Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending

Pending requests

New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot.

Please don't list your case by hand; instead use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/File. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.)

Resolved:

For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

List of sovereign states

Request for formal mediation
Article	List of sovereign states (talk)
Submitted	20 Oct 2010
Mediator	Not yet assigned
Status	Awaiting party agreement
Notes	None
view talk edit delete watch

Dispute specifics

Involved users

1. Danlaycock (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Alinor (talk · contribs)
3. Ladril (talk · contribs)
4. Taivo (talk · contribs)
5. Pfainuk (talk · contribs)
6. BritishWatcher (talk · contribs)
7. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
8. Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
9. Night w (talk · contribs)
10. Jiang (talk · contribs)
11. XavierGreen (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

• List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Talk page discussions: Discussion of criteria (and archives 1 2, 3, 4, 5) and Cook Islands and Niue;
• Solicited external opinions from relevant WikiProjects: International relations, Politics, and Countries;
• Request for comments;
• Surveys conducted 22 August 2010, 17 October 2010.

Note: List of primary issues tidied up and reformatted. AGK 21:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

The initial version of the issues can be viewed on the talk page. AGK 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary issues

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

Secondary issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (Raised by opposing party) Whether listing states with limited or no international recognition (Somaliland, Nagorno Karabakh) in the same page as more established states (such as France) amounts to giving undue weight to minority views, and if so, how can the problem be solved. Ladril (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.

1. Agree. TDL (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree. Alinor (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Agree. Ladril (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC). I'll not be participating in this exercise any more. So long. Ladril (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Agree, so long as the mediators are well versed in political science in order that they may understand the concepts and various terms used througout the discussion and debate.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
6. Agree BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
7. I Agree Outback the koala (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
8. Agree. --Taivo (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
9. Agree. Please note that I will be travelling until January, and will be unable to actively contribute to the discussion. Nightw 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
10. Agree. Pfainuk talk 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
11. Agree.--Jiang (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.

• XavierGreen: It will not be possible to accommodate that request, as, so far as I know, no active mediator has knowledge of that topic area. I have qualifications in that area, as it happens, but as Chair I don't mediate cases. In any case, mediators are neutral third parties and nothing else (see WP:MC/P#What mediators are not), and their role is to direct and facilitate discussion, so an intimate knowledge of the topic is unnecessary and may indeed be disadvantageous. AGK 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• If I may comment here, I think it depends what Xavier means; for example, it would be reasonable to expect the mediator to understand the difference between de facto and de jure sovereignty, but the mediator isn't going to be an expert in this topic area. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• In essence yes thats what i meant, that they are able to comprehend basic political science terms like polity, soveriegnty, and the like.XavierGreen (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have notified those parties who have not yet commented here of the existence of this request. AGK 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Accept - For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.