Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 2

Sorting criteria for the list of sovereign states
related to previous discussion (I open a new discussion in order to use the proper name)

As pointed out above the 'list of sovereign states' currently has as inclusion criteria the Montevideo Convention requirements (population, territory, government, foreign relations) + the claim to be such state. We are not discussing changes to these criteria.

After a list of all states is compiled (using the inclusion criteria) they are sorted according to a sorting criteria into multiple groups/sections. That is the topic of this discussion - what should be the sorting criteria. So far we have discussed the following options (for details see previous discussions):


 * 1) single list without groups/sorting (special cases get description in their notes column) - used by some other Wikipedias; Atlases also don't have sections?
 * 2) "widely recognized" and "others" (currently used in the article) - poorly defined and thus unverifiable
 * 3) "recognized by x number of states-y" and "others" - very hard/impossible to verify (see previous discussion and this explanation); POV problems with choosing the x number; POV problems with choosing who gets into y (as this choice can be seen as related to the same discussing we are having now - groups sorting, so we get a catch 22)
 * 4) "recognized by 50% of all" and "others" (even)
 * 5) "recognized by 50%+1 of all" and "others" (absolute majority)
 * 6) "recognized by 2/3+1 of all" and "others" (supermajority number in the UN)
 * 7) "recognized by ..... of all" and "others" (please add here new ideas)
 * 8) "recognized by ..... of ..." and "others" (please add here new ideas)
 * 9) "others" and "non-recognized by x number of states-y" - the reverse of the above, same POV problems as above, but maybe much easier to verify (see previous discussion); unclear if "lack of non-recognition" for some states is considered verifiable by itself? (without resorting to counting the recogntitions as that would lead to the previous option)
 * 10) "UN members list + UN observer states list" and "others" - POV problems by duplicating the UN list, etc.
 * 11) "UN members list + Vatican" and "others" - no criteria/arbitrary addition of single state, POV problems by duplicating the UN list, etc.
 * 12) "UN members list" and "others" - POV problems by duplicating the UN list, etc.
 * 13) *see also the related to 5/6/7 option 14 below
 * 14) To somehow copy from atlases/sources - no criteria; different sources give different lists, POV problems with choosing, etc.
 * 15) "UN members list + states that no UN member claims as part of their own territory" (variant of the no-adjectives proposal based on state disputes) - this is a complicated definition (can be accused of synthesis/OR/etc.) and thus hard to verify (supposedly the atlases/sources use this criteria, but we haven't found a proof of that - eg. atlas/source that describes what criteria it uses)
 * 16) "members lists of UN, IAEA, ICJ, UN Specialized agencies without the non-equal-voting-power cases of IMF/WBG" and "others" ('equal voting' Vienna forumula) - very easily verifiable, but no precedents of usage or non-usage yet (so far not used, but Vienna formula is yet to be applied for the first time after the question of 'strict' vs. 'equal voting' became relevant)
 * 17) "members lists of UN, IAEA, ICJ, UN Specialized agencies" and "others" ('strict' Vienna forumla) - very easily verifiable; already used by many international treaties and organizations
 * 18) 3 groups: "UN members list"; "others from members lists of IAEA, ICJ, UN Specialized agencies without the non-equal-voting-power cases of IMF/WBG"; "others outside these lists" - a mix of options UN and Vienna 'equal voting' - so disadvantages of both apply here
 * 19) 3 groups: "UN members list"; "others from members lists of IAEA, ICJ, UN Specialized agencies"; "others outside these lists" - a mix of options UN and Vienna 'strict' - so disadvantages of both apply here
 * 20) (related to 5/6/7) "UN member states + UN non-member states" and "others" - as there is no central list of non-members for their verification we use:
 * 21) UN World map - maybe solves the 5/6/7 options POV problems of duplicating the UN list, etc. (the map is still provided by the UN, but at least it doesn't focus only on states members/observers to that organization, but arguably covers "All of the World")
 * 22) individual UN statements about each non-member state (there are only a few anyway, so implementation is not difficult) - arguably more UN POV than the map, but some prefer text-based sources
 * 23) both the map AND individual statements - benefits of both of the above sub-options
 * 24) any state either on the map OR with individual statement - currently I think that both the map and statements will give the same states (going to the above point), but this is more future proof
 * 25) ...please add here new ideas
 * 26) *option 14 maybe solves the problems of using UN list like POV/etc.,
 * 27) by lack or presence of recognition/non-recognition (binary)
 * 28) "States without non-recognitions", "States with more recognitions than non-recognitions", "States with more non-recognitions than recognitions", "States without recognitions" (similar difficulties with verification as 3/4, but at much smaller scale - thus better; no POVs like choosing of x/y or UN; maybe synthesis accusations)
 * 29) UN affiliations taken into account - "UN members without non-recognitions", "UN member states with non-recognitions", "Non-UN states recognized by at least one UN member", "Non-UN states recognized only by non-UN members", "Non-UN member states not recognized by any state" (used in the List of states with limited recognition - mix of the above sub-option with UN member states list criteria)
 * 30) ...please add here new ideas

So, could we start by agreeing that some of these are unacceptable (and cross them out) - and then we can choose between the remaining viable options? Alinor (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor opinions and notes
 * At this stage I would strike trough: 2/all-of-3/4, 5/6/7, 8; not oppose striking of: 9/12/13 and one of 10/11; oppose striking of: 1, both 10/11. Let's see if we can find some options, where our opinions match? Alinor (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this isn't a vote. You can't just oppose something because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Please provide a brief justification for your oposition. TDL (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It took a long time to go through this list.


 * oppose - 1,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14.
 * Support - 6,7 (and 5 IF observer state is defined as just the vatican, and not Palestine)

If not those then it has to be option 2 as the status quo which has been fairly stable. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support 2,3, or 9, oppose the rest.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support 2 and 6. Option 5 may be viable depending on the situation of the SMOM. Oppose others (which at this point is up to 13 options). Outback the koala (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 2 and 6. Oppose the rest.  --Taivo (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose 14. There's nothing wrong with the list as it stands right now (which is option 6, basically).  It's clear, it makes sense, and it's in place.  --Taivo (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

These options all require extensive OR to implement and are thus non-starters. Of the remaining:
 * Support 2 and 6. Oppose the rest. My rationale is expressed in the discussion above.  Night w   04:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * 1) This isn't neutral as it provides undue weight to states with extremely limited (or non-existant) capacity to capacity to enter into diplomatic relations.
 * 5),7),9) These aren't neutral. A single state can keep a widely recognized state out of the UN (or keep them from becoming an observer), just as a state can resolve their territorial disputes but still be widely unrecognized.
 * 2,3) are unverifiable. WP:LSC requires an unambiguous critieria, which 2) clearly is not.  3) also isn't neutral as how do we choose %.
 * 6) isn't a critieria it's a POV. This is the worst option of the bunch.
 * 4) I see potential in this since it's much easier to verify non-recognitions than recognitions. Still issues with how we choose %.  This would fall into the catogry of "Better than we have" but it would still likely to be impossible to impliment.
 * 14) I support this. Easily verifiable and more neutral than what we have.  Any suboption would be fine with me.
 * 8) This could work in theory, but I'm not sure how we could go about doing it. How do we choose the sources?  And are we willing to live with the consequences?  Many RS will list states currenty in the "other states" section on their main list.  The world map on my wall, for instance, considers Kosovo, Taiwan and Somaliland as fully sovereign states, SADR as disputed, and the rest as non-existant.
 * 10),11), there are issues with these criteria, but they are easily verifiable and provide a good measure a states capacity to enter into international relations. I prefer to exclude IMF/World Bank membership due to the voting issues, but can go either way.
 * 12,13), these are kind of clumsy, but I could live with them if it produced a consensus. TDL (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Some quick notes: I will wait, so more editors could give their preferences and I will prepare a summary of the results (if somebody else haven't done it already). Alinor (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Palestine and SMOM currently are UN observer entities (arguably sovereign), but not UN observer states.
 * 2) Those that support option 3/4 - you should state what sub-option you support or give/add your own X (% number) and Y (what 100% means - all states currently on the list including all from Albania trough Transinistria, Somaliland up to Zimbabwe - or some other group of states)
 * 3) I just added the 14th option (sorry, I forgot it initially) - so if you like you can state your opinion about it. And if supporting, please state the sub-options too.
 * 4) As you can imagine, if we are going for a 3 group solution there are many more combinations possible - mixing of the current options. I haven't added them, because I don't see much support for ANY 3 group solution, but feel free to add combinations that you find meaningful.
 * support option 14 (in addition to my previous list of support/oppose). I support sub-option 14.3 (as it is double-checked), but won't oppose the rest. Alinor (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll just go through these in order. I haven't read the above too much (for TLDR reasons).


 * 1: Not neutral in my view. The distinction between widely recognised states and states where there is dispute needs to be clearer.  Oppose.
 * 2: Vague and difficult to verify. There can be benefit in vagueness as it allows us to apply common sense.  OTOH it can just as well lead to major dispute.  Neutral.
 * 3: Any number is bound to have neutrality issues either now or in the future. This is likely to lead to instability, and there will also be issues with verifiability.  Oppose.
 * 4: As per 3. Oppose.
 * 5: Simply duplicating the UN's POV is not neutral. Oppose.
 * 6: Adding the Vatican seems fairly arbitrary, but is convenient in that the list it produces makes sense. Neutral.
 * 7: As per 5. Oppose.
 * 8: Gives us a problem with exactly which sources to use, given as any single source is likely to be biased. Oppose.
 * 9: A tad complicated, and there is potential for states that have wide recognition to be speculatively claimed in full by some other state (Belize, I believe, used to be claimed by Guatemala). Weak oppose.
 * 10: If there are voting issues, 11 seems better. Neutral.
 * 11: Sounds like it's very easily verifiable, and based on international realities. It would seem to give an appropriate list.  If it becomes inappropriate it can be changed in the future, but as things stand it seems fine.  Support.
 * 12: As per 5. Oppose.
 * 13: As per 5. Oppose.
 * 14: As per 5. Oppose.


 * So, that looks like Support 11 (Vienna Formula), Neutral on 2, 6 and 10, and Oppose on the rest. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes, it is true about Guatemala and Belize. This option cannot be used if it means Belize will be included solely on the basis of its UN membership! Rennell435 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in response to the argument several have made that vagueness is desirable since it allows us to use our common sense, this is the very definition of OR. What you see as common sense might really be your POV, and others might not share it with you.  Maybe to me it's common sense that Palestine or Kosovo are "widely recognized".  What makes your common sense more "correct" if you can't support your claims with RS?  This is precisely why WP:LSC requires an unambiguous criteria.  "Widely recognized"  is a WP:WEASEL word and doesn't belong anywhere in the encyclopedia, let alone in the selection criteria.  TDL (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By "common sense", what I really mean is that it allows us to accept cases such as the Vatican, that (I would suggest) clearly belongs alongside widely recognised states but that is not a UN member state - and also similar anomalies. We are allowed to use editorial judgement when writing, and this would be such a case.  That said, I do see your point and feel that it has some validity - which is why I called "neutral" and not "support". Pfainuk talk 17:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia has to follow academic standards of validity, not the wisdom of the common person (maybe this is clear to Pfainuk but apparently it's not so clear to every participant in this discussion). Lots of people believe in astrological signs and similar humbug. This does not make it more appropriate. Ladril (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see how using the term widely recogniized constitutes weasle words, either a state is recognized by the majority of soveriegn states or it is not. Tis a matter of fact, not opinion. XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Palestine in my view is "widely recognised". Maybe not in your view. How much is "widely"? Any numerical definition we try to arrive at will be arbitrary. Ladril (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure Xavier, but it's only your opinion that "widely recognized"=50% recognition. This term can mean many different things to different people.  Explicitly replacing "widely recognized" with "recognized by X% of states" (this is option 3) above) would make the criteria precise, but still has issues.  How do we neutrally choose what % to use, and is it even possible to verify how many states have recognized each entry on our list?  TDL (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to some version of 5/6/7, provided that the list "others" is defined as places that have a least some international recognition. I'm not concerned about POV since the UN de facto represents very broad recognition and thus the broad consensus among "recognizers". It's true that some countries could be blocked from entering, but they should get special treatment then in the "others" list. Clearly some "others" will be much more substantial than others. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Somaliland does not have any international recognition, but still qualifies as an entity which satisfies the Montevideo criteria of statehood and that claims such statehood as attested by third-party sources. Ladril (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong preference for a clear description not only based on UN membership. The "UN+certainothers" which are accepted by the majority of the sovereign community as states (Vienna with equal voting) is the best we can do. An alternative is UN membership with the addition of the UN statements, as this is the implementation for new (Vienna is not used anymore for new ones) treaties with an "all states" clause and the UN has stated it will seek support from the UN member states in order to determine what to endorse if necessary (here). So i support 10, 14. If there is no conclusion, I'd endorse 6. L.tak (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: option 9 is named "based on disputes", but if you read the linked proposal you will see that it is fact a complicated construction taking in account claims, occupations and UN membership. So Belize would not be affected and also if a state solves its disputes (eg. noone claiming it or occupying it) under this criteria it will move into the "main" section. Opposers of UN POV could propose modification without the UN note if they find it useful. Alinor (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I support 1, or Vienna formula or if no agreement can be reached, 7. Oppose 8. Half the current page are my arguments. Ladril (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary table
o - oppose; x - support; empty cell - neutral or no answer yet (incl. support of 3/4/14 without selecting sub-option); users are sorted according to answering time; I tried to list all that have participated in the discussion so far - apologies if you are missing; feel free to edit the table if needed. Alinor (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More editor opinions and notes
 * Support options 2 and 6. I would oppose the rest of the options. Rennell435 (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, as a matter of concern, the commentary on the summary of options above does not seem to be neutral in its indication of the issues with each (advantages, disadvantages...). The summary is very one-sided. I've skimmed thru the discussion above, and for example there were major concerns expressed there but have niot been expressed here. The creator of the thread has left these out, which is concerning for users who have not read the discussion above. Rennell435 (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to do by best (at least I think that all options are presented), but of course you can summarize the missing advantages/disadvantages here. Alinor (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly it is important what tdl said above, consensus is not gained by simply voting (as per the edits immiedately following his)
 * That said:
 * 1. is most neutral. Cant take sides as an encyclopaedia to determine what is legitimate or not, thats the business of other legal matters.
 * 2. "widely" is too vague, there is no definition and even if we agree to one now WP:Consensus can change
 * 3. recognised by any other state regardless of status in the international sphere -- which means de facto control as well as de jure. per the reasons in #1.
 * 5-13. Any mention of the UN is inherently biased. According this definition Switzerland was not a state for the longest time.
 * 8. opens a new can of worms. Which sources are reputable? unless you have a table like the List of dsignated terrorist groups to say which is a state by which source.
 * 14. again cant limit to the UN (how about FIFA then?). Where's Abkhazia/South Ossetia? Of course W. Sahara is recognised by virtually all African countries of the AU, but this couldnt qualify.
 * my option to include all states with recognition by at least 1, or a declaration of independence in effect Wikipedia doesnt take sidesLihaas (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you when you say any mention of the UN is inherently biased, however, to take its position on issues where there are conflicting view points would be. There are a mountain of examples. Outback the koala (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * List of states with limited recognition makes the UN a major axle of list organization. Why is that O.K. there and not here? Ladril (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is using "recognition by UN states/UN membership" as its sorting criteria (not inclusion criteria) and as you see it has not only our "others" states, but also full UN members.
 * Of course we could use that criteria here (for a 5 groups of states), I will add it to the list above. Alinor (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, this is for sorting, not for inclusion criteria. Thus I assume that by "to include" you mean "to include in the first of totally two groups", correct me if not so. Alinor (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Note added a few answers to the table, excuse me if there are mistakes. Alinor (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Switzerland was not a state remember we are not saying anything outside of the UN is not a state, we are simply saying it belongs in the second list of disputed / limited recognition states. Also Switzerland had observer status prior to becoming a full UN member in 2002, so Switzerland would be treated the same way as the vatican, which would mean the primary list with option 5/6. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And Switzerland before 1948 was not a observer; and other states also were neither members nor observers... Alinor (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * About 15 - I prefer 15.1 as it is without UN POV, but 15.2 is also much better than 2/3, 5/6/7, 8. Alinor (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose 15 too. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question to Ladril - an IP has changed your box for 7 from neutral to support. Is this correct? Alinor (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the change. 7 would be my 'compromise' option. Ladril (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

by the looks of that i think we can rule out "1 list", "3 lists", "Recognition/non recognition by %s" and "atlases". That way we can focus on the 3 choices, Vienna formula, some form of use of the UN, or sticking with the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary Comment
 * Agree that "x% of y" and "atlases" have only weak support (some neutrals and 1 support) so far. I wouldn't disregard "single list" (and the newest "binary") so soon. I can't see a way to meaningfuly define and afterwards verify the non-criteria "widely" and "vatican". But "vatican" is 'represented' by the rest of the "UN members+" options and "widely" by the "x% of y"/"binary". Alinor (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The current article status-quo is in practice a mix of "widely" and "vatican" options (unfortunately both are non-criteria and that's why the status-quo should be changed). These could be substituted for some of the criteria of the "adjectives & numbers" and "UN" criteria groups (or some mix of those), but these two groups have the following main disadvantages: The possible compromise solutions are option 15 ("binary recognition/non-recognition") and 14 ("UN members+non-members"): Additionally there are the following options: The "some UN-POV" options have different degrees of UN-POV, but less than 5/7 in any case.
 * Verifiability and barrier-choice-POV for "x% of y"
 * UN-POV for "UN" (considered as advantage by supporters of "UN+" group)
 * binary+UN membership (15.2) - some UN POV (compromise); not perfect verifiability (compromise) - this is the nearest to the status-quo option (in criteria sense), that is implementable
 * UN members+non-members (14.x) - some UN-POV (compromise); not perfect verifiability (compromise)
 * Strict binary (15.1) - no POV (OK); not perfect verifiability (compromise)
 * "single list" (1) - no POV (OK), no verification needed/not sorted at all (OK), but goes into the extreme and unlikely to get consensus
 * "Vienna equal voting" (10) - some UN-POV and equal-voting-POV/OR (compromise); perfect verifiability (OK)
 * "Vienna strict" (11) - some UN-POV only (compromise); perfect verifiability (OK)

So, we can have the status-quo (as 15.2) - double-compromise; the double-OK extreme (1); the perfect verifiability with UN-POV compromise (10/11); the No-POV with verifiability compromise (15.1); the other double-compromise (14) - also near the status-quo. Alinor (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Status Quo as it has worked very nicely and supports many other discussions, etc. as is. Oppose anything that isn't the status quo (including so-called "compromises") since these undermine many other issues that have been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything nice in the article status-quo (there is no criteria and it's unverifiable and POVish), what issues does it solve?
 * Also, I can't see this list as undermining other issues in Wikipedia - other articles can choose to work with different subsets of the states in this list, eg. they can slice it trough their own sorting criteria (e.g. "This organization includes all sovereign states that are recognized by at least 1 UN member" - even if we have adopted another sorting criteria - this will have no consequence) - even if the other article wants to use the same sorting criteria it has to name the referred group, thus duplicating (in short form) the sorting criteria in its text. Again, no consequence. Alinor (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...since these undermine many other issues that have been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia"
 * This is not very helpful unless you make at least a summary of what the other issues being undermined are. Ladril (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "That article is using "recognition by UN states/UN membership" as its sorting criteria (not inclusion criteria)"
 * I'm completely aware of this. What I'm uncomfortable with is Outback's assertion that using the U.N. as a sorting criterion is inherently biased. Ladril (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher's proposal above is essentially the same list we have now except for the section names changed to "United Nations members and observers" vs. "The rest". If the idea is just to defend the "status quo", then it doesn't constitute much of an improvement over what we have now. Ladril (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Also some U.N. members also have disputed recognition status. Ladril (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know that Wikipedia works on consensus right Taivo? We'll only achieve consensus by making compromises.  You can't oppose EVERY option except your preferred option.  If you don't like the compromises that have been made, why don't you suggest one yourself?  Unfortunately, only one side of this debate has been suggesting possible compromises while the "no criteria" camp has not only rejected every compromise that has been suggested, but has repeatedly refused to offer their own compromises when invited.
 * As for your "it's worked nicely.." comment, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Just because the editors of this page have preferred to push their POV in the past, as opposed using a verifiable criteria, doesn't make it right.  TDL (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one whose lost track of this conversation :/ It seems to be fits and bursts, and the apparent distinction between sorting and inclusion criteria isn't apparent to me in arguments. Sorry if it's just me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody could keep track of this conversation and still survive. :) At the moment it seems to be a discussion that is advancing, albeit slowly. It seems divided between two camps: people who argue in favour of using the Vienna formula (myself included) and people who support the two list categories as they stand now. Some users (myself included) are proposing some U.N. criterion (either membership or "participation") as an intermediate, more neutral solution.
 * As for the difference between "sorting" and "inclusion", it derives from the fact that some editors, using the wisdom of the common person, believe there is a single definition of statehood. Others that have done more scholarly research on the matter point out that there are different schools of thought on what constitutes a state, a dependency, etc. So while some users are pushing for the page to accept the plurality of definitions (remembering that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral publication where all scholarly points of view are to be represented), others are insisting we stick to a single definition and keep the awkward list we have now. Ladril (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about sorting criteria only. I assume that any opinion "to include" means "to include in section1". Alinor (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the meaning of the options in the table - they correspond to the options list (1-15) at the start of "Sorting criteria" section of the discussion page. Alinor (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have, with a little thought, switched to support on option 10, as I find it a reasonable alternative. 11 sounds better, but I would be prepared to support 10.

I would note that I have not checked, in particular detail, what exactly the options would mean in practice. I feel that it is useful to have this conversation in general terms: yes, the aim is a list with a sensible format - applying the principle of least astonishment - but I feel that it is helpful focus on the merits of the criteria themselves rather than using this as a proxy discussion for the issue of particular entities. This is why I favour the Vienna formula versions. I feel that this is the best and most appropriate means of splitting the list in accordance with international norms as they work in practice.

UN POV? I can just about see the argument. I don't really agree with it, though. Simply using the UN's list would be UN POV. When it comes down to it, any division is going to be called POV by someone - as would the lack of division. And there are some options that are genuinely problematic - 3 and 4 would be a POV minefield. But what we have in the Vienna Formula is a split that is actually used by the international community when doing essentially the same thing as we're doing. No, it wouldn't necessarily work in all theoretically possible circumstances - a country could, in theory, be widely recognised without being a member of any of the organs concerned - but it would seem to work in all existing circumstances. If at some point in the future it throws up some oddities, then we can deal with that then. I see none now.

I also add my opposition to option 15, both types, because I find them overly complicated, and find it peculiar that Armenia should be divorced from the bulk of the list not because any part its own claimed/controlled territory is disputed but because Pakistan takes issue with its position on Nagorno-Karabakh. Pfainuk talk 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Pfainuk's comments that we should focus on selecting a good criteria, and let the states fall where they might. Unfortunately, several editors seem to know who they want on the list, and reject any criteria which might disagree with their POV.  TDL (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Summary questions:
 * Besides UN-POV/equal-voting-issue is anyone finding another disadvantages in Vienna formula?
 * Do the others agree that we should choose between the six options from the summary comment above?
 * What should be our priority in choosing: more verifiability, less UN-POV, more UN-POV? Alinor (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would produce results that would not be in agreement with reliable published sources (hence, we'd have a list that would be confusing to the ordinary reader); it would result in a list that would be imbalanced (insofaras Kosovo would be in the first section, but Palestine would not); it's not appropriate in this context (i.e., we'd have a list of members of UN agencies, rather than a list of what most people expect to find; i.e., sovereign states).  Night w   04:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've stated this several times above, but you never seem to read my responses. If we claim we are listing "states participating in the UN system" and the RS claims they are listing "widely recognized states", then how could our list disagree with theirs?  We are listing two completely different things.  The current criteria is the most confusing criteria proposed.  What does "widely recognized" mean?  There are a half dozen opinions just from the editors of this page, so I can only imagine how confused the reader is at the moment.  As for your "unbalanced" comment, Kosovo would only be in the main section for the "strict Vienna", not the "modified vienna".  Even if they were in the main list, I'm not sure how this would make the list "unbalanced".  (I'm not even sure what you mean by "unbalanced").
 * In response to Alinor's posed question, we don't really have an option. WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  Every option will have neutrality issues, this can't be avoided.  But we HAVE to select a verifiable option.  This is the definition of an encyclopedia.  If you can't verify that Nauru is "widely recognized" then it doesn't belong here.  TDL (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked what disadvantages I've found in the proposal, and I responded accordingly as I am entitled to. Those are the concerns that I and a number of others have expressed. I've read your responses. Your arguments are not convincing.  Night w   06:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you are entitled to state your opinion, just as I'm free to call the logic of your argument into question. However, making the same argument, without responding to my points, doesn't help me to understand your position.  This is the only way we're going to establish a consensus.  So once again I'll ask you directly.  If we claim we are listing "states participating in the UN system" and the RS claims they are listing "widely recognized states", then how could our list disagree with theirs?  We are listing two completely different things?  And can you explain what you mean by "unbalanced"?  TDL (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the results that the list would produce. For example, one published source in my bookcase, The Times Atlas of the World, 12th ed, states the following:
 * "' All 193 independent countries and all populated dependent and disputed territories are included in this list of the states and territories of the world.'"
 * But you are proposing a criteria which would result in a further 3 additions, which would not be reflective of the countries widely recognised to be sovereign states, either by published reliable sources, or by the common reader. One of those would-be additions, Kosovo, in fact enjoys less than half the international recognition that does the State of Palestine, which would remain in the "Other states" section solely on the basis of its lack of membership in various organisations — something that can be put down to the Western community's support of Israel. Hence, the list would be easily perceived as reflecting the bias of Western-dominated UN system. Therefore, it would be "unbalanced" in relation to WP:NPOV and out of balance, in terms of recognition numbers.  Night w   07:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But you've missed to point again. How would a claim in our article that "X number of states participate in the UN system" contradict your encyclopedia's claim that "All 193 independent countries..."?  They are saying to entirely different things.  Not all independent states necessarily participate in the UN system and not all states which participate in the UN are necessarily independent.
 * And to reiterate, I'm advocating for criteria #10 which has the same 193 states on the main list as yours, so the entire argument is moot as the list WOULD agree with your atlas (just with a different metric). The difference is that you've imposed your POV by defining who you want on the list before constructing it.  And the west can't keep Palestine out of the UN system.  There are more states (and thus votes) in Africa alone than in Europe+North America.  And besides, it's not clear that Palestine even has more recognition than Kosovo.  Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority quotes the PA saying that "Palestine was recognized as a state by 67 countries" (to Kosovo's 69).
 * So the question again is: "How would a claim in our article that "X number of states participate in the UN system" contradict your encyclopedia's claim that "All 193 independent countries"? They are saying to entirely different things."   TDL (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends on what "X" would be. If it is ≤ 193, then no, it does not contradict it, but as the proposal above states "195", quite clearly something doesn't add up.  Night w   08:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I tell you I have 3 tomatoes and 7 apples in my fridge is that a contradiction?
 * And yes, we decided to focus on the sorting criteria and leave the inclusion issues to later. CI/Niue will not be included under any of the proposals.  195-2=193.  TDL (talk)
 * I'd like to note that non-sovereign states have participated in the UN system. Special allowances were made for British Dominions to be part of the UN, even though they were nominally part of the UK (British Empire). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what's in your fridge. This is a list of sovereign states. The first section should reflect those entries commonly maintained in published reliable sources. The second section should be composed of entries whose sovereignty is heavily disputed, which Kosovo classifies under. Otherwise the list takes on an impartial point-of-view; the proposal, as has been pointed out, is entirely based on the UN perspective. You've now added to your comment above, so I'll respond to that also: The West certainly can keep Palestine out of the UN, as membership to any specialised agency can be vetoed by any or all of 3 Western nations that decide to use that power. The article you've linked to certainly does not "quote" what you say it does. It rather cites an article which says that the Palestinian foreign minister provided the ICC with documents from 67 other governments stating that they recognise the State of Palestine. A total of 94 states publicly extended recognition of the Palestinian state following its declaration by the PNC in 1988. Since then, Francis Boyle reported in 2009 that approximately 130 states recognised the State of Palestine.
 * As for the Cook Islands and Niue, the recent discussion concluded that many were opposed to their inclusion. As for myself, I've stated that I would not be against their inclusion on the condition that they be listed in the second section. This proposal to change the sorting criteria, however, would preclude that as a possible compromise.  Night w   10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about Palestine. There are no vetos in the specalised agencies.  This is precisely why the "Vienna Formula" is better than your proposal (UN+VC).  The vetos ONLY apply for membership in the UN proper, not the specialised agencies.  So if Palestine applied to UNESCO, they could get in even if the US voted against them.  Thus, using Vienna is more neutral than your proposal (UN+VC).
 * And I never stated that Palestine was only recognized by 67 states, I'm just saying it's not clear that they have twice as many recognitions as Kosovo. Many recognitions were not definitive, so it's impossible to count.  If the PA can only prove 67 recognitions, then how can we do any better?
 * The issue is that it's impossible to verifiably define what "heavily disputed" means. I think you'd have to accept that Israel is "heavily disputed", so should they be moved to the "other states"?  The only solution is to list something different.  Participation in the UN system is a good measure for international acceptance.  Sure, it COULD produce a different list, but as long as we don't claim that UN participation=widely recognize there is no contradiction of RS.  All that needs to be verified is whether they participate in the UN system or not.  TDL (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Palestine never actually said that it could only prove that 67 countries had formally recognized it. The Foreign Minister merely said he had supplied the ICC with written proof including bilateral agreements, from 67 other states. Formal recognition does not require any written documentation. UNESCO has had a working document online for a number of years that listed 93 states and only one of them, Austria, ever called its recognition into question. If you are using Montevideo criteria, then recognition of statehood is irrevocable regardless of subsequent ruptures in diplomatic relations. The Montevideo Convention did not contain comprommisory clauses to resolve disputes between the contracting states over their recognition of other entities, much less allow publicists or tribunals to have any say in the matter.


 * The nature of the "statehood" required for membership in the United Nations has never been defined by international law. Representation in the United Nations cannot be confused with recognition of statehood. See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning "Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations" When Israel applied for membership in the UN, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements for a State as used and defined in international law. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador (and future ICJ Justice) Jessup said:"'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term 'State', as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term 'State' as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.' see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948"


 * When the Security Council representative from Syria questioned the United States recognition of the Provisional Government of Israel. The representative of the United States (Mr. Austin} became livid:"I should regard it as highly improper for me to admit that any country on earth can question the sovereignty of the United States of America in the exercise of that high political act of recognition of the de facto status of a State. 'Moreover, I would not admit here, by implication or by direct answer, that there exists a tribunal of Justice or of any other kind, anywhere, that can pass judgment upon the legality or the validity of that act of my Country. 'There were certain powers and certain rights of a sovereign State which were not yielded by any of the members who signed the United Nations Charter and in particular this power to recognize the de facto authority of a provisional Government was not yielded. When it was exercised by my Government, it was done as a practical step, in recognition of realities: the existence of things, and the recognition of a change that had actually taken place. I am certain that no nation on earth has any right to question that, or to lay down a proposition that a certain length of time of the exercise of de facto authority must elapse before that authority can be recognized.' -- Also in S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter Dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning 'Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations'"


 * The UN Treaty organization lists several depositary notices for signatures and ratifications of international agreements concluded by either the Palestinian Authority or Palestine which demonstrate the necessary capacity to enter into relations with the other states.    harlan (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was interesting to read the background on different "definitions of state".
 * Also, I agree that Palestine has the capacity to enter into foreign relations. But I don't think this issue is related to the sorting criteria (it is related to the inclusion criteria). Alinor (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What changes will be made if the Vienna formula applies to the first list? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of what states go where there would be only minimal changes. With the "modified vienna" (#10) there would be no change.  The main list would be UN+VC.  With the "strict vienna" (#11) Kosovo would get moved to the main list.  Either way, it would provide an easy way to decide when we should "graduate" Kosovo.  Under the current format, we'd have to guess.  TDL (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly cant go along with the strict Vienna then, Kosovo does not belong in line with fully recognised sovereign states. This "modified Vienna" sounds just as problematic as our current policy, with some potentially viewing it as OR. Going with the UN and observer states (currently just the vatican) in the main list, seems to be the best option to me, it may be the UNs POV but that is far better than our own POV if we try to create certain criteria which makes some things be listed in the main list and others not. WHat happens to Niue and CI under the Vienna/Strict Vienna? which is what started this whole thing off. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the problem is, UN+VC isn't the UN's POV. Nowhere does the UN state that only members and observers of the UN are widely recognized sovereign state.  The UN uses the "Vienna Formula" to decide who is a state and who isn't.  It was invented by them to decide just the thing we are debating.  Thus, the "Vienna Formula" is the UN's POV, while UN+VC is OUR POV.  TDL (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also the POV of my atlases, if that means anything :/ Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. We don't know the criteria of the atlases, we see only the result of its application (some map/list). Do you have atlas that describes its criteria? It would be really helpful if we can find such.
 * You can come at the same result (list) with different criteria. You can come at different results (lists) with the same criteria (if you make mistakes when applying the criteria). That's the benefit of Vienna - it is clearly defined in multiple treaties (the criteria wording itself is verifiable), it is used by multiple organizations (it is not invented/OR/POV/synthesis by wikipedia editors), its results are easily verifiable (they come from public lists of members of some international organizations). Alinor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About some comment above BritishWatcher about "veto in specialized agencies" - I am not sure that UNSC vetos apply to the specialized agencies (in fact I think somebody explained that exactly the lack of veto there is one of the Vienna formula benefits).
 * About CI/Niue - their inclusion in the list (currently they are not included) is not affected by the sorting criteria. Their inclusion dependends on whether they satisfy the inclusion criteria and this is one separate (and big) debate - see in the archives.
 * About UN/Vienna - I agree with TDL. Alinor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said the criteria was my atlases POV. I said the UN+VC is, and this is true. The atlas has only UN+VC in its list of countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I became lost in the comments-indents.
 * In any case UN+VC is result, not a criteria. Maybe the atlas used Vienna to come to this result, maybe not. In any case the three benefits of Vienna that I mentioned above stand true. Alinor (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As TDL said there seems to be two positions - the "no compromise" position and the rest. Unfortunately very few of "the rest" responded to the question what of the listed compromises we should take (and if there are other options) - the more verifiable, a more UN-POVish, a less UN-POVish. The "no compromise" camp does not accept even the "status quo compromise" variants (that are both not so verifiable and POVish. It seems that "the rest" tend more on the side of verifiability (Vienna) or the modification of the both verifiable and non-POV "single list double OK" variant - the sortable list proposed below.

Should we move to Vienna or sortable list? Alinor (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A fresh idea
So since the debate above doesn't seem likely to lead to a consensus, I figured I'd suggest one last idea I've come up with before we're forced to plunge into the mediation/arbitration route. Please read the entire proposal before casting judgment, as I really feel that this should address most of the issues raised above. My idea is to allow the list to be dynamically sorted, instead of hardcoded. This allows us to represent the continuum of degrees of sovereignty in a naturally way, as opposed to trying to draw a bright line where none exists. This could be done as follows:
 * A single list (no sections) with every state which is currently on the list grouped together and thus NO sorting criteria.
 * The current "Information on status and recognition of sovereignty" column is broken up into three columns: "UN Status"; "International recognition"; "Other sovereignty claimants"
 * All three of these columns will be sortable, with the columns being ordered by: "member/non-member observer/non-member non-observer/non-state"; "universally/majority of UN members/minority of UN members/UN non-states only/none"; "not claimed/claimed by UN non-state/claimed by UN-member"

This proposal has numerous benefits:
 * It addresses the undue weight concern I raised above by putting states with limited recognition at the bottom regardless of the sorting the user chooses.
 * We don't have to commit to a specific criteria. Any criteria we choose will not be neutral.  By providing the raw info we allow the user to sort the list however they chose.
 * Most of the sorting criterias proposed above can be reproduced by selecting the proper sorting button. (Specifically: 1/3/5/6/7/9/10/11/12/13/14 roughly in some shape or form).  So for those who want UN-Members + VC to be listed first, this is accomplished by sorting the "UN Status" column.

Here is a rough sample of how the list would look under this proposal. Of course, this is just a quick mockup. Formatting/linking can easily be modified. Just in case anyone hasn't come across sortable tables, clicking on the arrow(?) in a column's heading dynamically sorts the list by that column. If anyone is interested, and unfamiliar with the template, let me know I can explain the coding I've used to get things to sort properly. I've coloured the cells according to their content to make the "divisions" more obvious, but this is just an idea, and could be removed if others don't like it. (My appologies for the bold choices of colour. This was just for simplicity for the moment).

TDL (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a single list. And most people voted against one. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I was opposed to a single list previously as well.  But I think a sortable single list is less offensive than an unsortable single list.  However, we shall see what other editors think.  TDL (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is, if we went down this table route what happens to all of the other data on this page? We would be losing a lot of information, all just so everything is in one list. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All the other data could still be included. I was just too lazy to include it for my simple demo.  But if there was support for this proposal we could easily incorporate all the countries names and other details in the "Information on status and recognition of sovereignty" column to the proposal above.  If there is demand, I could build a more thorough demo, but I'll wait to see if there is any support for this idea before going to all that work.  TDL (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All the other data would not fit, it would make the table look terrible when you include countries like France and Britains overseas territories.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We managed to fit all the data in our current table, there is no reason it couldn't be fit in a sortable table in an aesthetic manner. The important question is not HOW we make a sortable table, but would a sortable table be able to bridge the divide between the two camps?  TDL (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate how all the information currently in the article about the United Kingdom would fit in this table above, i do not think it will. As for bridging a gap, i strongly oppose a single list. It should remain split and as it is split, N/CI do not belong in the main part of the list, they either get moved to limited recognition states or they stay where they are now. Its clear several editors are against rearranging our entire system, just so we can get these two entities in the primary list. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your position isn't shared by all editors. I strongly oppose the status quo, as do several other editors, since it constitutes blatant OR.  The above proposal was an attempt to develop consensus.  It's not my preferred option, but it's one that I can live with.  If you don't like it, then suggest an alternative.  But you can't just demand that you get your way.  Wikipedia works by consensus, not by unilateralism.  TDL (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And support for changing to a new system certainly does not have consensus yet either. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is better than the status quo, yes. I still hope that we could get to some consensus sorting criteria above, but if we can't this is a good workaround. Alinor (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My first preference is for a single list - as long as it is made clear what the list is about, and that de jure independence is highly controversial in some cases, etc I don't see how this list itself could unfairly legitimise anything. Sortability as proposed above is a big pro. Otherwise I am happy to keep to the status quo as well. sephia karta |  dimmi  06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a more thorough mock-up, including all of the info we presently include. Once again, this is very preliminary, and many modifications could be made. But I was just trying to address BritishWatcher's concern that all the info wouldn't fit.

Internationally recognized sovereign states
So all the old info does indeed fit. Hopefully we can move past the aesthetics issue now. TDL (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a very good idea ... but I don't see how you've solved the verification problem with regards to foreign recognition. You've categorised entries using "universal", "majority", "minority", etcetera, but I was under the impression that the impossibility of verifying such facts had led to the rejection, in the discussion above, of that being used as criteria; I think it's covered under "Option 3" in Alinor's list, which you opposed. Using your own words here:
 * "... it's impossible to verify. How many explicit recognitions of Nauru can we find? The reality is that most countries haven't felt it worth their effort to make an explicit recognition. That doesn't mean they don't recognize them, just that they haven't formally put out a press release to announce their position to us."
 * So in what category would you place Nauru in this proposal? and better yet, how would you verify it? Among the downfalls of having a single list such as this one is the disputable nature of equality it would introduce among the entries. I think most of the editors here know of a couple of users who would immediately jump on the placement of Somaliland right beside Somalia. Another downfall is, again, that the list would not be in agreement with published sources, and thus there would be quite a few entries that would confuse (and perhaps mislead) the average reader.  Night w   06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"You've categorised entries using "universal", "majority", "minority", etcetera, but I was under the impression that the impossibility of verifying such facts had led to the rejection, in the discussion above, of that being used as criteria"

Very good point. I was going to say the same thing. As I've said before, I would like a single list, but not if it's going to reproduce the "majority, minority, etc." weaseling. Perhaps we could go around the problem by doing away with the "universal", "majority", etc. label and adding specific notes on the status of each state. I think I'll illustrate with a table of my own. Ladril (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse my inclusion of the "recognization" column above as me advocating for this. My position on this is clear, I don't think it's possible to verify and I'd prefer not to include it.  However, some editors have expressed support for such a criteria, so I tried to incorporate that into the table above, all in the name of consensus building.  I was just trying to propose something that would address all editors concerns.  That being said, I'd certainly support a table in which the "Recognition" column was removed from the table above.  TDL (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should be going with what the stable consensus view has been. That is, there are states which are verified as having limited recognition and those who have not. There are UN members, one observer and and non-members. We shouldn't worry about specific objections to one state. They happen all the time, after all. Ladril (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign states


 * I think that the UN status column for Somaliland/Abkhazia/etc. should be "Non-state" instead of "Non-member". Additionally the "member of the UN" text in the extant is duplicating the UN status note, so maybe we should remove it. Alinor (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About CI/Niue entries I would make multiple proposals for changes, but let's see if we will implement the table in this form first... Alinor (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of the third column is not to reflect mainly the position of the UN on the statehood of a specific entity, but membership or observer status first and foremost. This is an objective criterion which I believe approaches NPOV. Ladril (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Cook Islands entry would necessitate multiple tweaks, but I took your archived proposal as the starting basis. Perhaps we would like to emphasize different things. Ladril (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alinor, Kosovo/Taiwan/etc. should be listed as a "Non-state" as they are regarded as provinces of member states by the UN. There is a big difference between being a non-member (such as VC) and a non-state (such as Somaliland).  There is nothing non-neutral about this, we are just presenting the UN's position.  TDL (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to put a finger on why I don't like the "non-state" label, but I think this is it: for the UN officially there is no "Taiwan issue". Taiwan is part of China, period. Putting a "non-state" label on it seems like saying that the UN acknowledges its existence as a de facto state, when in fact it doesn't. Another thing entirely would be if the U.N. said "Abkhazia is not a state". But it seems their policy is to regard entities which they do not recognize as states as non-existent. Ladril (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however I feel that the "non member" label implies de facto recognition more than the "non state" label. Perhaps we could explicitly state the UN's position in the column, "Province of China" for Taiwan for example.  Or we could just use the more general "Dependent territory" or something along those lines.  TDL (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be difficult to do. Kosovo, for example, is still a region under UN administration. Saying that the UN still regards it as part of Serbia has been construed by some users in the past as anti-Kosovo POV. Ladril (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it anti-Kosovo POV? The UN administration of Kosovo is goverened by UNSCR1244, which specifically reaffirmed support for Yugoslavia's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  UNSCR1244 is still in force, and the UN's official position hasn't changed.  These are facts, not POV.  TDL (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to leave the cell empty for the "non-state" entries. Then we woudn't have to deal with trying to sum up a complicated situation in a few words.  TDL (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing Somaliland, Taiwan, ect. as non-states is a pov statement. These polities are organized as states and governed as such. Some of them are recognized as states by dozens of countries, to call them non-states is to take the side of the non-recognizers.XavierGreen (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All we are discussing here is what to list under the "UN Membership" column. It's not a POV that the UN doesn't consider Taiwan to be a sovereign state.  This is an easily verifiable fact which deserves mentioning.  However, the exact wording is up for debate.  What do you suggest we list under the column for Taiwan?  TDL (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of the text of the UN's resolution. However, the admittance of Kosovo to the IMF without any qualification attached to its membership can lead to an ambiguous definition. Also, the UN's position on Palestine's statehood is difficult to explain satisfactorily in a few words. Such ambiguities are difficult to capture in table format, which is supposed to be concise. Any statement we make will be construed by some of the active participants as POV. Ladril (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and made the same argument above when suggesting leaving the cell empty. I don't think either "non-member" or "not a member" capture the position of these states well either.  Maybe a more neutral approach would be to explicitly list the agencies non-member states are a member of, instead of dealing with the "non-member state" business.  So under Kosovo we could put "IMF and World Bank" and under Somaliland we could put "None".  TDL (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really like the table above, it looks a lot smarter than the way we presently present information. I dont like having the fields for UN membership etc.. It should be just the two columns. I still believe that it would be best if we kept the tables separate, so UN member states in one table, then all other entities that are partially recognised sovereign states in a second table. With the two smaller fields i think the first table (with them in between the larger columns look far better than having UN/Notes on the end which makes the table look odd. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your like the above table, but without the UN and recognition columns. You also want the table to be divided in two parts - UN members/other. So, what you say is: "keep the current article as it is, with the only change to move Vatican to the other states" What you don't say is how the sorting criteria section should be changed - assumingly you would like the "UN members only" sorting criteria option - see previous discussions.
 * I have explained my position on this multiple times. In short - I don't think "sovereign state" list should be so much UN-POV-ish. Alinor (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the UN+ Vatican in the main list and then everyone else in the other list. So yes i want to basically keep the present structure of the list, just use 2 tables which looks better presentationally than the current page i think. The only entities whos position should change is Niue and CI who can be moved to the partially recognised states etc. The UN POV is an official POV which is verifiable and in no way original research. Look at the original table done comparing peoples views.. there was clear majority opposition to a single list. People want the two types of sovereign state kept apart and id rather we do it on the UN members list than via a complicated formula or something that will be labelled original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "+Vatican" is no criteria, but arbitrary addition of a particular single entity. What if someone insists on UN+Cook Islands with all others (Vatican and Niue included) in "other"? We can't just select particular entities - there should be a criteria defined for this selection/sorting.
 * Also, this no-go "+Vatican" contradicts your later statement about the separation of two lists that "rather we do it on the UN members list than ..." (no Vatican here).
 * The UN POV is not an "official POV" - if it was we would have statement like "A sovereign state is such state, that is member of the UN". On the contrary, UN membership is NOT a requirement for sovereignty. The opposite is also true - sovereignty is not requirement for UN membership (at least de jure; whether current members' actions make it a de facto requirement is another thing) and also if an entity is UN member this does not mean/prove that it is sovereign. The opposite is also true - if an entity is sovereign this does not mean/prove that it is UN member. We have such examples from the past - a few non-sovereign UN members (India before independence, etc.); many sovereign states not members of the UN (all current members that were independent before 1946, but joined later).
 * The Vienna formula is not complicated (it is not a formula, but a list of organizations) - it just considers more POVs in addition to that of the UN - the POVs of a particular types of no less representative global organizations (specialized agencies, ICJ, IAEA). It is verifiable both as criteria definition (used by multiple treaties and organizations - something like "official criteria") and as resulting entities list (membership lists of all Vienna formula organizations are published on their websites). Yes, having to sort trough 15-20 lists is more work than trough a single list, but we have to do it only once (and it is already done anyway) and just make small changes later, when they are required (if membership changes).
 * Besides the single list option, I haven't see any other sorting option that is simultaneously non-OR, non-Synthesis, less-POV, more-Verifiable. Alinor (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do we all stand now
Can we go over again where we all stand now, there has been a huge amount of debate and we need to try and resolve this.

Who supports using a table like shown above in this section (leaving aside which columns get included or if there is separate tables) ?

'''If we do use a table like the above example, should there be two separate tables? (one for United Nations member states and one for all other sovereign states with limited recognition)?'''

If we use a single table, what columns are needed?

Answers to these questions would be helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the table type above, but used in two separate tables for UN member states and non-UN member states: we clearly need to discriminate between South Korea (from whom just North Korea refuses recognition) and Somaliland (no recognition at all). Also, I would like to use color coding for the table as in this article because it makes browsing the list easier than having to read "Universal" 100 times. Quigley (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is my position too. I like the table idea but split in two because a single list is problematic. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the actual purpose, if I'm not mistaken, behind the single sortable table, was to make redundant the sorting criteria, and thus end debate on that issue. So keeping the two divisions would mean keeping the sorting criteria, and therefore the switch to table format is purposeless. Having said that, I cannot support a single list. As I said previously:
 * "Among the downfalls of having a single list such as this one is the disputable nature of equality it would introduce among the entries. I think most of the editors here know of a couple of users who would immediately jump on the placement of Somaliland right beside Somalia. Another downfall is, again, that the list would not be in agreement with published sources, and thus there would be quite a few entries that would confuse (and perhaps mislead) the average reader."
 * I actually like the current format, and unless the table format is implemented in a singular list—which I won't support—, it doesn't seem to do much to solve any of the issues being discussed.  Night w   05:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Night is right. If we split the table above into two sections, we haven't accomplished anything.  We're back where we started, trying to find a neutral and verifiable way to make that division.  The whole point of using a sortable list is to allow for differentiating between South Korea and Somaliland.  Somaliland would be sorted at the end of the list, due to their disputed status, while South Korea would be sorted in the top of the list.  TDL (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is because quite a few editors oppose a single list, which is problematic even with sortable tables. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said removing UN/recognition columns and splitting the table (in UN members and others) actually gets us into the current article (only change is moving Vatican to "others"). If we are going to split the article (in some way, regardless witch) - please respond to my questions at the end of the "sorting criteria" discussion (there were 4-5 compromise solutions). If we are going to use the single list sortable table (as clever workaround avoiding the sorting criteria) it is meaningless to do this without the UN/recognition columns (as it seems there won't be agreement on such pure single list with special cases explained in the extant notes only). Alinor (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of editors are against a single list though. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the idea is to have a reasoned discussion about this, not just reject something because "I don't like it". This is not the European Parliament. Ladril (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And lots of editors are against dividing the list using the "UN criteria" you advocate for. You need to be willing to compromise a bit, or else we will end up getting a solution imposed on us by the Arbitration Committee.
 * Let's not jump to conclusions. Most editors have only expressed their opinion on an unsortable list, as proposed previously.  By my count, only 3 editors have voiced opposition to the current proposal (compared to 4 in support).  Let's let others comment before stating that lots are opposed to it.  TDL (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the original vote done in the table, far more editors opposed a single list. And even on 4-3 the status quo should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People have stated why they do not believe a single list is appropriate. It is wrong to put something like the Cook Islands in line with France or the United States, even if there is a sortable list. Why on earth should we have a column for UN membership needing to be said in over 190 cases, just so that 10 more places can be added to the main list saying not in the UN. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be unwilling to move from your original position, but collectively speaking the discussion has advanced quite a bit. Also note that "my way or the highway" is not a very productive position here. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been ongoing, i am far from sure that peoples positions have radically changed. All of this seems to be to either get Cook Islands and Niue into the main list or have a single list. I do not think either of these options are a good idea. The status quo is better than either, but a fair compromise in my opinion is UN member states + Vatican. (which deals with the original research claims) and then move Cook Islands and Niue to limited recognition states so it gets treated the same as Kosovo, which is more than fair in my opinion. Sadly i am not the only one unwilling to move from my original position, which is why following people stating their clear opposition to a single list, a few editors have pushed on with it as though it now has more consensus than the status quo, which is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that a compromise? The "no criteria" UN+VC is the status quo, which is what you've been advocating for since the start.  You've not made any compromise, you're still demanding that you get your way.  Numerous options (what are we up to now, 16?) have been suggested, and you've rejected every one of them.  You're going to have to compromise at some point for us to find a solution.
 * No one has said that there is a consensus in favour of a sortable single list. I only said that we should wait to see what the consensus is.  You can't assume that editors who opposed an unsortable list will automatically not support a sortable list.  They are significantly different.
 * How are we trying to push this option through by starting a discussion? Discussing is the only way to come to a solution.  Nothing will be decided without a consensus.  TDL (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course maybe not all of the editors who opposed a single list are against this sortable table, however, we have seen that there is still clear division over changing it to a single table which means the status quo still has to stand. I have compromised on my original position, i did not think the Cook Islands / Niue should be treated as a sovereign state, no matter where on the article they appear. Ive accepted there is a case for them to be with the other limited recognition states. I have also stated id be prepared to support changing the article to tables like the above example, just that they should remain two separate tables rather than a sortable one. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "compromise" to accept a table, but not a single one and without the membership/recognition columns is no compromise at all - this is just suggesting to change the cell format/look of the current article without any change of the content/sorting/inclusion/criteria/etc. Alinor (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A few points.

I like the current way we do this list. I think it looks good. I appreciate that this point is essentially WP:ILIKEIT, and so I won't kick up a fuss purely on this reasoning, but there it is.

I think having every section sortable is not necessarily useful. Sorting by anything other than name would appear to put the entries in an essentially arbitrary order - dependent on the wording used in the description. I also rather feel that, regardless, putting this into a table does not solve either issue fundamentally. It does not resolve the issue of how the list should be split and does not resolve the Cook Islands/Niue issue.

I don't feel that having a single list can be neutral, and do not feel that sortability is significant in this regard. The Somaliland-Somalia issue is one obvious example - but there are plenty of others. We need a clearer split because there are a lot of people who would argue that the states with limited recognition (or, more likely, certain states with limited recognition) do not belong on a list like this at all, let alone alongside and with what would appear at first glance to be equal status to entities with no question as to their sovereignty.

If we're dividing the list in any way - including by listing certain entities at the bottom of a list as default or by differentiating using colour - then we need a clearly defined split. Sortability does nothing to create such a split. A split created by the default sort order in a sortable list is not fundamentally different to the split we have now, in my view (though I think what we have now is better, as it gives greater visual distinction between the two groups). And, I would argue, it's better that we determine what this split should be now than when under pressure from a POV pusher insisting that x-state is an "internationally recognized sovereign state" because of y (and conveniently ignoring z). Pfainuk talk 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I still believe that going by the UN is the least disputable and easiest method to understand. The suggestion of using the Vienna formula is very complex, where as simply splitting the list between UN member states + Vatican.. and then at the bottom limited recognition states, which can include the Cook Islands, Kosovo, Taiwan etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just not neutral as a source where there is a dispute, case in point Taiwan, where the UN affirms the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan as legitimate and that the ROC is not a state. We do use the UN as a source elsewhere for non-disputed naming and such. Outback the koala (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that having the "General description" column be sortable isn't useful. However, sorting the "UN Membership" column is useful.  It sorts the states in the order: Members; Observers; Members of Agencies; No Membership.  I suspect that there is some way to delete the sorting option on specific columns.  I'll look into this.
 * Just as a follow up, I've made the "General description" and "Notes" columns unsortable in the above proposals. TDL (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The CI/Niue issue is solved by sorting them BETWEEN the "UN Members + Observers" and the "No Membership" states due to their membership in UN agencies, so we don't have to decide between the two extreme categories. Currently we have two sections boldly separated.  However, the reality is that things aren't that black and white.  States can fall in a grey area between the two extremes.  A single sortable list allows us to have multiple divisions (4 proposed above) to more accurately reflect reality.  The table could be "pre-sorted" by the UN column, to clearly separate the different "categories" of states.  TDL (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Things are that black and white if we go by the UN membership. Either a country is a member state/observer of the United Nations or it is not. Not qualifying for the first list does not say they are not a sovereign state, simply that they have limited recognition and are not members of the UN. The sortable list still puts Cook Islands inline with France, i am sorry but i can not accept that on this primary list. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * copy-edit from above discussion: The Vienna formula is not complicated/complex (it is not a formula, but a list of organizations) - it just considers more POVs in addition to that of the UN - the POVs of a particular types of no less representative global organizations (specialized agencies, ICJ, IAEA). It is verifiable both as criteria definition (used by multiple treaties and organizations - something like "official criteria") and as resulting entities list (membership lists of all Vienna formula organizations are published on their websites). Yes, having to sort trough 15-20 lists is more work than trough a single list, but we have to do it only once (and it is already done anyway) and just make small changes later, when they are required (if membership changes).
 * Besides the single list option, I haven't see any other sorting option that is simultaneously non-OR, non-Synthesis, less-POV, more-Verifiable.
 * Things are not black and white - the fact that we have this discussion is a proof of that.
 * I agree that single sortable list does not solve the issue of choosing a sorting criteria (the columns of the list), but it makes it easier as it allows more flexibility. If we go for separate lists, some of the 15+ options (those resulting in more than 2 groups) would be unacceptable (editors consider them unnecessary granulating, distracting, etc.) - but otherwise they may be a good compromise (taking in account more details of the different special cases we have). The single sortable list allows us to conveniently use these more-than-2-groups sorting criteria (if we choose them).
 * "The sortable list still puts Cook Islands inline with France" - no, it does not. The sortable list puts the entities in the following order:


 * 1) UN members with universal recognition (France)
 * 2) UN members with limited recognition (Israel)
 * 3) UN agency members with universal recognition (Vatican)
 * 4) UN agency members with limited recognition (Cook Islands)
 * 5) UN observers with universal recognition
 * 6) UN observers with limited recognition
 * 7) UN agency observers with universal recognition
 * 8) UN agency observers with limited recognition
 * 9) States with no UN affiliation, but accepted as states by the UN, and with universal recognition
 * 10) States with no UN affiliation, but accepted as states by the UN, and with and limited recognition
 * 11) States with no UN affiliation and not accepted as states by the UN, and with universal recognition
 * 12) States with no UN affiliation and not accepted as states by the UN, and with and limited recognition
 * 13) States with no UN affiliation and not accepted as states by the UN, and with no recognition
 * Of course, depending on the wording that we choose some of these could be merged or missing; depending on the ordering we choose some may go up and others down (for example "UN observers" to go before "UN agency members"); some of these are empty categories and would simply not appear in the list, unless some entity changes its status in the future (or if we make a List of historical sovereign states for 1946-2010 or previous periods). That is the benefit of the sortable single list - flexibility and in fact using all sorting criteria options at once (smallest POV?). Alinor (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher: "Sadly i am not the only one unwilling to move from my original position"


 * We differ in several of our perceptions, and especially in this one. I have seen other users go out of their way to give you arguments on why alternative proposals might be a good idea. I'm also quite sure that most of the participants here who I disagree with have also been receptive to arguments and have reflected on what they have been told. But when it comes to you, every single one of your responses is just to insist that we must respect the "status quo", and when pressed as to what the rationale for that "status quo" is, you have been unable to give a clear answer. So yours is a dictatorial position: we must accept things just because that's the way they are/have been, no questions asked. Since this is not World of Warcraft, where it's enough just to get enough people to pile on other people and "win", we are needing a different strategy here. Can you give an objective reason why you think the current setup is better than any of the alternative proposals? Ladril (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk: "The Somaliland-Somalia issue is one obvious example - but there are plenty of others. "

I think we need to do away with this meme. We are writing an encyclopedia which is supposed to be a depository of human knowledge. People should not be reading it to confirm their own biases and prejudices (the opposite is what you're arguing when you say we should take care to not list Somalia and Somaliland together). We have to list facts, period. Having a single table which can be sorted according to several objective criteria is the best bet. Anything else is just imposing hierarchies or an arbitrary apartheid of states ("these states are in the club", and these others aren't"). Ladril (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether we like it or not, the position of Somaliland is not clear cut. Nor is the position of Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus and others.  The argument that Somaliliand is part of Somalia (and thus is not equal in status to Somalia) is not simply based on peoples "biases and prejudices".  It is the status of Somaliland as recognised by every government of every entity on this list other than that of Somaliland itself.


 * Somaliland's status is disputed. The implication, inherent in your argument, that Somaliland is indisputably of equal status to Somalia is strongly biased and I am slightly shocked that anyone might seriously argue that it is neutral. Pfainuk talk 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, wikipedia is supposed to show facts, and represent the world as it is, not as it should be. There is a hierarchy of states, wikipedia is not opposing that, it is there. On the Somaliland issue, the Economist treats it as an independent state ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a little more for shock value: Somaliland (an English-speaking country, so some of them are likely to be reading us) may not be a state according to every other single state on Earth, but it *is* a state according to Somalilanders (a significant collectivity) and to many researchers to have done academic work on the subject (another significant collectivity). According to an academic point of view (declarative theory of statehood) Somaliland fulfills the criteria of statehood. So saying its status (status according to what?, BTW) as a state is different from that of Somaliland amounts to engaging in a dispute instead of presenting it, which is not something desirable for the encyclopedia.


 * I'm not saying we should ignore the fact that its status is hotly contested (that would be going to the other extreme). Those facts however are better left for the "Political status of..." articles, where all the nuances specific to each case can be explained in detail. Representations in list or table formats do not serve well for this purpose. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your statement that you are "not saying we should ignore the fact that its status is hotly contested" contradicts your statement that "saying its status... as a state is different from that of [Somalia] amounts to engaging in a dispute instead of presenting it, which is not something desirable for the encyclopedia". You can either say that Somaliland's status is definitively the same as Somalia's (as you argue in the second quote), or that it is hotly disputed (as you argue in the first).  They can't both be accurate.


 * I don't deny that the Somaliland POV is that Somaliland is independent (though the fact that some there speak English is totally irrelevant). But you're ignoring the hundreds of states who take the opposite view.  Do you not think the views of every single other entity listed here also amount to "a significant collectivity", whose views need to be represented?  Saying that Somaliland is definitively equivalent in status to Somalia - which is what you're saying that we should do by listing it alongside Somalia - is as bad as treating Somaliland as though it didn't exist.


 * Treating Somaliland as though it had the same status as Somalia means taking the Somaliland side in the dispute. It is thus strongly POV and as such totally unacceptable on Wikipedia.  We have to find a middle ground. Pfainuk talk 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not muddle the waters here. For starters, people who take issue with Somaliland are not opposed to it being listed alongside Somalia. They take issue with Somaliland being on the lists of states at all. No matter how much we do to guarantee neutrality, we're not going to make those people happy, nor should that be our objective. Somaliland is a sovereign state according to those who study the matter, that's all en encyclopedia should care about. Sorry to differ, but no one is just being gracious to them by listing them here.


 * And a side note: the English Wikipedia is the more directly related to them, so it is relevant to them. But as I said, this is an aside.


 * There is no other way to go around the issue of encyclopedic NPOV than listing all entities that according to secondary literature, have a valid claim of being sovereign states. This includes (for the appropriate years) the Dutch Republic, which as far as I know, was not recognized by anybody for the first sixty years of its existence. As I said before, the disputes should only be mentioned briefly on lists, and in detail in pages meant to describe the debates in detail. How that could be construed as POV-pushing is beyond me. We cannot shape a list to reflect a neutral point of view: a list should include all views.


 * Lists are meant to classify things, not to impose arbitrary hierarchies on them. If there is an objective criterion to classify sharks we do use it as an axis of classification (we however, do not classify them as larger sharks, cuter sharks, sharks which only eat a certain type of food, etc., except if that distinction is available in relevant literature). If there is more than one (UN membership, associated statehood, observer status at the UN, Vienna or All States formula) a single table which can be sorted in several ways works better (and is light-years more neutral) than a single arbitrary classification.


 * The crux of the matter is that there is more than a single way to classify states (sorry, but you're unlikely to convince me that South Ossetia is in the same type of situation as the Cook Islands). You people, however, only want to see one of them, which means you are only oversimplifying what is a rather complex sunject. This is why my original proposal was for three lists, but now I think that one that one sortable list, where several types of classification can be captured, is a better idea. Ladril (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not just saying that Somaliland should not be treated as equal to Somalia because of the people who take issue with Somaliland. I'm saying it because taking the Somaliland side in the Somaliland-Somalia dispute (by treating Somaliland equally with Somalia) would be a flagrant violation of our core policies.


 * The language spoken in an entity has no relevance at all in our discussion as to what entities belong where. English being as widespread as it is, you may assume that there are English-speakers everywhere.


 * In your shark example, then we would be in the same position. We look at what fishes are generally considered sharks.  We find a criterion and stick to it.  But if there are certain kinds of fish that meet our definition but that are not accepted as sharks by most outside observers, then we should not be pretending that that dispute does not exist, as you're arguing.  We should split them off, have a separate list.  What we don't do is just treat them as sharks and ignore the dispute.


 * You mention South Ossetia and the Cook Islands. You say that "[I'm] unlikely to convince [you] that South Ossetia is in the same type of situation as the Cook Islands".  Well that's exactly what you just argued, so it would appear that you don't need convincing.  You're the one arguing that everything here should be treated equal, regardless of dispute.  Not me.


 * And yes, if discussing the unrecognised Dutch Republic, it should be treated as disputed on a list of sovereign states based on the timeframe concerned. Similarly the US should be treated as disputed in a list of sovereign states in 1780, for example.  This is as required for neutrality. Pfainuk talk 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interrupt, but I don't understand what is the argument about - of course there are differences in recognition level between some of the states (as Pfainuk says) and having them listed in a single sortable list (as Ladril says) does not imply that there are no differences - on the contrary, the list is sortable exactly according to these differences - the differences will be in the sorting columns.
 * A practical example - currently in the first section ("widely recognized") there are states with limited recognition like Israel and North Korea, along with universally recognized states like France and Vatican City - different, but in the same list. Alinor (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this "sortable list" changes things. So it's sorted with UN members and observers on top, alphabetically, followed by all other states, alphabetically. How is that different to the "Options" # 5 or 6 that you listed (and opposed) above? How is the sorting criteria applied in this version any different to its application in a divided list? It seems to me that the "sortable table" doesn't actually solve any issues of concern with regards to the sorting criteria. Or have I missed some essential difference?

In any case, I remain opposed to the idea of a single list, especially one that can be sorted alphabetically. It would put Somaliland right next to Somalia, Northern Cyprus right next to Cyprus, etcetera, and if (heaven forbid) Niue actually ever does make it onto the list before independence, it'll be right under New Zealand. The division is critical for neutrality and subject-source agreement, and I won't support any merging of the two.  Night w   07:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's different because we no longer have to rely on editors POV of which stats satisfy the WP:Weasely "widely recognized" (an impossible task to do without OR). It has a precise metric of which there can be no dispute which category states fall into.
 * Secondly, it allows us to sort into more than two categories to reflect the continuous nature of degrees of sovereignty. The above proposal has 4 categories: UN Members, Observers, Agency Members, No Membership.  Having only two categories forces us to pigenhole every state into one of these categories, when some states (such as CI) don't fit naturally into either.  In the above proposal, states which satisfy the "Vienna Formula", but are not UN Members, would be sorted BETWEEN the "UN+VC" states and the "limited recognition" states, to more accurately reflect their status.  I think this is a good compromise between those who want them on the main list, and those who want them on the "limited recognition" list.
 * I don't see a neutrality issue with having Somaliland sorted next to Somalia when the list is sorted alphabetically. We would make clear in the text that there is a distinction, and could have the list pre-sorted by UN-Status.  The Somalia POV would be represented.
 * If your concern is purely the merging into a single list, would you be opposed to the above sorting criteria with a full division between the categories. So instead of 2, we would have 4 sublists: UN Members, Observers, Agency Members, No Membership.  This isn't the most elegant solution, but maybe there is room for compromise here.  TDL (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that you were proposing to split into four categories. That creates a different issue. So, basically it would go (by default) Zimbabwe, Vatican City, Kosovo, Abkhazia, then the remainder alphabetically. It just makes things very difficult for the average reader to navigate. I'd point out that most readers probably don't care whether a state is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
 * I've said I won't support a single list, no matter how many different ways it can be sorted. Dividing things further under different sections, if that's what it would take to end this debate, is a better alternative. Although, my preference would be to make the distinctions only where necessary. The top list should remain as it is now—UN members + permanent observers—as that is the list that will be most commonly found reflected in reference texts.  Night w   16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposed 4 way split is new to me also. "Agency Members"? Come on. I agree with Night that the average reader cares not. Why not stick to the current status quo? Yes, it has flaws, but comparatively assessed with the proposals here in mind, perhaps we can view the current list in a better light than we previously did. The current version is far more encyclopedic in its state and appearance than a number of those proposed. Outback the koala (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 4 way sorting scenario has been part of the proposal since the first post. The "Agency Members" category derives from states which satisfy the "Vienna Formula", but are not UN Members.  I agree that 4 categories is less than ideal, but there has been no willingness by those in the "no criteria" camp to consider any modification to sorting criteria for the main list, hence the compromise suggestion above.  If you prefer 2 categories, perhaps you should support the pure "Vienna Formula" proposal above which merges the "Agency members" into the main list.
 * I'm not sure what your point is arguing that the reader doesn't care about agency membership. I doubt the average reader cares that VC is an Observer state either, but that doesn't make it less notable.  Our job is to present the info in a neutral and verifiable manner, not to give the reader what they want.  Besides, the current criteria is far more confusing than anything proposed above.  What exactly does "widely recognized" mean?  If the dozen editors on the talk page can't even agree what this means, we can only imagine how confused the readers are.
 * I agree that every proposal has flaws. However, there are different degrees of flaws.  The status quo is flawed because it's unverifiable and thus OR.  As WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  We can't support our claim that Nauru is "widely recognized", thus we MUST change the criteria.  The 4-way split is at least verifiable, so any flaws that it has aren't catostrophic.  TDL (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting a 4-way split. I'm compromising by saying I'll support a 3-way split; that is: UN members and permanent observers, then the "Vienna" thing, and then the remainder. But only if Kosovo stays with the remainder. As long as it reproduces the list that will be most commonly found in reference texts, that will satisfy most of my concerns.  Night w   03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My response was directed towards Outback, who rejected any additional divisions beyond the current two.
 * I'm OK with compromising on how to make any additional divisions, but we can't have pre-conditions on certain states being in certain categories. If they satisfy the criteria, they are included.  If not, they aren't.  Otherwise, we're doing OR.
 * Unfortunately, there is no list most commonly found in texts so it's impossible for us to be in agreement with such a fictitious list. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  For instance, the RS posted on my wall at the moment, a world map, lists Kosovo, Taiwan, and Somaliland as sovereign states, SADR as disputed, and the rest as non-existant.  How do you justify rejecting that RS?  TDL (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I should point out the obvious that "a map on the wall of a Wikipedia user" does not qualify as a reliable source, so rejection would be entirely justified. If you can give me an ISBN, or specific publication details—something that others can verify—, that's when it becomes a reliable source. Can you provide anything like that? (I'm actually quite intrigued, as I've yet to see a world map indicating Somaliland's independence; could prove useful in other discussions with which I'm involved).  Night w   09:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went looking for that map, but could not find it. Regardless, I am not rejecting additional additions to the sorting of the list - but I do reject the idea of an "Agency Members" sort. Further I think we should really drop discussion on the Vienna formula as I really dont see any consensus forming on its use. I personally oppose it's use here because of its complex and yet vague nature that we would have a difficult time communicating to the reader. Outback the koala (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point was just to illustrate that there is a variety of states often included by RS. But I can provide a reference.  Here are the specs of the specific example on my wall:
 * The World Le Monde
 * MapMobility 2010 Edition
 * MapArt Publishing Corporation
 * ©2010
 * I was unable to find a digital copy on the net, but that doesn't make the source any less reliable. In general, it's not too hard to find examples that are in disagreement with our list.  Here, for example, is an a map which includes both Kosovo and Taiwan.  There really is no generally accepted list in RS.
 * As to Outbacks comments, I think we should drop discussion of the status quo since there is no consensus forming around its use. The reality is that there is no consensus forming around ANY option at the moment.  If you've got a clever idea which you think could bridge the divide, then by all means let us hear it.  Otherwise, we've got no option but to discuss scenarios which have yet to establish a consensus.  TDL (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, here is a digital photo of Africa, as per the world map on my wall.  Both Somaliland and Kosovo can be seen as full states, and SADR is separated from Morocco by a dashed line to indicate it's disputed status.  (Taiwan is also represent as a full state, but isn't visible in the photo).  Other entities, such as the Georgian sepratist states, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Palestine and Northern Cyprus are not included at all.  My only point is that there is no consistency in who RS's choose to list.  Thus, we shouldn't be tied down to any specific grouping of states.  We should choose a criteria and stick to it.  TDL (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About complexity/vagueness of Vienna formula - it is not complex, but just a set of lists. It is also the only crietria discussed here that is verifiable both as criteria definition (used by multiple treaties and organizations - something like "official criteria") and as resulting entities list (membership lists of all Vienna formula organizations are published on their websites). I haven't seen any treaty/organization that has a statement "any UN member or permanent observer state can join" (maybe because "The status of a Permanent Observer is based purely on practice, and there are no provisions for it in the United Nations Charter." ). 'Agency membership' is actually used by treaties/organizations as distinction between entities much more than UN observership (if it is used at all). Alinor (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should drop discussion of the status quo also, as I don't feel it needs altering. However, you've provided some reasonable ideas and I'm showing the intention to compromise on some of the issues on which we disagree. However, I won't change my position on a single list, and a division into four lists—at least one of which won't actually be lists, but rather a single entry— is entirely unnecessary given the degree of confusion and awkwardness it would introduce.  Night w   13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Making divisions only where necessary ensures that fuss and confusion is kept to a minimum. Grouping observers in with the members is the most practical method, and makes perfect sense. For example, Switzerland was not a member until 2002; but it's been an observer since shortly after the organisation's inception. But suppose it still were not a member, I'd find it supprising if an editor were to argue that it be displayed in a separate group; a reader, also, would find it strange to notice its absence alphabetically in the first list. Besides, we already have a separate list for United Nations member states.  Night w   14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And suppose that Switzerland chose not to become a UN Observer, but was a member of UNESCO, we'd be in the same boat. Readers would find it strange not to find them in the main list.  This is precisely the motivation for merging BOTH "Observers" AND "Agency Members" into the main list since this is how the UN previously determined who was a state and who wasn't.  However, there clearly doesn't seem to be a consensus in favour in this.  The compromise was to explicitly divide the the states by category.  I think that selectivly merging "Members" and "Observers" is not particularly neutral or justified, but I'm willing to consider it if we can get a consensus behind it.  But we can't insist on excluding Kosovo, as you suggested above.  If they satisfy the criteria they are in, otherwise they aren't.  TDL (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the reader would find it strange, but the reader wouldn't think "Wait, Switzerland is a member of UNESCO, why isn't it on this list?". They'd probably question it due to its appearance in items they've read before. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not construct the list based on "common expectations of readers" if these are wrong or unverifiable (thus also non-encyclopedic). Alinor (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In practice we have CI/Niue/Vatican as members of multiple of the Vienna organizations and Vatican as having invitation to be UN observer. Separately CI/Niue have the properties of states, and their internal and external acts are entirety state-type-actions, in contrast to the Vatican City, that is in fact a sui generis case of super-extraterritoriality granted to the Holy See/Catholic Church organization "complex in Rome". Someone could say straight (common reader expectation) that VC is not a state and separately that CI/Niue are states - but of course nothing is so black and white.
 * In any case the unofficial status of UN observership (that is actually a de facto permanent invitation to attend and sometimes participate in certain activities of the UN, but not an official status - see above) is less notable/important in our case (sorting a list of sovereign states) than regular official full membership to the organizations of the Vienna list. Most UN observers are not states anyways.
 * As we see the international organizations/treaties don't use as differentiator the UN observership, but the membership in UN agencies/organizations of the Vienna list. So, why should we use a different than the internationally established criteria? Alinor (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)