Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states

Pre-acceptance discussion

Issues to be mediated

The issues to be mediated currently stand so:

Extended content

Primary issues The dispute resolves around how the list is divided into two section. Currently, the list is split between "widely recognized" states and "other" states. One group of editors believe that this is a wp:weasely statement and hence is unverifiable. The remaining editors disagree with this position, and feel that there is nothing wrong with the status quo. This issue arose as a result of a discussion over the inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue to the list. I believe most editors agree that they should be included in some fashion (although this may be in dispute as well), but there is no way to meaningfully categorization them under the status quo criteria due to the fact that we have no idea how many states recognize them. TDL (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Additional issues (added by other parties) Comment. UN membership is IMO clearly a good standard. There are two states with observer status, the Vatican and Palestine. However, they differ drastically in both the universality of recognition and in the simple fact of sovereignty: Palestine does not have control over its borders, and so is de facto not a fully sovereign state regardless of recognition. I see no problem with including the Vatican with the UN member states and leaving Palestine as 'other'. Two suggestions, though: (1) Remove the silly phrase "Widely recognized member of the UN", and leave only a note on the Vatican being a permanent observer. (2) Order the 'other' states by how many UN-member states recognize them: Palestine (~100/192), W. Sahara (81), Kosovo (70), Taiwan (23), Abxazia & S. Ossetia (4), etc., down to free-association states like Niue which do not even ask for recognition. If need be, add the Vatican to the top of that list with 178 out of 192; there would still be no need for a third list. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Comment The dispute is more about how to change the status quo rather than if any changes should be made or not, the vast majority of us are prepared to support some change, but there are certain problems with what is being proposed. The key issue as far as im concerned is ensuring that we do not mix Apples and oranges or give certain states undue weight by placing them as equals with other states when they quite clearly are not (for example France and Palestine are both listed, but one is a fully recognised sovereign state that is a member of the UN, the other is an entity with limited recognition which has no control over most of its claimed territory, the two could not be more different, at present the list is split in two and keeps these entities apart, but the proposal does not do that). After over a month of continuous and repetitive debate, i am close to supporting a change. The problem is some editors simply refuse to recognise the fact not all states are the same and to avoid misleading people, the difference must be clear. When a table of suggestions was produced, a majority voted against a single list and against using the vienna formula. A new solution was then proposed.. A sortable single list, with a number of options. Sections were proposed, based on UN-Vienna/Non-UN Vienna / Others. I was prepared to support this, but whilst the "sort" feature is there.. it allows states to be mixed together. So colouring was proposed, i was prepared to support this on the condition that all non UN states were coloured (or every non UN state coloured), so we do not end up with Palestine being in line with France and treated the same way. The other major problem has been over Niue and Cook Islands. This whole debate has basically been to insert these two entities on the list which at present just appear in the description box of New Zealand as they are in free association with them. The change to Vienna would mean these two entities must be treated as sovereign states for the first time (atleast for the past 3 years since the list has been the way it is) This is a big change, and for me to accept that a clear difference at ALL times (sections and colouring if its a sortable table) is needed. Sadly some of those pushing for change refuse to accept such a compromise, often the cries are its too "UN POV". Dividing our list based on UN membership seems like a very reasonable, reliable and verifiable way of splitting the list, it would still include non UN states so would not violate WP:NPOV, but simply divide the things listed by UN / non UN. The claimed problem at present is the weak term about "widely recognised", which using the UN would deal with along with still listing Niue and Cook Islands. I dont see why they object BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This list is too TL;DRy to be of use, so I've substituted the above iteration with the following, less verbose version. If there are any objections to the redactions I've made then please outline the reasons and we'll work on them further. To be clear, only the actual issues need be stated; no rationale for them is necessary, as an exploration of that comes in the actual mediation—usually at the very outset.

Primary issues

• How to divide the list of states into sections. Presently there is "widely recognised", argued to be a weasely term, and "other states".
• Should the states of Cook Islands and Niue be included on the list, and if so in what section?

Secondary issues

• Whether membership of the United Nations (UN) should be used to evaluate sovereignty.

Background: There are two states with observer status, the Vatican and Palestine. However, they differ drastically in both the universality of recognition and in the simple fact of sovereignty: Palestine does not have control over its borders, and so is de facto not a fully sovereign state regardless of recognition. I see no problem with including the Vatican with the UN member states and leaving Palestine as 'other'. Two suggestions, though: (1) Remove the silly phrase "Widely recognized member of the UN", and leave only a note on the Vatican being a permanent observer. (2) Order the 'other' states by how many UN-member states recognize them: Palestine (~100/192), W. Sahara (81), Kosovo (70), Taiwan (23), Abxazia & S. Ossetia (4), etc. If need be, add the Vatican to the top of that list with 178 out of 192; there would still be no need for a third list.

Note: This issue added by User:kwami at 01:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

• What constitutes "widely recognised" and whether having one large list of recognised states is appropriate. For instance, France and Palestine would under some proposals be listed as equal, despite one being a fully-recognised state and one being an entity with limited recognition and no control over much of its claimed territory).

Background: Converting the table to a sortable one with a new parameter meaning that each country would be categorised as 'UN-Vienna', 'Non-UN Vienna', or 'Others'.

Note: This issue added by User:BritishWatcher at 18:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC). AGK 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AGK 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is User:kwami? This editor has not been involved in discussion thus far, why is his/her opinion presented here as "background"? In addition, I have some reservations about mediation. We have had already extensive, extensive discussion. Will having a mediator present really help to find a consensus? I'm not so sure, given our seemingly entrenched ideologies, that further discussion on the afore proposal should continue; We have considered the proposal already and found no consensus and limited support for implementation. Additionally, editors are acting as though the book is closed on inclusion of Nuie and CI, if we start mediation, these issues have to be present. Outback the koala (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who kwami is, but any editor is free to join the discussion at any time regardless of their past participation in the discussion. A fresh prespective is often useful for overcoming a dispute.

If you don't think the discussion should continue, what alternatives are you suggesting to find a compromise? Or are you suggesting that the discussion shouldn't continue and we should just accept your position (the status quo)?

Limited support? 4 editors supported the latest proposal and 4 editors opposed. That isn't a consensus, but it's certainly not fair to say it's limited support. I could just as well say there's limited support for the status quo.

Which editors are acting as though the book is closed on the inclusion of CI/Niue? If you read my original comments (under "Extended content") you will see that I specifically mentioned that I wasn't clear on whether there was agreement on this issue or not. The current wording under "primary issues" was written by AGK (a mediator) as a summary of the "extended content". I'll rephrase it so that the inclusion of CI/Niue is clearly listed as an issue to be mediated. TDL (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, any editor interested should join the discussion, my comment was that an uninvolved editor's opinion shouldn't be used as a background for our discussion. Especially when a mediator may not have a background on this subject, it can only lead to confusion.

My suggestion was not that we should simply accept the status quo and thats it. I was implying that maybe we should start looking at forming different proposals, other than this one to address the concerns raised (in the interim, the status quo would remain; I just don't see a way around that). That does not mean I am not open to continued discussion, or that I do not wish to be a part of said discussions. Taking it issue by issue would be one option rather than one massive change with multiple issues within it. Starting from scratch should also be an option.

By limited, I only meant that the support was not consensus, nor a majority. Point taken, and very true indeed. I did not mean to jab at your position.

One editor specifically comes to mind on this topic (not you), I will not name anyone (still trying to AGF). Sorry, if I inferred anything against you personally, I did not intend to do that. Thank You for the rephrasing. I'm glad my concern clarified. That answers my concern over that issue, I'm glad it's open for discussion and is on the table. Outback the koala (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, I misunderstood your point. My appologies for overreacting.

I think the "background" stuff is just a result of the mediator compressing the "longer" comments posted by kwami and BritishWatcher. S/he summarized them into one line statements to make them more readable, and the stuff under "background" is just more details from the original posting motivating the main point. You can read the full comments under "Extended content".

On your other point, I completely agree that we shouldn't be tied to the most recent proposal. I think that it's best to start from scratch on all the issues. See what we agree on, and what we don't agree on. TDL (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, Now I see how that happened, ok. Thanks for that. For sure, I now look forward to the discussion. I am interested in the mediation. Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As for me: I just gave my 2¢ on the project page, which was apparently not the right place for it. I'm certainly not 'background'. I don't think I've ever been involved in this dispute, though it sounds like it's been going on for so long I can't be sure. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for User:Kwamikagami. He regularly edits in geo/political articles, an area in which s/he appears to be quite knowledgeable, and should prove a valuable contributor to the discussion. Nightw 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

what constitutes widely recognized - secondary issues

I agree that this is one of the issues (it is already listed as one of the primary issues) - but then the comment continues with "... and whether having one large list of recognised states is appropriate. For instance, France and Palestine would under some proposals be listed as equal," - the only proposal where France and Palestine are "listed as equal" is the first proposal for single list/"inclusion criteria POV". The later proposals (including the latest version of the one cited by BritishWatcher - UN-Vienna/Non-UN-Vienna/Others - sandbox2) do not "list as equal" France and Palestine (in both default and A-Z sort views). Alinor (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

UN-Vienna/Non-UN-Vienna/Others was fine for me but the problem was with the sort feature that removed the sections and did place everything in line. Id still support UN-Vienna/Non-UN-Vienna/Others without sort feature. Is there a debate taking place somewhere that im missing or is this process still not fully underway? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The mediation request has not yet been accepted by this Committee, so no discussion is underway. Presently, we are awaiting response from two of the listed parties; without their consent, we cannot proceed with mediation. AGK 12:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but my intention was to raise the point that the "small font" comment below the "secondary issue: what is "widely recognized" is misleading/misplaced as the cited proposal (Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/Others) is not an example for: "For instance, France and Palestine would under some proposals ..." as pointed above the small font.

Additionally, I'm not sure of procedure/structure here, but we have "widely recognized" already as the first "primary issue" - should we list it in "secondary issues" as well?

Additionally, it mixes "recognition" with "control" issues. Maybe this point should be converted to: "secondary issue: what to do with entities with limited control over their claimed territory? What should qualify as "limited control"?" But I don't know if we should open such additional debates - all 3 current "secondary issues" are more related with the "inclusion criteria" and not with the "sorting criteria", but of course in an ideal case we should 'address' all these issues... Alinor (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Update to parties

As of today we are still waiting for a Committee mediator to become available to take this case, which is why mediation has not yet begun. We appreciate the patience of the parties until this point. I should not hope for there to be a delay of more than another fortnight from this point, as a number of other mediation cases are in their final stages—and the mediators of those cases will hopefully then be free to take this case.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for keeping us updated! TDL (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)