As per WP:RFC: "RfCs are not votes." I'm sure all the regular editors here have already made up their mind, but inviting the wider community to participate in a vote without any sort of discussion of the issues does nothing to help move us towards a consensus.
  • RfC's must be neutral. Including only options that the nominator approves of hardly meets this requirement. I specifically asked for a "single list" option to be included in the RfC. [1]. Other editors have expressed support for such an option (ie. [2], [3]). Maybe it wouldn't generate enough support, but excluding the option simply because the nominator personally doesn't like it hardly seems appropriate.
  • There's a significant chance that Palestine's status will change by the time this RfC's 30 days are up (either becoming a full UN Member or on Observer). Does everyone who voted for the options as detailed above automatically support their modified versions if Palestine's status changes?

Fortunately, all these issues are likely moot since based on the votes received to date it doesn't appear that a consensus is forming behind any of the options. TDL (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, don't misrepresent my views. My reasons behind not wanting to include your "single list" proposal—which I gave you on the main talkpage—were because it was eliminated in a mediation discussion and including it would have slashed any progress we'd made on that proposal over the year. Further, my reasons for not listing it was there was no support for it when discussing this request for comment besides your own, and because it was not listed in other editors' summaries of the options available, and because you didn't push for it further after those were given. You've instead claimed that my reasoning was purely sentiment (and for some reason, linked your words to a guideline page about page deletion discussions). That is childish.
Yes, you stated reasons why you didn't want to include the single list option, but you ignored my response (or at least never acknowledged it). As you will surely recall, both the single list and option #2 were eliminated during the mediation which produced the consensus to implement the current compromise version. You insisted on reopening this discussion in an attempt to slash all the progress that had been made. My only request was that if you wanted to reopen the debate then the pre-compromise position of both sides needed to be put back on the table, not just the one you liked. You can call me names all you like, but I call that only fair. Saying that I failed to "push for it further" hardly seems like a good excuse. (Oh and I added a "JUST" to my link for your benefit. The point seemed obvious to me, but apparently not for all.) TDL (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, my original plan was to have involved participants give statements with their choices, and then get outside participants to make their own selections based on these. But as I pasted the draft here (as you requested of me), Orange and Taivo appeared to want to get straight into the voting. This will have to be how we do it for the next one. For this one, it will not be a big deal since I think we can agree that a clear consensus has emerged against option 1, with none of the participants having that as a first preference. Nightw 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danlaycock (TDL), NightW is proceeding exactly as was discussed by several of the most involved editors. We feel that we've been discussing this for months now and it's time to move in a positive direction toward some kind of resolution. I agree, Nightw, option 1 is DOA. --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Night: Wait, "the next one"? Are you seriously going to push for another round of this? I thought you "promised" to drop the WP:STICK if you didn't get your way this time?
@Taivo: I completely agree that we need to move towards a resolution one way or the other, but it needs to be done properly. TDL (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Danlaycock (TDL), please read the discussion on the Talk page just prior to this polling before getting too hyperactive. It was discussed and agreed among those involved that we would have a couple of rounds of polling, so that we could progressively focus the results on those options that were truly the most desired. No, Nightw is not "failing to surrender", he/she is simply following the process that we felt was best. Yes, there will be another round as agreed. "Properly" means whatever the discussion participants come to consensus around and this is the what the most involved participants came to a consensus around. --Taivo (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the discussion very thoroughly and while multiple rounds were discussed, the RfC quite clear states that the proposal was for a preferential vote. The whole point of preferential voting is so that we don't need separate rounds of voting since we can run an instant runoff. The results of subsequent rounds are automatically known from the preference vote. TDL (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I labelled the vote as is on me. The proposal to have an RfC led to an agreement that we have more than one round. If I've in some way deviated from that agreement, it was not my intention. But as you said above, the RfC is flawed anyway, since there needs to be a discussion between participants (or at least reasoning for their choices). Therefore, since you consider this one to be void, is there a point to your protesting...? Nightw 21:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy See / the Vatican City, Kosovo, Niue and the Cook Islands are members of at least one UN specialised agency. Why are the latter two omitted? 116.48.84.190 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

[edit]

Since objections have been raised on the credibility of this request, given that there are few statements from participants, I think it would be best to close this with the following findings:

  • No consensus has emerged behind any of the options given.
  • There is a consensus against using Option 1.
  • The process used in this request did not comply with the guidelines behind Requests for comments.

I would like to restart the request properly and ask that editors post statements alongside their preferences indicating their reasoning. Option 1 should not be included. Nightw 21:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We were always going to have at least a couple layers of polling, eliminating those options that didn't garner support, so I have no objection to repolling with 2, 3, and 4. However, I don't think that we should be requiring people to comment on why they voted one way or another. We have been talking about this for months and months now. If people want to comment (as they did above), then that's OK, but it should not be a requirement. If someone posts their preferences without comment, that opinion should count equally with those who write too much in an attempt to foul the process. If voters have comments, they should, as above, keep them very brief and to the point. The only objection, Night, was from Danlaycock (TDL). One objection when there were about two dozen people who placed a vote is hardly justification for scrapping the process that the active editors seemed to approve of. It does not equal "objections have been raised". Heck, you know that in Wikipedia, it's rare when you don't have a single dissenting voice that you have to ignore. Unless there are multiple editors objecting, then we can politely ignore Danlaycock (TDL)'s single objection and drive on as we agreed on. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus? Option 3 seems to clearly be the most supported option. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BritishWatcher, that's not correct. I took the current results based on 20 responses and for each response, I gave 4 points to the first choice, 3 points to the second choice, etc. For the response with only two choices, I gave 1.5 points to each of the unlisted numbers. Option 1 got 37.5 points, 2 got 54.5, 3 got 55, and 4 got 53. While it's clear, as NightW states, that Option 1 is a no-go, the numbers are simply too close for a determination of preference among the other three options. --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 was clearly a majority's first preference. And it won on your count too although i do not agree with that method of counting, giving points to the last number people put. I dont want any points from me going to option 1.. i strongly oppose it. If we are not going to look at first preference which clearly was won by option 3, then we have to take the second preference of all people who said 1 and re add up the totals.. then the option with the least votes of the 3 left, is removed and those peoples next preference is counted. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although things may have to be relooked at entirely if the table people voted for is not actually correct, and Niue and Cook Islands would belong in the list because they are apparently members of some UN agencies. Also we have the upcoming Palestine issue, which could change things too if their status is changed this month, something that may alter things in the table yet again and have an impact on how people would want the information displayed. So its best there is no rush to get this all sorted out BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are, of course, a multitude of ways that a preference vote can be tallied, and the method I used is no less valid than any other. "There are three kinds of lies in the world: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." The point I was trying to make was that other than clearly rejecting option 1, no strong preference was expressed. Your conclusion that Option 3 was preferred is not borne out by the evidence--only 8 out of 20 votes was for 3 as the first option. That's not overwhelming or even a strong preference. --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried the run off system (Australian style voting) and (assuming I didn't make a mistake) 1 gets eliminated first (obviously), followed by 4. 3 then has 10, and 2 has 11 (including Noleanders vote which was made after Taivo's calculation). So 2 wins, not 3, using a runoff. Still, it's bloody close, to say the least, especially as it would have tied if Taivo had calculated it that way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this today, and would like to weigh in. My preferences would be for 1, 3, 4, 2. Option one is the one with the most easily verified qualifications for listing, you're either in the UN or not. Option 3 allows for the distinction of those states with some specialized link to the UN that are nonetheless not members, Option 4 is getting into way too much detail about what those special links are and Option 2 groups two types of states together with no clear rationale behind it and should be used only if we have virtual unanimity on using that option. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And 2 and 3 are now tied! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need to remember that this discussion by its very nature will tend to attract those who least like Option 1 (the status quo) and not attract those who support it. Supporters of Option 1 may consider this as a discussion to select an alternative that would then be presented to them along with its rationale for final debate before making a choice between the two. --Khajidha (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the status quo is option 3, so 1 is definitely out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course correct about the status quo, reading over all of this in the last few hours trying to catch up had me confused. I could have sworn that option 1 was the status at some point not too long ago. --Khajidha (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 was the previous status quo, listing Vatican City with the UN member states. Option 1 has never been the status quo as long as I've been involved in the discussion. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my candidness but since months of discussion led to nothing, this whole thing is better be dropped and left as it is. List is already ugly and unnecessarily complicated; you don't have to squeeze in every bit of information, most users are not looking for the tiny specifics of each little country. Best solution is to have a column for all the disputed stuff, U.N members first as they are, with very few exceptions, the "real" sovereign countries. Tachfin (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your last statement is POV. That (and your concerns about over-complication) are what we're trying to eliminate by having this discussion. You're free to drop out. Nightw 00:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's closed. Give me until the end of the weekend to start it again. But I think if we want to avoid these deadlocks, some votes need to be swayed, so it would be a good idea to have a few statements given with votes (though of course it's not compulsory). Otherwise we might just have to get an admin to close, and it'll probably be "no consensus". Nightw 00:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metal.lunchbox has given me a link to a website which evaluates preference votes, if anyone is interested. Nightw 00:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well since i'm giving my opinion it's necessarily POV :D. I just find it sad that after some much effort from you and other editors everything is going to be restarted from scratch. Tachfin (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. The mediation closed with "no possibility of a consensus". That doesn't look like it's going to change, but we need this as a sort of finalisation. If the recently adopted version comes out on top, it'll only strengthen its standing. Nightw 05:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Actually, BritishWatcher, that's not correct. I took the current results based on 20 responses and for each response, I gave 4 points to the first choice, 3 points to the second choice, etc. For the response with only two choices, I gave 1.5 points to each of the unlisted numbers. Option 1 got 37.5 points, 2 got 54.5, 3 got 55, and 4 got 53." Yes, but you can look at this another way. Options 3 and 4 (which include the "member of UN Specialized Agencies" category) got 111 points when taken together. Options 1 and 2, which only give relevance to UN membership or to the General Assembly got 97 points when taken together. The result clearly shows a preference for denoting the membership in Specialized Agencies somehow. Ladril (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not a helpful way of doing it. Some participants—myself for example—apparently wouldn't be strongly opposed to splitting off some entries like option 4 would have it, but would absolutely oppose grouping them like option 3 does. This is why every option needs to be looked at separately. Nightw 05:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is, insisting on options with fewer categories seems like a dead horse already. Maybe we should focus on 4, since this seems to solve all the problems poised by proponents of 2. Ladril (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought a good compromise would be a shift from 3 towards 4, moving the Vatican to the other states but leaving Kosovo separate from the states which haven't joined any of the specialised agencies. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Palestine obtains observer state status this month, the undisputed Holy See is going to be in the same category as a state with partial recognition. The horror. Ladril (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U.N membership or lack thereof doesn't establish an "undisputed"/sovereign status of a state. Therefore deleting categories altogether would cut the problem at its root. Was the 0 category option considered before? (that is a non-categorized table) note: Vatican city isn't really a state -although it somewhat behaves as one- it's just a fully independent church.--Tachfin (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tachfin, Vatican City, is, indeed, a sovereign state--with its own borders, laws, etc.--and has been internationally considered as such since it was established. Basically, it acts like a sovereign state and everyone treats it like a sovereign state therefore it is a sovereign state. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vatican is a state whose foreign relations are handled by the Holy See, which is a church organisation. Odd, but that's how it works. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also got the highest immigration to birthrate ratio in the world ;) --Taivo (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually Tachfin is quite correct. Ladril (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting to delete the Vatican from the list, what I'm saying is that given its particular status its presentation here shouldn't be subject to controversy. How the U.N membership/affiliation decides on sovereignty can be an endless debate; just back in 2002 a country like Switzerland wasn't a U.N member then you have the Republic of China, Northern Cyprus and now Palestine. This can get further complicated by what the U.N considers as non-self governing territories like Guam, Gibraltar etc... Tachfin (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not figure out what the Vatican is, even academics can't. Anyway, yes, I do hope this palestine thing doesn't bring any fights to this page. If it does get observer status, then I'd be happy to let in lie with the Vatican, despite the horror. I hope they publish a complete vote list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be happening for a few months anyway. They are just submitting the request, no voting will happen anytime soon. In this stage, if option 4 is indeed a compromise that most are willing to accept, it may come out on top. Nightw 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're at the place of "compromise" yet. Perhaps another round of voting needs to occur eliminating 1 as an option. Those who ranked 1 highly might have a different opinion than skipping all the way to 4. --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: speaking of Palestine I just realized, while watching the news, that Palestine actually has a seat at the U.N GA as an observer. Why is it lying with unrecognized states that have no affiliation with U.N whatsoever? Tachfin (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a UNGA observer entity, which is approximately eqaul to an observer organisation. It's attempting to be viewed as a state for the first time. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes but since affiliation with the U.N seems to be the subject of debate here, Palestine clearly has a status in the U.N which states as Abkhazia, Somaliland etc...do not have. Does Kosovo have a seat in the U.N GA? Tachfin (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine does not yet meet the conditions of being a state at this time, Kosovo does. --Taivo (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. The state of Palestine has more recognition and international relations than Kosovo, but this statehood question is off-topic. Palestine has a form of recognition from the U.N that Abkhazia and the others do not have. So Palestine should be in a separate list if U.N affiliation is the criteria of categorization. --Tachfin (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition as a state is not our criterion for statehood. It doesn't control its own borders for one. Actually, it doesn't even HAVE recognized borders. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you, but you aren't international relations resource. This is off-topic, unhelpful and should be stopped now. Back on topic, I would agree that Palestine having a form of representation in the UN at all should be reflected in the article somehow, as no other state (Kosovo included) receives this. Of course, after the UNSC rejects the Palestinian request for full membership, the UNGA could act swiftly to give it the "Vatican Option" which would obviously elevate it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I just realized, while watching the news, that Palestine actually has a seat at the U.N GA as an observer. Why is it lying with unrecognized states that have no affiliation with U.N whatsoever? " A very valid question. Ladril (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we have wandered off topic. This should be a new thread at the main talk page, not here. This page is about how to organize the entries, not about who goes where and why. --Taivo (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition as a state is part of our inclusion criteria and that's with the State of Palestine is included. When it comes to the UN, however, the State has no representation. The Palestine Liberation Organization is there as an observer entity representing the Palestinian people. The State has to be distinguished from the PLO, the latter has a place in the UN, the former doesn't. Can we stop talking about this, since it won't matter in a few months time. Nightw 06:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PLO doesn't even exist anymore. What the U.N GA currently admits as an observer is Palestine (Not the PLO, not the PA even if the initial admission was that of the PLO but now it is clearly labeled Palestine). In fact the U.N already puts it in the same category as the holy see see here (Which is funny compared to opposition to such a thing here) and here. Given that U.N affiliation is the proposed criteria of categorization in this discussion (i.e. members, observers, affiliated then the others) Palestine shouldn't be in the category of states who are totally out of the U.N.
P.S: I'm not debating what Palestine is and isn't, just the affiliation with the U.N. Tachfin (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your sources don't say what you want them to. The seat is accorded to the PLO, as the very links you give confirm. Show me the resolution where the State of Palestine was accorded observer status. If it indeed had observer status then we wouldn't be seeing (in the news right now) the proposal to get it exactly that. Nightw 10:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Palestine isn't there as a state, I obviously didn't make that claim. They label it an entity but it is still there under the name of "Palestine". It's a tacit recognition that something named Palestine exist, I don't think they put "Palestine" instead of "PLO" inadvertently. In addition they put it on the same page as the Holy see. Whatever the technical details are, this makes Palestine different from the other states of its category who have no aff with the U.N, not even Kosovo. I wouldn't have voted the same if I were aware of this before and won't be seeing the proposed options the same way now. What might be changed now are the international laws applicable if it gets the "state" status. Anyway just a remark for what it's worth, as you agreed we have no consensus to change anything now and the article appears currently as option 3 Tachfin (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it should be remembered that this list deals purely with states—the entry in the list is solely for the State of Palestine. Nightw 11:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NightW is right, the UN observer seat is explicitly given to the PLO and not to any state. It has been classified as an observer entity rather than a state, one of those technicalities the UN is so fond of. The Palestinian people have UN representation, but their state doesn't. For now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the UN observer seat is explicitly given to the PLO" Not true. It is given to Palestine. Ladril (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, Ladril. And what's "Palestine" in this case? A region? An institution all on its own? It's the name adopted for the PLO's seat by resolution 43/177 "without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system". Does that have any bearing on the State of Palestine? Is Mansour directly affiliated with the State of Palestine? No, obviously. Nightw 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No...that's wrong. The PLO as a representative organisation of the Palestinian people have recognition as an observer of the United Nations. The PNA as the representative government of the Palestinian state is not recognised and is what this whole massive diplomatic storm is about. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text I copied from the U.N website:
" That same year, in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, the General Assembly acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 and decided, inter alia , that the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system."
"On 7 July 1998, the General Assembly overwhelming adopted resolution 52/250 entitled: Participation of Palestine in the work of the United Nations . The resolution conferred upon Palestine additional rights and privileges of participation that had previously been exclusive to Member States. These include the right to participate in the general debate held at the start of each session of the General Assembly, the right to cosponsor resolutions and the right to raise points of order on Palestinian and Middle East issues. The resolution also changes the seating of Palestine to a location directly after non-Member States, with the allocation of six seats for delegates (observers get two seats). The resolution also makes several important improvements related to participation in the debate under different agenda items. In short, the resolution upgraded Palestine's representation at the UN to a unique and unprecedented level, somewhere in between the other observers, on the one hand, and Member States on the other."
If anything, Palestine should at least be in its own category. It obviously holds a very special status in the U.N. No other non-member state has these privileges. And yes it isn't admitted as a state as of now, but regardless of the technicalities putting it with Nagorno-Karabakh and the other guys is deeply unfair given the above. --Tachfin (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't. You're simply not recognising that the entity you refer to as "Palestine" in the UN isn't the entity that's included in this list. You can play lawyer and draw conclusions out of acknowledgements, but it makes no difference. Mansour is accredited to the PLO; he does not hold an office in the State of Palestine and his seat represents Palestinians everywhere—regardless of citizenship or residence. It isn't a territorial unit, nor a government, nor anything that could remotely be called a state. We wouldn't have listed SWAPO as an observer state either, because it wasn't until Namibia was given independence and membership. It's exactly the same scenario. I'm going to drop out, because this debate is uselss; the setting is likely to change in the next few weeks, and the PLO's seat will be given to the State. Nightw 23:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Vatican is not recognized as a state by the United Nations, but you keep insisting it should be given a different treatment on this list based on the status of a different entity: the Holy See. Likewise, we have the right to take into account Palestine's position among the rest of states, based on status at the General Assembly. Ladril (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can go around it however you like that doesn't address the point I was making which is: "Palestine is different from the other states of its current category in the eyes of the U.N, which is the base of the sorting adopted for this article". Refusing to acknowledge that is absurd. I'm not proposing to list it with the Vatican or Kosovo but to remove it from its current cat which include states with no U.N relations under any form.
And frankly what you say about Mansour (Palestinian amb to U.N) is debatable; difference between PLO and the State of Palestine doesn't exist as they are the same people. Mahmud Abbas is the president of the state of Palestine and in this capacity appoints ambassadors to everywhere not only the U.N. The PLO is a defunct organization not even the U.N mentions it since the name has been changed to Palestine, as a result of the declaration of the state of Palestine.
P.S: You can drop whenever you like this isn't compulsory, I'm merely discussing not forcing anybody's hand. And no, nothing will change U.S will just veto the proposal and end of story. Tachfin (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the people in the PLO and the leaders of the state of Palestine are the same, the UN seat is legally held by the PLO and not by the state. The shift to the shortform Palestine was some deft political and semantic manoeuvring indeed, no doubt in the hope it would cause these kinds of issues, but it doesn't change the position of the delegation to that of a state. That's why Palestine is thinking of having a UNGA vote to become an observer state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UN seat is legally held by the PLO..." If that were the case, then "Palestine" would sit alongside UN observer organizations at the UN. The name change to "Palestine" happened after the UN acknowledged the declaration of the state of Palestine in 1988. Thus, according to international law practice, its status at the UN is sui generis. As far as the UN is concerned, Palestine already has its own international personality; they have gone as far as they can diplomatically and stopped just short of calling it a state. It's not simply an organization. Also, you're not addressing the Vatican/Holy See dichotomy at the UN. Ladril (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, diversion

[edit]

This happens every single time we try to resolve something on this article. We get close to a simple agreement on one thing and then someone brings up Vatican City or Palestine or Kosovo or Taiwan or Western Sahara or Cook Islands or Scotland or Texas or the Principality of Sealand then someone else picks one of the others to compare and contrast it with, then so on and so on and so on until we forget entirely what we were talking about in the first place. It is a never-ending cycle here and frustrating. It seems that there are always a small number of editors who are incapable of putting aside their favorite (or least favorite) states/organizations/rebel territories until we can finish any discussion on any issue whatsoever whether it is relevant or not. It's frustrating for the majority of us to continually see these discussions sidetracked into the mud at the side of the road by the minority agendas. Can we simply finish this discussion before embarking on a separate derailment over Palestine or Cook Islands or ...? I thought we had a gentlemen's agreement before we started this polling that we would leave the thorny issues for later until we got this one thing worked out. Please. --Taivo (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Favoritism has absolutely nothing to do with this. Despite all the different proposals being thrown about, this is a debate between two polarized positions: one that holds that the "real world distincion" is between UN+Vatican vs. others and one that holds that there are several shades of gray in between. Night has spent a lot of time arguing for the first position by insisting on using the general assembly as the sole criteria to sort the list. But that proposal has several inherent flaws, one of which is: if the Vatican has to be denoted due to Holy See participation at the UN, why can't the same be done for Palestine? Another question: given the observer status of Palestine, will a "UN members and observers" category with UN members and the Vatican on top help or confuse the reader? Are we here to adjudicate statehood claims or to write a useful reference work? Taking the above into consideration, my opinion is proposals 2 and 4 will not work without some serious thought. A reduction in the number of categories or adopting 2 or 4 with a different colouring scheme could probably work. Ladril (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ladril, you have done exactly what I was asking--moving the discussion back to the big picture discussion. No matter what scheme we agree to here (or gets the majority of support), there will be problems with specific cases. There is absolutely no perfect, unproblematical scheme except a single list scheme that has no categorization whatsoever. But if we get bogged down in individual cases at this point in the discussion, there will be no advancing the issue because each of the special cases has multiple views on the merits of the case and we will again (as above) become mired in whether X case is special or Y is a country or an organization or whether Z is recognized by some arbitrary number of UN members or not, etc. No matter which categorization scheme we adopt, all these detail discussions will have to proceed, but these detail discussions will never produce fruit without an overall, agreed-to, majority-accepted categorization scheme. --Taivo (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What we're dealing with here is one black and white group (UN members) and one gray group (non-members). Since there is general agreement that the first group is fine, what we're dealing with now is how to divide up the gray group. Since nearly every member of the group is unique in its international stance, and in the case of Palestine whether it even meets the definition of a state or not, then there will be detailed discussions for nearly all of the "gray" states following this discussion on overall categorization. But what we continually end up with are advocates for or opponents of X or Y or Z gray state who have a preconceived notion about where X, Y, or Z should be placed on the list. They continue to derail our overall discussions in order to make sure that their gray state of interest lands in an appropriate place. We cannot proceed on that basis and can never reach any agreement. What we have to keep focused on here is the big picture--what categorization scheme "makes the most sense". We also have to remember that this discussion isn't about what would have been the case 30 years ago (Switzerland not a UN member) and it isn't about what the list will look like 30 years from now (assuming Wikipedia still exists then). It's about what makes the most sense right now, today. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, so we are tasked with describing and categorizing the world today, not what we would like it to be like in 5 years. Let's get back to the big picture task--what is the most sensible, verifiable way to categorize the gray states on our list? I think it's time for another poll, eliminating 1 (members versus nonmembers) as a option. This is the process that we agreed to. --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, NightW accused me of lawyering and now you're implying that I'm some kind of Palestinian activist...This isn't helpful and I'm as uninterested in Palestine that I wasn't even aware that it had a participation in the U.N. I have the right to raise points, this is Wikipedia not your private club. Tachfin (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything at all. Indeed, I named no names whatsoever. I simply pointed out how easy it is in this topic to get sidetracked off the main discussion. I don't care what you think of Palestine or Kosovo or Somaliland or France. My point is that this page is not the place for discussing the details of what state or pseudo-state goes where. It's for establishing a system that makes sense and can be readily verified. The discussion of the details of any of the "gray" states belongs at Talk:List of sovereign states, not here. We should finish this particular process before getting bogged down in the minutiae of the gray states and which state goes in which pile. We must make the piles first. --Taivo (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"My point is that this page is not the place for discussing the details of what state or pseudo-state goes where" ...The whole issue that kick started this discussion is Vatican, Kosovo with some of you unhappy that the Vatican goes in with Kosovo. So you guys are more guilty of focusing on a single state than I am. I first proposed to delete categories, then I proposed to create a category for Palestine. Fair points. Tachfin (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Kosovo with some of you unhappy that the Vatican goes in with Kosovo". No matter how valid your other points are, Taivo is not in that club. Ladril (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No one is accusing you of anything, Tachfin. Stop being so defensive. It doesn't matter how we got sidetracked, and I accused no one of sidetracking us, but we got there. Dealing specifically with Palestine right now is just as sidetracking as trying to deal with Vatican City or Kosovo or Somaliland or Scotland. We are tasked here with deciding verifiable categories that make sense conceptually. We can put entities into categories later, but without the categories, the details will make no sense when we finish (if we finish). No one is accusing you of anything, Tachfin, so chill. Again, it's time we have a second poll without option 1. We can then see where things are at that time. --Taivo (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that, if we are polling, editors should be specifically requested to justify their votes on the basis that Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
Suggest also that this be the last poll, and that if no clear consensus for change is reached, we all agree to accept this, and continue based previous consensus (i.e. the status quo). Pfainuk talk 17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I wasn't complaining about you or another, and it frankly isn't that important. I discussed the points and it apparently annoyed you as "a diversion". Back to the subject. Tachfin (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Part of the prior agreement for this polling, Pfainuk, was that these issues had been discussed for so long and, in some respects, so unproductively, we felt that discussion should be limited here--simple statements without extended back and forth. I disagree that editors should be required to justify their votes. It should be an option, not a requirement. But I do agree that if no clear result emerges for change, that the list remain as is. --Taivo (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting some points give some idea of people's thinking. I'm not saying we should strike any unexplained vote, just that it might help if votes are explained, to determine whether vote PQRS is "It has to be P as everything else is unacceptable" or "I'm happy with any of them, but I marginally prefer P". I agree it would be a good idea to avoid starting massive discussions - perhaps we should outright say this in the intro to the next poll? Something like, while we would appreciate it if you gave a rationale for your vote, this discussion has been very long and we ask that you avoid any detailed discussion of others' votes unless there are new arguments that have not yet been considered. "New", obviously meaning, arguments that none of us have made in the last x years. Pfainuk talk 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but every time users are told to "provide rationale for their votes" the vast majority keep mute and only those less willing to compromise actually write one or two lines of comment. Of those that do write, they usually take the opportunity to further entrench themselves in their position rather than favouring a consensual solution. Maybe it's logical; people vote to influence a result, not to negotiate a solution. But it shows how futile calls for "explained votes" can be. Ladril (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll request at least that uninvolved editors provide explanations for their votes. Obviously since we're overseeing the polls ourselves and each of us have read each other's thoughts on the matter repeatedly, there's no need to hash it out again if you don't want to. But I'm still skeptical as to why that IP voted "1, 2, 3, 4" and it's frustrating to think that vandalism or an off-handed vote carries the same weight as mine. Nightw 07:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What exactly is option 3 then? Ladril, you're either counting on our ignorance or you've not thoroughly examined the options yourself. Your attempt to discredit other options with hypothetical technicalities created through your own analysis of primary sources fails—not only can you not verify it, but it would also apply to every option on the table. Either you need to rethink why you're supporting the option you are, or suggest an adjustment to that option so it might actually be relevant. Nightw 13:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Option 1 avoids this by the simple expedient of using UN membership as the only criterion. You're either in or out, either in List 1 or List 2. All of the non-UN members have unique qualifications that could place them in separate categories. Leading to a possible 12 Lists. Which would make the page harder to use. The unpresented Option 0 (only 1 list) avoids all such problems by placing all of these countries into a single list. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed completely. As I've stated previously, if those advocating for change are going to insist on yet another poll then the single undivided list must be included as an option. There's certainly no agreement amongst RS on how to divide the states. Pretending otherwise doesn't respect NPOV. All the subtle differences can be much better handled with text/colours than oversimplified categories. TDL (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly being persuaded that the one-list option is superior to multiple subdivisions. The German Wikipedia has a single list and it seems to be fairly stable. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both of the above. Failing that, I propose a list based on sovereignty status: 1. Sovereign states 2. Partly sovereign states. Tachfin (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tachfin, your option doesn't make any sense. Since this is a list of sovereign states, then there would be no "partly sovereign states". By its very nature we exclude all states that are not fully sovereign by our definition of sovereignty. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 100% agreed on definition of which states are "sovereign" and which are not. As it stands, this is a list of states which have a valid claim to effective statehood, according to sources. Ladril (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, that's only my hypothetical 2nd choice. Yes there are states who are not fully sovereign; Palestine for example. Tachfin (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, personally, I don't think Palestine should be included in this list at this time. But mine is a minority view here. But no other "partially sovereign" states should be here (Cook Islands, Niue). --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that amounts to deleting a lot of proclaimed states. But let's not focus on what we disagree on; I support the proposal made by Danlaycock (talk · contribs) let's see what other editors have to say on this, might be a good way to overcome the categorization undecided question. Tachfin (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tachfin, eliminating your "partial sovereignty" will only eliminate Palestine in my view, no others--it is the only state in the list without defined borders that doesn't have a means to protect those borders. If you are thinking of some more detailed meaning of "partial sovereignty", then you are moving into original research and you will not find support here. --Taivo (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh)...Once again let's not get diverted and focus on the proposal made by Danlaycock (talk · contribs) which I support. Tachfin (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, a single undivided list has been discussed before. I said in my vote above that I would accept any of the four options presented there; however, I remain strongly opposed to a single undivided list.

The issue is that such a list would take Abkhazia's POV in the dispute with Georgia. It would take Northern Cyprus' side in the dispute with Cyprus. It would take Somaliland's side in the dispute with Somalia. It would take Nagorno-Karabakh's side in the dispute with Azerbaijan. In all of those cases, world states - those entities who actually have to make the call - near-universally call it the other way: that these entities are not legally sovereign states. In other cases (Kosovo, SADR), there are more states that accept them but it's still problematic to treat them as though they clearly belong on a list such as this.

We have to give all relevant opinions their due weight in the article. When a claimed state is rejected by the vast majority of other states, we have no business in treating it as equivalent to a state that is universally accepted - which is what listing them in a single undivided list does. We can't treat Abkhazia as equivalent in status to Georgia, ignoring the fact that as far as the vast majority of other states are concerned it doesn't have that status. That's not neutral. The same or similar arguments go for most of the entities listed here that aren't in the UN.

Someone noted that the German Wikipedia list "seems to be fairly stable". In response, I would suggest that the German Wikipedia's readership is likely to come primarily from German-speaking countries, and that German is not so widely taught internationally as English. Such a decision is likely to be more stable on de.wiki because they get fewer contributors who are interested. And regardless, that doesn't make that format neutral. Pfainuk talk 14:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. If that were the case, dividing the list as it currently is takes North Korea's POV in the dispute with South Korea, Israel's POV in the dispute with the Arab world, etc. Ladril (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing which we all need to remember, no matter how you individually want to divide the list, is that there are a dozen different options that will be strongly opposed by someone else as being POV. "Abhazia deserves separate status in the list" and "Abhkazia should be part of Georgia" are both valid POVs, but they are mutually exclusive. "The Koreas should be separated" and "The Koreas should be joined" are also both valid POVs, but they are also mutually exclusive. However, they are obviously not identical issues because the Koreas have individual membership in the UN, but Abkhazia does not. There is simply no way to gain "consensus" without putting aside all these debates about X or Y or Z and simply making a decision on formatting and stick with it no matter how many new editors come along with their own personal POVs that differ from the decision that was made. There simply is no resolution here other than to complete the polling and everyone simply live with the result. But, I realize that Wikipedia is uncomfortable with that, so unless we get some rock-solid agreements to live peacefully with whatever result is presented here, perhaps we actually need the enforcement ability that an Arbitration decision would provide. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - though I actually rather feel that there is little to say that has not already been said and little benefit to polling over and over. I think the best option would be an agreement among us regular editors not to propose change unless there are new arguments. An agreement that this is as resolved as it is ever likely to be. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I prefer Option 1, virtually everyone can agree that UN membership is a valid criterion for dividing the list. Anything else is too subjective. One could make cases for and against ANY non-UN member state (even the Vatican, having no relations with PRC hurts its perception as a state), so that putting them all in a second list is the most neutral. Basically, we would be saying "Here are the countries virtually everyone can agree on" (UN members) and "Here are those that are more debatable" (everything else). --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was my point about WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT's requirement is that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. This means that we must consider the relative prominence of the different viewpoints in each case, and come up with a way of giving due weight in each case. Because the situations are different - as Taivo notes, North and South Korea are both near-universally accepted as legal, while Abkhazia is near-universally considered illegal - the due weight for each viewpoint will not carry for all cases. The relative prominence of the view that Abkhazia is legal is far lower than the relative prominence of the view that South Korea is legal. If we are to follow WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:NPOV, we must make a clear and obvious distinction between such cases. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pfainuk made some good points; obviously we cannot present disputed states in the same manner as undisputed ones. One way to circumvent this would be to have the 1 list table default sorted so U.N member+observers appear first (these are the undisputed states, broadly construed) the rest goes to bottom. Readers then can choose whatever order they wish (alphabetical, status, U.N members etc...) Another way would be to have two tables one for undisputed states (U.N members) the other for the rest. This is closer to option 2, I don't think anyone disputes the Vatican. Tachfin (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with trying to apply WP:WEIGHT is that it is easy to apply when comparing the Koreas with Abkhazia, but there is no clear line between them. Kosovo has widespread support, including from Security Council members. Palestine doesn't really fit the definition of a state yet, but it has widespread support, nonetheless. Israel is clearly a sovereign state and a UN member, but its existence is controversial in some quarters. It simply never ends. And, Tachfin, your suggestion of "UN members at the top and everything sortable" is virtually exactly what there is now. There is simply no way to satisfy every single opinion, and no way to make clear divisions, whatever divisions we choose to make. There have even been editors who opposed the "UN POV" as if the UN were some POV-pushing body. I think that most of the long-term editors here probably share the same frustrations--that this keeps going round and round and new editors keep showing up and stirring a pot that has already been long-cooked. It needs to be finished and new editors told to conform. --Taivo (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all getting very old. We said we'd have the vote and stick to it. Can I start the next one now? Nightw 13:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready when you are, cap'n. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Sorting entries, second poll

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In order to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and reader-friendliness, out of the following options, which is the best method of dividing this list:

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Division Two categories:
 Three categories:
 Four categories:
Produces
  • UN member states, Vatican (194 entries)
  • Palestine, SADR, Kosovo, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (10 entries)

Preview screen capture

  • UN member states (193 entries)
  • Vatican, Kosovo (2 entries)
  • Palestine, SADR, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (9 entries)

Preview screen capture

  • UN member states (193 entries)
  • Vatican (1 entry)
  • Kosovo (1 entry)
  • Palestine, SADR, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, TRNC, Transnistria, NKR, Somaliland (9 entries)

Preview screen capture

If you are not a previous participant or have not made your ideas known here, please provide reasoning for your !vote.

Survey

[edit]

Please list your first preference and any other option which you think may be acceptable.

This was the long-standing status quo and groups what are fairly universally-recognized, undisputed, and noncontroversial states against those that are not. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First preference is UN members ONLY vs everyone else (including Vatican). Will accept 2 if it is most popular choice. Options 3 and 4 increase number of categories without any real benefits. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 basically per Taivo Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 Ladril Saying that the categories are not neutral because they do not reflect level of diplomatic recognition is fallacious. Option 2 could potentially lead to Palestine (a state with limited recognition) being eventually grouped with UN members. Are we going to have this debate again when Palestine achieves observer status at the UN? I'd say go for any of these three possibilities: 1) Increase the number of categories; 2) Keep the current division or 3) if you absolutely feel you need to reduce categories, do it in a neater way (UN members vs. nonmembers). (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any supporters of 2 who can answer the question of why grouping Kosovo and the Vatican together is a violation of NPOV but grouping Palestine and the Vatican together is not? Ladril (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Palestine obtains observer state status in the UN the international community will have voted to accept it as a state. Even if it just has to be 50%. I doubt it will be less than 66% anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in the case of Kosovo no voting by the international community took place? And twice? Ladril (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we have stated a million times above, Ladril, in this list you can come up with a million different ways that looking at this list isn't fair to someone because of X factor or Y factor. That's just the way it is, there is no way to get a perfectly fair list for every sovereign entity on the planet that matches every person's POV. We have agreed to abide by the results of this poll without months more of wrangling. No one has to "prove" their reasoning to you. --Taivo (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to "prove" anything. I'm just asking: hypothetically speaking, would you tolerate Palestine and the Vatican in the same category but not Kosovo? Is it just a question of taste? Ladril (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you want to see it from a more "practical" point of view, why adopt a categorization that is prone to being affected by the same problem it is purportedly trying to solve? I don't get it. Ladril (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, Ladril. No matter what happens tomorrow or next year, there will be issues that we can never predict arise that will test this arrangement, or any arrangement, we adopt here. That's my point--there simply is no way to develop criteria here so as to satisfy every single POV about every single state. We lived with option 2 for a very long time before the latest imbroglio. It wasn't perfect then, it isn't perfect now, it won't be perfect 10 years from now, but compared to the other options we're considering, it's somewhat better and much more easily implemented with easier and simpler verification standards. I wish the Greeks and the Serbs and the Somalis and half a dozen other states would just shut up and live with allowing Northern Cyprus and Kosovo and Somaliland assume their places at the world's table. I wish Israel would realize that it's been 2000 years since their "homeland" meant anything and they're lucky to have the sliver they lived in from 1948 to 1967. Then all these problems would be solved and we could have a nice unified UN members list with everyone holding hands and singing Kum Bay Yah. But it's not going to happen and we simply have to live with the messiness of any option we choose here. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No solution is going to be perfect, but a solution ideally has to solve a problem. Since, as proven, the alleged neutrality problem of 3 is not going to be solved by 2 or 4, what is the rationale for change? Ladril (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're attacking my actions below, I'll give you your answer here. Would I be okay with grouping Palestine with the Vatican after a UN vote accepts it as an observer state? Yep, and it surely won't conflict with my reasons given... Nightw 14:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is attacking you, but you're free to consider an attack whatever you wish. I will not refrain from saying that some of your arguments are bogus and incoherent; you're admitting to it right now. Consequently, 2 is not more neutral than 3. People can choose 2 based on preference, and that would be fine. But you cannot attack 3 on neutrality grounds when your proposal suffers from the same flaws. Ladril (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which arguments do you have a problem with? Nightw 12:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several of you are so avid to push your worldview in the short term that you do not realize the huge incompatibility between your discourse and what you're supporting. As we have seen, none of the options being offered are immune to grouping a state with limited recognition with one or more "undisputed states". Since you've admitted you would group Palestine with the Holy See after an eventual change in status, that debunks your favourite argument against 3, that "it is a breach of NPOV to include a state with limited recognition and an undisputed one in the same category". The categories, as they are in all three proposals, are not meant to reflect number of diplomatic recognitions. The three proposals use membership criteria. So your preferred option is not more neutral than any other. Whatever the result, it is prone to produce a very similar setup to the current one in the near future. If I understood correctly, three users (Chip, Taivo and yourself) have already stated they would accept Palestine and the Holy See in the same category after a change in status. In that case, I would ask that we develop a consensus to adopt this common position in the future, regardless of whether 2, 3 or 4 is adopted. Debates about which states should share the same category waste a lot of editors' time. Ladril (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that quote from me? I couldn't find it on the page and it's not an argument I have given here. So again, what part of my argument do you have an issue with? Nightw 06:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you did not say that "Opt. 3 is not neutral, as it separates states disputed by the majority and groups an under-recognised state with a universally accepted one."? Ladril (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That one is mine, yes, but it wouldn't refer to Palestine would it? If a General Assembly resolution is passed in which the majority of the world recognises it as a state, then that's a majority viewpoint. Under WP:NPOV, which calls for proportionate representation of viewpoints, it would be required to represent members and observers both as entries that are accepted by the majority—because they have to be. Such acceptance can't be guaranteed in the same way by membership in a specialised agency, because there are cases where up to one-fifth of states (and hence their corresponding viewpoints) aren't represented. Nightw 16:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on just one of the problems I see with your assertion: membership of both the IMF and the World Bank was no less than 186 states each when Kosovo was admitted, so by your standards it is as acceptable to mingle it with the others as Palestine is. That being said, you may be correct that 2 may be a better choice for a number of reasons, but once again, NPOV, expressed in number of diplomatic recognitions, is not one of them. All three proposals (and the one I made below) sort states according to membership criteria, not recognition criteria. And any of the three are prone to having UN members and observers mingled with one or more states with limited recognition. There is no way around that. The notion that the "other states" category represents a holding pen for states not recognized by the majority is illusory. Ladril (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't name Kosovo in my arguments for a reason: I don't want to make this specifically about Kosovo. The only fact I'm giving here is that a state can gain admittance to an agency without the consent of the majority of states. For example, Kosovo got 96 out of 185 votes to get into the IMF, which is just short of a majority of 192. I'm not claiming that those 7 states that didn't get a vote would all have said nay—we don't know what they would have done, and that's why agency membership cannot prove the same level of acceptance as observership can. Yes, the criteria is membership, at least on paper. But the number criteria is in the subtext. Just as a state won't have the capacity to enter into relations with others unless it first has a diplomatic team (our inclusion criteria), a state won't get member/observership without first having majority recognition. Nightw 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your logic is that your last statement is quite obviously false. All the concerns you raise (plus others) which enabled Kosovo to join the IMF with <97 votes (non-universal membership, abstentions, <100% participation rate, etc) also apply to UNGA votes on Observership. A state can in fact gain Observership with < majority recognition. Sticking to the Kosovo example, the IMF vote was 96 states for admission, 10 against, 32 abstained and 47 non-participats. [4]. Under an identical UNGA vote, even assuming the remaining 7 voted against, Kosovo still would have received 85% support with <97 votes. You haven't actually solved the problem in spite of your claim.
Using your arguments above, if a state is recognized as an observer with <97 votes wouldn't it violate NPOV to include them in the main list? If Palestine is granted UNESCO membership with 127 votes, doesn't WP:DUE demand we differentiate them from unrecognized states since this is the majority view? Given that the layout you are pushing for suffers from all the same flaws as you claim to be fixing, your arguments doesn't hold much weight. The benefit of option 3 is that it gracefully handles these "fringe" states by putting them in the middle category. Option 2 allows for the possibility that an "under-recognized state" could be listed next to 193 widley recognized states, far less NPOV than listing them next to 1 "widely" recognized state as in option 3. TDL (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, 127 is coming very close to wide recognition, if not there already, and it doesn't include some countries that have stated they would vote for Palestine even though they haven't recognised (eg Iceland). I was under the impression that avoiding personal views of widely was why we are trying to find a clearer delineation. What makes Palestine underrecognised that doesn't make Israel underrecognised? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Night: "The only fact I'm giving here is that a state can gain admittance to an agency without the consent of the majority of states." The Wikipedia article on majority defines the term as "a subset of a group consisting of more than half of its members." By those standards, Kosovo has majority acceptance by the international community. Another relevant piece of data is that admittance to Specialized Agencies has been evaluated by main bodies of the UN as tantamount to acceptance as a state by the international community. Regardless of those technicalities, I'll support whatever proposal the majority chooses. However, it doesn't hurt to point out to those who haven't realized it that, even though 2 may resemble the previous "internationally recognized vs. others" setup, it's not the same thing. Ladril (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please confirm: does this mean that you believe all options are acceptable solutions? Nightw 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a, 4, 3 - 3a with UN members and members of UN specialised agencies in one category, and UN observers in another. Meanwhile the Cook Islands and Niue are members of at least one UN specialised agencies. Don't leave them out. (Where's option 1, btw?) 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you wish for the Cook Islands, Niue, and Kosovo to be fully mixed in with the UN states? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So for the purposes of this survey, your first preference is 4? The question clearly asks for you to give your views only on the options given. If you want to make up new ones that belongs in discussion sections below. Also, your response is in danger of being disregarded since you've never provided your reasoning. Nightw 06:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. It is weird to group Vatican, Kosovo, the Cook Islands, and Niue, with, e.g., Palestine. My reasoning is that all sovereign states fall short of UN membership should be categorised within one group, and those that aren't as recognised should be in another group. Yes my choice would be option #4 if #3a isn't accepted at all. Meanwhile, I can also accept an option #2a, with UN members and members of at least one UN specialised agency categorised within one group. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 because it makes what I believe most people would expect to see first in a list like this. Mostly non-controversial states are at the top and those that are controversial are kept separate. Rennell435 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 by preference, then 4, then 3. This is a different order from above, as I have read arguments for 4 and found them somewhat persuasive. As before, I feel that this needs resolution and as such I will accept any of these three options. Pfainuk talk 21:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 as it puts non-controversial states vs controversial ones. 3 has the potential of being unfair especially if some decide to debate the technicalities to further a certain political view. Tachfin (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 - while 4 is the obvious compromise choice, which I'd accept. 2 is WP:SYN as it puts forward the new idea that two distinct groups of states (full UN members and UN observers) are equivalent. Since it's significantly easier to become an observer (50% support) versus a full member (2/3 support), this is not necessarily true. TDL (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, doesn't 3 have a similar problem where it groups states which have been voted as states by the UNGA with states that haven't been voted on in the GA? Also, what if we simply agreed to set the bar at 50% here rather than 66% or something similar? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no further preferences expressed for severl days, is it time to close this discussion? At a quick glance, there seems to be adequate consensus, even though it's not in favour of my own preference. NebY (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of the above - Including states-which-might-not-be-states in a "List of sovereign states," requires a neutral point of view. The disputes regarding the statehood of said states should be clearly explained, not placed in a category of "states not recognized by the UN." It should be "states that are states," and "states that might not be states." Hipocrite (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So which of those categories would you place Armenia in? According to Pakistan it is not a state. According to Turkey, Cyprus is also not a state. And what about the Koreas? Each officially believes that the other is not a state. Are these "states-which-might-not-be-states"? Nightw 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those states are widely believed to be states. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that was the original criteria, which led to a year (two years?) of debate and mediation (see the archives on this page). It was rejected by mediators because of the problems with verifying the definition of "widely believed" and which states qualified. Nightw 13:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the "mediators" (who are not supposed to be making decisions) were wrong. I suspect judicious use of ARBPIA sanctions would have solved most of the problems. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only mediators. It was by consensus that there was no reliable way to verify that definition or which states it included. Do you know of a way? Not sure what ARBPIA has to do with this... Nightw 14:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that both Israel and China are NOT recognized by 11 - 12 % of the membership of the UN and that Kosovo is recognized by 44% and Palestine is recognized by ~66% and the Vatican is recognized by ~92% of the UN, I'd love to know what Hipocrite's definition of "widely believed" is. --Khajidha (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the fundamental problem and why we are here--there is no objective way to measure "widely-believed" (or to even define what "widely believed" actually means). --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is my problem with Option 2. Read what some of its supporters have written: "simplest list most recognisable", "general view", "what I believe most people would expect to see". Option 2 doesn't use a single criterion to distinguish between its two sections, it creates two sections based on this "general perception". The group "UN members + UN observers" is an artificial synthesis created solely to get the Vatican into the first group. Option 2 is probably the LEAST logical of all 5 proposals (including the 2 that have been excluded), but I will accept it if it is truly the consensus position. I just think people should be aware of the flawed nature of the proposal. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UN members + UN observers is a group of states that have been voted as states by the assembly. That doesn't seem artificial at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The group "UN members + UN observers" is an artificial synthesis created solely to get the Vatican into the first group." It should also be noted that "observer status" at the UN was a category created for states that did not have consensus about their state status among UN members (such as the two Koreas, the German Democratic Republic and the two Vietnams). See here for examples: [[5]]. This is yet another reason why it is spurious logic to claim that a state with limited recognition cannot share a category with a UN observer.
Yet another reason for mantaining a category for members of UN agencies will be the future inclusion of the Cook Islands and Niue. They are not de facto states, so why should they be grouped with Northern Cyprus and Somaliland? Ladril (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Israel mixed in with fully recognised states, so I don't think limited recognition by itself should be the base of anyones arguments. As for specialised agencies, I would think even if 2 does come out on top there'd be an argument to separate Kosovo, which has a proper say in some international bodies, from the others. However, we're getting into those specifics which we'd all best avoid.
Observer states have an interesting history. I like that in a source on the page, it notes some sort of de facto requirements for Observer status. 1) Recognition by a majority of members 2) Membership in a specialised agency 3) United States recognition or nondisapproval. 3 is rather an interesting choice, but I suppose it's because if there's a veto it's generally the USA that will do it. Holding true even today. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? I only see a wikilink... Nightw 01:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Braindead moment, sorry, meant a source on other page. [6] Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dependent territories

[edit]
Mind if we stick to the topic?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What about inhabited dependent territories that are conventionally included in lists of countries alongside sovereign states? They include but not limited to Greenland, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Puerto Rico, Åland, Jersey, Guam, Hong Kong. 116.48.87.86 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent territories (Gibralter, Baker Island, ect) and polities whos parent state's soveriegnty is limited by international treaty (Svalbard, Hong Kong, ect) are bulleted on the right hand side. Overseas territories that are fully integral parts of their parent states are not bulletted since they are merely political divisions of a state (French Guiana, Palmyra Atoll, ect.).XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the current usage on the page is inconsistent. All overseas territories of France are fully integral parts of the French Republic, as are the countries of Denmark and the Netherlands and the external territories of Australia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't inhabited dependent territories have their own listings? I'm not talking about places such as Baker Island, Clipperton Island, Tromelin Island or Johnston Atoll, where there is no inhabitant apart from governmental or scientific personnels. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, the list is about sovereign states. More complicatedly, there is no standard definition for what makes up a Dependent Territory. Inclusion would be prone to problems, especially in a list. In Dependent territory we can explain each situation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a list of countries. Albeit prone to problems, mostly around the home countries of the UK, the set of inclusion criteria was objective and rarely challeneged, almost never over the definition of dependent territory. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, so far as I recall, the opposite is true. What constituted a "dependent territory" was a frequent headache on that page. If the definition of "dependent territory" used was rarely challenged, that would probably have something to do with the fact that the list never defined what it meant by a "dependent territory". It just said "dependent territories" and left it to the reader to work out what was supposed to be meant. The issue was never resolved before it became clear that the list was untenable for other reasons.
In this case, we're dealing with sovereign states, per the inclusion criteria set out in the article. I see no good reason why dependent territories - however defined - should count. Pfainuk talk 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capping this off. Unrelated to the matter at hand. IP, please raise on the article talk page if you have issues with the inclusion criteria. Nightw 21:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I notice throughout this page that this entire argument is in severe danger of becoming "What do we do with Palestine". Can we ensure that we are discussing the entire issue of sovereign state classification (generally) and not Palestine (specifically). doktorb wordsdeeds 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more that has been discussed than that, for example the position of Kosovo on the list (it is a member of a UN agency, yet has only limited recognition).XavierGreen (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's not exactly that. All the options being proposed are prone to eventually falling into what some users describe as their main gripe with 3: a state with limited diplomatic recognition being grouped with one or more states without known sovereignty disputes. The difference is that in some cases (namely 2 and 4) Palestine will be the main sticking point, and with 3 it is Kosovo. I see no way around it, unless we choose to adopt previous options 0 (no categories) or 1 (UN members vs. the rest), which are out of the question at this point.
The debate is not what to do with Palestine at this point, but rather whether the new arrangements will not make us fall into "number of recognitions" arguments in the future. It's better if those who support an alternative make sure that alternative is going to hold out in the long term. Ladril (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no danger of a "number of recognitions" argument with 2, Ladril. It is very clear and easily verifiable. We can also not predict the future. We have to make our criteria 1) readily apparent, 2) easily verifiable, and 3) intuitive to the general reader. 2 is the only option that properly addresses all three of those criteria. --Taivo (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those debates happen all the time no matter what the list categorization is, and I have little reason to believe they are going to die off just because any of them is adopted. It's enough for me if we adopt the mutual guarantee that the list reflects a dynamic situation, that states move in and out of each category all the time, and that no category (including UN members) is immune to having states with limited recognition mixed with more recognized states. Your preferred setup will not eliminate the problem; rather, we need to recognize that there is really no problem with the current setup. That being said, I'm willing to support it if people feel more comfortable using it. Ladril (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproposal

[edit]
Way more heat than the small light was worth

Fact: none of the above solutions seem to be immune to neutrality issues. Fact: the category of UN Specialized Agency membership does not seem to be relevant by wide consensus. Fact: there does not seem to be much consensus as to how to group the Holy See fits in the wider group.

Proposal: how about the following categorization?

1. UN member states 2. UN observer STATES 3. Rest of states

Ladril (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's better than 2, but I reckon it's an improvement over 3. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between this and 2 is that you have separated out Vatican City. Your solution isn't any freer of neutrality issues than any other. If people are choosing 2) (although the sample size is still small), they are building a consensus on where Vatican City fits into the categorization. This is nothing more than another of the sidetracks to our process here. It is the continual insertion of sidetracking sub-issues that will never be resolved to perfect satisfaction that led to this simple polling process that we are doing here. --Taivo (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that several users will not rest until the previous "internationally recognized vs. others" setup is made the dominant categorization, in one way or another. But the others also have the right to point out bogus arguments and make counter-proposals at any time. That's for starters.
And I agree my proposal would not be perfectly neutral. What I'm trying to achieve is something that will be coherent to people who believe putting the Vatican and Palestine in the same category is neutral but putting the Vatican and Kosovo in the same category is not. If it doesn't sound pertinent/relevant to you, that's fine, but let others express their opinion of it. Ladril (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put the Vatican and Palestine in the same category before a successful UN vote, just to clarify. I always thought a UN+Observers, Kosovo, Others category would be a nice compromise to show the relative success of Kosovo visavis the others in terms of international recognition. I wouldn't want another 5minutetoloadpage conversation about it though. Can we agree to all give simple concise statements whenever possible as a compromise? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then since the competing categories are prone to produce similar results in terms of grouping together the Vatican and a state with limited recognition (probably in a matter of months) then the decision to change does not have anything to do with neutrality. It's just taste (Palestine can potentially be with the rest but Kosovo can't). Ladril (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just taste. If Kosovo manages to gain enough support to succeed in a vote on its status as a state in the UN, then kudos to them. Until that moment however, it shouldn't be with the Vatican. So yes, Kosovo could potentially be with the rest, but it will have to gain the international support to do it. It's not just about limited recognition; after all, some UN members don't have full recognition either. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Ladril, you are simply illustrating again why we agreed to have this poll in the first place and why we decided that whatever the result, we would live with it. "I can't support X solution because my favorite non-UN member will be treated unfairly." Every single one of the non-UN members has a unique situation and no matter how we divide the pie, someone can write ten paragraphs on why it's unfair. We have three options that survived the first round of polling. I oppose going back to start over just because you don't like the results and can write good reasons why it doesn't meet your standards. We've been doing that for months and months now. It's time to move to a conclusion. --Taivo (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I prefer the previously excluded option 1. By setting UN membership as the only criterion it separates all states into two unambiguous groups: those that are MEMBERS of the UN and those that aren't. People have objected to this by saying "But the Vatican isn't like Kosovo etc" but I think they are completely missing the point. While there are numerous differences amongst the Vatican, Kosovo, Palestine, etc they are all alike as far as the only criterion used for option 1 goes: NONE of them are members of the UN. This way ALL the non-UN members are treated equally.--Khajidha (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much as the discussion tires you, Taivo, the basic assumptions underlying categorization must be very clear, otherwise disputes are likely to continue for years and the Arbitration Committee is going to intervene this page. That the Holy See is currently "undisputed" has absolutely no bearing on how we must sort this list. The United Nations has had several observer states which had limited diplomatic recognition before, so saying it is POV to group the Holy See and Kosovo is fallacious from the start. That being said, I'm willing to consider alternatives, including 2, but then let's choose different arguments in its favour. Chip, to his credit, has already made some. Those of Khadija also have merit, BTW, but let's respect the agreement not to go back to 1. Ladril (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Ladril, is that every single option has POV issues from one camp or another, and for adherents of each camp, the issues are equally weighty. My objection to this sidetrack, Ladril, is that there was an agreement in place before this polling process ever started, that we would make the process smooth and whatever the result was, was to be the result. There were to be no sidetracks here, just a single-minded focus on getting to the end result. If you had objections, Ladril, now is not the time to be expressing them. The point here, Ladril, is to get a widely accepted workable solution and then move on. We have the beginnings of a consensus for option 2 above, so trying to derail the process at this point in the game is rather poor sportsmanship on your part. If you woke one night and had a vision of perfection, that would be one thing. But your proposal here suffers from all the same POV and potential POV problems as every single other option. It is no great revelation. --Taivo (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: I'm not trying to derail the poll and I'm not trying to impose an alternative. I'm not disrupting the proceedings by asking people whether they are willing to abide by what their preferred option implies for the near future. This is why I ask you again: whatever the result, would you be willing to have Palestine and the Holy See in the same category if that's what the categorization implies? Just answer yes or no. After that we can build a consensus even if it's not around my preferred option. Ladril (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asking such questions isn't relevant to the poll, that's my point--it's just a red herring to sidetrack discussion. I will stand by whatever result our process results in, that's the point. Don't tell me that your purpose isn't to disrupt the proceedings because you have 1) pushed an alternative to the categories we're voting on and 2) continue to push questions about the resulting categorizations that are already exemplified in the way NightW presented them. You're simply engaging in noisemaking to distract participants from our purpose here. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I don't care what you think my hidden agenda is. I do think the point being raised is pertinent. Judging from your response I assume your response to be a "yes". So you would not mind seeing Palestine and the Vatican in the same category. Chip has already answered, but I can think of two other users I would like to see answer it. Ladril (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, all you're doing here is campaigning against option 2 simply because you don't like it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT wasn't working for you? So now you're just sidetracking. --Taivo (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, please don't be quick on throwing accusations and judging one's intentions. That is not very gentlemanly nor productive. Your recent comments on this page exhibit little respect for WP:AGF and WP:OWN to my taste. Tachfin (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo: I'm saying that, judging by the state of affairs in the world today, 2 is not going to be inherently free from what some see as the problems with 3. I'm saying that if we change to 2, the sorting criteria are going to function essentially the same as in 3, because the criteria rest on membership, not diplomatic recognition. As a result, I won't find whining acceptable if Palestine is moved next to the Holy See and UN members because of a change in status. If we agree to this conceptual understanding of the sorting criteria, then I am fine with 2. Ladril (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I must say I share your (Taivo's) frustration. Every time we seem to be close to reaching an agreement, a user - sometimes a newbie, but most likely a "regular" or another regular- drops by to say: "but that arrangement is POV because it groups X with Y". If we keep that following that dynamic this is never going to end. This is what prompted me to make another proposal, but no one is forced to even take it into consideration. I'll be satisfied if only certain users accept that the arrangements being proposed do not represent levels of diplomatic recognition, and they do not have to. Ladril (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are within you're right to question others' logic. However, I will ask you (again) to refrain from attacking specific editors. I will also ask your permission to close this, since regardless of whether it was your intention I agree that it's sidetracking the survey...? You are of course not required to accept any arrangement being proposed if you do not want to. Nightw 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note here that I haven't raised any new arguments really, I've consistently based my support for 2 on the argument given. A good example of how things have gotten lost in this conversation, which for better of worse led us to this poll of a limited number of options. It couldn't really go on. On that note, I'm boldly hatting this, it's a lot of heat and everyone involved has said what they have to I believe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

Things haven't really changed in this survey for at least a week now. Anyone have any objections to closing it for analysis? Nightw 06:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I think a very clear preference emerged and it would take a pretty massive amount of contradictory input to change that preference. --Taivo (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've closed it. Should anyone object, feel free to reopen. I'll post something on the main talk page either tomorrow or the day after. I'm hopeful this means we can finally commit all this to the archives. Nightw 11:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Discussion_of_criteria/Archive_7&oldid=1136952464"