Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 3

procedure steps
We tend to mix issues - we mixed inclusion and sorting criteria issues in the CI/Niue discussion, we mixed inclusion criteria issues in the sorting criteria discussion, now we mix sorting criteria issues in the single sortable vs. multiple separate lists discussion. I propose that we do things in the following order:
 * 1) Choose between: multiple separate lists vs. single sortable list (I assume that the middle option of single unsortable list is unacceptable?)
 * 2) Choose the sorting criteria/columns (this applies to both options above)
 * 3) Sort the current entries according to the above choices (203)
 * 4) Sort the missing entries according to the above choices (CI/Niue) - in case they cover the inclusion criteria
 * 5) Implementation details (whether to use coloring, wording details, specific entries issues, etc.)

I understand that some sorting criteria may be unacceptable for multiple lists, but acceptable in single sortable list - and vice versa, so the issues are related (and thus the order of choosing can be reversed between 1 and 2). But it seems that having both discussions at the same time leads nowhere, so let's finish with one of them (firmly) and this will narrow the choice in the second (thus making the compromise easier?).

I will try to start by opening a section about the first choice. Alinor (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List(s): Multiple vs. single sortable
Single sortable list advantages: much greater flexibility (implementing multiple/all sorting criteria at once - the readers choose the sorting, not the editors - everybody gets it in their preferred way), less emphasis/influence on/of the POVs, shorter extant sections (some parts of them are reflected in the sorting columns). Alinor (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a sovereign state like France and a "state" (its debatable if you could even call it that) like Palestine. I do not believe that these two entities should be mixed up by placing them in a sortable list which is likely to often be sorted down A-Z lines which is the only way many people will be able to find the state they are looking for. Disputed states should remain separate to avoid needing a column in a table to say UN member state just for the sake of being able to say a dozen states are not members of the UN. Keeping all disputed states in a separate table where their sovereignty can be explained in far more detail than sovereign states needs to be helps maintain stability. This list has kept disputed states separate for over 3 years and the only reason this debate on single/multiple lists has come up is because people are insisting on changing the status of Niue and Cook Islands to treat them like proper sovereign states, which is simply not justified.

We should have two lists/tables:

Main List/table - United Nations Member States + Observer state (The vatican)

Second List/table - States with limited recognition (which can include Niue and Cook Islands)

That would solve this problem and stop people claiming our list is "original research". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, oh. Here comes harlan...  Night w   08:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, you say multiple times "disputed states". I tried to formulate such a criteria, that separates states based on the presence/lack of such disputes, but it was complex and hard to implement (thus edges to OR/Synthesis). You don't supply any dispute-criteria, but instead propose (again) the end-result that you wish, without any sorting criteria.
 * The only criteria-like wording in your proposal is "limited recognition" for the second table. That includes Israel, South Korea and others. Do you agree to such division? I think that you don't. So we come again to the unverifiable "widely recognized" and/or the heavy UN POVed UN members vs. others (the addition of the UN observership doesn't help to avoid heavy UN POV and is also questionable by itself - see above about its unofficial nature). Alinor (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About A-Z sortability. The single sortable list would NOT be A-Z sorted by default, but by the other columns - see my proposed ordering in the above section. I don't think that finding one of the 10-20 special cases, listed at the bottom of the 203-205 list, would be so difficult that users will need to do A-Z sort only to find a particular entry. Anyway, if a user chooses to sort the list in A-Z manner - I don't see anything wrong with that. After all the "others" are sovereign states (according to the not currently in discussion inclusion criteria) - just like the rest (albeit with "strings attached" in the form of the additional sorting columns/criteria and extant notes) - and if you question Somaliland inclusion in the list this has nothing to do with the sorting. Alinor (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What gets included in the second list is another debate, a debate that still would exist for a single list as youd have to decide all the different entities that can be added. So take everything you want in your single list. Put the UN member states and vatican in the top table, and everything else in the second table. The United Nations is a rather important global body, i fail to see why we can not present a UN list and then non UN states, the second list can be called what ever, States that are not part of the UN.. etc. Israel absolutely belongs in the primary list, Palestine which does not even exist any more absolutely belongs in a second list. If the feature to sort is there, many will use Alphabetical order and i simply reject the idea that Palestine should be between Palau and Panama. Two are sovereign states, 1 is not even a state and it belongs in the "other states" list where its status can be detailed in full. (it should be in more detail than we presently give it) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What gets included is not to be discussed here and now. We argue about sorting the entities that already satisfy the inclusion criteria.
 * Again "and vatican" without explanation. Why not "and Cook Islands"?
 * If there is a single (sortable or not) list, there could not be "top and second tables".
 * "The United Nations is a rather important global body" - splitting the list in UN members vs. others is inappropriate as this gives too much weight to a single organization/POV, regardless how important it is (we already have articles for List of UN members and List of UN observers). Most editors here objected this option (consensus?).
 * "Israel absolutely belongs in the primary list" - you called the secondary list a list of states with "limited recognition" and Israel is one of those, that's why I rhetorically asked if you support its move to secondary list. This is related to the problem that you don't propose sorting criteria, but end results only.
 * "Palestine is not even a state" - if there is consensus about this it will NOT be in the "other states" section, but removed entirely.
 * It seems that your position is that most (all?) of the current "other states" section are not states and should be removed altogether from the page. I propose that you rise this point in a debate about inclusion criteria (now, as the sorting criteria is in a separate discussion page I don't see a problem with opening an inclusion criteria discussion on the main talk page) and what entities satisfy this or that inclusion criteria.
 * Tf the default sort is UN->Agency/Observers->etc. I'm not sure that "many will use Alphabetical order", but even if they do, this will be a decision of the individual reader - that he wants to check a single alphabetic list, instead of list sorted by other criteria (UN membership, recognition, etc.). Who are we to "simply reject the idea" of an individual reader (it doesn't affect the DEFAULT representation of the page)? Alinor (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to wish to debate this until the other side accepts defeat. I am not prepared to do that, i have stated why i oppose a single list of all these "states", like mixing Palestine with France. My position remains the same. I have no problem with all of these entities like Palestine and Niue being mentioned with their sovereignty issues covered in detail. But they do not belong in a single list and when a large number of editors voted on this before, the overwhelming majority voted against a single list. A couple of editors here then pressed ahead pushing for a single list when it should have been dropped at that point. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, you suggest that we make NO changes to the sorting criteria, and that this will somehow address the OR concerns being raised. Do you not see how illogical this statement is?  This isn't a compromise, this is you demanding you get your own way.or else and isn't helpful to the discussion.
 * Firstly, there are no votes on wikipedia. This isn't a WP:DEMOCRACY, you can't use a vote to eliminate an option.  Secondly, the consultation above was about an entirely DIFFERENT proposal.  Don't assume people will oppose this proposal until they have said so.  Thirdly, consensus can change.  Even if most did oppose an option at first, it doesn't mean they always will.  Your demands that we stop discussing compromise solutions and accept your "status quo" is extremely inappropriate.  Editors are free to discuss improvements to the page here as they see fit.  Trying to stop a conversation because you are opposed to it isn't acceptable.
 * If you'd like discussion of the single sortable list to be dropped then suggest a real compromise. Until we have new ideas to discuss, we are left with proposals that lack a consensus.  Rejecting ever option but the status quo, and then calling that a compromise, doesn't help move the discussion forward.  TDL (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive addressed the original research claim. Use UN member states and vatican for the primary list. Then everything else in the second list. What gets put in that second list will face exactly the same problem as a single lists inclusion would have for dealing with entities like Niue and Palestine so there is no problem there with the proposal i support. A clear majority said they were opposed to a single list. That feedback should have been respected, but oh no. Carry on regardless. A sortable single list is still a single list. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems you haven't understood the point of this whole conversation. Calling "UN+VC" "widely recognized" states and everything else "limited recognition" is OR since it can't be backed up by sources.  By that criteria, states in the "Limited recognition" section could have more recognition than states in the "Widely recognized" section, a clearly illogical position.  And relying on the UN Membership is not neutral, since a single state can veto membership.  Why not just make the main list the "List of states recognized by the USA+UK+France+Russia+China"?  This would be just as neutral as what you are proposing.  Not changing anything doesn't address these issue, no matter how many times you call it a compromise.  If you don't like the single sortable list compromise, then I suggest supporting one of the numerous other compromises which have been suggested, or coming up with a compromise of your own.  TDL (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, stating the non-criteria "UN+VC" is not "addressed the original research" - it is the OR itself.
 * You haven't adressed my other questions too, so I really don't understand why you object single sortable list (I think it is because you don't consider the "other" states to be states at all - but this is a separate issue).
 * In any case, even if there are to be two/more lists - using UN+VC is OR and POV, using UN members+observers is POV (and maybe also OR). There wasn't enough support for options 14/15 (using UN statements or map for non-member states/more than two lists).
 * As I explained above - Vienna lists are actually used by international organizations/treaties, in contrast to UN observership that is not used - so, since we have big debate/disagreements and, if we are going to keep two separate lists it is better that we sort them according to an established criteria actually utilized, not according to a criteria invented by us. Do we all agree here?
 * And this was the solution that we were at when the RFC was made. Alinor (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it is original research to split the list down UN member states and non UN member states. That is not original research, we are allowed to decide for ourselves how we present information. Maybe we should take this matter to No_original_research/noticeboard and ask there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can choose, but as we are in disagreement it is better to use some established/sourced criteria (Vienna lists). I think this is the only solution since we have no consensus among us for any of the other options, that are constructed by us.
 * "UN+VC vs. the rest" has heavy UN POV, regardless if it is OR or not. I think it is OR because it is not a criteria, but a wished result, and because the nearest criteria (UN members+observers) is not used by international organizations/treaties and also because UN observership is not an official UN status, but only a de facto practice.
 * About "UN members vs. the rest" - There is already a List of United Nations member states. Using sorting criteria of UN members vs. non-members is heavy POVed and was not supported by most of the editors (option 7). Alinor (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7 voted for UN memberstates + vatican. Just 3 people voted at the time for a single list. How is us choosing to divide the list by UN/non UN member states original research? I get the point about it being "UN POV", but the UN is the most authoritative body on the planet and going by their opinion makes more sense to me than having to explain a complex Vienna formula that most people will have never heard of. We are not keeping states off the list if we choose to use the UN for the primary list, it just means they appear in the second table below where their status can be explained in more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating, as we currently do, that all UN Member/Observer states are "widely recognized", and everyone else has only "limited recognition" is original research since you can't back this statement up with sources. More than that, it's false as many scenarios discussed previously have demonstrated.
 * You are suggesting that any state which isn't a UN member/observer is viewed as a non-state by the UN, which just isn't true. Many examples can (and have) been provided to contradict this position.  The UN's POV is that any state satisfying the "Vienna formula" is a state.  If you believe that "the UN is the most authoritative body on the planet", then why do you insist on miss-representing their POV here?
 * And, has been pointed out many times, the "Vienna formula" is only marginally more complex than UN membership. It just uses membership in ~10 organizations instead of a single.  It can be thoroughly explained in a single sentence.  TDL (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About "just 3 supported single list" - yes, but nobody is proposing 'single list' now - a 'single sortable list' is proposed (I described above why I find the sortability advantageous) - this is a new option, proposed after the 15 options table.
 * If we go to a two-table solution:
 * We should not construct the list depending on what "most people have heard of" or not. The list (and any Wikipedia content in general) should be verifiable and if possible, correct. There is no problem if it contradicts common misconceptions for example.
 * The Vienna formula is not complex - it is just a list of organizations. (as already pointed out)
 * As already explained this Vienna list is used by multiple authoritative international organizations/treaties because their members/signatories considered "UN membership" as inappropriate criteria for selecting subsequent members/signatories - because they didn't want to restrict it to UN members only, but to "any state" (clearly indicating that there are states non-members of the UN) willing to follow the rules of the treaty/organization. UN membership restriction is appropriate criteria in case of pure UN bodies/initiatives, where non-member states do not participate (but we already have a List of UN member states - we could link to it from the lead or see also sections if it's not already linked to).
 * We can use direct quote (verifiable) from any of these treaties/founding statues to describe the Vienna list - and it is really a single sentence. Alinor (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well do not mention "widely recognized" and "limited recognition". Just state UN member states + vatican and non UN member states. A single sortable list is still a single list and i oppose it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's talk about the two-table solution.
 * I think that nobody objects removing adjectives like "widely recognized" (see in the discussion archives). So we have a consensus on this point, right? I propose that this should be implemented regardless of the rest of the discussion, e.g. immediately.
 * Additionally you propose splitting the list in "UN members + vatican" vs. "the rest". This proposal has one fundamental flaw:


 * Arbitrary (OR/user-POV) addition of single entity to one of the tables, without any criteria: "+Vatican"
 * Why not "and Cook Islands" instead of "and Vatican"? - see my comment (above "procedure steps" heading), timed 11:06, 16 September 2010. I also asked this question (but you ignored it) above in my comment timed 14:17, 16 September 2010.
 * I don't know why you still insist on "+Vatican" instead of the "+UN observers" that would give the same result, but is at least a criteria instead of arbitrary editor statement "I want the XXX state in table Y". Anyway, "+UN observers" has other flaws:


 * UN-focused - why this is inappropriate was described already (in the discussion archives), but please look at my comment directly above your last comment (and the Vienna formula sources describing the same thing - in the discussion archives), timed 06:32, 18 September 2010.
 * UN observership is an unofficial practice, not a "status" in/by the UN - check in multiple places above, including my comment timed 06:00, 15 September 2010.
 * UN observership is not used by international treaties/organizations as differentiator, but the Vienna list is used. So, why should we use a different than the internationally established criteria? (see my comments timed 11:06, 16 September 2010 and 06:32, 18 September 2010)
 * So, my proposal is to use as sorting criteria the verifiable internationally established and used Vienna list/formula (easy verifiable both as definition of the criteria and as the resulting list) - since we don't agree on single sortable list and we don't agree on some other editor-defined sorting criteria (15+ options presented so far). Alinor (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment on the criteria, but I second the removal of the adjectives about recognition, where necessary replacing them with more detail. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with doing away with "widely recognised", although such a change should not be implemented immediately until we are closer to resolution of the other matters. When i say "UN+Vatican" i am fine with us saying it as UN+observer state to justify it, thats the reason ive been grouping the Vatican with the UN member states. On the Vienna formula, can you remind me what changes would be made if implemented. When i asked some time ago, i got told thered be no change on modified Vienna formula and only Kosovo would be added if we followed strict Vienna formula? is that accurate? And would modified vienna be considered original research?
 * I am not obsessed with the United Nations view. What i am obsessed about is not wanting nations like Kosovo, Cook Islands and Palestine in the same table as France and Germany. I believe there is a big difference between these entities and they are not justified the same status in our lists. Using the United Nations + Observer state basically means we keep the method used on this page for 3 years and it is not our own point of view, its based on the United Nations itself to determine who gets in the top list. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a connection between the removal of the adjectives and the rest of the criteria debate - the removal can be implement without changing anything else (except some punctuation/capital letters).
 * You say "UN+observer ... is the reason", but then "i am obsessed about is not wanting nations like Kosovo, Cook Islands and Palestine in the same table as France and Germany." - that are two different things - the former is a criteria, the latter is a editor wish/POV.
 * You say "based on the United Nations itself to determine" - what does "itself" mean here? This is not a List of UN members/observers (there are other articles about that). As explained above we need to AVOID the UN "itself". And this is not my/our point of view - this is the internationally established practice - the Vienna formula/list.
 * As I explained above (in comment timed 11:06, 16 September 2010) your POV of placing Vatican along France is similar to the POV of placing Cook Islands along France. Another POV is placing Kosovo along France (for example the France government POV). That's why we need sorting criteria, not arbitrary user-generated lists of states (like UN+Vatican, UN+CI+Niue, UN+Kosovo, UN-Israel, etc. combinations). And again - of the criteria that we discuss the Vienna formula/list is actually utilized by international organizations/treaties, where the others are not (if we exclude the options that rely on individual statements from the UN secretariat for each non-member state - this was deemed to have the disadvantages of: too complex, maybe violating SYNTHESIS policy, maybe unreasonably UN-focused).
 * That's why I propose to stick to this established criteria. I don't see a reason to deviate from it (on the opposite - we are in disagreement, so we have to use the "externally" supported criteria).
 * About the result of Vienna list (where goes Kosovo, where Vatican, etc.) - I think that at this stage the result is irrelevant - we will just follow the criteria. And I think this is the main point of disagreement between our positions - you want the list to be constructed in a particular way, you have already choosed the places of all entities and you try to find a way to put them in the places you choosed. I have also personal preferences about the place of each entity, but I am willing to compromise on my personal POVs - in order to implement an impartial, workable, verifiable criteria and list.
 * If there is no consensus for a single sortable list (that I think solves all issues very neatly) - then I don't see any other easy verifiable (for both usage/definition and result) option than Vienna list.
 * I am willing to discuss whether we should use real Vienna or modified-by-us Vienna (and what entity goes where, if it is OR, etc. - but yes, you are correct in what you say about the result) only if these are the last two options left, only if we have a consensus that we should choose between these two, as otherwise this will be just a discussion about "I think the Vatican is like France, but Kosovo is not" vs. "I think Kosovo is like France, but Vatican is not" - pure editor-POVs.
 * So, again, I propose to use the internationally established Vienna formula/list criteria (whether to modify it - to be discussed if Vienna is selected). Any reasons to object? Alinor (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's end this
Why is this talk page still always at the top of my watchlist? Doesn't anyone else find this debate rather tedious? Especially now ... half of the editors involved have apparently lost interest: Xavier has blacked out from boredom, Taivo is still reading his way through Alinor's last essay "comment", and Orange Tuesday was apparently eaten by something back in August. There are no new arguments, and no new ideas. Considering that consensus seems to be divided about whether and which changes need to be introduced, considering that faults and concerns have been raised with each proposal made, and considering the unlikelihood that any additional proposals will counter all of these issues, the status quo is unlikely to change any time soon unless concessions are made between editors.

The following proposal affects both the sorting and inclusion criteria. It is arguable that entries have remained under the categories that they currently are for good reason. Given the quotes below, and given the disputed nature of many entries in the list, it is my firm belief that separation is essential. The following proposal will have minimal impact on the current placement of entries. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

- WP:NPOV

"Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity."

- WP:ASSERT

"Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure ... It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false &mdash; an implication that may not be appropriate."

- WP:STRUCTURE

Inclusion criteria
Concern has been raised regarding whether certain individual entries meet the Declarative theory of statehood, and whether this can be verified. Using the Declarative theory and Constitutive theory together as criteria would solve any irregularities: if a state does not qualify under one, it will qualify under the other.

In previous discussions on the matter, sources were provided detailing the recognition of the Cook Islands and Niue by foreign governments. A number of explicit statements of recognition were provided. If these can be retrieved and adequately supported, then these states would qualify under this criteria.  Night w   18:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't agree with the first category "UN members+observers" - as I repeatedly raised the issue in the above section and got no reply. If we are going with a three groups I propose the following: "UN member states"(192), "Rest of Vienna list states"(Cook Islands, Niue, Vatican City and maybe Kosovo), "Other states" (9 firm and maybe Kosovo). Alinor (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Id rather two lists with the Vatican put in the second list than 3 if including the vatican is so problematic. (ill reply to your previous post tomorrow Alinor). BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I say with Kosovo we err with caution and keep it in the third list, wait until worldwide consensus to clearly move before we follow. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As per my previous comments, my preference is to either keep each "category" of state in it's own section or to use Vienna+Others (since this merger is justifiable). As per the policy Night quoted, the 3-grouping suggestion has the following issues:
 * "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views." - basing the main list on the UN GA's POV alone (Members+Observers) clearly violates this as a single state can keep a state out of the UN. (Vienna would solve this by considering a variety of organization's (who have no veto) POV).
 * "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate." - selctively merging the observers into the main list violates this as it implies that Observers are "undisputed" and Agency members are "disputed", which clearly isn't necessarily the case.
 * That being said, I think Alinor's 3-grouping suggestion (Members+Agency+Others) is much more neutral than the one proposed above since it technically doesn't require any "categories" to be merged (Observers are not a formal category of state as Alinor pointed out above) and I'd be willing to support this.
 * Chipmunkdavis, the whole reason for establishing a criteria is that it's impossible to determine what constitutes worldwide consensus without doing OR. If we used "modified Vienna", Kosovo would be put in the "Other states" section.  However, the moment they satisfy the criteria for the "Agency members" then they would graduate.  Either they satisfy the criteria or they don't.  We have to be committed to following our own criteria in the future, otherewise the whole criteria is a sham constructed to get the outcome we want.  TDL (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that any separation of UN members (regardless where observers go) from the rest of Vienna list states has excessive UN-focus, that's why I prefer 2 groups (Vienna, others), but in case there is no consensus on such arrangement (or is there consensus? I still haven't seen the arguments about why we should not use the established and verifiable Vienna list) I proposed the compromise (as it is more UN-focused and closer to OR) with 3 groups (UN, Vienna, others). Alinor (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No comments in 3 days - do we have a consensus for two groups of Vienna/Others? (a side note I found here - "What is a Permanent Observer? Non-Member States of the United Nations, which are members of one or more specialized agencies, can apply for the status of Permanent Observer." - it seems that even the UNGA uses Vienna formula/list - and that observers are a subset of Vienna) Alinor (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC) It is not explicitly stated, but it looks like the Vienna-criteria is in practice a requirement for a state in order to get the unofficial UN observership. Alinor (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New: two/more separate tables embedded with a sortable list
Sorry to distract you from the above debate (we still have to choose 2 or 3 groups and how to divide them), but I just came to an idea how to combine the "2/3 groups" and "single sortable list" into one article:
 * 1) The easiest way is to duplicate the content - in one section 2/3 separate tables (implementing one particular sorting criteria selected by the editors in the debate) and in another section a sortable list (implementing all sorting criteria options - according reader's choice). But the negative here is that content is duplicated and has to be synchronized when editing, etc.
 * 2) The combo way (see table here) - one table with clearly separated headings (like the current "Internationally recognized sovereign states" and "Other states" - to be decided/formulated in the above debate), but the reader will be free to select some other column for sorting according to his choice - in the linked example there are main headings like "European Economic Area", "European Microstates", etc., but at the same time you can sort the whole list according to GDP or according to GDP per capita. Default sort is restored by page refresh, but we could also implement some clever wiki-markup (or clever naming in the first or another/zero column) to make it possible even without refreshing. Alinor (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose needless duplication and the problem with that combo table is the main headings then get mixed up in the list when you use sort features. It is easy to see how there could be confusion when you see underneath "Current Enlargement Agenda" section heading: Egypt. which is what you can get after using the sort feature on that page.
 * I would be prepared to support a single table like that with section headings if it was not sortable (there for it automatically and always remains Main list A-Z then other states A-Z and possibly have them shaded in a separate colour to help distinguish them. And i would be prepared to support (UN, Vienna, others) to divide the sections, provided there is no repetition. So section two would have to be something like "Vienna states that are not UN members" then the 3rd section could be "others". BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vienna states that are not UN members" - yes, I aways thought of such arrangement, when we spoke about separate UN and Vienna lists (not of arrangement "UN" and "repeat UN + rest of Vienna")
 * If the table is not sortable there is no point in making it. The point of the 'single sortable table with separation headings' is that the reader can sort it as he wants (whatever criteria he wants to check), but the default view is as similar as possible to the default view of UN->Vienna->Others.
 * When the reader clicks on "sort" buttons the headings can go at the bottom (this could be arranged when coding the table, I think) - so that there is no 'Egypt enlargement' issue. Alinor (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that duplicating the content in two lists is pretty awkward. Plus, then we'd have to decide which list to put first, etc.  Overall, this would probably just create more problems then it would solve.  I like the "sortable divided list" idea though.  It's not hard to make the section headings sort properly.  I'll mock something up now as a demo.  TDL (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortable-divided list

 * The table above can be sorted in two ways. Sorting the "Name" column produces an alphabetical list of states (regardless of UN status).  All of the headers sort to the bottom of the list in this state.  Sorting the "Status" column restores the default "UN Status" sorting (with each section sorted alphabetically).  The headers float back to their proper location.  The headers make a more clear division between the categories of states, which addresses many of the concerns raised about the previous sortable list.
 * One significant benefit of this approach is that it allows us to present both the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood in a single list. Since the list's inclusion criteria is the Montevideo Convention, an alphabetical sorting gives the declarative list and the "Status" sorting gives us the constitutive list.  TDL (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So where on this table would fit the following: Kosovo, Palestine, Cook Islands and Niue?  Night w   13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is related to the set of separators that we choose. I propose Vienna/Others or UN/Vienna/Others. The above discussion.
 * Good work with the table, TDL!
 * Also, we could later split the extant into more columns - recognition and/or claims-disputes. But let's restrict the changes at first to the current two column solution. Alinor (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As Alinor said, that depends on the outcome of the discussion above on how to do the divisions. Palestine clearly belongs in the "No membership" category, since they are only a non-state observer (and not a member of any specialized agencies).  We could consider alternative wordings for the "No membership" heading if you're concerned with this.  TDL (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The table looks very good, although i do not see a need for sortable options on the second column. I think we should stick with two columns. Now that the subheadings get stuck at the top or bottom it is less problematic. If we could colour shade the rows for all non member states so there is a clear visible difference even when people have used the sort option, i would be prepared to support this compromise of a single sortable list. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW: The "Status" column needs to be sortable so that the original "UN Status" sorting can be restored after alphabetically sorting the list. As for colouring, I'd be OK with this if there was consensus in favour of it.  TDL (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, thanks, did not realise that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

On the dividers, i would rather we go with the 3 shown above in the example. UN, Observer, then others. That avoids needing to explain the Vienna system which will confuse some people (i am still not 100% sure exactly what changes it will cause). However if there is colouring of all non UN members in the list, i am prepared to support UN, UN non member state, Vienna, Others. (or the reverse, simply shading UN member states a certain colour, then leaving everything else white. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support the table presented above with the un, oberver, and non un categories.XavierGreen (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy it seems that we are nearing a compromise, so I support using color (the "main" category to remain uncolored, and then to have one or more colors for the rest) to distinguish the "special" categories even when alphabetically sorted.
 * About the sorting - please see my comments/questions in the above discussion(s) - any sepration of "observers" from the "rest of Vienna list" seems inappropriate, so I support Vienna/others or UN/Vienna/others. Alinor (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UN/Vienna/Others with Vienna / Others being coloured i can accept. Can we produce a clear list here of what wll get put in others/Vienna just so its clear to everyone what alterations to the status of entities will be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we went with three categories (UN/Vienna/Others) the only state who's status would definitely change would be the VC, who would be moved to the "Vienna" section. Kosovo would either be in the "Other" or "Vienna" section (depending of whether we included IMF/World Bank membership in our definition).  If we decide to add CI/Niue to the list, they would be sorted in the "Vienna" section.  TDL (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Vatican seems to be the only thing making me unhappy. Why should it be given a category of its own? Ladril (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the VC, the "UN Non-member States" category would contain CI/Niue if we decide to add them. Also, depending on the precise definition we use (IMF/World Bank), Kosovo could also be included this category.  I'd prefer we merge this category into the main list (so only 2 divisions), but we've been unable to build a consensus behind that.  Hence, the three-category compromise proposal above, which seems to be heading towards a consensus.  TDL (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Niue and Cook islands still worry me. I dont mind where if the vatican is kept with the UN or gets put with the others. I still think it would be very controversial if we have a vienna formula as a separate section which puts Kosovo in a different league to things like Taiwan. Putting them all in "others", but in their status column including the fact under Vienna theyd classify as one, seems to provide the info still but is far less controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving some context to the Niue/Cook Is. situation: they were admitted into the World Health Organization with a vote from at least two-thirds of the Health Assembly, and they participate in the Cotonou Agreement, meaning they receive substantial aid as Third-World states from the European Union. This is why dividing the list in "UN+Vatican" and "others" leaves us with no easy way to place them. They are not UN members but they aren't as isolated from the sphere of international relations as Somaliland or Northern Cyprus are.


 * But yeah, as BW says, dividing the list into UN-members and non-members seems better than the Vienna formula, simply because the latter is a legal term that makes more sense to a specialist in the subject than to the general reader of Wikipedia. Ladril (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UN/Others is too heavy UN-focused, this is one of the biggest flaws of the current state of the list.
 * Vienna formula is in the end just the list of states used by many international organizations/treaties, it is not complicated, it its definition is sourced, its contents are verifiable, it can be explained in a single sentence (not much longer, if at all, than the current sorting description).
 * I really would prefer Vienna/Others division (UN inside Vienna) as this is used by the UN itself and others international organizations/treaties. But since it seems there isn't consensus for this (or is it?) I support the UN/rest-of-Vienna/Others division that seems near consensus (if not already at consensus?) already.
 * If all agree on 'single sortable separable colored table' and on UN/Vienna/Others - we have to decide if we should implement Vienna strictly or do our own modifications to it. Alinor (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "- we have to decide if we should implement Vienna strictly or do our own modifications to it." - This highlights that the Vienna formula is not as simple as UN membership. Either a country is a UN Member or it is not. There can be no dispute about it, yes its UN POV< but the UN is the global community and status as a member is very important. I definitely strongly oppose just Vienna / others. Id rather UN/Others with simply mentioning Vienna status in the countrys status column., but yes id go along with UN/Vienna/Others if that is what others really want and its required to get consensus and resolve this matter. As for what type of Vienna id use, the one with the least in it to avoid confusion, For example having Kosovo in one section and Taiwan in another has the potential to cause problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are missrepresenting the UN's POV. Never has the UN claimed that states who choose not to become members aren't states.  Hence, using UN Membership isn't the UN's POV, it's your POV.  The UN's POV is that any state which satisfies the "Vienna formula" is a state, which is the justification for using it here.
 * Having PRC and Kosovo in different sections has the potential to cause problems as well. PRC has 2.4 times more recognizers than Kosovo, while Kosovo has 3.2 times more recognizers than ROC.  It's by no means obvious that Kosovo is more like Taiwan than PRC.  They are somewhere between the two, moving closer to the PRC every day.  This is precisely why we need an objective criteria to avoid having to make these judgement calls.
 * UN membership is important, hence why we have an entire list dedicated to subject. Our task here isn't to make a list that will satisfy POV pushers, it's to make one using a neutral and verifiable criteria.   THE UNSC isn't neutral, hence why I oppose relying exclusivly on them.  TDL (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UN membership is easily verifiable, either a country is a member state or it is not. It would be problematic if we just listed the UN member states on this page, but that has not been the suggestion, it is simply to continue to separate the UN member states from all other states (which has been the case for 3 years), even if the main list isnt specifically like that because of their UN status, the result is the same. I can not support removing UN membership from the sorting criteria. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with BW on this one. In order to maintain consistency with other lists that use the UN as a variable of classification (such as List of states with limited recognition), we need to be able to organize the list by UN-non UN membership. Cook Islands, Niue and the Vatican would go under "Non-UN membership" of course. Besides, practically all of the relevant literature on political geography cites the UN. We cannot just do away with it. The Vienna formula that has been proposed has the following drawbacks:


 * 1. That it leaves the door open to judgment calls from editors as to whether a state fulfills the criteria or not. Legal analyses are not something we as editors should be undertaking.


 * 2. That it is not the only formula which can be used. How about the "All States" formula the UN has applied as well? Why should we choose one over the other? Let's go for something simple instead. Ladril (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Our task here isn't to make a list that will satisfy POV pushers, it's to make one using a neutral and verifiable criteria.  THE UNSC isn't neutral, hence why I oppose relying exclusivly on them."

Neutrality is maintained by listing all entites with an effective claim to statehood, as ascertained by third-party sources, and avoiding weasely categorizing of them. Sorting them by UN membership is by no means a breach of neutrality. True, the UN is not the only barometer of statehood - this is why we continue to list Northern Cyprus and Taiwan -, but there is a certain relationship between its membership and what is considered the "international community", so we shouldn't gloss over it. Ladril (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Kosovo in relation to the rest of states, which seems to be creating a lot of disagreement: what I propose is to include it under any formula if and only if it we can find a third-party source that categorizes it this way. Ladril (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "This highlights that the Vienna formula is not as simple as UN membership." - wrong. Vienna is as simple, but WE are making it more complicating, because some editors want to exclude IMF/Kosovo (whether this is justified is another thing).
 * "Either a country is a UN Member or it is not" - same for Vienna - either a country is member of Vienna organizations or not.
 * "UN membership is easily verifiable" - same for Vienna organizations membership.
 * "to maintain consistency with other lists that use the UN as a variable of classification" - we don't have to maintain such consistency - sometimes there is a special/different reason for the other lists to use the UN, sometimes it's better if they are changed not to use it
 * "That it leaves the door open to judgment calls from editors as to whether a state fulfills the criteria or not." - no, it doesn't - the Vienna list pretty clear and easily verifiable
 * Why not "All States" formula - what is this formula wording? Isn't Vienna adopted by international organizations/treaties exactly because the words "all states" leave the door open to judgment calls from others as to whether a state fulfills the criteria or not.?
 * "international community" is a weasel phrase in itself, not better than "widely recognized"
 * In summary - I still see the 'single sortable separable colored table' with separators UN/Vienna/Others as the nearest consensus compromise.
 * I propose that we use the strict Vienna so that there is no editor-judgements/complexity/etc. issues like these raised above. Alinor (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "In order to maintain consistency with other lists that use the UN as a variable of classification" - I don't think this is a good reason. We aren't obliged to follow other list just to maintain consistency.  List of countries by population lists dependent territories as well.  Should we follow suit to maintain consistency?
 * "..all of the relevant literature on political geography cites the UN. We cannot just do away with it." - No one is suggesting we do away with UN membership.  The "Vienna formula" just makes UN membership one of several organizations which we consider when sorting as opposed to the only organization we consider.
 * "That it leaves the door open to judgment calls from editors as to whether a state fulfills the criteria or not." - How does the "Vienna formula" leave the door open to judgment calls? Either they are a member of one of the organizations or not.  It's an easily verifiable fact.
 * "That it is not the only formula which can be used." - True, we could use "all states". However, verification is much more difficult for that criteria.  Choosing "Vienna" over "All states" is no different than choosing "UN Membership" over "All states".  I'm not sure what your point is here.
 * "Sorting them by UN membership is by no means a breach of neutrality." - Sorting them by UN membership is equivalent to sorting them by: a) States which are recognized by the US+UK+France+Russia+China and b) Other states. How is that neutral?  If it wasn't for the UNSC veto, my neutrality concerns would be much less.  The reason the "Vienna formula" was invented was because the UN itself considered UN membership to be unneutral:
 * "But when a treaty is open to "States", how is the Secretary-General to determine which entities are States? If they are Members of the United Nations or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, there is no ambiguity. However, a difficulty has occurred as to possible participation in treaties when entities which appeared otherwise to be States could not be admitted to the United Nations, nor become Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice owing to the opposition, for political reasons, of a permanent member of the Security Council. Since that difficulty did not arise as concerns membership in the specialized agencies, where there is no "veto" procedure, a number of those States became members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community. " - UN Legal Affairs
 * All that said, I agree that using strict UN membership, instead of the current weasely categorization, is a big improvement over the status quo. At least it's verifiable, if not neutral.  However, based on the table previously created by Alinor, it seems unlikely that a consensus would support such a criteria.  TDL (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We need to get this matter resolved, clearly theres not going to be consensus to leave out using Vienna, and there is not going to be consensus for leaving out the United Nations. So lets just go ahead with UN / Vienna (not included in the UN list) / others (we aint even touched on the restrictions for that list yet). Placed in a sortable table like shown above with section headings and with all non UN member states coloured. so they can be easily identified even when someone has used the sort feature.

Do we have a source clearly listing Vienna states? So its not original research with us deciding based on their formula what does and does not qualify? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having in mind the last quote given by TDL it seems more and more inappropriate to use UN/Vienna/Others instead of Vienna/others. But maybe BritishWatcher is correct that it would be hard to reach consensus for Vienna/Others.
 * Vienna wording art.81: "all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice" - you can click on the articles to view membership lists - this means all UN, CI, Niue, Vatican, Kosovo (IMF, WBG). I can check and compile a list of what state has membership in what agencies later if needed.
 * Let's implement the table with UN/Vienna/Others at first. Later, we can discuss additional changes proposals (Kosovo; 2 or 3 or more colors; general inclusion criteria; etc.). Also, I propose that we keep the "S -> Korea, South" redirecting links (to be sorted alphabetically like all entries) in both "UN->Vienna->Others" and "alphabetical order" views. Alinor (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ok so CI, Niue, Vatican, Kosovo will appear in the Vienna section, everything else in Others. Im ok with redirects, provided its only in their own section like South Korea > Korea, South in UN section ect. So Palestine should not have a redirect in the UN section pointing to the Other section of the list for example. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar concern to BW's. In my opinion, we should not be applying our own legal analyses to the encyclopedia. But this is in fact what we're doing when we say Kosovo fits such and such formula. We should not be doing this unless a third-party source clearly states that Kosovo has been accepted under the formula. Same for all other "other" states. Ladril (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC) A clearly written reference document on the Vienna and All States formula here: Ladril (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a valid concern if we were to claim in the that article that "Kosovo satisfies the Vienna formula". However, if we only claim that "Kosovo is a member of IMF/World bank" or "Kosovo participates as a full member in two of the UN's specialized agencies" then there shouldn't be any concerns over this as it wouldn't require any analysis.  TDL (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. However, if this is to be adopted, the page should not put the textual emphasis on the formula itself, but in the membership status. Ladril (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Moreover, the second division should not be "UN nonmember states" but "Members of UN specialized agencies" or something similar. Ladril (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should emphasize agency membership instead of the formula, to make verification simpler. (Although it should probably be mentioned somewhere in the "Criteria for inclusion" section as our "motivation".)  Renaming the section heading is also probably appropriate.  TDL (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recap then. Will the categories be:


 * 1. 192 UN member states.
 * 2. Members of UN Specialized Agencies. Includes Cook Islands, Kosovo, Niue, Vatican.
 * 3. No UN membership. All the others. Ladril (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can go along with that although we need an explanation of Vienna somewhere in the article to explain why we have chosen such a field. Are we also sure that not a single dependent territory is a member of a UN specialized Agency? Another concern i just want to check on, does this is any way impact on something like the European Union? which has a place in some international settings. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * List of specialized agencies here. Not a single colony is a member state of any, though some have associate memberships. Ladril (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Vatican City is a member state of the ITU: . This means the second category can be shortened to "Members of UN Specialized Agencies". Ladril (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the European Union, it is not legally viewed as a state by anybody, so the proposal does not affect it. Ladril (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list of UN Agencies, with all members:

FAO ICAO IFAD ILO IMO IMF ITU UNESCO UNIDO UPU UNWTO World Bank Group WHO WIPO WMO

Ladril (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposal seems ... okay. I will support it under the condition that IMF and World Bank are excluded, as their voting system is proportionately divided by shares or something, and thus not democratic. In either organisation, resolutions require an 85% supermajority. The United States commands 16% of the voting power in both, which mean it can break a supermajority on its own. Now, am I raising this simply to see Kosovo remain in the "Others" category where it fits best? Probably. But the argument is still relevant, and I won't support a sorting criteria that uses unequal voting systems.  Night w   02:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be more comfortable with that method too. If it can be justified without people being able to claim its original research on our part to exclude it. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to be a bit more flexible on the Kosovo issue. What we're looking for is to establish categories that are as objective and verifiable as possible. If we start inserting our own legal interpretations (i. e., playing lawyer) we are only substituting one biased proposal for another. Ladril (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an "interpretation". It's detailed in the organisations' respective charters. It's the way they operate.  Night w   05:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you're engaging the legal aspects on your own, you're interpreting. And what you're asking for is to sort the countries not according to a verifiable criterion, but according to what you interpret as the validity of a specific criterion. I do not think that's accurate not fair, but I'll leave others to explain it to you. Ladril (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having in mind the disputes above I think that it is better that we stick to a direct quote of the wording of the criteria (and provide source link) and that we don't make any modifications - because these are accused of editor-OR/POV. One of the advantages of Vienna is that its wording itself is verifiable inside the text of multiple international treaties/conventions. This advantage would be severely restricted if we modify the wording.
 * I don't find so problematic if we have Kosovo in the second section (not inside the main/first section of 192) along 3 other entities and the 9 other others below them. That is one of the reasons why I am willing to accept the compromise of UN/Vienna/Others instead of Vienna/Others that otherwise seem to be better grounded per the quote above from TDL (we can come to this later, but let's focus on UN/Vienna/Others for now). After all, Kosovo will not be in the main list and also we will not be the ones deciding where to place it, but an impartial criteria utilized by international treaties/organizations.
 * About wording - I support the proposal to put the wording itself (with source), instead of unclear reference like "Section two includes rest of Vienna formula states" and to provide the motivation in a footnote. Also, I think that we should not restrict the group of organizations only to the specialized agencies, but include ICJ and IAEA as they are part of the quoted wording (see quoted Vienna above) - this will not change the lists themselves, but will retain consistency and verifiability. If we remove ICJ/IAEA this is akin to removing IMF/WBG, but we will not even have a reason for this.
 * About "S -> Korea, South" redirects. In the current situation in UN members there is "P -> Palestine", but maybe since our new table will have an alphabetic sort option such duplication would not be required - only alphabetically-required redirects should remain (such as Korea that can be sorted under S, N and K; Taiwan under C and T; etc.) - in UN->Vienna->Others view the single redirect will be in the appropriate section (Koreas redirects in UN section, Vatican/Holy See redirect in Vienna section; Taiwan/China redirect in Others section, etc.); in alpha-sorted view - there will be only one section and only one redirect, so again it's OK.
 * About dependencies/EU membership in Vienna organizations - as somebody pointed before - the EU and the dependencies do not cover the inclusion criteria at all (they don't claim to be states and nobody recognizes them as such) - so even if they are full members (not associate or observer, in fact there are a few cases of dependencies/EU full membership) of some Vienna organization - they will not be included in the list in the first place, so there will be no need to sort them into any section. Alinor (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Vienna formula section that can be used for linking to in the motivation footnote. Alinor (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "in fact there are a few cases of dependencies/EU full membership" Care to cite a few? Ladril (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not important (as explained above - these will not get into the list anyway), but if you insist see the WMO and UPU (both have some dependencies as full members) and also FAO (EU is full member).
 * I will prepare a table with membership in the agencies (like here). Alinor (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here. I just believe you're confused in some cases. The WMO divides its members into "member states" (all UN members plus the Cook Islands and Niue) and territories (six memberships for dependent territories of the UK, the Caribbean countries of the Netherlands, the overseas countries of France, and the special administrative regions of China). This distinction is important. Logically, territories are not member states and do not fit into the Vienna formula. Ladril (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the EU is not listed as a member of the FAO in the link above (the list of member nations includes only UN members, Cook and Niue). Are you referencing the links above or the Wikipedia pages? The latter are riddled with mistakes. Ladril (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The UPU has as members only two entities that are not UN member states or Vatican: one is "Overseas Territories (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", but I think it's pretty clear from the name they participate as a dependency, not a state. The other one is "Netherlands Antilles and Aruba". Ladril (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that is relevant. As Alinor said, to be included one would have to qualify under the inclusion criteria.  Night w   15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they are dependencies and of course it is clear from their membership status that their are such (as having this in the name or as having "territory membership"/"organization membership" for European Community in the FAO link - instead of the regular "state membership"). These get associate/observer status in most cases. What I was meaning when I gave the WMO/UPU/FAO examples was that there are cases of "full membership", albeit "organizational"/"territorial" - distinct from 'regular/state' - so that we should pay attention to the exact wording that we use - to emphasis "state members", not just "members". The direct quote of Vienna formula doesn't have such issues and we also have the inclusion criteria pre-sorting, so everything is OK anyways. Alinor (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're on the same wavelength then. I just wanted to get this straight as part of the consensus in order to avoid confusing other editors. Ladril (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have agreement for: I think only the last one wasn't proposed so far. My reasoning is that with this separation we already give enough attention to the UN, so at least we could leave non-UN Vienna states with "regular" background color as the UN Vienna states. See also here: "...when the "any State" or "all States" formula was adopted, [the UN Secretary General] would be able to implement it only if the General Assembly provided him with the complete list of the States coming within the formula, other than those falling within the "Vienna formula"..." (among other things already quoted above) - even the practice of the UN is that when the question comes "is XXX a State?" the Vienna formula is used to determine this. Alinor (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) single sortable separable table
 * 2) sections: "United Nations members", "Vienna formula[footnote] states non-members of the UN", "Other states" (draft names)
 * 3) default sort: UN->Vienna->Others
 * 4) alphabetic redirects (S -> Korea, South) inside sections where required
 * 5) exact quote of Vienna formula wording (no changes from our side about IMF/WBG)
 * 6) distinguished background coloring of Others section; no/same background coloring for Vienna sections (UN and "non-members of the UN")
 * Im ok with all of that except the last point. non UN member states need to all be coloured. I can not support Niue and Cook Islands being the same colour in the list as UN member states. I dont mind if the "other vienna" get a different colour to "other states" although id be fine with them all being the same colour. But France cant be the same colour as Cook Islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most of us agree with the proposal in general. The discussion now seems to be about specific details. I propose it is implemented as it is, and those of us who disagree about specifics can bring them up at a later time, on separate threads. Ladril (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agreee with Ladril. Alinor (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Don't get ahead of yourselves there. This discussion has been a lengthy one, and from the looks of it this proposal would significantly affect the current long-standing setup. Normal wikietiquette here would mean first creating an alternate version as a user subpage, so that the community can effectively view the proposal and what changes would be made. Editors involved in the discussion prior should then be notified of the proposal. If and when consensus is achieved, the new version can be pasted into the mainspace.  Night w   16:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the change will not be so drastic (in the sense of final result looks, not in the sense of work required - the basic structure will be kept, some weasel words in the definition would be replaced with a sourced sorting criteria, a more advanced table format will be implemented), but of course I don't object if a draft is first put here in its entirety. But as the changes would require substatial ammount of coding work (because of the new sortability feature) I think that it's better to know that there is already agreement. So, please, if you disagree with some of the 6 points above - tell so and don't wait for someone to implement all this and then tell "I totally disagree with all that - start from scratch!" Alinor (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The change in status of Niue and Cook Islands is the significant issue in my opinion. That change might be the right one that should have happened long ago or should always have been the case, but its their change in status that still makes this proposal controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This depends on whether they satisfy the inclusion criteria, not on the sorting criteria. If you like we could implement the current change without any alteration to CI/Niue and then we will re-open the issue of whether CI/Niue should be included or not ("do they cover the inclusion criteria?"). If they are to be included - it will be very easy/uncontroversial to sort them as we will have already implemented an unambiguous sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BritishWatcher, why not? See another quote from the UN Office of Legal Affairs (same link, section Cook Islands): "... the Secretary-General felt that the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by the World Health Assembly, whose membership was fully representative of the international community. The guidance the Secretary-General might have obtained from the General Assembly, had he requested it, would evidently have been substantially identical to the decision of the World Health Assembly." and then "...as a full member without any specifications or limitations, the Secretary-General considered that the Cook Islands could henceforth be included in the "all States" formula...". The UN includes CI in "all states". We are dividing all states into sub-categories of our choice, OK, this is a reasonable compromise. But at least we can refrain from coloring "Vienna states"/"All States" differently from each other (e.g. France and CI). We will still color the "other non-Vienna states" differently. And we will still have the 3 categories (e.g. CI is not merged in the category of France). Alinor (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It hasn't actually been determined yet whether the Cook Islands will even be included.  Night w   16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant/different topic - I was referring to the whole "Rest of Vienna" category coloring, not about particular entries there. The CI quote above is just an example that even the UN doesn't divide Vienna, so I think that since we are going to divide it regardless, it would be better to at least use the same background. Alinor (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but i really can not support the change taking place at all if it means Cook Islands and Niue look identical to France in the list when someone uses the sort feature. The whole point of the colour is to continue to highlight the difference even after people use the sort. There is no reason why we cant colour in non UN member states a certain colour different to the "other states". Or simply colour in UN member states. Colour coordination should match the sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CI/Niue may even not be included (see above), but this is about the whole category anyway. About coloring of Vienna - I explained why I think that both parts of the Vienna list (members and non-members of the UN) should have the same color - basically this is the UN practice and also this way we will compensate to a degree our UN-membership-focused sectional division.
 * If we are to color "rest of Vienna" they should be the same color as "others" (otherwise we will have too much colors that get distractive). But if we leave CI/Niue/Vatican uncolored (like the UN) this would leave the door open to "clever" solutions on Kosovo (as the only Vienna list state that is recognized by the UN to be part of another member state) - we could color it like "others" (per UN recognition) and place it in "Rest of Vienna" section (per IMF/WBG membership). Alinor (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't understand why do you object coloring CI the same as France. After all this is the UN and other organizations practice. And they still will be in separate sections in the default view. Alinor (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But they will not be in separate section once people use the sort option. We need all non UN member states coloured in or all member states coloured in. Colouring/sections was the only way i could support a single table. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a list of UN members. The UN is not the emphasis here. It is certainly relevant, and color or no color, UN membership is already prominently displayed. Adding the colors is just a matter of artistic preference and should not get in the way of implementing the table. This seems very minor, given that the explanation for each country tells us whether it is a UN member or not, and some positive act by the reader is needed to mix the UN and non-UN groups in the first place.--Jiang (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Countries don't need identification badges. What we want to highlight is that they are all states. Ladril (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I strongly oppose any change to this articles setup if it does not include colour coordination between UN and non UN member states. If there is sub sections in the table, i fail to see the problem with colour coding to ensure the difference continues to be clear after someone uses the sort feature. I can not support Niue and Cook Islands being in a list with other sovereign states unless a difference is easily seen by all. Depending on them to read the detail of the "status" section is not enough. They will get lost in a list of over 190 sovereign states. Changing the status of Niue and Cook Islands is controversial, ensuring there is a difference makes the change more easier to accept. As i said at the time i support the single sortable table, on the condition that it has colour coordination. That did not apply to just the "other states", it applies to "other states and other vienna states". There is a dfference between UN and non UN sovereign states, and we must highlight that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The choice of whether to use color or not is like saying I like red and you like blue - there really isn't any point in trying to reason when the difference is merely visual. Everyone is going to dig their heads in the sand on this one, and in the end, we end up not even implementing changes people agree on. I really don't see why we should make so strong a distinction between UN and non-UN states - why is UN membership so important? The legal-academic definition of "state" has nothing to do with UN membership. Until the recent decade there were a handful of prominent states who voluntarily decided not to join the UN. It is the other way around - statehood is needed for UN membership, not that UN membership is needed for statehood. The emphasis on the UN wrongly suggests the latter. UN membership is something that is relevant, but shouldn't be emphasized to make the list of United Nations members fully redundant.--Jiang (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been said n times already that we have not decided whether CK and Niue would be in the list. Just like anti-Cook users argue that it's not OK to implement a sorting criteria just to fit them in, you as the other side must accept it's not OK to pre-emptively adopt a colour scheme just in case we decide to add them. Ladril (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is to include Cook Islands/Niue as it includes Vienna states. If we agree on the 3 categories, then we need to agree two of them will be coloured, or the UN category will be coloured. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the consensus is that whether CK and Niue should be in the list as separate entries is another discussion entirely (this one sort of grew out of that one, but they're different). The Vienna category is not a CK/Niue proposal: it is also being proposed to accommodate other entities with disputed status that have existed in the past (North Vietnam, East Germany). The issue is: do we agree on three categories, one for UN members, another for members of UN Agencies and invited states, and another for all other states? Ladril (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to accept "UN member states", "Other Vienna states" and "Other states". On the condition that Vienna / Other are coloued in showing a clear difference between them and the UN member states, or the UN memberstates are coloured in showing the difference. I cant support this change without colour coding being implemented. I also oppose redirects to other sections (so Palestine should not be given a row in the UN memberstate section offering a redirect to its position in the other states section). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Don't get ahead of yourselves there."

Nobody is getting ahead of anything. The issue here is many users (including you) claim to be already tired due to the length of the debate. Since most participating editors have already deserted, I'm suggesting a proactive motion. Do we approve this proposal in general and leave specifics for later? Do we move it to a sandbox? Either of those is acceptable, but there is no point in continuing to argue if only four or five of us have interest any more. Ladril (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A sandbox should be set up, including all the "other/other vienna states" and a couple of UN member states, no point at this stage having to mess about adding all 192 UN member states at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A sandbox just to add a shortened table is no use. Ladril (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A sandbox with a few UN members and all others would be enough to show clearly exactly what the proposal is. There is no point doing one with 192 UN member states if there is not going to be agreement on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just put about 15 or so entries in the first section (preferably starting with A and ending with Z), fill up the other two/three sections entirely, and include whatever other features you've decided to add.
 * Creating your proposal for assessment before implementing it is important, especially in this instance since I don't think you've quite realised what basic problems are going to arise. For example, you've talked about putting hash redirects in the table, but without section breaks in the markup, there's nothing for these (or the TOC box) to link to. So you see, you can't just "implement as it is" and "leave specifics for later", because you won't have a working article. Once you've gotten all the kinks out, your proposal will look better and be more likely get a positive response.
 * There's no need to always be so antagonistic—sometimes I'm actually trying to help the process. And notifying those involved in the discussion is proper wikietiquette, and normal procedure. We don't presume that they are "tired" or have "lost interest" as you suggest; they may in fact simply be waiting for you all to make up your mind about what you want to propose. So please notify them (once you're ready) out of courtesy. Thanks,  Night w   13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should create a full sandbox version of the proposal before it's implemented, in order to work out the kinks. However, I'm not sure how that would be more helpful than the demo presented above at the moment.  There are several contentious issues being debated (where to put Kosovo, colouring, etc.) and a full sandbox version won't help solve these issues.  For example, if I made a demo with Kosovo in the "Other Vienna states" section you might reject it for that single reason.  If you're willing to accept this, then let us know.  Otherwise, we need to solve this issue before moving on to a final proposal.  Waiting for someone to do all the work of creating a full mockup, only to raise your concerns afterwards, isn't a good use of our time.
 * As for the redirects issue you raised above, this isn't hard to get around. I modified the table above so that there is a link for Somaliland in the "UN Members" section.  I linked it directly to Somaliland's entry in the "Other states" section, not to the section heading as in the status quo, although this can be altered if we so desire.  The redirect sorts to the bottom during the alphabetical sort.  TDL (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose redirects for states in different sections. Something in the "other states" section should not be linked to in the UN members list. The only redirects needed are for something like South Korea/Korea, South. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Currently we already have redirects to the "other states" in the "widely recognized states" section.  You are suggesting we delete these redirects?  I think these redirects are helpful.  TDL (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not need redirects because they are all in the same table. I have changed my opposition to the single table, but its on these conditions. 1) Colour coding of non UN member states (or the reverse). 2) Categories in the present proposed order and the default view. 3) No redirects to other sections. I mentioned the redirects at the time and someone else said that would not be needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24th/25th of September is where i made my point about the redirects and Alinor was ok with that as we have the sortable list. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that you raised this concern previously, I just don't understand it. I get the motivation for points 1) and 2), but why are you opposed to these redirects?  They clearly indicate that they aren't UN Members "Somaliland → No UN Membership" and as I said previously, they are currently used and I don't see a good reason to eliminate them when they are helpful.  TDL (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to have a single sortable table, there is not a need for a redirect. The only reason the redirects are there at the moment is because it is not a sortable single table. Why should the UN section host non UN members redirects. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * x2: I've already stated my opposition to the proposal. I am, however, refraining from further comment until I've seen the finished product. If IMF and the World Bank are used in the criteria, then I will remain opposed. I've stated my reasons above, that using their membership introduces an inherent imbalance. Others have disagreed, and now I'm waiting for the proposal to be put to a community vote. My opinions won't change.  Night w   18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if your opinion won't change, and those on the other side won't change their opinion, we don't have a compromise. Hence, there's not much use wasting my time making a finished product is there?  TDL (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not.  Night w   20:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So the main points of disagreement is 1) whether to color-code and 2) whether to include IMF/World Bank in the criteria? The definition of statehood was never clear-cut to begin with. Instead of finding a consensus that has never existed in the real world, can we put this to a community vote and get it over with?--Jiang (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"There's no need to always be so antagonistic—sometimes I'm actually trying to help the process. And notifying those involved in the discussion is proper wikietiquette, and normal procedure. We don't presume that they are "tired" or have "lost interest" as you suggest; they may in fact simply be waiting for you all to make up your mind about what you want to propose. So please notify them (once you're ready) out of courtesy. Thanks, Nightw 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) "

We're all here trying to help the process. Besides, from what I can see here, I'm not alone in suggesting that the discussion is actually petering out for the benefit of no one. I don't really see much point to the rest of the paragraph; I never even remotely suggested other editors shouldn't be notified of proposed changes, and BW has already called upon all editors to form the consensus (in my view, we're not obligated to do any more). My motion, as I think you understood, is that for the benefit of the collective, we should form a consensus on a general proposal and weigh if some details (such as the colour scheme and the location of a single state) are not better left for later. We aren't going to bog down an overhaul just because a single editor disagrees on comparatively minor details.

(Note taken, BritishWatcher agrees with the proposal in general, with a reservation about the colour scheme).

You also seem to be arguing the proposal as it is cannot be implemented because of technical difficulties. I'd say we hear Alinor's opinion on the matter, since s/he's the one who is going to implement it. As for whether the new proposal should be in a sandbox or here, I think that if it's small enough it should be presented here, for several reasons. Thinking about it, there's no need to present the whole table beforehand. Ladril (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"can we put this to a community vote and get it over with?"

Looks like it would make sense. Ladril (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be in favour adopting the proposal in general, and !voting on the minor issues that we are still arguing over. Unfortunately, many editors have stated that they will obstruct any changes to the status quo unless they get their way on these minor issues.  So, unless they are willing to compromise and support the proposal in general, it doesn't seem likely that a !vote would produce a consensus.  TDL (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can not support such a radical change unless the colouring issue is resolved. All non UN member states or UN member states must be coloured. This is not a minor issue that can be left to decide at a later date. It is fundamental in my view on if this change is acceptable or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The colour issue will definitely be considered, but ultimately it should be up to consensus whether it's adopted or not. Note that several proposals have already been taken into consideration, and several modifications have been made to them in response to various concerns, including yours. The current one is not Alinor's proposal anymore, nor yours nor mine; it is a compromise. Ultimately we should be open to do things that are better for the collective. Ladril (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not consensus for the present proposal to be implemented at this stage. I cant support the change unless its agreed before hand about the colouring at the very least. Its a big issue, because there is no way of telling apart the other states, when mixed into the list with the sort feature. We cant be sure everyone will read all the status text. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if we colour each category of state independently, are you willing to drop the redirect issue for the time being so we can move forward with the majority of the changes? I'd rather keep things as close to the status quo as possible (ie keep all redirects), so as to give as few people a reason to object as we can.  The redirects could be coloured with their state's category colour if this helps convince you.  Later, if there is a consensus to remove them we can always do that.  TDL (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects. I don't object either option: retain all current redirects (inside section S -> Korea, South and between sections P -> Palestine) or retain only 'inside-section' redirects (because the others are redundant with the alphabetic sorting feature of the whole list), so if there is opposition to "retain all" and no opposition to "keep inside-section only", then let's do the second, so that we can move forward more quickly. TDL has already shown us that it is possible to make redirects in the table form, so I propose that these should be 'direct redirects' - to the state line, not to its section heading line.
 * Coloring. As pointed out above this is not a list of UN members. We already give enough attention to UN status (it has its own section), so I think we can refrain from further emphasizing UN membership. We should keep in mind, that this is "list of sovereign states" in the first place and the NPOV way of doing things is to treat them all (since they are included/cover the inclusion criteria) the same. We already deviate from this by using sections. Coloring "other states" is also a deviation. Going further by coloring "other Vienna states" is unnecessary/wrong IMHO.
 * Kosovo. As I pointed out non-coloring of "other Vienna" would allow for flexibility over Kosovo (e.g. Kosovo to be in Vienna section, but colored like "other" - an in-between case of some kind) - the other polarizing issue (explanation can be given in the extant - IMF/WBG voting and/or "Vienna, but not All-States/UN individual statement".)
 * "I can not support Niue and Cook Islands being in a list with other sovereign states unless a difference is easily seen by all." - IF they are included they will be in a different section from the UN members. A difference easily seen. A difference that deviates from NPOV and from the UN position and practice - see the quotes/link from the UN Legal Affairs Office - CI/Niue are part of both "All States" and "Vienna" formulas. CI/Niue are blended/mixed with the UN members according to the UN (and other organizations). But we are separating them in a different section.
 * "because there is no way of telling apart the other states, when mixed into the list with the sort feature. We cant be sure everyone will read all the status text." (emphasis mine) - When someone manually used the sort feature it is reasonable to assume that he wants an alphabetic list and not a categorized list. Also, he can always revert to the default categorized list (where the distinction between CI/Niue and UN members is very clear).
 * I am kinda busy lately, so I still haven't finished the table for UN agencies membership I spoke about above (based on this, but maybe with separate columns for "member states" and "other members/associates/observers/notes" and a column with small thumbnail maps of membership - about 40px). I think it will be good to have such table as en easy place to link to. But you don't have to wait for this, anybody could implement a draft and put it here. Alinor (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I cant support a change to a single list unless the non UN member states are coloured in. An extra column simply saying UN member state/non member is not enough, the whole entry must be coloured so its easily noticed when people use the sort feature. If we are to have categories in the table, i fail to see why each category cant have its own colour. With the UN remaining white. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Why is it not enough? Why must it be colored? I'm trying really hard to make sense of your strong views on this particular point in light of the fact that the definition of statehood has never included UN membership. This would be, IMO, an over-emphasis on the United Nations and implying that UN membership is prerequisite for statehood (when in fact statehood is the prerequisite for UN membership). I already think UN membership under the proposal is more prominent than it should be in a list like this, but I am willing to live with the proposal in the interests of putting up something that is better than the less objective criteria we currently have. I am even willing to accept (under protest) your coloring scheme, provided the colors are light pastel hues that don't make reading difficult, but if there is an insistence on using darker or flashier colors, I strongly oppose for the reasons stated earlier (i.e. this list should not make the list of UN members redundant with an over-emphasis on UN membership, which is as prominent as it is in the first place because there lacks a better proxy for "widespread international recognition").--Jiang (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jiang. BW, what is your proposed colour scheme supposed to indicate? If it's something that will preserve NPOV I'll be willing to support it, but if you can't explain exactly what the colours are supposed to mean then the proposal is pointless.
 * Also, to address a point which you make repeatedly and is very important:


 * "I cant support a change to a single list"


 * There is no such change. The list has always been *one*, no matter how many divisions it has. This seems to be missing the point. Ladril (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with BW. Jiang, welcome and everything, but please try to understand what this discussion is about. It is not about indicating the "definition of statehood" —that is done in the inclusion criteria. This is about the sorting criteria. When the list is sorted alphabetically, you are suggesting, if I'm not mistaken, that Somalia and Somaliland should sit right next to eachother and from all appearences, be entirely equal to eachother—despite the fact that the latter's status as a State is not recognised by a single member of the international community. This would violate WP:NPOV which rules that all significant viewpoints be proportionately represented. I was under the impression that colouring the entries to suit their category had already been agreed upon. If that is not the case, then I can't support the proposal on that point either.  Night w   13:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, why doesn't someone go ahead and begin the sandbox already? Discussion won't get far without something solid to discuss, right now its just a figment of everyones imagination, so people may be discussing none-issues. From what I can gleam, the consensus is a three split, UN, "Other Vienna", and others? Perhaps with a slight grey background for Other Vienna, and a maybe slightly greyer background for the others. Just include what redirect links are possible for now, and we'll see how it turns out. Someone please volunteer to do this, preferably someone who has the technical knowhow to create whatever's being proposed...which I don't ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandbox can be created here: Talk:List of sovereign states/Sandbox.  Night w   14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont have strong feelings on what colours should be used, as long as there is a very very clear difference between UN member states and non UN member states. From the start of this debate i have said i do not believe UN member states should be mixed up with an entity like Palestine. Ive accepted a single sortable table, but it was on the condition the different types of states remained clear. That exists when there is the 3 categories, but the second someone uses the sort feature, they all get mixed up. Colour coding is vital. If everyone else feels redirects are needed to different sections ill accept it. But i will strongly oppose any attempt to implement a single table without colour coding based on the categories agreed to. The status quo will be better than a very misleading single table, that treats all these states as equal. They are not, and the fact we are going to change the status of Cook Islands and Niue makes any change very controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what the different colours are supposed to mean. Ladril (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Night+BW:Somaliland and Somalia are equal under the declarative theory of statehood. Even if no other state recognize them, most (or all) reliable sources consider Taiwan to be a fully functional state using this criteria.  The point of the alphabetical sorting is to present this perspective as compared to the status sorting which presents the constitutive theory of statehood perspective.  By insisting on colouring to distinguish states under alphabetical sorting, you are giving undue weight to the constitutive theory of statehood in my opinion.  TDL (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. The relevant literature on the subject argues that states exist under either constitutive or declarative criteria (or both, in many cases). This is the whole point of pages like List of states with limited recognition. Arguing that Somaliland must be coloured differently amounts to agreeing with POV-pushers who argue that Somaliland is not a state. Such a statement is acceptable in an advocacy forum but not in an encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If we accept the principle that the list be split into categories (something required for my support) then the different colours are needed for the same reason because the categories all get mixed up when you use the sort feature. I saw no need for a major change to this article in the first place, ive accepted the idea of a single table if it shows a difference between the types. If it can not be with colour coding, then i strongly oppose any alteration to the present list. There is an absolutely huge difference between an entity like palestine and a sovereign state like France. The difference is obvious to most people. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two different discourses here. Regarding the first one: if each entry is coloured so that it's exactly clear which list division it belongs to (and the colour is not obtrusive), then it might be a good idea from a practical point of view. However, several of us are concerned about the second discourse (final part of your paragraph). The consensus on Wikipedia so far is that Palestine conceptually is a state as much as any other. Same for Kosovo, Abkhazia, Somaliland, etc. Sure, there are many political and historical realities that differentiate Palestine from France, but in the relevant literature (which always begins with both the constitutive and declarative doctrines) they are considered entities with equally valid claims to statehood, even if one has a higher degree of recognition than the other. This is the academic way of doing things that we must strive to maintain here. What you're proposing is not only in conflict with the NPOV required in this encyclopedia, it's not even very politically correct. Ladril (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What your proposing has no consensus. So i guess the status quo remains. We have been debating this matter for over a month now. When the issue was put to the vote some time ago, an overwhelming majority rejected a single list. Im sorry you refuse to accept some of the concerns other editors have about these radical changes to this list you and a couple of other editors have been demanding for so long. Unless you are prepared to compromise, some of us cant either. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are apparently misunderstanding. What I'm explaining is that, to my understanding, it has never been Wikipedia policy to make artificial hierarchies of states. The "single list" which you say is opposed by an overwhelming majority, has always been that, a single list. So if your reason to colour the categories is that states should be distinguished as 'more sovereign' and 'less sovereign', sorry but you're missing the point of what the page has always been about, and this idea should be erradicated completely. That's all I wanted to say in relation to this.


 * For the record, I don't care if it's a single table or three. What I think we should do away with is the pseudo-factual Frankenstein called "internationally recognized states". A proposal which does this will make me happy, no matter how many tables it has. Ladril (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dan, the perspective of sovereign governments and the United Nations (e.g. the Constitutive theory) is the most prominent viewpoint when it comes to polity's status as a sovereign state, and the only one that can be adequately verified. Therefore, your reference to WP:UNDUE is in explicit disagreement with what you're arguing. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. ... To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Despite the fact that it's not mentioned, it can't be denied that the list's inclusion criteria is nevertheless also based on the CTS by default. A number of entries would not qualify solely under the DTS; among these of course is Somalia—reports by reliable sources (some examples being Human Righs Watch, Institute for Security Studies, Internationa Crisis Group) that examine the country under Montevideo have uniformly disqualified it as a State. Because of its inherent vagueness, the DTS (and the Montevideo Convention) is also entirely subject to interpretation, without consensus. A great number of theorists claim that the DTS (specifically its fourth criterion, "capacity to enter into relations with the other states") can only be fulfilled by way of diplomatic recognition from a foreign government. Others, on the other hand, maitain that external recognition is irrelevant.

Unless you're suggesting that we display the entries in proportion to ever-changing theoretical analyses, the constitutive theory is the one that counts, and I believe editors and readers alike will find the colouring to be the most neutral in differentiating the statuses of various entries.  Night w   16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Ladril, who made the following comments: "Arguing that Somaliland must be coloured differently amounts to agreeing with POV-pushers who argue that Somaliland is not a state" ... "The consensus on Wikipedia so far is that Palestine conceptually is a state as much as any other.":

Arguing that disputed states be displayed differently is an argument in favour of neutrality. From many perspectives, not the least of which derive from the Charter of the United Nations and the official policy of the African Union, the establishment of the state of Somaliland was illegal, thus it was not recognised. Others, however, including civil rights advocates and the Somaliland government itself, have rejected that claim. Hence, both perspectives must be represented. It's not "POV pushing" if you're demonstrating both sides to a dispute. As for the second comment, don't claim to know the "consensus on Wikipedia" when you clearly do not. The consensus is that there is a dispute as to whether it is a State. Over 100 states recognise the State declared in 1988. Others, including the UN Secretary General, maintain that such a state is yet to be established. Under the criteria of the DTS, the latter is probably correct, as it doesn't have a single government, hasn't defined its territory, and doesn't have a permanent population. But we represent both viewpoints through its inclusion (per its recognition by some), and its colouring (per its non-recognition by others).  Night w   17:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "As for the second comment, don't claim to know the "consensus on Wikipedia" when you clearly do not. The consensus is that there is a dispute as to whether it [Palestine] is a State."


 * Sorry, but you clearly are mistaken. The consensus is that Palestine is a state whose existence is disputed (note how a few word changes make a big difference). This is why Palestine is part of several lists of states, including this one. Conversely, there are other entites which claim to be states (such as, for example, the Republic of Ambazonia) which are not listed here, because there is no consensus that they are states. Ladril (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Note how a few word changes make a big difference"? No. The only difference I've noted is that before you were claiming that consensus is Palestine is a state "as much as any other", and now you've changed your answer with a few ineffectual rearrangements of my own wording.  Night w   08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The only difference I've noted is that before you were claiming that consensus is Palestine is a state "as much as any other". This is not my claim before, it's the current consensus, because for encyclopedic purposes, Palestine is a state as much as any other (this is why the word "conceptually" was included, you know). Wikipedia is supposed to present the dispute about its status, not to engage in it. So, nice try. Ladril (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between UN members and "All states" (the list here is a list of all states, right?)/"Vienna"? Only UN membership. This is the position of the UN itself ("international community" if you like) - see the link from UN Legal Affairs (and the individual statements about CI/Niue). So, even the sectional division between "UN" and "rest of Vienna" is controversial. That's why I propose that we don't increase the controversy by coloring them differently (but we can color "other states" differently). Additionally this allows for a compromise on Kosovo (place as IMF/WBG member/Vienna, but color as "other" because of no individual UN statement/UNSCR1244/IMF-non-equal-voting). Alinor (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is controversial to change this list to Vienna and a single list which many editors have showed opposition to. If you accept the categories then there is no reason why the entities of the categories should not be coloured differently so they clearly are different within the list when you use this sort feature. For my support it either needs colour for each of the different sections or we remove the sort feature. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can live with the list being unsortable if it means a move away from "internationally recognized" and "others". Ladril (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "What is the difference between UN members and "All states" If you can not see the difference between palestine and France then i do not understand how i can explain it to you. There is a huge difference. Recognition matters. A fully recognised sovereign state like France does not belong in line with an unrecognised state like Abkhazi and a "state" like Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW: Just like there is a big difference between the situation of France and Palestine, there is also a sea of difference between France and Micronesia, and between France and Somalia (and if we limit ourselves to level of diplomatic recognition, there is also a gulf between France and Israel). The reason why we find it hard to agree with you is because we don't think the difference you cite is the most important factor in this discussion. Also, whether we like it or not, France and Palestine ARE already together, and many editors are unhappy with that. But this is supposed to be a scientific encyclopedia, so c'est la vie. Ladril (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * France and Palestine are not already together. Palestine is in a separate section of this article from France. Your proposal changes that, which is why i oppose any change to this list unless it includes colour coordination and separate sections to maintain that difference. It is you that is arguing to change the status quo which has lasted 2 or 3 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are together in a single list of sovereign states (notice that there is one and only one List of sovereign states in this encyclopedia). Sections within the list of sovereign states are supposed to organize entities which by consensus are considered to be sovereign states . If a consensus ever forms that Palestine is not a state then it doesn't have a place in the list: it would have to be moved to excluded entities or removed completely from - repeat yet again for emphasis - the single list of sovereign states that exists in this encyclopedia. You have repeatedly said that Palestine and the rest should not be together with the UN members because they are not states. We get that's your opinion: no need to repeat it. But we cannot agree because it's a logical fallacy. If they were not considered to be states they would not be here in the first place. Ladril (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a single list split into sections. I want that split to continue, if we have a sortable list the table can be split into sections, but the sort feature mixes it all up. I wish to maintain a clear difference (something that has been done for over 2 years on this article) between UN states and the Vatican VS other states. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * written during BW last edit. Edit-conflict:
 * "few supported single list" - but this has nothing to do with the single sortable list and even less with the single sortable separable list that was eventually suggested. So, please stop stating this "few supported" - it is misleading.
 * "France is like the Cook Islands" - this is the position of the UN and many (all?) other international organizations. We deviate from this (by having them in separate sections), but adding color to "rest of Vienna" would proliferate the deviation from the default to the alphabetic (reader-selected) sort. ::Maybe instead we should just go with Vienna/others, without separate UN section - so there will be no coloring issue. I know some of you won't support this, but I say it so that you see that there could be extreme-pushes in each direction.
 * Written after BW last edit:
 * BW, Have you readed the UN Legal affairs link (and my proposals)? Palestine/Abkhazia is not one of "all states" or of "vienna states". Palestine/Abkhazia is one of the "others", that I don't object to have different color. I object coloring "all states"/"viennas" (that include the UN).
 * So, I agree with Chipmunkdavis that maybe we are discussing some non-issues. When I get time I will implement a draft - if somebody else doesn't do it before - I tried to summarize the changes in the 6 points above. Add to this the Kosovo coloring/placement and inside-section-redirects-only (S->Korea, but no S->Somaliland) if you like. There is the Vienna formula direct quote, TDL made the required table markup (including for individual redirects), only the table of agencies membership is missing, but you can check in the links provided by Ladril. Alinor (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason not to colour the Vienna states differently from the UN member states. I made my views on this very clear previously and i thought you were ok with that position. If colouring Vienna is a problem, then lets colour the UN member states and make very clear the colour is just to highlight UN membership status. This is not a minor issue. Its an issue that determines if i support this radical change to the list (which changes the setup used for 2 or 3 years) or if i strongly oppose it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Night, I see no evidence to suggest that CTS is more prominant than DTS. Do you wanna back that statement up with some sources?  Otherwise, it's just your POV and doesn't belong here.  Many RS's use DTS.  Besides, by default this list is sorted by status so the CTS is given significant prominance.  (90%+ of readers are never even going to sort the list alphabetically).  By insisting on colouring the UN member states, you are insuring that this the only POV that is presented.
 * The CTS can be adequately verified? I think not.  How many recognitions are required to satisfy CTS?  1?  50%?  2/3?  And then we have issues over the quality of recognition.  Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized by non UN members only.  Does that count?  What about for Palestine, where many of the recognitions were unclear.  And this doesn't even address the issue that sourcing verifications is impossible.  We've found what, about 30 statements on Nauru?  Is this sufficient?  Dispite your insinuation, CTS can't be verified either.
 * Your whole argument was based on the fact that listing UN members and non UN members side-by-side isn't neutral since clearly UN members are more of a state than non UN members. But in the next reply you argue that in fact Somalia doesn't satisfy DTS.  So if some non-UN states (ie Taiwan) are more of a state than Somalia by some metrics, then why do you insist that we put a big astrisk on Somalia saying "REAL STATE" (ie colour) when listed beside Taiwan to differentiate the two.  You've contradicted your whole argument here.  The reason you wanted colour is to differentiate fully qualified states from marginal states, but you are proposing we put the mark of approval on the marginal state.  The point is that UN membership doesn't make a state more sovereign, so we shouldn't overstate the importance of it.  If colouring is the only way for us to get a consensus I can deal with it, but to suggest a list without colour isn't neutral is just plain wrong.  TDL (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I wanted colour is to differentiate states whose status is heavily disputed within the international community, as evinced by their exclusion from the United Nations, the main governor of international law, which is very important. If you're willing to accept this differentiation, then I'll not argue any further.  Night w   08:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we need to show the fact the status of certain sovereign states is different to the vast majority. That is why this list has been split for years, and its why if we are to move to a single table there must be subsections, and if its a sortable table, they must be coloured so the difference still remains clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No where near consensus
It seems to me we are no where near consensus, i thought we were making progress but major issues seem to be going into a direction that i for sure can not support. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're that far away. Most editors seem to be willing to go either way on the colour issue.  Let's put the proposal up for discussion to a wider audience, and leave the colour issue up for debate.  We can ask people to either: Support (with colour), Support (without colour), Support (either) or Oppose.  Hopefully a consensus will form around one of these options.  If not, our only option would be to go to mediation/arbitration.
 * I've got a mostly complete demo done here. Any comments before showing it to a wider audience are welcome.  TDL (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sandbox at present does not highlight the situation of Cook Islands and Niue. We can not put forward the proposal to others if they do not know if they accept this proposal these two entities will suddenly be put as sovereign states next to kosovo. So does Vienna include the Cook Islands and Niue or not? BritishWatcher (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion over the inclusion of CI/Niue has been postponed to a later date so that we could focus on getting consensus on one item at a time. The more things we try and change at one time, the less likely we are to get a consensus.  TDL (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm noo we can not just "postpone it". If we are to ask people if they support this compromise, they need to be told the implications. Keeping Cook Islands and Niue out of the debate for the time being so a week after this may have been implemented people demand its inclusion because it counts as a Vienna state is unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go and read the proposal again, since you clearly don't understand it. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, by myself and others, and yet you still haven't grasped it:
 * "Inclusion criteria" = which states do we include on the list. This part of the list isn't changing.  If Ci/Niue don't satisfy the inclusion criteria, it doesn't matter what their Vienna status is.
 * "Sorting criteria" = how do we arrange the states that satisfy the "inclusion criteria".
 * So if there is no consensus that CI/Niue satisfy the "inclusion criteria", no one can "demand its inclusion because it counts as a Vienna state". The sorting criteria has nothign to do with inclusion, and vice verca.  I don't know how else to explain this too you.  TDL (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we agree to use sorting criteria including Vienna formula then it stands to reason those that meet the vienna formula will be added. If not, is everyone here is happy for Vienna to be added but leave CI and Niue off still? BritishWatcher (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It stands to reason based on what logic? If you are opposed to their inclusion, by all means raise that concern when the issue is debated.  No state will be added to the list unless there is a consensus in favour of its inclusion.
 * If the consensus is that CI/Niue don't belong on the list then fine, but we still need a verifiable sorting criteria and the proposal above addresses that, regardless of whether CI/Niue are included on the list or not. TDL (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sorting criteria clearly has to take into account inclusion criteria. If there is no request to change the present inclusion criteria, then maybe we should not be using a different sorting criteria that could apply to states that do not meet the inclusion criteria? BritishWatcher (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the sorting critera have to take into account the inclusion criteria? There's no logical reason for this.  TDL (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We could hardly have a sorting criteria with a section in a table saying UN Member states if the inclusion criteria excluded members of the United Nations. The two things are quite clearly related. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like the status quo? UN membership isn't part of our inclusion criteria currently, yet it is part of our sorting criteria.  In the past there have been non-sovereign states that were members of the UN, such as Belerus, India, Philippines, New Zealand.  These states wouldn't satisfy our current inclusion criteria, yet would be dealt with by the sorting criteria.  This isn't a problem.  TDL (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is different to having a category "Vienna formula" and then excluding 2 of the 4 entities that may appear in that section because of our inclusion criteria, this issue of cook islands and niue must be handled now and not simply added after people accept proposal without seeing the changes for these entities are part of the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)