Content deleted Content added
Outback the koala (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::::::Alinor, please '''stop denying''' the rough consensus that has formed. In the discussion on mediation page, only two editors openly objected to the principle of 3i2 and didn't want it to move forward, you and Night W. Since the end, a further two editors, BritishWatcher and XavierGreen, have expressed support for 3i2, adding further to those in favour. Other editors have voiced opposition to your third column, but you have continued to push it. Continued [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing of the same points will only result in editors taking less and less interest in what you have to say. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
::::::Alinor, please '''stop denying''' the rough consensus that has formed. In the discussion on mediation page, only two editors openly objected to the principle of 3i2 and didn't want it to move forward, you and Night W. Since the end, a further two editors, BritishWatcher and XavierGreen, have expressed support for 3i2, adding further to those in favour. Other editors have voiced opposition to your third column, but you have continued to push it. Continued [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing of the same points will only result in editors taking less and less interest in what you have to say. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Alinor, what you are proposing is to substitute the Vienna formula criterion for a "summary of practice of the United Nations" criterion. That adds little informative value to the page and is impractical for a number of reasons. Adding a further column would only confuse the general reader. In a nutshell, this is why I cannot agree to your concerns. We get that your position is we should follow UN legal practice for sorting the list; the position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership (a+b+c) as the most logical and useful categorization. [[User:Ladril|Ladril]] ([[User talk:Ladril|talk]]) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::Alinor, what you are proposing is to substitute the Vienna formula criterion for a "summary of practice of the United Nations" criterion. That adds little informative value to the page and is impractical for a number of reasons. Adding a further column would only confuse the general reader. In a nutshell, this is why I cannot agree to your concerns. We get that your position is we should follow UN legal practice for sorting the list; the position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership (a+b+c) as the most logical and useful categorization. [[User:Ladril|Ladril]] ([[User talk:Ladril|talk]]) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I agree with Chip, let this go; work to make changes within the consensus framework. This is the most productive way to move forward. The third column has pros and cons, but we have walked away from that with 3i2. If you don't discuss, your concerns will not be taken into account because other editors in general may be more inclined to ignore them. [[User:Outback the koala|Outback the koala]] ([[User talk:Outback the koala|talk]]) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:47, 18 May 2011
- Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 6
- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-01-25/List of sovereign states
Sorting criteria - continuation of discussion
Starting from Sandbox3i2 and MEDCAB I propose the following changes to 3i2:
- sorting columns to be moved to the right
- an explanation of 'sovereignty dispute' to be added as footnote
- sources&explanation for the 'UN system/3i2 criteria' column to be added in its footnote.
- one more sorting column to be added - showing who is recognized as State by the international community - using [1]/[2] - state parties to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG
- 3i2 has some bold/italics difference between the states - I propose that all are the same (as in the status quo), but if bold/italics will be applied - the criteria for this should be clearly defined and explained as footnote or otherwise.
- we should select the 'default sort' view - either by one of the sorting criteria utilized or alphabetical. I propose alphabetical - as compromise and in order not to have a 'preferred' criteria pushed by us upon the reader (without any source to back our 'preference').
Taking in account the UN OLA source [3] where 'recognition as State by the international community' is discussed I propose instead of 3i2 column we use two simpler columns (with yes/no cells): UN membership, Vienna organization membership.
I see the following options about sorting:
- sections automatically following the selected sorting column; three sorting columns: [4]/[5]; 3i2-criteria; Dispute
- sections automatically following the selected sorting column; four sorting columns: UN membership; [6]/[7]; Vienna membership; Dispute
- sections not following the selected sorting column (dividers go to the bottom) - the same 3 or 4 sorting criteria as per options 1 and 2, but one of them applied to the sections and the rest - to columns.
What do you think? Alinor (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have avoided this debate for some time now, first of all id like to say i support the 3i2 version. Will have to take time to work out the implications of the additional changes proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "third column" (international status) proposed by Alinor has been rejected many times during the course of the mediation. It is based on questionable legalistic notions and is something that is ill-defined and virtually impossible to verify. Indeed, the combination of the two columns already present (UN system and sovereignty disputes) already gives a solid measure of international status without trying to verify Alinor's vague "entered into a treaty" proposal on his third column. It adds no new useful information that is not already contained in the two extant columns of Sandbox 3i2. His proposal for "yes/no" columns for UN membership has also been rejected during the mediation because it, in essence, replaces the UN system column (which Alinor has never accepted despite a broad consensus in favor of it) with his "treaty participation" column (which has been rejected by the consensus during the mediation). In other words, it changes the fundamental nature of Sandbox 3i2, which is the consensus version. Footnotes to clarify the meaning of the columns is something that must be done anyway. Moving the columns is cosmetic. Sorting the list by UN System participation as a default is what most editors during the mediation thought would be the best way to avoid giving the "Disputed States" equal status with undisputed states. In other words, Alinor's proposal for the columns here (adding a third column for "international recognition"--which to him means "have they signed a treaty"--and making UN membership yes/no) is in opposition to the consensus that was built during mediation and has already been rejected multiple times during the mediation process. It is his repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to the consensus that developed in favor of Sandbox 3i2. I oppose it still. --Taivo (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The 3i2 as it is seems very reasonable, a big improvement on the current article. This dispute has dragged on so long, we should just implement 3i2 as it is now with out some of the above changes proposed by alinor which i too have some concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- About the alphabetical arrangement proposal. A number of editors were completely opposed to even having a single list, and others (me) were not happy with the idea. Making it alphabetical would completely destroy the whole point of the dividers, which was to compromise for having a single list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- If we don't use alphabetic arrangement for the default view and if sectional dividers automatically follow the selected sorting column (e.g. there is no separate sectional divider criteria), then we will have to select one of the columns as 'default'. This will erase big part of the 'single sortable list advantage' (e.g. neutrality and reader decision instead of Wikipedians-POV-forcing). Anyway, we can try to do that, but first we have to know which are the columns - option 1 or 2? Alinor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- About the alphabetical arrangement proposal. A number of editors were completely opposed to even having a single list, and others (me) were not happy with the idea. Making it alphabetical would completely destroy the whole point of the dividers, which was to compromise for having a single list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Taivo, without the UNSG column or another way of displaying the real world 'other10 vs. the rest' division I object implementation of 3i2. Recognition as State by the international community should not be avoided only so that a few editors at a MEDCAB are happy.
- 3i2 is not "the consensus version" and besides - its fundamental nature is not changed by the UNSG column proposed - this is just one more column in addition to the 3i2 column and the Dispute column. Are you implying that the 3i2 column-criteria is somehow 'more important' or 'preferred' than the dispute criteria, UN membership criteria, Vienna criteria, UNSG treaty criteria? Any source for that?
- The 3i2 as it is seems very reasonable, a big improvement on the current article. This dispute has dragged on so long, we should just implement 3i2 as it is now with out some of the above changes proposed by alinor which i too have some concerns about. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "third column" (international status) proposed by Alinor has been rejected many times during the course of the mediation. It is based on questionable legalistic notions and is something that is ill-defined and virtually impossible to verify. Indeed, the combination of the two columns already present (UN system and sovereignty disputes) already gives a solid measure of international status without trying to verify Alinor's vague "entered into a treaty" proposal on his third column. It adds no new useful information that is not already contained in the two extant columns of Sandbox 3i2. His proposal for "yes/no" columns for UN membership has also been rejected during the mediation because it, in essence, replaces the UN system column (which Alinor has never accepted despite a broad consensus in favor of it) with his "treaty participation" column (which has been rejected by the consensus during the mediation). In other words, it changes the fundamental nature of Sandbox 3i2, which is the consensus version. Footnotes to clarify the meaning of the columns is something that must be done anyway. Moving the columns is cosmetic. Sorting the list by UN System participation as a default is what most editors during the mediation thought would be the best way to avoid giving the "Disputed States" equal status with undisputed states. In other words, Alinor's proposal for the columns here (adding a third column for "international recognition"--which to him means "have they signed a treaty"--and making UN membership yes/no) is in opposition to the consensus that was built during mediation and has already been rejected multiple times during the mediation process. It is his repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to the consensus that developed in favor of Sandbox 3i2. I oppose it still. --Taivo (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- The UNSG column proposal is not vague, ill-defined or impossible to verify. Verification: [8]/[9]. Definition: state party to an international treaty deposited with the UNSG. Explanation: being such shows that the state in question is considered by the UNSG to be "recognized as State by the international community"[10].
- In order to reach a compromise we all should make some concessions. Single sortable-columns list (with sections following selected sorting column) allows for all sorting criteria to be represent in an 'equal' way. This is kind of requirement because we don't have a suitable source that can 'force' a selection upon us. A compromise should be easy to reach - by having multiple columns representing different sorting criteria (in the end - the reader decides what to use). I think option 1 and 2 above are quite reasonable compromises. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alinor, you are writing as if the entire mediation did not happen and did not come to a resolution. You are wrong. A consensus was developed around Sandbox 3i2, you just objected to it. Unlike every other editor who compromised around 3i2, you remained resolutely opposed and never budged. Your suggestions on columns were rejected by the editors in the mediation for all the reasons I mentioned above and you resolutely practice WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT since there is not a single one of your suggestions or arguments stated here that was not already discussed in full and rejected during the mediation. You are still wearing blinders. Alinor, a compromise has already been reached. Just because you don't like it and never budged, doesn't make it any less of a viable solution here. --Taivo (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- In order to reach a compromise we all should make some concessions. Single sortable-columns list (with sections following selected sorting column) allows for all sorting criteria to be represent in an 'equal' way. This is kind of requirement because we don't have a suitable source that can 'force' a selection upon us. A compromise should be easy to reach - by having multiple columns representing different sorting criteria (in the end - the reader decides what to use). I think option 1 and 2 above are quite reasonable compromises. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on the results of the Mediation, Sandbox 3i2 should be implemented in full with appropriate footnotes explaining the meaning of the two sortable columns--"Participation in UN System" and "Sovereignty Disputes". --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree to this with so long as one very minor but important change is implemented to its structure, that the dispute section only include state which are claimed in whole by another state, if that specification is not included its going to become unmanageable rather quickly due to the immense number of states that claim a minor portion of the territory of another.XavierGreen (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe XavierGreen that that is the current set up already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- If thats the case then i support it fully, pardon my ignorance on the issue i dropped out of the mediation discussion once i felt it was going no where though it looks like something good came out of it after all.XavierGreen (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, XavierGreen, it was explicitly discussed and agreed to that the "Sovereignty Disputes" column is specifically where one state claims the whole of another state. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Taivo, please stop pretending there is some "MEDCAB conclusion/consensus". The mediation was closed without reaching consensus - read the closing comment of the mediator.
- Also, what I propose here is to have one more sorting column. Previously I was proposing to use separate criteria for sections and columns. So far only you object - and in my 13:12, 16 May 2011 comment I address the issues you raised (see bold words).
- If someone isn't budging this is you. 3i2 has two columns for sorting criteria. I propose to add a third. Why is this a problem for you? Alinor (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alinor, please stop denying the rough consensus that has formed. In the discussion on mediation page, only two editors openly objected to the principle of 3i2 and didn't want it to move forward, you and Night W. Since the end, a further two editors, BritishWatcher and XavierGreen, have expressed support for 3i2, adding further to those in favour. Other editors have voiced opposition to your third column, but you have continued to push it. Continued WP:BLUDGEONing of the same points will only result in editors taking less and less interest in what you have to say. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alinor, what you are proposing is to substitute the Vienna formula criterion for a "summary of practice of the United Nations" criterion. That adds little informative value to the page and is impractical for a number of reasons. Adding a further column would only confuse the general reader. In a nutshell, this is why I cannot agree to your concerns. We get that your position is we should follow UN legal practice for sorting the list; the position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership (a+b+c) as the most logical and useful categorization. Ladril (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Chip, let this go; work to make changes within the consensus framework. This is the most productive way to move forward. The third column has pros and cons, but we have walked away from that with 3i2. If you don't discuss, your concerns will not be taken into account because other editors in general may be more inclined to ignore them. Outback the koala (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alinor, what you are proposing is to substitute the Vienna formula criterion for a "summary of practice of the United Nations" criterion. That adds little informative value to the page and is impractical for a number of reasons. Adding a further column would only confuse the general reader. In a nutshell, this is why I cannot agree to your concerns. We get that your position is we should follow UN legal practice for sorting the list; the position of the other users is we should use the Vienna formula of membership (a+b+c) as the most logical and useful categorization. Ladril (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alinor, please stop denying the rough consensus that has formed. In the discussion on mediation page, only two editors openly objected to the principle of 3i2 and didn't want it to move forward, you and Night W. Since the end, a further two editors, BritishWatcher and XavierGreen, have expressed support for 3i2, adding further to those in favour. Other editors have voiced opposition to your third column, but you have continued to push it. Continued WP:BLUDGEONing of the same points will only result in editors taking less and less interest in what you have to say. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, XavierGreen, it was explicitly discussed and agreed to that the "Sovereignty Disputes" column is specifically where one state claims the whole of another state. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- If thats the case then i support it fully, pardon my ignorance on the issue i dropped out of the mediation discussion once i felt it was going no where though it looks like something good came out of it after all.XavierGreen (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe XavierGreen that that is the current set up already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)