Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 4

Proposal draft
So, User:Danlaycock has composed a draft of sorts. I'll set this section up so we can discuss issues.

Firstly, still not seeing how the TOC box would work. The full list would be pretty long. Say I wanted to find Syria quickly? How is this format facilitating ease of navigation?  Night  w   15:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. The TOC now links to each letter of the alphabet, as before.  Note, only the letters with states in them work at the moment.  I'll do the rest as I fill in the table.  TDL (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty impressed, actually.   Night  w   16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, very well done.
 * I have some proposals: lines with the letters in the table are unnessesary when we have redirects pointing to the exact entity line and the sorting feature - on the other hand the letters are usefull in the TOC - is it possible to somehow "hide" the A/B/C/D/... lines (but still to appear in the TOC) or put them manually in the TOC (pointing to the first state of the respective letter)? "widely recognized" weaselish words to be replaced with the factual "Member of UN". Also, on the rest-of-Vienna states (that are not UN members) it would be good to have "Member of WIPO, UPU and ITU" (or whatever the correct agencies are). To be mentioned the UN-position where this is applicable: territory of SADR - one of the 16 "non-self-governing", territory of Palestine - "occupied by Israel" (appropriate references put), territory of Kosovo - under UNSCR1244/Serbia sovereignty with UNMIK administration, the rest I think have no special UN position - they are considered to be part of some UN member - so their current notes explain that well enough. The Vatican city administration and extraterritorial properties seem also overflous - no other state foreign properties or administrative arrangements are mentioned - if these of the Vatican are considered somehow more important - they could be moved to a footnote. Anyway, I'm going into minor details already - such tweaks to individual entries can be done later (the name of the second column itslef is not enteirly correct - it has more info than status/recognition).
 * My opinion is that we should go with the proposal as is - and tweak/improve later. Alinor (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the points you make about modifying the text. I've just copied it from the status quo at the moment, and have been focusing on the technical aspects. Unless others object to any of these points, feel free to make these changes.
 * As for the letter rows in the table, we could get rid of them and link directly to the first state in the section. The issue with that is that depending upon which sort mode we are in, the first state can be different so the TOC links wouldn't work properly after sorting.  We could shrink the letter rows down to something like this:


 * So the TOC link is embedded in the thin gray rows. I'm not sure of a way off hand to make these rows completely disappear though.  TDL (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe by choosing the same background color as the rest of the table (instead of section-heading-color) they would be even more blending. Alinor (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can support the above with the relevant colour coding and once the issue of Niue and Cook Islands has been dealt with, they can not be just left out of the proposal at this point because they are controversial. People must know the full implications of including the Vienna criteria. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About coloring. I really don't see any need to further emphasis UN membership - it is already used as main part of the sorting criteria. Even this is too much (Vienna/Others would be more compliant with NPOV policy, but for the sake of easier achievement of consensus we go with UN/Rest-of-Vienna/Others). While I could agree with coloring of "others" I don't see any reason why Vienna states should be colored differently, based on membership in some organization (UN). Why not color all IAEA members with some particular color? Yes I know that "the UN is important" - but the proposal already is heavily UN-influenced. Especially considering the fact that the UN itself doesn't divide the Vienna/"All States" into UN and non-UN. And also the issue of coloring is relevant only in the non-default manually-invoked-by-the-reader alphabetic sort view.
 * About CI/Niue. The current proposal is for improving from vague/unsourced/weaselish/etc. "widely recognized" wording into a real sorting criteria that is verifiable. The only relation between CI/Niue and the sorting criteria change is that with the old wording it is unclear where to put them (if they satisfy the inclusion criteria) - because of the flaws of the old wording - and with the new sorting criteria any state is easily and unambigously sorted - it is either a UN member, another Vienna organization member, or none of these. So, it is clear where CI/Niue would go (rest-of-Vienna section) - IF they satisfy the inclusion criteria.
 * You insist that we should deal with CI/Niue simoultanously with the sorting criteria implementation. But at the same time you say that both of these issues are "controversial". So, you suggest that we deal with two "big changes" simoultanously. I think it is better to deal with them separately. Sorting criteria choice does not depend on CI/Niue (or another state) inclusion or exclusion. CI/Niue inclusion does not depend on the sorting criteria choosen (it seems that you imply that since we have choosen UN/rest-of-Vienna/Others as sorting sections then we are obliged to include all Vienna states - this is not so - maybe we should start the article with the inclusion criteria, so that it is clear that the state should first be included and sorted only afterwards).
 * In summary - "the full implications of including the Vienna criteria." in relation to CI/Niue are none. The only implication is that it would be easy to sort them if they are included. But this implication would apply in case of any criteria choosen, not only Vienna - only the old wording makes sorting controversial as it is unverifiable and open to interpretations.
 * And anyway, what do you expect about CI/Niue? I think it is pretty clear - IF they are included they will go into the rest-of-Vienna section according to the proposal. I think the real question about CI/Niue is not where they would be sorted, but if they should be included in the first place. But as this issue is controversial - I find it inappropriate to just strap/sneak it into another discussion - this is actually "including them by the back door" - without proper discussion of them satisfying or not the inclusion criteria.
 * Let's finish with the implementation of real sorting criteria and table sortability markup - both important changes by themselvs. Then, we can move to an elaborate discussion whether CI/Niue should be included or not. Alinor (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The separate categories only work if people do not use the sort feature. If it is fine to put them into those categories, there is no reason why colouring them in based on the category would in any way violate WP:NPOV. From the start of this debate ive stated my concern is UN member states mixing with states that clearly have a radical different status, like Palestine. The categories solved that, but colour coding is required to solve it for when the sort feature is used. The Niue / Cook islands debate will be impacted by this one, if we all agree on a sorting criteria that is partly based on Vienna, the case for including all states that meet Vienna criteria is clearly going to be increased. I can accept with Niue/Cook islands being added to this article, provided they like all other non UN states are coloured properly. But we cant just ignore the fact this change will impact on if they should be included or not. If inclusion of these entities is optional that can be decided at and left off at later date, then the concern NightW has raised could also be addressed which was to exclude certain organisations. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed IMF/WBG exclusion is directly related with the sorting criteria - it is a proposed change to be decided by us in the directly quoted wording of the Vienna formula. So this is very different from the question of CI/Niue satisfaction of the inclusion criteria (that do not mention Vienna at all).
 * Of course CI/Niue full state membership of Vienna organizations is an argument for their inclusion, as it shows their "capacity to enter in relations with other states" and "recognition by others" (thus it is relevant for both statehood theories - declarative and constitutive). But this argument is valid regardless of the sorting criteria chosen. Even if we don't change the sorting criteria (and use "widely recognized") - we can still debate about CI/Niue inclusion (regardless in what section) - and in such debate their Vienna memberships would be one of the arguments for/against.
 * "only work if people do not use the sort feature." - and what's wrong with that? That way we represent both POVs (default one and reader-activated one). I don't think that we should decide for all readers - allowing utilization of sort gives the biggest consensus possible - actually everybody decides on their own how they want to see the list. Why do you think that our reasoning is better than that of the individual reader? We do enough damage on NPOV by having "Vienna states" divided in two sections in the default view (based on our arbitrary choice of UN membership - one of the 18 Vienna organizations), let's not damage it further.
 * "my concern is UN member states mixing with states that clearly have a radical different status" - this applies to the "others", but not to the "rest-of-Vienna". Vienna states do not have radically different statuses - on the contrary - their status is the same as that of France (at least this is the position of the UN itself).
 * That's why I oppose coloring "Vienna-UN" and "Vienna-non-UN" differently. On the other hand, I would not oppose coloring "non-Vienna" (this is also POVish like the sectional division, but maybe such compromise is reasonable in order to have consensus). Reasoning: "non-Vienna"s are considered by the UN to be "occupied"/"non-self-governing" (Palestine, Western Sahara/SADR) under control of another state (Israel, Spain/Morocco) or to be part of another state (China, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia, Cyprus). This is totally different from the UN position on the rest of the states (Vienna-UN and Vienna-non-UN). The only special case is Kosovo, where we have simultaneously an UN position that it is part of Serbia administered by UNMIK (UNSCR1244); and IMF/WBG membership (Vienna).
 * I propose that sections are based on the Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna rule and coloring is based on the UN-position rule (state vs. non-state). I know this gives undue weight to the UN position, but I find it helpful for achieving compromise. Another option is to use UN-position ("All States" or "Vienna states" vs. "non-states") also for the sections, but I think this will be controversial with some editors.
 * So, by leaving "Vienna-non-UN" entries colored the same as "Vienna-UN" entries with the exception of Kosovo that is to be colored as "non-Vienna" entries we can minimize two problems at once - the artificial (e.g. by Wikipedia editors) division of the Vienna list in two sections; and the controversial placement of Kosovo. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can split the list into categories i fail to see why there is any extra POV problem with colouring in the categories so people can still see there is a difference when they use the sort feature. If we can not have colours, then i strongly oppose this radical proposal to change the present setup which has lasted years. We could just colour in UN member states, making clear they are coloured just for their membership. That would be like List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe where EU members are coloured, to provide extra clear information to the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe does not have section EU (it has another sections), so adding color to EU states is really providing extra information. Our proposal already has a section "UN members", so no extra information will be provided by coloring part of Vienna states differently from the rest.
 * There is no need that sectional divisions should match coloring differences. On the contrary - if this is the case then one of the instruments is redundant and unnecessarily distracting (and if I'm not mistaken there are examples of articles were such redundant coloring was removed - or the coloring was kept, but sections were merged).
 * Adding color is reasonable if we want to provide some information/classification additional to the sectional divisions. That's what I propose. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Coloring proposal
Coloring legend: According to UN position considered to be  [state ] — [territory with final status determination pending ] — [part of another state ]

Initial/Previous/Other legends follow:
 * Coloring legend: According to UN position considered to be  [state ] — [territory with final status determination pending ] — [part of another state ]
 * Coloring legend: According to UN position considered to be  [state ] — [territory with final status determination pending ] — [part of another state ]
 * Legend:  [Considered by the UN to be a state  ] — [Considered by the UN to be a separate territory administered by another state ] — [Considered by the UN to be part of another state ]


 * Draft wording of the legend. The extant notes will include additional clarification what UN institution position is referred to - UNGA, UNSC, UNSG (as not all institutions have their own separate position on all cases), if they already don't have it. We could also merge the "administered by another state" and "part of another state" into a single "administered by or part of" color - if you find it better. Utilized colors are also provisional - change them if needed. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those colours hurt my eyes. Any chances to change them to something more...dull? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Id support making them include more info like that if that helps justify the colour coding, although i do agree on the colours. They are very "in your face". BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object changing the colors - put whatever you find useful. Alinor (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are some obvious mistakes there. The official positions are not as plain as you've made them out to be. Firstly, the UN doesn't have an official position when it comes to the state of Kosovo. The UNSC resolution does not pertain to the "Republic of Kosovo", which was declared after that resolution was passed. Even so, it doesn't say the region is part of Serbia, it rather only makes reference to the "territorial integrity" of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Its position on SADR is pending the outcome of a referendum that Morocco keeps blocking, and its position on Palestine is far more complex than anything that can be summarised in a single sentence.  Night  w   14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we keep current extents with adjectives removed for now? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course a single sentence can not describe all that. That's why there are entire articles devoted to the statuses of these entities. Big portion of these descriptions are (or can be) already included in the extant notes. Adding there small comment with a link to here, here, here and other appropriate articles is not so hard.
 * I know that "UN doesn't recognize states". That's why we will use (provide reference footnote sources) the positions adopted by the UNGA/UNSC/UNSG. Whether this detail (UN vs. UNGA/UNSC/UNSG) should be in the coloring legend template, or in the extant notes is a different question. I think either option is acceptable.
 * Kosovo. UNSCR1244 "Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Serbia as Serbia is the recognized successor state to FRY - see the links in the UNSCR1244 article. Maybe it should be colored as Palestine/SADR (per "administered by UNMIK, final status to be decided") or we should have a fourth color for "territory of UN member under interim UN administration"?
 * General. Of course the UNxx positions do not refer to the states of "SADR", "SoP", "RoK", but to the territories of "Western Sahara", "Occupied Palestinian Territories", "Kosovo" - otherwise these would not be colored as "non-states according to UNxx". I think all of this is obvious by reading the extant notes (or will be obvious after they are reworked).
 * We can aways use a more descriptive legend like:

Legend:  [Considered by the UN to be a state  ] — [Territory claimed considered by the UN to be administered by another state/entity, but to have a not yet exercised self-determination right ] — [Territory claimed considered by the UN to be part of another state ]
 * I think that the shorter legend wording is enough, when the appropriate details are mentioned in the extant notes. Alinor (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor, it's actually not clear that Serbia is the successor state of Yugoslavia. I believe the UN made Serbia+Montenegro reapply for membership, since they didn't consider them to be a successor state.  I'm with Night on this though.  It's a good idea, but I think trying to boil these diverse and complex situations into simple categories is pretty tough to do.  TDL (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serbia is recognized as the successor state of "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro" (FRY) - it retained the same UN membership/seat, etc. There are no disputes about that. The unclear situation is about the previous 1992 succession - whether FRY (1992-2006, then Serbia) is successor to SFRY (Yugoslavia up to 1992) - here FRY/Serbia claim it is, but the UN does not recognize that.
 * I think that coloring according to UN position is not so hard to implement, but pretty straightforward - there are only three types of positions - "state", "final status not yet determined" (Western Sahara, Palestine, Kosovo), "part of state" (Taiwan, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus).
 * The only complex issue is Kosovo - nominally still under Serbia sovereignty, but put by the UNSC under UN administration and with a mandated future status determination. The process of this status determination so far isn't finished in the sense that the UNSC has not taken a decision about it. Talks between Serbia and Kosovo-under-UNMIK governments didn't come to an agreement, an unilateral declaration of independence was issued, some states recognized it, others didn't, ICJ issued an opinion, but all this things do not change the base UNSC resolution that is still in force and its biggest effect - final status is yet to be determined.

Legend: According to UN position considered to be   [state ] — [<font style="background-color:khaki">territory with final status determination pending ] — [<font style="background-color:#8080FF">part of another state ]
 * I proposed this in search of consensus and I think it also does away with the need for IMF/WBG exclusion. Alinor (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I disagree with the colours used above. The categories final status pending and part of another state are way too debatable, and going to bring up way too many problems. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are right about Yugoslavia. My mistake.  Still, I agree with Chipmunkdavis.  This might solve some problems, but it would just create a whole new set of issues.  Not sure how it addresses the IMF/WBG issue either.  We'd still need to decide which states to put into which category (independent of our colouring choices).  TDL (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is debatable in these categories? It would be debatable if they were without the "according to the UN" - then there would be multiple conflicting claims, etc. But I can't see any dispute about the UN positions - there are many references to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in UNGA/UNSC resoltutions and decisions; Western Sahara is on the UN list of the non-self-governing territories still-to-be-decolonized; A process for determining Kosovo future status is envisioned by the UNSCR1244; there are UNSC/UNGA resolutions and decisions "confirming" that the rest of the "other states" are considered part of the respective UN members. We can fish out these resolutions and put links in the extant notes of the entities.
 * The IMF/WBG issue is that while these organizations are part of the Vienna list their decision making process depends on the economic/trade weight of the states, so a minority of world states has the majority of votes in IMF/WBG. And so a minority of world states can decide for new IMF/WBG memberships (Kosovo). So, there were proposals by some editors that we don't use a direct quote of the Vienna wording, but implement our own changes to it in order to exclude IMF/WBG (and Kosovo). Other editors objected, that it is better to use the direct quote as it is verifiable/sourced/etc. (and of course we can aways add a footnote after IMF/WBG describing non-majority decision making there). Utilizing the proposed color scheme above allows us to have simoultanously a direct quote of Vienna (and put Kosovo in the same section as the Vatican) and a differentiated color on Kosovo (the same as for the states of the "other" section). This way both "supporters" and "opposers" of Kosovo get their position represented (by sections and by colors respectively). And this is achieved trough the utilization of two criteria - organizations membership for the sections plus UN position for the colors. It was argued by nearly all of us that one or both of these are very important, so utilizing both should result in wide consensus, right? Alinor (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object some better wording of the coloring legend, if somebody proposes such. Alinor (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how we can unambiguously categorize some states, since "territory with final status determination pending" and "part of another state" aren't mutually exclusive options. Sure the UN considers Western Sahara a non-self-governing territory and has proposed a referendum on their future status, but as of now they still consider it a territory of Morroco.
 * Kosovo's situation is even more complicated. We have UNSC support for Yugoslavian territorial integrity (ie Kosovo is part of Serbia) and the ICJ (a UN agency) verdict that the declaration of independence was legal (ie Kosovo isn't a part of Serbia).  The UNGA acknowledged this decision "was in accordance with international law."  The UNMIK is involved in the unresolved final status talks (ie status pending).  There is no coherent UN position on Kosovo.  So which cateogry do we put them in?  Maybe it would be easier if we just merged these two categories into one, so we don't have to try to distinguish the two cases.  TDL (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In all cases besides Kosovo everything is clear. Western Sahara is considered eligible for "future status determination". That does not contradict that Morocco/Spain (depending on context) are considered "administering/controlling power". The UN acknowledges that someone else is administering the territory in the interim period until the final status is determined. UN doesn't consider Western Sahara to be part of Morocco. Palestine is the same - Israel is controlling it as "occupied", but the UN doesn't consider it to be part of Israel. All the rest are considered by the UN to be part of some other state (China, Somalia, etc.)
 * The UN position on Kosovo is most recently stated in the UNSCR1244 (ICJ/UNGA opinions are not about the status of Kosovo, but about "legality of a particular act"): affirms the territorial integrity of Serbia, but at the same time puts Kosovo under UN administration/control and envisions its future status determination. Some argue that the territorial integrity of Serbia text means integrity for the rest-of-Serbia (without Kosovo) as Kosovo is subject to separate (all other) texts in the resolution, especially these placing it outside of Serbia control (UNMIK) and the envisioned future status determination (it is argued that such determination would not be envisioned at all if it was per-determined by the same resolution that Kosovo is part of Serbia). I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to take sides in such debate, but I think we can be safe if we say that UN position on Kosovo is that its "status is to be determined". Historical cases of United Nations protectorates show that future statuses could lead to both independence or integration in another state. I haven't checked the resolutions establishing these protectorates, but it is reasonable to expect that they contain clauses about territorial integrity of the states involved.
 * The UN position on Kosovo is coherent enough - even if accept "integrity of Serbia" as including Kosovo the position of the UN will be "currently de jure part of Serbia, to be administered by UNMIK, final status to be determined later". If we accept the other view that "integrity of Serbia" is about rest-of-Serbia, then the position of the UN will be: "to be administered by UNMIK, final status to be determined later". The key message is that the UN considers the final status as not yet determined (in contrast to the cases of Taiwan, Somaliland, etc. where they are considered as part of another state). Thus I think all this is indicating that we should color Kosovo UN position as "status to be determined".
 * "Maybe it would be easier if we just merged these two categories into one, so we don't have to try to distinguish the two cases." - that's what I mean below with the "third coloring proposal" - color all "non-states according to the UN". But I think that coloring by "state"/"status to be determined"/"part of state" is more usefull and the special case of Kosovo could be easily explained in its extant note (if this isn't already done). Alinor (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the simplest solution would be to simply colour UN member states, and clearly state the colouring is only to highlight that. Like List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe highlights all EU member states. But like ive said before, i can support a change aslong as there is a clear colour difference between the UN member states and non member states although im not too fussed about the Vatican issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Coloring the UN states adds nothing, it is redundant with the sectional division. That's why I am proposing coloring the non-UN states according to the UN position about them. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another colour/sorting idea
A question for BW+Night. Would you be opposed to a a two category table (Vienna/Others) with UN members coloured differently from everyone else? This would address your "UN members can't be neutrally listed beside non-UN members without colour" beef, and would address our beef that the "Other Vienna" states are considered to be equal to "UN members" by the UN itself. TDL (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object this if it gains consensus, but it doesn't help with the IMF/WBG concerns. Alinor (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this would depend on Kosovo's position. The above proposal would be an issue if Kosovo made it into the top category. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get what do you mean. Kosovo is IMF/WBG member so according to this proposal it would get in the first section (Vienna). Then part of the first section will be colored (Vienna-UN), but Kosovo will remain with the same color as Vienna-non-UN (Vatican and if included, CI/Niue). The 9 "others" will be in a different section. So, there wouldn't be anything (color or section) linking Kosovo to "others", that's why I suppose that the issue of IMF/WBG admission procedure voting rules would be raised. Alinor (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is this would move Kosovo into the middle of tons of UN member states by default, sure there would be a colour difference but its still highly problematic for that one entity to be treated that way whilst other disputed states are kept separate. UN-Vienna, non UN-Vienna ,others still seems to make the most sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well actually UN member states / other states would make the most sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're bringing this up again? I finally compromised by saying yes to a single table. I'd sooner see the Vatican City lumped with the Others, with a colouring system to denote agency membership.  Night  w   15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm trying to compromise to your colour demands. I'd sonner see the UN members and other vienna lumped together, with no colouring to distinguish them, but I'm trying to find a mutually acceptable compromise.  This proposal sorts by my preference, and colours by your preference, since you rejected the reverse (sort by your preference, colour by my preference).  TDL (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of us compromised and accepted changing to a single sortable table, that is a big issue and clearly colour and sorting criteria both are very important if there is a single table, because it mixes different types of states up and is a huge shift from the present setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, So what about the first coloring proposal - sections Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna with colors per UNxx position State/Status determination pending/part of State? Alinor (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not clear on which countries would be in each colour. the example above for example "Considered by the UN to be part of another state" with the purple colour, wouldnt that include Taiwan? Yet it appears in a different colour. I dont have strong views about what other colour codes should be used, but it needs to be very simple for people to understand which belongs with which colouring. And provided the UN member states clearly have one colour or are not coloured at all so they can be told apart from all other entities in the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also whilst im ok with it simply being standard for the UN member states, the table does look better with colour, maybe UN member states should be coloured a specific colour too. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. IMO, the more colors we have, the more information we can convey within the confines of the same space.--Jiang (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Taiwan was colored that way, but Jiang changed the colors with such, that I can't even see on my low-quality LCD. I suggest that we use colors that are better distinguished. Alinor (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest exactly these colors in my proposal, but the current gray-shades are really very similar and blending with the background and not appropriate for low quality LCDs. Alinor (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, states that have full UN membership and states that have membership in the specialised agencies are not equal in terms of acceptance by the community. There is an obvious disputable nature of equality between states like Sweden and states like Kosovo. Kosovo is explicitly not recognised by over 100 states. Lumping it with UN members would introduce a serious imbalance in the table. At least admission into the General Assembly represents a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions. Admission into a specialised agency is something else entirely, as while there's no veto procedure, applications can obviously be blocked by the blackmail (as we've seen done with Palestine at the WHO), or the superior voting power (as is the system in the IMF and World Bank) of a single state. I'm repeating myself again, and it's getting really old.  Night  w   03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A slight note - most of the Vienna-non-UN states are actually equal in terms of acceptance with the UN members (see the UN Legal Affairs link). The only exception is the recent IMF/WBG member Kosovo, where the issues you stated apply. That's why I suggest that we use the first coloring proposal - there Kosovo is clearly distinguished (if we apply appropriate color palette) from the rest of Viennas. Alinor (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * About WHO. I don't think that Palestine was going to be accepted as "member state of WHO". It was more likely to get "participating delegation" or similar wording - like Taiwan (I assume that "associate member" or "observer" were also off limits). Thus it would not satisfy the Vienna criteria at this stage anyway. I assume you are not suggesting to move Palestine to Vienna-non-UN section, but only using this as example of decision making process in the WHO? Alinor (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "states that have full UN membership and states that have membership in the specialised agencies are not equal in terms of acceptance by the community." You're right.  Vatican City is more accepted than Israel or PRC despite their lack of UN membership.  The UN's Legal Affairs specifically states that "a number of those States became members of specialized agencies, and as such were in essence recognized as States by the international community." .  So the UN's position is clear: agency membership is sufficient to demonstrate recognition by the internation community.  Your assertation that UN membership is necessary for acceptance into the international community is your POV and isn't supported by RS.
 * "There is an obvious disputable nature of equality between states like Sweden and states like Kosovo." Right, just like there is an obvious disputable nature of equality between Sweden and states like Israel.  That doesn't stop us from including Israel in the main list.  Clearly universal recognition isn't necessary.
 * "Kosovo is explicitly not recognised by over 100 states." You have any sources to back this up?  You can't just take "# states - # recognizers = # non-recognizers" since that assumes every state which hasn't issued a formal press release recognizing them don't recognize them.  Looking here, for example, you'll see that 15 years after independence Croatia claims to have only been formally  recognized by ~110 states, despite the fact that they aren't explicitly unrecognized by a single state.  The reality is that many states will never issue a formal statement of recognition, since the issue isn't important to them or they don't feel the need to inform the world of their decision.
 * "At least admission into the General Assembly represents a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions." How is the UNGA a tangibly better cross-section than the specialised agencies which all (as far as I'm aware) have >170 member states?
 * "Admission into a specialised agency is something else entirely, as while there's no veto procedure, applications can obviously be blocked by the blackmail (as we've seen done with Palestine at the WHO)..." Right, just like states can get their UN membership approved by blackmail, such as happend when the PRC obtained the ROC's UN seat.  That's how this game called politics works.
 * "..or the superior voting power (as is the system in the IMF and World Bank) of a single state." I share your concern here and I argued against IMF/WB membership at the start of this debate.  That being said, Kosovo's IMF application passed by a vote of 96-42  in 2009 at a time when they were only explicitly recognized by 58 states and in the face of strong Serbian and Russian lobbying against their admission.  So even if there was equal voting, they still would have got in thus making your argument moot.
 * "I'm repeating myself again, and it's getting really old." My feelings exactly.
 * Listen, I understand your concerns over Kosovo. I share them.  If I was making a list of countries, I'd exclude them.  But using a widely accepted metric includes them, so I'm willing to look past my POV in the name of verifibility.  That is our goal here afterall, not to push our own POV's.  TDL (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've taken my comment, and broken it up into sentences, as though each sentence represents a separate argument. You've then attempted to deflect each sentence without addressing my main argument or concerns.


 * Where was the "assertation" that "UN membership is necessary for acceptance into the international community" made? Not equal does not mean one is, and the other isn't. I argued instead that UN admission represented "a state's acceptance by a cross-section of the world's multiple political positions", referring to the avoidance of rejection by any of the 5 permanent Security Council members, which collectively represent the major spheres in multipolar politics. But admission into the IMF or the World Bank can be blocked only by the United States. It's fine to hypothesise as to whether Kosovo would have been admitted anyway, but the disproportionate voting systems of these two particular agencies is still in effect regardless, and it is unconductive to our efforts to produce the most impartial list possible.
 * "'Why is Russia's position more important than all 191 other states combined? ... That seems highly POVish to me.'"


 * As for verifiability, you had previously stated this was unnecessary, with which I agreed:
 * "'It's not the criteria that needs to be verifiable. It's whether the states satisfy that criteria that needs to be verifiable.'"
 * And, even if this were not the case, acceptable reference would not be possible, as I have also mentioned in the past. Because the source of the system has not actually published a list that we can reflect, it would be synthesis to construct one using a legal document as a reference.


 * By your request, my figure for Kosovo's non-recognition was based on this list, which details the official positions taken by 108 states, and which is substantially cited and frequently updated.


 * To elaborate on my earlier statement of frustration, I'm afraid that I've lost faith in this discussion's ability to make groundway. I've said before that I support the status quo, or something similar. I vehemently opposed a single list, and now I've agreed to that also. Your initial organised proposal was to use the Vienna formula / Others, in a divided list. You now want the combined Vienna formula and in a single table. And you're prepared to "compromise" by using colours. It appears to me that instead of accepting progress, things move backwards. I'm going to withdraw my contribution to this discussion until the proposal is finalised. I'll be extremely busy over the next few months, and I won't have the time. Please notify me and all other editors previously involved when you've made up your minds.


 * I will offer one last comment with regards to the agency members section. My concerns about financial blackmail aside, it might be prudent for the sake of the proposal, in my opinion, to refrain from combining them with the UN members at least until after the discussion regarding the Cook Islands and Niue is resolved. Discussion on their placement in the list will be inevitable should they meet inclusion. Cheers!   Night  w   18:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The place of CI/Niue is clear regardless if we choose Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN(here)/non-Vienna or Vienna(here)/non-Vienna sections. The only thing that can be discussed about CI/Niue is whether they will be included at all or not.
 * I think the discussion is near finalization - we made big advances already (sections, sortable table, etc. - see the 6 points much above) - and there is an accepted (I think) proposal in the sandbox. The only thing left is to decide on the coloring - see below. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm willing to accept the compromise solution UN/Other Vienna/Others as well, and if you can get a consensus behind colouring UN members differently I've stated I can live with this. The problem is that in spite of my willingness to compromise on this issue, there doesn't appear to be a consensus in favour of it.  The reason I suggested this idea wasn't to move backwards, it was to try and see if there was any room for compromise between the two camps.
 * As for the Kosovo issue, the wiki page only lists 102 states by my count. And if you read the content, many states have said something along the lines of "We recognize the right of Kosovo to exercise self-determination" or "We will recognize once we complete our internal process" which shouldn't be considered an explicit non-recognition.  TDL (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Third coloring/sectional proposal
Sections according to "Vienna formula": "Vienna-UN", "Vienna-non-UN", "non-Vienna" (as the proposal in the sandbox). Colors according to "All States formula": "state", "not a state". (for "All States" see the same UN legal affairs link).

I really prefer the first coloring proposal (state, territory status to be decided, part of another state) as it allows for a bigger set of differences in status to be shown, but if the third proposal gains wider consensus I won't object it. Alinor (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Coloring final?
Looking at the three proposals above (and their replies) it seems that: Proposal2: re-opening the sectional issue with Vienna/Others is considered too pushy by those already compromised on single list, etc. also there are the Kosovo concerns; Proposal3: nobody responded to the proposal to use for coloring the simplest form of UN position "state"/"not a state"; Proposal1: Chipmunkdavis (and maybe TDL) voiced objection to the proposal to use "state"/"status determination pending"/"part of state", but didn't say anything after I tried to explain what advantages I see in this coloring; I'm not sure, but it seems that the others are not opposed to this coloring.

So, are there any objections remaining against the use of the following: Result: What do you think? Alinor (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * sections as already agreed - Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna
 * coloring per UN position - state/status determination pending/part of another state; Source for "Considered by the UN to be a state"
 * UN members will be in section: Vienna-UN; colored: state
 * Vatican will be in section: Vienna-non-UN; colored: state
 * Kosovo will be in section: Vienna-non-UN; colored: status determination pending
 * SADR, Palestine will be in section: non-Vienna; colored: status determination pending
 * the rest will be in section: non-Vienna; colored: part of another state
 * if included (to be decided after implementation - currently implementing the status quo list) CI, Niue will be in section: Vienna-non-UN; colored: state
 * But how does this addess BW's concern that UN members must be coloured differently from non-members? Under this proposal, some non-members would be coloured the same as members, which BW has repeatedly stated he will not accept.  I'm willing to support it, but I still think this will move us farther from consensus, since editors will disagree over how to categorize Kosovo.  TDL (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the only non-UN member state being colored the same as UN members the Holy See? What is the problem with this setup, since the UN itself has granted the Holy See "non-member observer state" status?--Jiang (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont really mind about the Holy See, the issue of Niue and Cook Islands is a problem still though if its decided they need to be included which i believe they will probably have to be if we use the Vienna formula as a sorting criteria. It will result in two entities that has not been described as a sovereign state before on this page being coloured the same way as UN Member states, whilst we treat all other entities even Kosovo differently. If we did UN member state - Coloured. Rather than just - state coloured. Then the difference would be clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So still categories - Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna.  And for colouring it would be "UN member states/status determination pending/part of another state" which would simply leave Vatican and Niue and Cook Islands if added white as special cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say if those sections/colouring (that i mentioned above) was the proposal, id fully support the change and i think it addresses Nights main concern too. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, the UN states are already separated from the rest in their own UN-members-only section. If we color all-of-them the same the whole section will be of the same color (as the criteria for section and for color is the same: UN membership). This color will be redundant and will not add any information. The difference between CI/Niue/Vatican and the UN-members is already clearly shown by putting these into different sections. We already argued much about if this is not too UN-focused, but in the end I think all of us agreed on this division. Now, we are going to add additional degree of UN-focus by using UN position (state/status pending/part-of-state) as criteria for coloring of the whole list. I disagree with even more push for UN-focus (UN-member/other state/status pending/part-of-state) - let's put aside that increasing the number of colors makes the comprehension of information harder.
 * If UN-members are going to have their own color, then they should be in a section with some other states - or they should be distributed among two or more of the other sections (so that there is no section=color total match). Such proposals for sections were made: Vienna (UN and non-UN)/Others(non-Vienna) or "universally recognized"(186 UN, Vatican)/"limited number of non-recognizers"(Armenia, Israel, China, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Niue, North Korea, South Korea)/"limited number of recognizers"(Kosovo, Taiwan, SADR, Palestine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Cyprus, maybe Transinistria, maybe Nagorno-Karabakh)/"no recognizers"(Somaliland, maybe Transinistria, maybe Nagorno-Karabakh). I think that both of these proposals had their strong objectors (and issues).
 * So, let's stick to the sectional division that seems to get consensus (Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna) and deal only with the coloring schemes. I think that combining this sectional division with coloring by "state/status determination pending/part of another state" allows for most (all?) types of statuses to be clearly distinguished - UN members (their own section1), states-according-to-the-UN (section2 without color), Vienna-members-with-status-pending (section2 with colorX), non-Vienna-with-status-pending (section3 with colorX), non-Vienna-part-of-another-state-according-to-the-UN (section3 with colorY).
 * TDL, I think the issue of Kosovo that is raised is not about its coloring category (status-pending vs. part-of-state), but that it should be distinguished from the rest-of-Vienna states, as it "got its Vienna membership by the back door" (IMF/WBG special procedures). Yes, I know that it was admitted by vote of the majority of the number of states, but I think that accusation of power-politics and muscle-flexing (e.g. "Vote for Kosovo or USA+Kosovo friends will block decisions for financing of your projects") will aways emerge over voting process in the IMF/WBG. This will be resolved only if we have an example of some treaty adhesion/organization membership, where IMF/WBG-Kosovo-membership is utilized as reason for its admission (e.g. enforcing of Vienna formula specifically for Kosovo) - as we have for the other rest-of-Viennas.
 * As we don't have such I propose a little change:


 * sections as already agreed - Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna (easily verifiable)
 * coloring per UN position - state/status determination pending (under interim/provisional administration)/not a separate entity
 * italics for entities that are "part of another state" according to UN position
 * This way we can allow the three POVs on Kosovo to be represented (e.g. to convey the duality of UNSCR1244 + the independence POV) - listed as state (in section2; "RoK POV"), colored as "status determination pending" ("UNMIK POV"), italics as "part of another state" ("Serbia POV"). Of course we will not name the POVs (so there will be no arguments what POV the ICJ/UNGA support and if UNSCR1244 is supporting UNMIK POV, Serbia POV or both). Alinor (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with those colours. We've stated before that the UN does not recognise states. The statements will cause arguments about what on earth they mean. They aren't as explicitly neutral as you make them seem. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims these are neutral - they are positions of particular organs of the UN and of course represent their POVs. Colors are proposed as some editors here want to emphasis/distinguish between the different types of states in the list. I am willing to discuss any other idea that can lead to consensus.
 * Yes, I know that the UN doesn't recognize states, that's why I said that the wording is draft and that if required it could be changed to "According to UNSG, UNSC or UNGA position considered to be ..." (with the exact institution/organ for the particular case to mentioned in the individual extant notes). Alinor (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what the problem is with colouring based on "UN member states/status determination pending/part of another state". That addresses concerns about Niue and Cook Islands. As explained many times before whilst that Sort feature is usable the colour coding should make clear the difference between UN Member states and all other entities. Your proposal will mean Cook Islands and Niue will be the same colour as France and Germany if we decide to add them, which i believe will happen because of the sorting criteria using Vienna. If the sort feature was removed then i would not care about the colouring. But whilst sort feature is there, the fact there is a section for UN member states does not address the problem as a single click mixes everything up. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two problems - the redundancy of section+color in default-sort view (it is meaningless/distracting); the too much UN-focus push. You said multiple times that you already made many compromises, etc. I agree that you did that, but the same is true for the other editors, that agreed to have sections instead of a single list, to have one of the sections dedicated to UN members instead of the much more neutral Vienna/Others division, to have colors added that are based on UN positions. And now, you want on top of all that to push even further for UN-membership-focus... I think this is going too far. The position of the UN itself is that "Cook Islands = France", so I don't see why you/we should take a different stance. We came to a consensus on utilizing an established criteria (Vienna formula) so that personal preferences don't have any influence. I (and others) agreed to make a compromise, to separate UN members in their own section. Then, after continued pressure along the lines "UN membership is the most important property of sovereign states" (as there is no other difference between Vienna-UN and Vienna-non-UN states) we go to additional compromise to add colors to the rows of states that are not considered to be states by the UNSG/UNSC/UNGA (e.g. presenting the UN POV over the whole list) with the "status to be decided" and "not separate entity".
 * I gave you above two examples of sectional divisions, where it would be appropriate to have separate coloring of "UN members". If those are not acceptable and you don't agree with my explanation above, then please provide some criteria of difference between CI and France besides UN membership, so that we can formulate a coloring legend and apply it to the whole list. Because otherwise it looks like "the entities are colored according to that if there are CI/Niue - green, or some other entity - brown" - this is arbitrary choosing of end result, not a criteria. Alinor (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But the whole thing is based on the UN anyway because of their use of vienna. If we have UN and non UN vienna sections there simply is no reason why we can not also have UN membership colour. That would resolve all this and avoid having to worry about the cook islands and Niue. I dont know what other factors we could use to separate Niue and cook islands from france etc, which is why the UN membership works well. There is a huge difference between France and Cook Islands, even if technically under vienna they are equal, we know that is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly because "the whole thing is based on the UN" any further emphasis of UN membership is inappropriate. As I explained - even the separation of UN members in their own section was too much, but some editors made a compromise, in order to achieve consensus (just as you did in the other way around).
 * Cook Islands are separated from France - they are in different sections. And please let's not start again the "but when it is sorted otherwise" - in that case we have explicit user action showing that he wants alphabetic instead of categorized view. In alphabetic view all rows should be the same (no categories).
 * Regardless of that we all agreed that we apply coloring to the special-case rows. Again a compromise in order to reach consensus.
 * Now we argue about what the coloring criteria should be. OK. Section sorting options that make "UN membership" a possible sorting criteria are unacceptable. UN membership is used as section1 definition, so this information is already presented in a very prominent way in the list. There is the other proposal for using UN position about the states - "state"/"under interim administration"-"status to be decided"/"not a separate entity" plus italics for "part of another state". Your objection here is that "Cook islands will appear the same as France". This applies only to the user-selected alphabetic sort view (not to the default view) and arguably is not a problem, but the principal reason for this sort view to exist in the first place - to have a neutral alphabetically sorted list dependent only on the inclusion criteria, without any POVs showing trough additional sorting criteria. Some already backtracked here, and are willing to accept some UN-POVish coloring. But you insist not only for showing the UN POV in the supposedly neutral alphabetic sort - you want also the UN membership property to be shown in BOTH views (as it has the most prominent place in the default view anyway). And also the reason for this is simply because you want particular entries separated from the rest and for no other reason. I think that such position goes too far and is not a consensus-aspiring position.
 * On substance. I asked what is the additional difference between France and Cook Islands, besides UN membership (that is already shown by the sections) - so that we can use it for the coloring criteria - but you say that there "aren't any other factors". Then why should we pursue this? What is the "huge difference between France and Cook Islands"? They are not only "equal technically under vienna" (such is Kosovo) - we have the individual statements by the UNSG about that, including "... question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by ... the international community. ... Cook Islands could henceforth be included in the "all States" ...".
 * So, since we lack such not-already-implemented-in-the-list criteria that can create the coloring division you aspire (CI vs. France) I propose that we use the state/interim administration and status/not a separate entity. Alinor (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At present the Cook Islands and Niue are not treated as a sovereign state on wikipedia or this article. France is fully recognised as s sovereign state by the international community, recognition of Cook Islands as a sovereign state is very limited. UN Membership is a useful distinction that everyone can easily understand, far more know it than the "vienna formula. I still do not understand the opposition to simply colouring it based on UN membership, especially if we use colouring to show other things like status/part of another state etc as well. If we are to put the proposal to others we should give them a choice of if we colour UN membership or not. I want there to be a clear difference between UN and non UN member states, i said this from the very start. The sorting feature means we need colouring to show the difference because the sections wont always remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "recognition of Cook Islands as a sovereign state is very limited." - excuse me, but have you readed the quote from the UN Legal Affairs page that I put near the end of my last comment? It says exactly the opposite thing.
 * Anyway, whether CI/Niue will be included ("treated as sovereign state by wikipedia") depends on the discussion about whether they fulfill the inclusion criteria or not. Let's postpone the discussion of CI/Niue recognition to that discussion (or start it right now on its page). Here we are arguing about sorting criteria of colors (and we already agreed on the sorting criteria of sections).
 * Some editors (group X) here have their reservation about the "usefulness of UN membership as distinction", but nevertheless they made a compromise and agreed with some other editors (including you, group Y) to use this dubious (according to group X) criteria for the main section.
 * Statements like "I want a clear difference between this and that" without reasoning why this is more important/representative/whatever than some other difference are very pushy and unhelpful. Because everybody could easily state the opposite: "I want all Vienna states to be in the same group" or "I don't want arbitrary sorting divisions, sections and coloring - all states satisfying the inclusion criteria should be in the same group". This is also unhelpful.
 * Regardless, I repeat - there already is clear difference between UN members and the rest - UN members are in their own section! And not showing the sections is one of the advantages of the alphabetic view. Those that support this position already made a compromise by accepting coloring at all. It is not acceptable to have any redundant duplication of sorting criteria for both sections and coloring - either we add additional information by the colors or we don't use any colors. Otherwise we can use such sectional division criteria that would allow for UN membership to be utilized for coloring sorting criteria - I gave you two such examples - if you think that some of these two could be acceptable consensus solution - please say so. And a fourth option is that you tell us one of the supposedly many additional properties ("There is a huge difference") that separate France from the Cook Islands - and we could use it as coloring criteria. Because UN membership itself is not a "huge difference" (examples: Vatican, Switzerland, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Japan, etc - check the difference between "UN foundation date", "independence date" and "UN membership date"). Alinor (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing the sorting feature and i wont mind about the colouring, but whilst there is a sorting feature it means the sections only apply if people dont use the sort feature. the second they hit that button all hell breaks loose with all sorts of entities like palestine mixing with fully recognised sovereign states that actually exist. I cant support the proposal if it can not have a clear difference between UN member states and non UN member states after someone uses the sort feature. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You still insist that UN members are somehow special/privileged type of sovereign states. So privileged that having their own section is not enough and they should have their own coloring and they should never and under none circumstances (like a special view of the list that requires explicit user action before activation) be mixed with states non-members of the UN - the last one of your requirements directly contradicts the practice of the UN itself. And your position didn't change after reading the UN Legal Affairs page (where "who is a state" is discussed and UN membership is not mentioned as requirement for that - it is only one among 18 equal possibilities) and the list of examples (it could be expanded too) I gave just above - of "widely recognized by the international community" [sic] (excuse the weasel words) states that were not members of the UN for a very long time periods (and some still aren't). This leads to a more fundamental question about your position:


 * Do you agree that entities that are not UN members are sovereign states?
 * If no - then we should discuss the inclusion criteria and eventually remove all non-UN entities.
 * If yes - then, what are the criteria (besides UN membership as you agree that it is not a requirement, but only one of the possibilities) that we should use to check if some entity is a sovereign state or not? The current inclusion criteria or some other?
 * Somewhere down this road of reasoning we could pass along "has population", "has territory", "has government", "has relations with other states", "claims to be independent+sovereign+state" (+ instead of "or"), then we will reach a territory where we distinguish between different "types" of sovereign states: "UN members", "IAEA members", "ICJ members", "WHO members", "UNWTO members", "... organization members" - how do we select "important" (and special and privileged) from "non-important" organizations? We utilize a criteria established not by us, but by the practice of many international organizations and treaties. Then we continue further - we accept to show one of these organizations in a more prominent place than the others; and will go even further - we accept to distinguish between the next batch of states depending on the position of this "prominent place organization", so we pass along "territories considered by the special organization to be separate entities under interim administration with status determination pending" and "territories not considered by the special organization to be a separate entities and considered by it to be part of some of the previous states" - so we accept to display the "position of prominent place organization" even when it contradicts the inclusion criteria chosen. I think that allowing so much UN-focus is enough and anything more is unacceptable. Especially when it adds nothing as UN members are already in a separate section.
 * In short I totally disagree with your stance that "Cook Islands and France should never and under none circumstances be mixed". This is in direct contradiction with uncountable number of reliable sources. Your position is an extreme one and unlike the moderate consensus seeking position that we should take into account different POVs - e.g. nobody said "I can't support proposal that doesn't show under all circumstances that Cook Islands and France are equal states as stated in the UN Office of Legal affairs source" and "I don't accept separating Vienna-UN and Vienna-non-UN states in the default view as at the second the person loads the page all hell breaks loose with the same sort of entities going into a mix of sections and the reader is forced to scramble for the alphabetic sort button, if he even notices it, in order to force an orderly display of the list".
 * I propose that we seek the consensus and don't go into extremes. Any coloring by UN position is already pushing on the limits of UN-focus acceptability. I could support coloring Cook Islands differently than France - only if this is done on a proper basis. For example such as "explicit non-recognizers" [source links] - then Cyprus, North Korea, China, etc. would share the color of Cook Islands and Niue along with Somaliland, Abkhazia, Kosovo, etc. And if you manage to define a more granulated criteria that is an acceptable consensus - these could be further divided into "less than 10 explicit non-recognizers", "between 10 and 100 explicit non-recognizers", "more than 100 explicit non-recognizers" (draft numbers). Alinor (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Countries dont have to be members of the UN to be sovereign states however as the global body membership of the General assembly is a pretty important thing and worthy of being displayed both by section heading and by colour if its a sortable table. If that can not be done.. then i strongly oppose a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as we should do things here for good reason, we must support and oppose proposals here with good reason too. While I don't have a strong view on how the coloring should be done, I'll pop in here to make a procedural comment: I feel that Alinor has brought up some very convincing arguments, and in light of your brief response to them, I am having a hard time understanding reasons behind your position here (as I have above). How is the UNGA (or isn't the UNSC a major player here) of such importance that UN members absolutely and positively must be colored, such that if they are not colored, this article has become misleading, biased, or otherwise a contravention of Wikipedia policy? Is there really an answer to this question? The degree we want to emphasize UN membership is rather arbitrary, and when we are forced to draw the line, it is a matter of putting forward the most convincing arguments - the best reasons possible - for drawing the line, instead of declaring the line to be drawn, and opposing anything that deviates from that line. This is far from a black and white situation, and what matters is whether each user is convinced the arguments put forth are good ones, not whether is each user opposes or supports the proposal for mere support or opposition. To crudely paraphrase (and I apologize for this), instead of saying, "I have compromised on X so if we don't do Y I oppose", it would be much more constructive to say, "I think in order to accept X, we must do Y because without Y, the article with X would wrongly/misleadingly/etc. suggest..." --Jiang (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is not much to say because i simply disagree with the proposal and we are going round in circles. I believe it is important for the status of different sovereign states remains clear at all time. If we accept the principle that we can use section headings which distinguish between UN and NON-UN member states then i fail to see why that status should not continue to be shown if people use the sort feature. As we are dividing them into sections already, i fail to see how adding colours makes it even more "UN POV". I believe it would be grossly misleading for this article to treat entities like Cook Islands and Niue the same way as we treat France and Germany. At present this article does not even list the cook islands and Niue as sovereign states, it never has as far as im aware and their articles do not make it clear they are sovereign states either. We will there for being "upgrading" these entities, rightly or wrong but its important a distinction is clear at all times that they are not as sovereign as other entities in the list. The section headings allow that, but the proposed colour coding does not, because they will be colour coded the same way as all UN Member states. I originally opposed a single list because i believe it is important to keep types of sovereign states apart. Palestine which does not even have control over a territory is not the same type of state as France. At present in the article Palestine along with all other disputed states are in their own section of the article. The status quo whilst not sorted for that reason, is effectively a list of UN member states + Vatican. This has been the case for about 3 years. If we are to change to a single sortable list, i simply believe that UN membership is an important and notable element of a country's status and it always deserves to be shown clearly. Others may disagree.. but i simply cant support a change to the article if that distinction is not always made. If the sort feature was removed then i dont have a problem, but whilst its there colour coding also needs to be used.  BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for having the alphabetic sort feature is that we can allow the "all included states are equal" POV to be represented (for anyone interested in it). If you want the "UN membership" POV to be represented more than by having a separate default view section - you should add a "UN member" or "UN position" column - so that anyone interested in it can click there and view it. And what is this UN membership obsession anyway? Than states non-members of the UN are somehow inferior to UN members? There is UN position POV, but UN membership POV is a strage construct in itself.
 * I think the above explains why 'As we are dividing them into sections already, adding colours makes it even more "UN POV".' - the alphabetic sort view is supposed to be POV-free (or arguably to represent the "all are equal" POV or "inclusion criteria POV"). Any coloring is compromising it. I think we all agree to such compromise to the degree to represent the "UN position" (as the UN is considered by some to be very important and all), but pushing for "UN membership" coloring instead of "UN position" coloring is going too far - and is a contradiction of policy and practice of the UN itself.
 * "it would be grossly misleading for this article to treat Cook Islands the same way as France" Here we argue about all states non-members of the UN, not only CI/Niue. Is it misleading to treat Vatican the same way as France? According to some POV maybe, but should we represent in all possible views this POV? How is it more important that other POVs, so that it should be represented at all times?
 * Especially when the organization whose importance you want to represent has acknowledged that its member states "should be treated the same way as the states non-members, where under 'states non-members' they understand 'states members to 17 other organizations'" - we have not only acknowledgement by the UN that it is not somehow "superior" to all other organizations, but also a list of organizations considered by the UN itself to be no less representative of the "international community".
 * In short, according to the UN: "Cook Islands should be treated the same way as France". But you suggest that in all possible views we should disregard this. E.g. it is not enough if we disregard this in the default view, you want it disregarded aways.
 * We are trying to make a generic inclusion, sectional, coloring criteria - so that they could work even if applied to past and future situation (of course we can't predict everything, but we should try to make as impartial criteria as we can).
 * "At present this article does not even list the cook islands and Niue as sovereign states, it never has ..." First, CI/Niue inclusion is a different topic - take a look. If I remember correctly the consensus of a previous discussion (one linked in the this linked here) was that they satisfy all inclusion criteria, but we at that time nobody has found a source showing a "claim to be a sovereign state". The discussion I linked here started when such source was found. Afterwards additional sources were found (including a joint declaration of NZ and CI governments about this, inter alia). Then the consensus of the discussion I linked here was that CI/Niue should be included, but because of the vagueness of the status-quo so-called sorting criteria we couldn't come to a consensus in what section to put them. That's why the consensus was that we first implement a verifiable sorting criteria and then the issue will be resolved automatically (depending on the criteria implemented).
 * Second, if we assume that the article is wrong (and was wrong from its very beginning) in the sense that it doesn't include CI/Niue - this does not mean that it should remain wrong - on the contrary, it should be corrected. Alternatively, if we assume that the article is correct and CI/Niue shouldn't be included - then your issue with "UN membership" vs. "UN position" coloring would apply only to the Vatican. And you said, that this is not a problem and that it is acceptable for the "Vatican to be treated the same as France". So, it seems you argue about a non-issue?
 * "Palestine which does not even have control over a territory is not the same type of state as France." - yes, and under the (I think) accepted "UN position" coloring criteria they are also different. But this does not apply to Cook Islands and the Vatican.
 * "The status quo ... is effectively a list of UN member states + Vatican." That is the problem with sorting criteria - the status quo doesn't have any sorting criteria, but is compiled by some editor(s), who distributed the included states in two sections, according to their "common sense" (POV?) and then, as it is obvious that there should be sorting criteria the wording for "sorted according to the world common sense" was added: "internationally recognized widely recognized states" and even by reading of the sorting criteria description it isn't clear if the Vatican is "widely recognized" or only "internationally recognized" and whether there is difference between these two adjectives. As this is the most common "common sense" such arrangement continued for a long time (but as you can see other Wikipedias use different arrangements).
 * "This has been the case for about 3 years." Again, if there is a mistake in an article for 3,5 or whatever years it should be corrected - based on sources/arguments. I don't know any rule that "XX time spend in a state contradicting reliable sources overrules the reliable sources".
 * "i simply believe that UN membership is an important and notable element of a country's status and it always deserves to be shown" - According to the consensus inclusion criteria the UN membership is unrelated to the question of whether one entity is "sovereign state" or not (the subject of the list). That's why I think its importance in other subjects doesn't necessarily apply to this article. About its usage as sorting criteria - the UN itself doesn't use it, so I don't think it "deserves by right" to be utilized by us. On the contrary, this was considered inappropriate by some editors. Anyway, in the end all agreed the UN members to be in their own section in the default view (e.g. the default view represents your prefered "UN membership POV"), but I still fail to see any arguments why this should be made in all views. The different views are not supposed to be replicas of each other - that's why the initial example of "sortable list" included many more columns. I think most of here thought that by implementing sections in the default view most of the additional columns would not be needed. But if this is so important to you (I fail to understand why, but anyway) - just propose to add a "UN membership column" (and remove this note from the extants) so that this POV will be represented both in section1 of the default view and also in its own view. How much more should we do to show the supposed UN membership notability and importance for the sovereignty of states?
 * I would suggest a "UN position column" instead (as I think it is much more neutral and informative), but won't object "UN membership column" if that is what we need to finalize this issue.
 * And again - if UN membership is so important (for this list) that 'this distinction needs to be always made.' - I would expect that there would be at least one other distinctive feature (related to sovereignty and state status) between states members of the UN and states non-members of the UN. If we find such difference, we could use it as coloring criteria (as it would be different from the sectional criteria).
 * Until then I propose that we proceed with the proposed "UN position" coloring instead ("considered to be: state/under interim administration-status determination pending/not a separate entity"). Alinor (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ""all included states are equal" - I am sorry but they are not and i oppose a change to this list that attempts to treat them as equal. What about if Niue and Cook Islands (if they get added) are coloured as being in "Free Association" with another state? I also agree that treating the vatican like UN member states can be problematic, that is why i have suggested colouring in member states of the UN. The big difference between the vatican issue and Cook Islands/Niue is the fact the Vatican HAS been treated the same for years in this article there for im less concerned about it. Id support a special colour for the vatican too to symbolise their UN observer status. But it seems the long way around, lots of extra colours when all we need is one for UN member states. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "all included states are equal" - this is one of the POVs (in fact - the inclusion criteria POV). You understand that we try to represent not only a single POV, but more of them (within practicality/readability limits), right? Otherwise we go against the neutrality rules. So, in default view we represent "UN membership" POV (and some other POVs, but UN membership is the main and first section). In the other views - we don't need to represent it.
 * What was "for years in this article" can not be an argument in any direction (I refrain from calling it irrelevant). If this is the "big difference" between Cook Islands and Vatican (or France or whatever), then we should proceed with the change without any further discussion. We have sources showing that the positions of the UN and various other states are the opposite, e.g. they are stating that Cook Islands are the same as France and Vatican, so reference to the historical contents of the same Wikipedia article (that the change applies to) is no argument at all.
 * We already the have the UN position that "Cook Islands is equal to France". I don't understand if you don't agree with that or you think that the UNSG (and the assemblies of the other organizations that share this position) is wrong and has less knowledge of the their status than some of us.
 * Also, as I explained - there is a contradiction in your logic - if CI/Niue are ever included in the list this will be because they are equal to France - otherwise they wouldn't be included in the first place, so there wouldn't be any issue with their coloring. Please explain what is the reasoning where simultaneously CI/Niue should be included and they are inferior in some way to the states members of the UN?
 * Having a rainbow list with many colors is not good. Even 3 colors may be considered too much by some, so I don't think that 4 or 5 would be acceptable (because if we start granulating along the lines "Vatican is UN observer" other cases like Palestine, SADR, etc. could have their own separate colors, etc.)
 * Vatican. I don't get your position about it - is there any difference related to sovereign state status where "Vatican is not equal to France"? (besides membership in particular organizations like UN, UNIDO, ILO, WMO, IAEA, WIPO, etc.)
 * Free association. This looks to me like "targeted criteria", e.g. like using "UN+Vatican" for sectional sorting - you select the end result according to your POV and search for the easiest way to achieve it. But, anyway, let's consider it. You suggest that we color all such cases? Because CI/Niue are not the only examples. In fact, I don't think there is a clear definition about what this means. Does it include states that have decided by their own free choice to sign association agreements with other states? There are tens if not hundreds such agreements. Does it include only some narrow part of these agreements? (the narrowest definition that I can imagine includes a few states more than CI/Niue) What part and why putting the restricting line exactly there? And another question - should we use exactly criteria for coloring, or "UN position" is better suited - because you should consider the coloring not only of CI/Niue, but of the whole list - e.g. one of the proposed colors is to be "free association", what will be the other colors and what will be the common thing between them? (as it is the UN position for the state/status determination/not a separate entity) We can't select arbitrary unrelated things like "green - free association; brown - european state; yellow - state whose territory is claimed by member of the IAEA". Alinor (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then just colour based on UN member states so it is not random. Ive stated my position. I strongly oppose a change to this list if there is not a clear difference between UN member states and entities like Cook Islands and Palestine. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I already said that, but it is important, so I will start with it again: we try to represent not only a single POV, but more of them (within practicality/readability limits).
 * Why don't you accept the suggestion to request a "UN membership" column - I think that this will solve your concern - it would be aways shown (but I admit that I don't understand your reasoning, so maybe it won't solve it).
 * I asked you some simple questions about why you want "UN membership" represented in all views, what are your arguments. You didn't bother to answer. Here are some of these:


 * What is the "huge difference between France and Cook Islands"? (besides membership in particular organizations like UN, UNIDO, ILO, WMO, IAEA, WIPO, etc.)
 * Are states non-members of the UN somehow inferior to states members of the UN? (the question is about "All States" as defined in the UN practice, e.g. does not concern the "10 others")
 * Please explain what is the reasoning where simultaneously CI/Niue should be included in the article and they are inferior in some way to the states members of the UN?
 * Is there any difference related to sovereign state status where "Vatican is not equal to France"? (besides membership in particular organizations like UN, UNIDO, ILO, WMO, IAEA, WIPO, etc.)
 * We already the have the UN (and others') position that "Cook Islands is equal to France". I don't understand - you don't agree with that (e.g. question the validity of the various sources or something else?) or you think that the UNSG (and the assemblies of the other organizations that share this position) is wrong and has less knowledge of the their status than some of us? Alinor (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Coloring, again
As we lack any argumentation for using UN membership as the main differentiator criteria in all views - I suggest that we implement the proposal as follows: Should we proceed with that? Alinor (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * sections sorting criteria: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna; default-view according to "UN membership" POV
 * coloring sorting criteria: according to "UNSG/UNSC/UNGA position": state/under interim administration/not a separate entity
 * italics for territories considered part of another state according to the UNSG/UNSC/UNGA.
 * other features of the table as implemented in the sandbox.
 * Once again, I disagree with defining what the UN whatever's position is on a certain territory as part of another territory or not etc. If you're so strongly against showing more UN POV that you won't colour UN or non-UN states, why the insistence on these arguably arbitrary categories? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you test these colourings in the sandbox anyway? Just so the rest of us can see. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on these categories - I would accept no coloring at all, but it seems other editors prefer it colored. Would you agree to at least color (or make italic) the "status to be determined"?
 * I don't think these categories are arbitrary (they show the official positions taken by the top bodies of the UN), but by nature they are UN POV-ish, so if UN POV is considered overrepresented then we shouldn't use them.
 * I'm against coloring UN and non-UN states when we already have UN and non-UN sections. If we do the list the other way around (as TDL suggested) with sections Vienna/non-Vienna, then I accept coloring UN/non-UN (better to color the non-UNs as there are fewer of them, but I won't object coloring the UNs).
 * So, can we finally choose between:


 * 1) Sections: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna, no coloring
 * 2) Sections: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna, Coloring: per UN position (italics+3 colors)
 * 3) Sections: Vienna/non-Vienna, Coloring: per UN membership (1 color - members or non-members)
 * 4) Sections: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna, Coloring: "status to be determined/under interim administration"-only (1 color)
 * I can test them, just tell me the RGB numbers (or wikiname) of the colors you like. Above I proposed using lightcyan and khaki. What of the above options should I implement in the sandbox? Alinor (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of all the options presented so far in debate, i prefer the 3 split with territory with final status determination pending and part of another state the most, as there is a division between places like Palestine and the Western Sahara (and maybe Kosovo) and others like Transnistria. territory with final status determination pending isn't worded correctly in my opinion, but I do see the message behind it. As for colours, I think the least in-your-face would be better, I like the current lighter brown used in the table above, don't mind what the other colour is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 5) Sections: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna, no coloring with no sort feature
 * 6) Sections: Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna. Colouring: UN member states, territory with final status determination pending and part of another state.

I support either 5 or 6 or other options along those lines provided there is always a difference between UN memberstates and other entities. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't wish to see 192 of these entries coloured in. Colours should be kept to a minimum if used. Better to colour non-UN than UN, although there can still be a label which has the default background colour. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it could be... Colouring: Vienna-non-UN, territory with final status determination pending and part of another state although im not sure what would be done with Kosovo in that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher, the legend has to include description for all cases (including the "no color"/"white" case) - so option 6 is missing one description. In any case it copies the criteria of the section division (for one or two of the colors). Also, you still haven't provided the arguments for "showing UN membership POV in all views" - see questions above this sub-section heading. About option 5 - I think the consensus is that a sortable table is preferable to fixed list. The advatages of the sortable list were discussed extensively before.
 * Well im ok with a sort feature if there is proper colouring that addresses all concerns, if that is not possible then no sort feature is the best option. At present there it is not clear there is solid consensus for anything. This whole proposal may still be rejected by others.  BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis, so you say something like this (I add CI/Niue only because their are "controversial", so that there are no surprises - the decision on their inclusion is to be finalized later):

Legend: According to UNSG, UNGA or UNSC position considered to be a  [<font style="background-color:white">state ] — [<font style="background-color:#F5EFFB">territory with final status determination pending ] — [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">part of another state ] ; Resulting in: If you have idea for better wording of "status pending", please share it. Alinor (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Section1: Members of the United Nations organization' [<font style="background-color:white">the 192 UNs ]
 * 'Section2: Members of an United Nations specialized agency' [<font style="background-color:white">Cook Islands ], [<font style="background-color:#F5EFFB">Kosovo ], [<font style="background-color:white">Niue ], [<font style="background-color:white">Vatican City ]
 * 'Section3: No membership in the United Nations organization and specialized agencies' [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Abkhazia ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Nagorno-Karabakh ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Northern Cyprus ], [<font style="background-color:#F5EFFB">Palestine ], [<font style="background-color:#F5EFFB">Sahrawi Republic ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Somaliland ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">South Ossetia ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Taiwan ], [<font style="background-color:#F7F8E0">Transnistria ]

Should we implement this? Alinor (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - for about 3 years the article has split its contents between fully recognised sovereign states + the vatican, and then all other states in a separate section. This proposal whilst continuing to split the list puts it into a sortable table that can mix all entities up, the colour coding was a compromise although not as ideal as keeping the entities separate. There is a difference between a state like France and a state like Cook Islands or Niue, which at present are not displayed as a sovereign states. If this proposal is implemented it will end up in line with countries like France and coloured the same way. Highly problematic. The split in types of states should continue and has worked well for 3 years. On a side note - the colours are not as clear as they should be either, its not as easy to tell different colours apart from the white as it should be. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You already said that, but please - provide some argumentation - see the questions above this sub-sections.
 * Colors. Yes, I agree - on low quality screens/bad settings they are hard to distinguish. We can aways change them for others, this is a purely technical issue. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I still feel the whole "final status pending" category is going to cause more problems than it's worth. For example, the UN has been involved with negotiations over the final status of Northern Cyprus (ie Annan Plan for Cyprus).  Is that sufficient for inclusion in this category?  I understand what you are getting at, and I think it could be a valuable modification to the list if done properly, but if we don't have a precise colouring criteria then we've just replaced a vague sorting criteria with a vague colouring criteria.  Also, the more categories we have (sections/colours) the more likely editors are going to feel that we have "misscategorized" a state and reject the entire proposal on these grounds.  Considering these colouring proposals are rejected by the very editors you were trying to bring onside (BW+Night), I think the risk of offending other editors with complicated colouring schemes is larger than the reward of getting their support (since this seems unlikely).  Options 1,3-4 are all much clearer in my opinion and would more likely produce a consensus.
 * Since further debate over the issue seems unlikely to produce a compromise, I think we have 2 options going forward.
 * 1) Go ahead and canvas the community with the current sandbox version with the caveat that the final colouring scheme remains unresolved. Hopefully there is a consensus in favour of the uncoloured version, or a specific colouring approach (although I think this is unlikely).
 * 2) File a WP:RFM to see if they can help us come to a compromise.
 * What do others think? TDL (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The UN involvement in Cyprus does not include provisions for separation between North and South - the aims of the UN mission there are to stimulate inter-communal dialogue, so that North and South can came to a conclusion what structure their common state should have, and this common state is the Republic of Cyprus, the UN member state. E.g. the UN is helping Cyprus resolve its internal problems - unlike Kosovo, Western Sahara, Palestine - where the process is open-ended and includes the possibility for separation/independence, not only autonomy/integration.
 * Anyway, I agree that this is a wide stretch, so there could be issues raised about "misscategorization".
 * I think Nightw concerns are reflected in the latest proposal (he hasn't commented lately, but maybe he waits for final solution before commenting?). The debate with BW stalled, see my last post with questions - above this sub-section, I wait for his arguments, currently I don't understand what are the reasons for his request of "UN membership everywhere, anytime".
 * I also agree that it is better to use easily verifiable coloring criteria and option2 is the hardest (as it taps into multiple different sources). Option 1 seems unlikely to get support (as it leaves some concerns unreflected). Option 4 seems as "dodging" the issue - so I think it shares disadvantages of option2 and option1.
 * Option3 is the easiest to verify (using only organizations memberships - UN and Vienna list - without any "position", "status" and other controversial topics). But it changes the sectional sorting criteria that seemed to got consensus - that's why I was unsure about it. But since let's put it here below so that everyone can see what it envisions as result:

Legend: [<font style="background-color:white">member of the United Nations organization ] — [<font style="background-color:khaki">not member of the United Nations organization ]
 * 'Section1: Membership in the United Nations organization or specialized agency' [<font style="background-color:white">the 192 UNs alphabetically mixed with: ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Cook Islands ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Kosovo ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Niue ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Vatican City ]
 * 'Section2: No membership in the United Nations organization and specialized agencies' [<font style="background-color:khaki">Abkhazia ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Nagorno-Karabakh ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Northern Cyprus ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Palestine ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Sahrawi Republic ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Somaliland ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">South Ossetia ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Taiwan ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Transnistria ]
 * Exact color is a technicality - any color can be used.
 * In addition italics could be added to some specific group, if someone has an idea for strong-verifiability criteria. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Any feedback on the arrangement show right above? Is it acceptable for implementation? Alinor (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Placing Kosovo in the same section as places like Serbia and Russia is just going to cause trouble. The original proposal was just a 3 way split, with the second two sections coloured slightly so they could just be identified as such when sorted. Why not just go with that instead of creating yet more categories through colour? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I would support UN-Vienna / Non-UN Vienna / Others. With the last two being coloured differently in a single sortable table. That deal problem of states like Kosovo and potentially the Cook Islands / Niue mixing with fully recognised sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the same sorting criteria for coloring and sectional makes one of these redundant. Sorting or no sorting has nothing to do with that - the sorting feature is added so that other POVs are easily represented. Should we implement a non-table list with coloring Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/Others or a non-colored table with these headings sections?
 * According to the last proposal Kosovo will be in the same section with the UN members, but it would be colored differently - so it will be pretty clear that its 'status is different'. The benefit of this proposal is that it is something as a middle ground/compromise - UN membership is not utilized for the sections division, but it is shown in all views as all non-members are colored differently from UN members. I think that BritishWatcher wants exactly this (even if I don't understand why he wants it).
 * BritishWatcher, since the UN (and many of the states in this list) position is that Cook Islands / Niue should be mixing with fully recognised sovereign states - I don't understand why we shouldn't do this. Please, explain your reasoning - what is the difference between UN members and CI/Niue/Vatican (states that have already "invoked the All States clause" in multiple international agreements/organizations)? (and the other of the questions above this subsection). Alinor (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact it is open to a debate of Niue or Cook islands are included on our list of sovereign states page shows the difference between them and a country like France. Membership of the most important global body is notable and makes them stand out from other nations and territories in the world. Whilst there is a sort feature in the table, having the same colouring/sections is not redundant. It is ensuring that even when people mix the states up, the difference is absolutely obvious to all to see without them having to read a paragraph in the status page. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When people mix the states up this will be because people want them mixed.
 * About the time spend by the article in one or another form - see TDL policy links below.
 * Us having a debate doesn't prove that one of the sides in the debate is right.
 * I agree that the UN is an important organization, so it is reasonable for the leading comment in the notes column of all entries to be about UN membership and also that the UN membership is utilized for the leading section. But what is the relation between sovereignty of states and their UN membership? "important" or "none"? The notability of UN membership is sufficiently (and bordering excessively) represented trough the whole structure and content of the article-as-proposed.
 * If you want a separate colors for UN members, so that they are distinguishable in all views - why haven't you expressed your opinion on the Vienna/Others sections with UN members colored proposal(from 08:58, 6 October 2010)? What do you think about it? Alinor (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

So, yet another option: Legend: [<font style="background-color:white">has invoked an "All States" clause ] — [<font style="background-color:khaki">hasn't invoked an "All States" clause so far ] What do you think? Alinor (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Section1: Members of the United Nations organization' [<font style="background-color:white">the 192 UNs ]
 * 'Section2: Members of an United Nations specialized agency' [<font style="background-color:white">Cook Islands ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Kosovo ], [<font style="background-color:white">Niue ], [<font style="background-color:white">Vatican City ]
 * 'Section3: No membership in the United Nations organization and specialized agencies' [<font style="background-color:khaki">Abkhazia ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Nagorno-Karabakh ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Northern Cyprus ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Palestine ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Sahrawi Republic ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Somaliland ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">South Ossetia ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Taiwan ], [<font style="background-color:khaki">Transnistria ]
 * I like this, this works. Sandbox it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think this is a much better option than trying to subcategorize the "no all states" entries. It's verifiable, and allows us to address the "Kosovo" issue by colouring them differently than the other "Other Vienna" states.  Still not sure if it will bring BW+Night onside, since they insist on all non UN members being coloured, but I think this has the possibility for producing a consensus.  TDL (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure neither of them will mind if Vatican City is uncoloured ;) This seems a good compromise, and I think it would be a good idea to put the Cook Islands and Niue in the sandbox now, so we can make sure their extents highlight the distinction (free association with no unique passports) between them and the UN states. That would help compromise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can cope with the vatican being the same as we treat the vatican the same way in the current list, its the Niue /Cook that still is the stumbling block. I just do not see how we can take two entities that for years have not appeared on this list as sovereign states and then make them identical to France and other fully recognised sovereign states. There needs to be some way of distinguishing them. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to explain to you why your repeated use of the argument that "this is the way it's always been" is flawed? Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so you can't use it to support your case.  Secondly, things change.  Montenegro was excluded from the list for a long time, but then things changed and we added them.  Thirdly, if there are mistakes we should correct them.  Just because the mistakes have been around for a long time doesn't mean we shouldn't fix them.  I'm not saying the exclusion of CI/Niue is necessarily a mistake, but you need to provide intelligent arguments to back up your case, not just WP:LONGTIME or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  These are arguments that don't address the issue.  Wikipedia policy specifically states that they aren't relevant arguments to make.
 * And you seem to be OK with having Israel beside France, despite the fact that Israel isn't "fully recognized" (whatever that means). TDL (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You dont have to explain it to me. I simply oppose a change to this list if it does not clearly continue to show division between UN member states and an entity like Cook Islands and Niue which are still up for debate if they belong in the list or not. Nobody has yet given a valid reason about why theres a problem with colouring to match the sections or simply remove the sort feature. Especially as the redirects are going to be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument falls under category 2 of arguments that aren't relevant, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You haven't given us a valid reason why there is a problem with the colouring scheme proposed above.  All you've said is you don't like it because it doesn't agree with your POV.  TDL (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explained why but its your view that my concern is not valid. There are different types of sovereign states, they should not be mixed together, that is why i originally opposed a single list.. and have only agreed to a single list if there is Sections. The sections proposed Vienna-UN / non UN Vienna / Other are fine. However because there is a sort feature, those sections are completely irrelevant.. because a single click of the button mixes all entities up. Which means they must be colour coordinated. Niue and Cook Islands should not be treated the same way as UN member states with far more recognition. I am not saying they must be left off the list, despite the fact they have been for years but what i do think is important is they can be told apart from the other states. Give them an extra colour saying its for "Vienna nations in free association with another state", but there needs to be some difference for my support. Some editors here have pushed and pushed for their own method, Vienna and a single list despite when there was actually a vote some time ago many editors voted against Vienna and against a single list. But nobody worried about that, they pushed ahead with a single sortable list using Vienna, the compromise of sections/colouring was offered. But unless the colouring covers all the other entities (Niue and Cook islands included) then it does not make the compromise complete. Niue and Cook Islands seems to have been the problem from day one of this whole debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no "vote", there was a structured discussion, so we can all get an overview of the positions of the other editors. Also, the current proposal of sortable sectioned list was not part of the options in the vote/discussion you refer to. It was proposed afterwards. This was already explained multiple times, but you continue to use this "it was voted out" speculation.
 * If "pushing ahead" means trying to understand concerns of others and trying to propose a meaningful compromise, then yes, there are editors "pushing ahead". If "pushing ahead" means repeatedly pleading you to answer a few questions of argumentation, then yes, I am pushing ahead.
 * "There are different types of sovereign states" - you still refuse to answer to the questions about that, so it is unclear what meaning you put in this statement.
 * Yes, when using the alphabetic sort feature the sectionals divisions according to organizations membership are irrelevant. This is by design. That way we represent both your "UN membership" POV and the "inclusion criteria" POV. Please note that your POV is the default, and the article POV is activated by manual request.
 * "free association" is not only about CI/Niue. I gave you examples above, the previous time you proposed that.
 * "there needs to be some difference for my support." - I already asked you what is the difference between states member of the UN and states non-member of the UN (beside the obvious UN membership itself). The UN position is that there is no such difference and that they are all States.
 * edit-conflict; reply to BritishWatcher comment before his last comment.
 * BritishWatcher, you agree with "Vatican=UN", so this answers question4 of the five questions I asked, pleaded you to provide argumentation. Would you be so kind to answer the other four questions?
 * About the redirects - I suggest using such only inside single section, but not between sections (where the redirects are redundant with the sort feature), so this can be easily taken care of if all agree.
 * The problems with coloring matching sections were pointed out above: 1. there is no need for one of the features in such a case; 2. they place the "UN membership" POV in all views, witch is unacceptable (this POV is already overrepresented - in notes, in default view sections - leading section) and contrary to the aim to represent more POVs by having different views (achieved by the sort feature); 3. you refuse to provide argumentation why this additional step of pushing for "UN membership" POV should be implemented; not a problem per se, but notable - the position of the UN is contrary to your "UN membership" POV, so "the most important global body" doesn't agree with you, for what it counts.
 * Again with this contradiction - you "oppose not showing division between UN members and CI/Niue in a list where CI/Niue are not included at all" (if the debate about their inclusion comes to a negative conclusion) - if they aren't included what division do you want to show? I tried to explain multiple times - if they are included this will be exactly because and only if they are "equal to France".
 * Your opposition against "coloring CI as France" is irrelevant to the current list, where CI is not listed at all. Additionally you refuse to answer the questions about "why you are opposed", so that the other editors can understand the root cause of your concern.
 * So, we can proceed with the sorting criteria implementation without changing anything on CI/Niue (they will remain in the NZ box) - and later we will re-start the discussion about the CI/Niue inclusion. (I included them in the above examples only so that nobody asks where they would go and how). Alinor (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the original coloring proposal (state, status to be determined, part of another state according to the UN). If we're going to have colors, we should use it to our advantage to convey information that the table cannot otherwise convey. Do we have any verification of the UN position re: Cook Islands and Niue? Are they considered part of NZ? I'm trying to understand what the dispute on the coloring proposal is supposed to be about.

Side comment (directed to BW's position): Under international law, all states are equally sovereign. Post-Westphalia, here is no hierarchy of states. There is no such thing as one state being more of a state that the other - either a state is a state or it isn't. Under the prevailing view in international law, state recognition does nothing to make a state a state, but rather, serves as verification that the entity in question has indeed met the requisites of statehood, which are completely independent of recognition. This is all theory and not practice, which is influenced by political motives, such that an entity clearly meeting the requisites of statehood (like Taiwan) doesn't get recognized and an entity that doesn't (like Somalia) does. And add the fact the criteria of statehood is open to interpretation (many states, e.g. Pakistan tribal territories, have some kind of territory they cannot control). So when we go around trying to emphasize how well recognized a state is, we shouldn't lose the perspective that recognition is merely verification of statehood, not a prerequisite of it.--Jiang (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The coloring proposal with status to be determined/part of another state was considered problematic, because it taps into many different sources (hard to verify, accusations of synthesis-policy violation), because some cases are controversial (e.g. Kosovo - part of Serbia and/or status to be determined) - an attempt to solve this with italics was not deemed successful - such controversies can have as consequence accusations of OR/POV. The current proposal is easy verifiable from many sources (membership in treaties/organizations with an "All States" clause), thus while arguably less informative it is much less controversial.
 * Cook Islands and Niue archived discussion. The UN position is explained for example here. It is that CI/Niue are states like all UN members. They are not considered to be territories of NZ or some other state. This is also the position of NZ (for example in the JOINT CENTENARY DECLARATION). Alinor (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You make such a defence of CI/Niue, yet you seem to be comfortable for the moment with them being left of the list saying we can debate their inclusion at a later date. If France was left off this list all hell would break loose, yet despite Cook islands/Niue being raised a few times over the years on the talk page and here, they remain off the list. The main difficultly for me with the present proposal is it takes two entities not presently described as sovereign state on here and overnight it places them in the table and in an identical way to sovereign states like France and Germany. You keep asking me why i have a problem with it.. i just believe it is wrong. I do not believe entities with very different status should be mixed up in a single table, which is why i only support change if it is in sections and with colours to deal with the sort feature which mixes everything up. Simply wanting a colour to show a difference between UN member states and non UN states is not unreasonable, when ive accepted the principle of completely changing the design of the page, placing everything in a single table, keeping the sort feature, and basing the list on Vienna for the first time. I honestly do not understand why there is a huge problem with just ensuring Cook Islands and Niue are coloured differently to France and Germany. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no way we are implementing a new system then going back into monthlong debates about the CI/Niue. Consensus was on inclusion in the last debate (although not where), so let's work with them as included. I created an entry for Niue at the sandbox, with a proposed extent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive no objection to them being included with the new method so we avoid the need for a whole new debate, provided the colouring issue is sorted out. The idea we can ignore the Niue /cook islands issue for this debate though simply seems pointless, especially as if there is support for a change it makes their inclusion even more important. Colouring them as "Vienna states in Free Association with another sovereign state" would be enough, or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's doable. Would Palau Micronesia and the Marshall islands then also be coloured in? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest implementing sorting criteria first, dealing with CI/Niue later, so that we can at least remove these weaselish wordings like "widely recognized" and implement an established verifiable criteria. Then, with the sorting thing out of our way we can deal with CI/Niue - the consensus was that they should be included (the controversial part was where to put them) - but maybe it has changed; their place would be clear (as we will have real criteria); you can raise the issue about adding additional colors to the table so that they are distinguished from France (you know what my position is about this, but that doesn't matter - let's discuss it when the time comes).
 * Difference between UN states and non-UN states is clearly shown throughout the whole article. Even the current "showing of UN membership" may be considered as too much POV (such as starting extant notes with "Not a UN member, but ..."). You propose adding color that will be redundant with a section - but at the same time you don't give any feedback on the proposal to have "UN member" (or non-member) color (so that in all sort views UN membership is distinguished-by-color), but only Vienna/Others sections.
 * Also, again, you don't explain what is the difference between CI/Niue and France. Should I re-post the 5 questions again?
 * See my post about "association color" from 12:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC). Let's see what others think about its results - Chipmunkdavis asked you about the "minimum" changes besides CI/Niue that it requires. At the same time I remember editors arguing that "free association" should not be mentioned at all in the extant notes. Alinor (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Their inclusion was pushed through after pages of debate. Alinor, you were one of the main proponents of inclusion, do you see any way they shouldn't be included? We have the criteria already for placement, and I have placed Niue there. The time to discuss is now, especially as if you say their place/colouring will be so obvious.
 * There is consensus against just having Vienna/Other, most especially due to the position of Kosovo, which right now is in the compromise position between what could be called the main list of states and the pseudo states.
 * There are many differences between the CI/Niue and France, one being passports. Just read through the archives if you want a list, I believe you had participated in those discussions.
 * I don't see any other way to implement and associated state colouring besides states in arrangements which are called "Free association", even though the two different arrangements called free association are radically different. I originally wanted to remove the USA's free association, but I think noting the free association CI/Niue have with New Zealand is necessary if they are included in this list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't say that CI/Niue should not be included - I say that their inclusion is a separate issue and could be discussed additionally later, if it is so controversial.
 * I know that the consensus is for Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/Others, I just want to hear opinions (of BritishWatcher and anybody else) on the Vienna/Others + UN membership colored. I prefer to stick to Vienna-UN/Vienna-non-UN/Others - as it seems that gathers most support and it already has achieved consensus, but still nothing prevents us from hearing additional opinions.
 * I ask about the differences between CI/Niue and Marshall Islands that merit redundant coloring of UN members and the further push for "UN membership" POV representation in the article.
 * Of course that free association will be mentioned - in the extant notes. I don't agree with coloring the 5 associated states, nor with the individually picking of only 2 or 3 of them. As I said before - some would consider even 2 colors to be too much. Also, using "free association" instead of "All States" invokation is subject to another issues - questions arise about - why not color "commonwealth realms" instead/in addition? should we color other states with arrangements of "association" that are called with other names - Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, maybe Nauru, etc.?
 * So, I think we should implement the proposal as show here above, without changing NZ entry, and start a discussion that would hopefully quickly confirm the CI/Niue-inclusion consensus (or not - we shall see). Alinor (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of Niue / Cook Islands needs to be dealt with now, not after this proposal has been implemented. The thing that is stopping me from voting right now is how Cook/Niue will be coloured in the list. Commonwealth realms are fully independent with their own UN seats and defence/foreign affairs, there is a difference between that and nations in free association with another state that have their defence handled by the other state and have no UN seat. I still oppose a change to the list that does not at all time show a difference between Cook Islands and France. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the extent's would highlight the distinction, although I agree the countries would get mixed up in the list. Another option would be to place before their languages a note saying "In free association with New Zealand" or something. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Another option would be to place before their languages a note saying "In free association with New Zealand" or something." If the same is done for the associated states of the USA, I'm fine with that. 189.146.250.12 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think any notes should be kept out of the "Name" column (the languages are there so that the Name can be shown in its native/non-english forms). The extant column is the appropriate place for such notes. Alinor (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CI/Niue are fully independent in foreign affairs and defense. Please read the links from the text in the associated state article. NZ doesn't "handle" their foreign affairs and defense - it only acts on their behalf, if requested to do something by CI/Niue governments and with the consent of CI/Niue governments. There are similar arrangements for UN member states too. Also, recently NZ hasn't done many such actions anyway (e.g. CI/Niue handle their foreign affairs themselves and there are not many defense issues to handle).
 * BritishWatcher, you repeatedly dodge questions that you don't like. If help/assistance in defense/foreign affairs is your preferred coloring criteria this will include other states besides CI/Niue - such that have the UN membership you want to distinguish.
 * I will prepare (given the time) a no-CI/Niue-change proposal (per the last 3 sections + 1 color) in some sandbox with "optional" NZ/CI/Niue entries on the bottom - so that everything is clear. Alinor (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where there is a difference, this is not it. Having "defence handled by the other state" and "having no UN seat" have nothing to do with statehood. Some countries don't have a defense (i.e. no military), others are occupied by a foreign power. And until the past decade, a handful of countries purposely did not join the UN. The issue of Niue/Cook islands is whether they claim independence? Is there a reason why they haven't joined the UN? --Jiang (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think BW's dodged anything on purpose. As for the CI/Niue situation, I believe I know all the relevant information! Perhaps highlighting the issue at the top of the extent would make up for not colouring them?
 * To Jiang, the lacking of a claim of independence has been seen as a point against, but it has been pointed out that countries like Australia never claimed independence either. I'm not sure why they aren't in the UN, but as has been pointed out they are full members of some of the UN organs. From all the opinion blogs I read about the topic in the long month of July the issues of whether it is a state revolve around its association with New Zealand (which is different from the USA's equivalent) in areas such as shared nationality. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "highlighting at top"? Currently the extants follow the general ordering of: membership in UN, (membership in the rest of 17 Vienna organizations - to be included with the new sorting criteria), association/EU membership (if applicable), realm(s) (if any), federative structure (if any), special territories (if any), claims (if any), disputes (if any), GiEs (if any), non-recognitions/recognitions (if any - non-recognitions for section1 entries, recognitions for section2 entries), additional notes (if any - section2 entities). I think this ordering is OK. Association comes right after UN/Vienna memberships - a very prominent place. Alinor (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Independence claim - the former CI/Niue debate ended at this - we agreed that CI/Niue cover the rest of the inclusion criteria, but we didn't find source showing if CI/Niue claim or don't claim sovereignity and independence. Then, the last debate started when such source was found, and subsequently additional sources were found. So, similarly to Australia there is no "declaration on independence" - CI/Niue are considered to have achieved it "gradually". Alinor (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just finished the agencies table, so I will start with the sandbox2 proposal now. Alinor (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me comment on the table Alinor, good job, but the wording confuses me. When I first read the members, I thought it meant "All UN members except these", and "these" included the CI/Niue, thus I thought you mean CI/Niue were part of the UN. Then I thought you probably meant "All UN states, but not the following listed, and not CI/Niue (whatever was written). Thinking some more, I think you meant that "All UN members bar so and so are part of this organization, CI/Niue/Vatican are also part of this organization." Needs a rewrite somehow. Once again, nice idea though, lots of useful info.
 * Back on topic, add CI into the sandbox2 as well as Niue. Include latest colour proposal, with All nonvienna and Kosovo coloured. CI/Niue colouring still up for discussion though. Maybe colouring them "No independent nationality" would be a compromise? It would only colour those two, as I don't think any other country lacks it's own passports. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See the adjustments I made to the table - I hope it is clear now.
 * About CI/Niue coloring - "no nationality" - CI/Niue have nationalities (see Cook Islanders; Niue also have their own laws giving Niueans more rights in Niue than New Zealanders - see link in associated state) - what they don't have is separate passport types and also in New Zealand they enjoy all rights of New Zealanders (something in effect like citizens of one EU state non-discrimination in another EU state - enjoying the same rights as the "locals" there). Anyway, I am not sure that such details should be put even in the extant - a simple "in free association with New Zealand" could suffice (plus realms note, etc. note-types as listed above) - with the details described there. It seems very strange to color "no separate nationality"/"no separate passport", but not to color "no separate head of state"... Also, I think the less colors/sections/italics/bolds we implement - the better - less controversies for the editors, less distractions for the readers.
 * Let's see how the proposal will look (also - if someone is faster than me in writing it - go ahead), we can aways implement such small changes, if needed. Alinor (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear now, good idea.
 * They've got as much of an independent nationality as French Polynesia, or Sabah. Even in EU states, passports are per country. The CI/Niue, if included, would be unique in the respect of no unique passport. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. What I am saying is that this is going too much in details. It looks strange to single-out "no separate passport", but not "no separate head of state". I proposed that we don't color either of these groups. Alinor (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A slight modification to the sorting criteria
So in an attempt to address the Kosovo issue, maybe it would be less controversal if instead of using the Vienna formula directly we let the UN apply it. So the middle section would be states which the UN considers to be Non-member states. This could be sourced by statements by the UNSG, the "The World Today" map, or treaties which states have been invited to sign by the UNSG. This would move Kosovo to the "Other states" section, until such time as the UN clarifies their position. Maybe this would bring Night and others who oppose this proposal based on Kosovo's inclusion in the middle section onside? TDL (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We are relying on the UN for the sole purpose of verifiability. If "appearance on a UN website map" is no more verifiable than "membership in a UN organ", then it makes little sense to go with the former. How does the UN determine which non-members are states? Who is drawing the map on the UN's website? How does the UNSG determine who gets invited to sign a treaty? I fear by this we are moving from more verifiable to less verifiable criteria, and that an organization such as the UNSG or UNSC not operating on a one-state one-vote basis is heavily influenced by the realpolitik forwarded by certain members.--Jiang (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately some editors have stated that they will oppose any list which doesn't place Kosovo in the "Other states" section, regardless of the criteria. I was just trying to see if there was a compromise way of doing that, while still keeping the list verifiable.  TDL (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept this, but it really is less verifiable. The map can be used only as consequential example, not as main source. The main source for this should be the individual statements about each non-member and the link from the UN Office of Legal Affairs. Basically this proposal is to replace "Vienna formula" with "All States" - meaning using UNSG practice instead of checking membership in the Vienna organizations. The benefit (or POV problem?) of this proposal is that we will "walk after" the UNSG, so in cases like Kosovo - they would not be moved before the UN has clear position.
 * On the other hand I think that by coloring Kosovo differently from the rest-of-Vienna states will satisfy the editors that wanted to emphasis the difference of the Kosovo/IMF/WBG case. So, I hope there is no need to apply this less verifiable criteria to the sections division. Alinor (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see above BW and I still debate whether we should present the "UN membership" POV everywhere or not. I have asked him some questions, so that I can comprehend what are the reasons for his insistence. So far it seems that he just doesn't accept that some "common sense POV" could be a common misconception. I don't know what will be the outcome of the above debate, but it seems I was overly optimistic about us reaching consensus. So, maybe all involved editors should consider other proposals for coloring besides the "according to UN position". Or not use coloring at all. Alinor (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simplest solution would be to have no colouring, but it would need the sort feature removed for me to support that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also concur that there should be some type of colouring in order for the sorting feature to be enabled.XavierGreen (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)