Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:11, 30 May 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sovereign states article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 25 days

	List of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 22, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted November 29, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted March 3, 2009 Featured list candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured list

This list has a detailed criteria for inclusion. Please do not add new entries without prior discussion. Items that do not fit the set criteria, such as Antarctica, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and polities normally classified as dependent territories, micronations, supranational unions or constituent political divisions will be removed.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

List of countries/Archive 1, 2, 3, 4 Discussion of criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Cook Islands and Niue Nov 2001 – Apr 2005 Apr 2005 – Feb 2006 Feb 2006 – Nov 2006 Jan 2007 – Jun 2007 Jul 2007 – Apr 2009 Apr 2009 - Apr 2010 Apr 2010 - Jul 2010 Jul 2010 - Feb 2011 Feb 2011 - current

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

All overseas collectivities of France are part of the Republic

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=51708 Ladril (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Same goes for the dependent territories of the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia. The integral vs. non-integral distinction doesn't really appear to have any basis in fact, our list of dependencies doesn't appear to conform to anyone else's list of dependencies, and we probably need a new verifiable set of criteria. That being said this discussion should probably go on the dependent territory page. We can just copy whatever they do over there. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I will say though I still think the easiest way is just to gather some verifiable lists (like the ISO 3166 or something the UN puts out) and say that everything that gets a distinct entry in one of those should qualify for a bullet point. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Australia. If I remember, there's debate about whether the territories are integral or not. A legalistic pointless one, I'm sure. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But there's no question about Denmark, France, or the Netherlands. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are already enough problems with the sorting and inclusion criteria to spend much energy on this at the moment, but reconsidering the positions of other participants I wonder if it would not be a good idea to retain the names of the territories (even Greenland), due to their strong identities.

What I see in most need of attention for the moment, however, is the excess of flags. As far as I know, only the French Polynesia and New Caledonia flags are recognized as "official". The rest of collectivities should not have flags on the page. Ladril (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

uh well those are the only flags on the page right now. Although it was my understanding that TAAF's flag has been official from 2007 on. And while the flags of Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon aren't official, they are used in reliable sources to represent the territories (CIA World Factbook for example), so I think you could make a case to include them under WP:V.

In general, I don't think removing territory names is the answer here at all. A list which doesn't mention Greenland or the French overseas territories would not be very useful at all. Clearly our integral vs. non-integral distinction is out of step with reality, and we need some reliable source to do the distinguishing for us. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 8 countries that are considered as having “non-integral” territories: Australia, Denmark, France, Netherlands, New Zeland, Norway, UK, USA. In the cases of Denmark, Netherlands and France there are NO non-integral territories, all of them are “integral” from legal point of view. In the cases of the the UK, the USA, Norway and New Zealand there is a legal distinction between integral and non-integral territories. In the case of Australia even the Australian government doesn’t know what is the legal status of their territories… :-) --maxval (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting criteria may be applied in the case of member countries of the EU that have no legally defined non-integral territories: Denmark, France, Netherlands. In the case of Denmark, neither Greenland, nor the Faroes are part of the territory of the EU. This means that these territories are not integral! In the case of France, 4 of the 5 overseas counties (all except Mayotte) are part of the territory of the EU, while of the remaing territories only St Barthelemy and St Martin are part of the EU, all other territories are NOT part of the territory of the EU. In the case of Netherlands, territories outside of Europe are not part of the EU, even the Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba are not part of the EU, no matter they are legally part not only of the “Kingdom of Netherlands”, but also of “Netherlands” in a narrow sense. --maxval (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Greenland is definitely integral to Denmark, it just has the right to not be a part of the EU. The Åland Islands (an integral part of Finland) had this same right but they chose not to exercise it in the 1995 referendum. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than having to go through each country and make our own determinations of "integral" or "non-integral" status for each unattached geographical unit, why not use a single reliable source and list every unattached unit with a population to its owner? The function of the CIA World Factbook, for example, is to list every geographical unit and under the government section list who owns it (if it's not independent). Every dependent territory's relationship with its owner is different, even when owned by the same country as its neighbor, and we're dealing with where to divide shades of gray. Why not just list the separate inhabited units identified in something like the CIA's World Factbook and leave it at that? (But it's critical that only one source be used and not try to blend multiple sources.) This is the opposite of what I would argue for the inclusion criteria for sovereign states, but so be it. --Taivo (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd accept the Factbook. It's got a convenient list of dependent territories right here: . I do like ISO 3166 though just because it's so neutral and widely used. The UN Statistics Division would be another option: Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not use a single reliable source because such "reliable sources" are often laden by errors (way more often than you expect). Our purpose here is not to make our lives easy, it is to provide accurate information. Besides, I don't think the task is so Herculean; an official or authoritative source for each state should do. However, the reference should be the dependent territory page, which - among other mistakes - lists Cook Islands and Niue as dependencies of New Zealand. This is why I've been reluctant to work on that page. We have to wait until Alinor gives us permission to advance the mediation to the CK and Niue part. Ladril (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What specific errors are there in the Factbook or the ISO 3166 lists? Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The ISO is not of much help because it does not, to my knowledge, describe the political status of the territories. I still have to spot a major gripe with the CIA Factbook, but it shouldn't take precedence over sources closer to the country in question or over more specialized sources. Ladril (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I'm spotting one right now (following your link): Aruba is not a dependency. Ladril (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Which link? The CIA? It describes it as a "constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands", which is correct. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, we don't need any information on the political status on any territory. We already have all that info. What we need is a source for which territories should be included and which should not. I'm proposing we make the ISO that list. If a territory has an entry on that list, it gets a bullet point. If it isn't, it doesn't. I'm open to other proposals but obviously the status quo can't be verified. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the CIA. I get the point of the proposal, but my point is that if we use that basis for classification it would be a list of "dependent and special territories", since it includes Aruba and Hong Kong. It's also leaving out entries which probably (again: probably) deserve mention, such as Easter Island. But this is opening the door to a lot of debates and, since some people think mentioning Kosovo as a member of the UN system is POV, my perception is we may not have the appropriate climate for it at this moment. To make myself more clear, I wouldn't object if the dependent territory page was changed to "dependent and special territories" or some such, because this is what it is at this moment. But this requires a stronger definition of what a special territory is and as such would be a tough task. Ladril (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is we don't even have a workable definition of "dependent territory" right now. I mean, is that integral area thing even based on anything or did someone just make it up at some point? The definition on the main dependent territory article has had a citation needed notice on it for a very long time. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons why it's important to split hairs thin when defining whether a territory is "dependent" or not. In many of those from your CIA list a process of decolonization has taken place, meaning they are not really subordinated to the previous colonizing country, though they retain some sort of association to it (Aruba is an example). Others are not dependent territories but territories under a special administering status (such as Hong Kong). The word "dependency" implies subordination, which is not present in many cases. Ladril (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How can we split hairs over a definition when we don't even have a definition? I mean you say the word "dependency" implies subordination, but what's the source for that? What's the source for anything we're currently saying about dependent territories? It seems to me like this is all entirely arbitrary. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We have to keep from splitting too many legalistic hairs here. First, Aruba is a "dependency" of the Netherlands, otherwise it would be listed here as a "sovereign" state. If a state is not sovereign, it is a dependency of something else. In other words, if Pres. Obama wants to conduct business with Aruba, he doesn't go to Aruba first--he goes to the Netherlands. That's a dependency. I know that Brits want to make a big deal of the fact that Scotland, Wales, etc. are "countries", but they are dependencies of the United Kingdom. The U.K. is at the top of the "org chart". It is the U.K. that is a member of the UN, just as it is the Netherlands that is a member of the UN, not Aruba. From fully sovereign to fully dependent/integrated is a sliding scale of dependency/integration and there really is no foolproof way to divide it up. That's why I suggested a single list that we can use as a verifiable source. --Taivo (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, your definition of dependency doesn't gel with me; basically you're saying that any territory is a dependency of the sovereign state it's in? That doesn't seem right. I don't think that the term dependency has any great meaning in modern politics anymore. It's probably only ever really used as a general term for the C24, which is of course just politics. The facts are as such. If we define for the moment "integral territories" as territories which have been legally declared as part of their sovereign state by that state, then Denmark, the Netherlands, and France have no territories which are not integral. Norway needs to be double checked, because Svalbard and Jan Mayen are definitely part of Norway (according to Norway), but I'm not sure about Bouvet Island. No one really knows what's up with Australia legally, not that anyone ever does with Australia. In terms of officially non-integral territories, that leaves the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, the United State's unincorporated territories, and Tokelau. I'd add the Cook Islands and Niue as well, although I'm not sure how people here will take that. That's legality. Of course, real life is never as plain and simple as this. Tell me if there's a mistake in what I've just said. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Any time I present a source it gets pelted, but here is for example one in which non-independent polities are divided into three categories. This is why the matter is not so clear-cut. Ladril (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a weird list. It has Easter Island in the Aruba category but the document dates to 2002, when Easter Island was just a regular province of Chile. And even now it's still a part of Valparaíso Region. The list also has FSM, Palau, and Marshall Islands in that same category.

I mean ultimately for the purposes of this page do we really need to start devising categories for all possible non-sovereign territories? That seems like it's going to be an endless headache. I really think we're better off just citing sources which attempt to list the important non-sovereign territories and building our bullet points from that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone see the trajectory of this discussion as clearly as I can? A: "Here's a list." B: "But that list doesn't treat (my favorite territory) the way I want it to." C: "How about this list?" A: "But that list doesn't treat (my favorite territory) the way I want it to." D: "Why don't we treat everything the same?" A: "Because (my favorite territory) is a little different than (B's favorite territory)." B: "And (my favorite territory) should be treated totally different from all the others because it's a little different." --Taivo (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Prophecy fulfilled. It's not personal agendas that are at stake: it's information for the reader what I want to capture. Ladril (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation Ladril, I'll be using that source later when I have time to revamp the current Dependent territory page. What we have is fairly close to that list anyway. We mention the compact of free association on the Marshall Islands etc. sections, and we mention Easter Island. We have also got a wider geographic area, so unlike in that article we have places such as the Falklands, Gibraltar, Greenland, etc. (it actually does mention Greenland/Faroes were excluded due to geography). Perhaps to bring it in line the compact of free association is mentioned in the United States description? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

At least from where I'm standing, it's pointless to spend much energy going into these debates at this moment. Three cases (Kosovo, Cook Islands and Niue) are taking up too much attention for the time being. We first have to dispel the notion that there is an evil conspiracy of extreme Kosovar-Cook Islander Niueans wishing to take over Misplaced Pages and convert it to the dark side. That's what I expected the mediation to be for, but prospects are not looking bright at the moment. Ladril (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sint Martin, Aruba, and Curacao are not integral parts of the Netherlands, they are in personal union with it under the Kingdom of the Netherlands. As for france French Southern and Antarctic Territory are not legally integrated, the collectivities are only partially integrated. Regular french law does not apply to the collectivities as it does to the departments.XavierGreen (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal union is not the correct term. The Kingdom of the Netherlands (i.e. the entity that is on this list) is a federacy with four constituent countries. Aruba is integral to that entity. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The constituants in the three dutch caribean "countries" have virtually no say in what goes on in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. They have no rights in regards to their defense among other issues that the Kingdom assumes, they have no representation at all within the legislature of the "federation".XavierGreen (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Their defence is handled by the state, as defence of Tasmania is handled by Australia. This is the issue here, the lines aren't clear cut. They are legally regarded as fully participating parts of the state on the basis of equality, but in reality are not, shown by the fact that the Kingdom has the same name as one of its supposed parts. We can't place the Netherlands Denmark of France into one of the traditional arrangements of a state (federation, unitary, etc.) without contention. When one speaks of regular French of Dutch law, it in fact only applies to one part of the state, albeit the biggest and dominant one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been raised before (for example here). Anyway, I agree with those who say that French law does not apply in full to all of these territories and I disagree if there are proposals to not mention these territories at all 'because they are part of France'. Excuse me, if this comment isn't helpful - I haven't gone trough the whole discussion above. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying we should remove them from the page. It is just a comment to inform a debate that had taken place previously as to whether the Frande d'Outremer had an analoguous status to that of the US or British external territories, or Tokelau. Now it's clear it doesn't. Ladril (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox 3i2

Based on the consensus which was formed at the recent mediation, Sandbox 3i2 should now be implemented. --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of a final procedural point, I'd like someone to finish it in the draft space first then note here for say 24hrs before implementing. That would address one of Alinor's concerns, and shouldn't slow down anything too much. Of course, we should treat the consensus around 3i2 exactly the same, this is just for procedure. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus. IMHO pretending otherwise is not productive. We are close, but not there yet. See proposal at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria#Sorting criteria - continuation of discussion. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your proposed changes are unacceptable sorry. 3i2 should be implemented as it currently is. That is atleast a big improvement on the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, you deceive yourself if you claim that "no consensus" was reached. Consensus doesn't mean "as long as Alinor agrees". --Taivo (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be implemented immediately, my only concern has been addressed sufficently.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, consensus doesn't mean "as long as Alinor agrees", but it also doesn't mean "as long as few editors agree and few editors disagree". And please don't split up the discussion on two talk pages. The discussion of criteria is subpage Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Alinor (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, the other page is for discussing the details of tweaking Sandbox 3i2. This place is simply a call for implementation. And, Alinor, there was a WP:CONSENSUS for implementing Sandbox 3i2 here and then tweaking it. Your objections are simply one voice crying in the wilderness. Everyone else compromised and accepted the implementation of Sandbox 3i2 with the understanding that discussions would continue for improving it. The consensus was for implementation. --Taivo (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Until the tweaks are agreed on there is no need for such call for implementation. Otherwise, if you want to 'implement first, tweak later' - I object since there is no need to implement something with so many problems in it - 3i2-column cells are a horrible mess (quite unlike a simple yes/no), the notability of criteria utilized in the 3i2 column is not explained and there are no sources about it, in the 3i2 proposal you can find nowhere explanation who is 'recognized as State by the international community' (I have proposed multiple solutions here, including using a separate article), 3i2 proposal forces upon the readers one specific sorting criteria - negating the neutrality advantage of single sortable list. Alinor (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Baloney, Alinor. 3i2 is not a mess--you are the only editor that claims such. It is not perfect, but it's better than the status quo. The tweaks to be made are strictly cosmetic. --Taivo (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"the notability of criteria utilized in the 3i2 column is not explained and there are no sources about it" We have indeed presented sources about it. It's you who continues to cling to a summary of practice of the UN as the *only* document we should be referencing. And your interpretation of it as the only criterion we should adopt. It's clear we should explain in text what the sorting criterion is. We haven't said we will not do it: you're objecting because we are not adopting the exact criteria you're saying we should adopt. In this respect, you're essentially adopting the same attitude the "UN+VC" group did before. Ladril (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"We have indeed presented sources about it." - yes, and I asked some clarifications about these, but anyway - can we see 3i3, with columns moved, footnotes/text added (for dispute criteria and 3i2 criteria explanation), all other10+UN6+Vatican shown, etc. - so that before implementing we can see what you want to implement? Otherwise it's like cat-in-a-sack ... Alinor (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. After 3i2 is fuly implemented, I shall work on making improvements to it, as time permits. Of course, your concerns will be taken into account. Ladril (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No. 3i2 should be improved to implementable consensus state before implementation, not afterwards. Alinor (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Alinor, there was a consensus during the mediation to implement 3i2 and then tweak it (moving columns, adjusting footnotes, etc.). It is better than the status quo. Your continued foot-dragging, insisting on your own personal additions that everyone else has rejected is not helpful and is against consensus. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, review WP:CONSBUILD. If the minority is against a supermajority proposal, they are obligated to make a counter-proposal that the rest find acceptable. If they don't... tough luck. Move on. Ladril (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also review WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Here is something especially pertinent: "Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action." Ladril (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, the MEDCAB was inconclusive. That's the fact. How many editors support one or another proposal is a separate issue.

Ladril, I don't agree with implementing 3i2-as-is. Besides other things its 3i2-criteria-column is SYNTH/OR without any source. As good faith compromise I could accept it, if it's supplemented by additional column backed by source. Alinor (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alinor, but you are completely wrong. The mediation resulted in Ludwigs2 clearly stating that the consensus was to implement 3i2. We no longer need to compromise with you in order to implement 3i2 because the WP:CONSENSUS was for implementation as determined by our mediator. You accepted mediation, so you must accept the conclusions of the mediator. And you never compromised with the majority, why should the majority seek compromise with you? Your version of "compromise" has always been "I get my way". --Taivo (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we just implement it and ignore Alinor who refuses to accept the will of the clear majority consensus. This has been dragging on for so many months now. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can. I'm just in the process of converting the current list to the new format here, but it's a slow, tedious process. TDL (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ladril, I don't agree with implementing 3i2-as-is." Then write down your proposed addition, keeping in mind the observations made to your previous proposals (I'll refresh your memory with diffs if you claim "no one has commented on my ideas"). Ladril (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Like hell it should. The closing vote showed that at least 3 editors would prefer implementation to occur after pending issues were discussed and resolved, while 4 editors voted to go ahead with it now. Who decided that was a consensus? The mediator certainly didn't ("no apparent possibility of consensus")... Night w2 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What the mediator said was: "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration. Further discussion of the issue by the involved parties at this point has no reasonable expectation of being successful." Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Whereupon, we conducted a "formal vote on closing the mediation", getting the results I just summarised... And taking what you've quoted from the mediator, Alinor and I are quite clearly challenging the action of implementation, and I am in the process of drafting an arbitration case over the proposed placement of Kosovo, as it doesn't seem like anyone is particularly interested in continuing the discussion casually. As I've said before, the other issues I'm willing to let go. Night w2 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, two users objected to the consensus, not three. Ladril (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus for what? The sandbox? Not talking about that; we're talking about the consensus for immediate implementation, for which there was none, as 3 out of 7 editors objected to such a notion. Night w2 (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about "a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2". Two editors objected: you and Alinor. I don't remember anyone else. Outback the Koala does not seem to be "objecting" or stonewalling the process. She said she would have preferred if changes would have been made within the mediation framework, but according to "I agree with Chip, let this go; work to make changes within the consensus framework.". Just a little something. Ladril (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

...Again...not about the sandbox itself or proposed changes to it, we're talking about the notion of implementing that sandbox prior to further discussion, which, in the formal vote conducted, Outback was one of three editors who preferred (in Outback's own words) to "continue to improve outside framework allowing implimentation hopefully later". I'm going to leave it there, mate. Read the thread again or something. Night w2 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What we're talking about is people "objecting" (your words). All of us agree that 3i2 can and should be improved (check my other comments on this very page) and would prefer to see those improvements made ASAP. There is however, a big difference between saying that and putting into her mouth that she "objected". Just for the record. Ladril (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The minority says there is no consensus. The majority says there is one. What could be simpler? Ladril (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

International participation

So far the entries list states members of the EU or the Commonwealth. Why not include other groupings such as the African Union, the CIS, ASEAN, the Pacific Islands Forum or UNASUR? Or maybe do away with this information entirely? Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning for including the EU specifically is that, unlike any other multinational organization, it requires a surrender of certain aspects of sovereignty (human rights, language policy, economic policy, visas, tariffs, etc.), and strongly encourages other aspects (common currency, etc.). It's a more binding organization than, say, ASEAN or the CIS. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And the Commonwealth? Ladril (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't answer for the Commonwealth. Perhaps its because most of them share the same person as head of state. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Commonwealth of Nations is not listed here, just the Commonwealth Realms. I once suggested this exact same thing, got shot down if I remember! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of clarifying what's mentioned in the extent note multiple times (see for example here). Currently this is done in the footnote - see the bullets there. Commonwealth realms are mentioned as "any situations where one person is the Head of State of more than one state," (this doesn't apply to the Commonwealth of Nations).

For the EU you can see this discussion. Currently the footnote simply states that EU membership is shown (without explanation why) and refers to another footnote saying "The member states of the European Union have transferred part of their sovereignty in the form of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the institutions of the EU, which is an example of supranationalism." At the last discussion I was saying that it's better if the first footnote gives explicit explanation such as "membership in supranational unions," (currently the EU is the only organization having reached such integration and sovereignty transfer level - see the linked discussion for sources, etc.), but this wasn't accepted. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now this idea of yours I think makes some sense. I'll second it if you promise not to adopt the same attitude you have taken with "the other thing". Ladril (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My attitude in both cases is the same - to implement constructive improvements. You are free to support or object either proposal, but this isn't related to anyone's attitude. Alinor (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, your attitude so far has been my way or the highway". Ladril (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

UN Security Council, European Union and Commonwealth realms all should be mentioned for those that it applies to. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And that is all that is necessary in my opinion... unless some sort of structured criteria was made about which to include. Night w2 (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BW: what you don't seem to be getting is that we're not here to follow orders or to do things "because that's the way they're done". There has to be a consensual reason for everything we include on a page. Back to the issue at hand, the reasons for including EU membership seem valid to me, though since it has been decided to lend weight to it, the reasons for mentioning it should feature more prominently than a footnote. A more detailed explananation of the reasons for mentioning realmhood is also in order, so that the page does not look like systemic bias has crept into it. Ladril (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We also include a description of the leadership of Andorra, in line with the commonwealth realms. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Full 3i2 sandbox

I've made a full 3i2 sandbox here. I started fresh, so any changes to the current list over the last several months should be included. Most of the new text is a bit rough, but everything sorts properly (I think). What do you think? TDL (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me we still have to improve the Palestine entry, but I do not object to immediate implementation. Ladril (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good enough to implement. Yes, there are tweaks, but we should implement first, then spend the next month tweaking. --Taivo (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, well done and support for it being implemented ASAP. Glad this seems to finally be resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, better than current one at any rate. I'm increasingly questioning the need for the Perisa-->Iran link though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made it live. Go ahead and discuss-implement your adjustments. Ladril (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, you're well aware that there isn't a consensus for that yet. There are still outstanding issues. Stop being disruptive. It's pathetic. Nightw 08:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan?

What about including South Sudan in the list? It has just recently voted for independence from the rest of Sudan and even before that the area was in the hands of the rebel government and not functionally a part of Sudan. I think it should be added to the "other states" list first, and then when it officially declares independence (expected later this year) we can move it into the normal category of sovereign countries.

Consensus is not to include states until they become independent (South Sudan is still in the transitional phase). The page is currently undergoing a major overhaul in organizing criteria, so the placement of South Sudan will have to be discussed later. It's still not clear whether it will be a disputed state or not when it comes about. Ladril (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured lists
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• List-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• List-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• List-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles