Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria/Archive 5

Continued discussion on draft

The above thread is getting too long. Please continue discussion here. Nightw 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are still the block for me supporting the proposal. There just has to be a way of telling these two entities apart from France and Germany without reading the detailed status if they are added to the list (which i believe will be the case if we accept the proposal, even if people are trying to say we can decide their position at a later date).Sections = UN-Vienna / non UN-Vienna / Others. Seems to still have support.

Colours are the sticking point, id still support any of these sort of options to divide based on colour (colour can mean remaining white)

• UN membership/others
• UN membership/UN Agency membership/others(no membership)
• UN Vienna / Non UN Vienna / Others
• UN membership/Territory with final status determination pending / Part of another state / Others entities
• UN membership / Non UN - members in Free Association with another state / Part of another UN state / Non UN - Territory with final status pending

All of these would not result in Niue / Cook Islands being coloured the same way as France and with that distinction clear i have no problem with the proposal being implemented and with Niue / Cook Islands being in the list. Without that distinction being made somehow, i still oppose this change which will change the status of certain entities and change the method used to sort entities on this list which has lasted about 3 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the no passport colour idea? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like "Vienna states sharing Citizenship or passports with another UN member state" maybe ok, although it will be complicated to verify. Id be ok with most options if it continues to show a difference between these two states and a state like France. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeatedly explained my position in previous discussion sections above. I oppose any additional proliferation of the "UN membership" POV beyond having it as main section in the default view, plus lead place in all extant notes. That excludes any coloring criteria that includes "UN membership" as one of the colors. In addition - any coloring criteria that duplicates the sectional criteria is redundant. Looking at the options above I also see: 2 and 3 are the same and also it is redundant with the sectional criteria; option 4 is controversial (do we have the technical ability to "stripe" entries with two colors at once?) - hard to verify, prone to OR/SYNTH/POV accusations; 5 with "Non-UN free association" (why only the non-UNs?) and the 1 "UN" - pure "UN membership" POV.

Just as quick reminder - as shown by the sources - even the UN itself doesn't use the "UN membership" POV. We give it more prominent place than the UN. Using it, in addition, for coloring - that simply goes too far.

I repeatedly asked a few question boiling down to: what is the difference between Vienna states that are non-members and members of the UN, that merits to have UN membership stressed additionally than in sections and extants. So far I got only one reply: Vatican is not different from the UN members. Here I will re-phrase the other questions (see bottom of link): What is the difference (that merits ...) between Marshall Islands/Tuvalu and Cook Islands? 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? (since if they aren't included there is no issue with coloring) We already have the UN (and others') position that "Cook Islands is equal to UN members". Do we have more knowledge of the CI/Niue status that the decision-makers in these international organizations and states?

Anyway, here are some proposals (one with UN members colored, the other without):

proposal1 - with UN membership coloring, but adopting different sectional division:

• 'Section1: Membership in the United Nations organization or specialized agency' [the 192 UNs alphabetically mixed with:], [Cook Islands], [Kosovo], [Niue], [Vatican City]
• 'Section2: No membership in the United Nations organization and specialized agencies' [Abkhazia], [Nagorno-Karabakh], [Northern Cyprus], [Palestine], [Sahrawi Republic], [Somaliland], [South Ossetia], [Taiwan], [Transnistria]
  

Legend: [member of the United Nations organization] — [not member of the United Nations organization]

proposal2 - based on consensus sectional division:

• 'Section1: Members of the United Nations organization' [the 192 UNs]
• 'Section2: Members of an United Nations specialized agency' [Cook Islands], [Kosovo], [Niue], [Vatican City]
• 'Section3: No membership in the United Nations organization and specialized agencies' [Abkhazia], [Nagorno-Karabakh], [Northern Cyprus], [Palestine], [Sahrawi Republic], [Somaliland], [South Ossetia], [Taiwan], [Transnistria]
  

Legend: [has invoked an "All States" clause] — [hasn't invoked an "All States" clause so far]
Additional combinations, some involving italics, are also possible. Alinor (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a link where the UN itself lists every single entity it deems a state (falling under vienna) in line? The United Nations website has a page showing UN Members, i have yet to see one for all "states". They may use a complicated formula for determining if a state is a state under international law and able to enter into international agreements, but do not try to downplay membership of the most important global body on the planet. You continue to object to using the UN Membership as its "UN POV". I believe using UN membership / "UNs POV" is giving it due weight, nothing on earth comes equal to it, and as long as we continue to mention the "other entities" that dont classify under vienna, there is no neutrality issue. Going along with the UN view is the whole reason for changing our lists to be based on "Vienna", i see no reason why we can not continue to highlight a difference between UN and non UN member states under Vienna. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Search here for Cook Islands, Vienna formula, All States. I quoted relevant passages before. There are other links too on the associated state page.

"UN POV" is different from "UN Membership POV". "UN POV" is the position of the UN (that CI/Niue are states like all the rest). "UN Membership" POV is the position of others that consider as "full" states only the UN members. UN POV is the opposite of UN membership POV.

"membership of the most important global body" is not downplayed - it is prominently shown - as the main section in the default view and as the lead note in all extants. Its usage for the main section (instead of the internationally established Vienna) is contrary to UN practice itself (that you consider the most important global body).

Also, many of the Vienna organizations are no less representative than the UN. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a link to where the UN itself place all of these entities in a single table in line with one another. One probably does not exist, why do the UN publish a list of their UN member states but not of all vienna states? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't exist. First, as was pointed out by many already - the UN doesn't recognize states. That's why we speak about UNGA, UNSC, UNSG decisions, not about "recognition by the UN". There are the "rules of procedure" official documents and the Office of Legal Affairs overview (the link here). The list of Vienna organizations and the lists of their members are not secret - all of these have been already provided with sources. What do you imply? That the lack of a such list on the UN website somehow makes the adoption of Vienna formula by international organizations and treaties dubious? We can easily fish out many links to treaties and organizations founding documents where the formula is used. The most (all?) of the rest of the treaties and organizations utilize the "Any State"/"All States" formula (that, again according to the UN POV, includes UN members+CI+Niue+Vatican+some historical non-Vienna cases). The only difference is Kosovo - and this is already reflected in the coloring proposal. Alinor (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is the United Nations does not see the need to produce a single list with all these states in line with one another, yet it does do one for the UN member states. So whilst legally it may treat states in the same way when it comes to international treaties, it doesnt mean they have to be presented identically. There has still been no reason given why we cant colour Cook/Niue as "Non UN member states in free association with a UN member state" or something along those lines. Or as ive said on several occasions, just colour UN member states one way. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

UN produces a list of its members just like any other organization. This has nothing to do with the status of one entity as a sovereign state. Yes, the UN may be the "most important" or "most representative" or "my preferred" organization, but it does not "give statehood approvals" or something like that. And you can't require that an organization will produce a "list of non-members".

"it doesnt mean they have to be presented identically." - yes, it just means that according to the "UN POV" their are identical. According to some other POVs - such as the "UN membership POV" - they are different. Of course we can select whatever we want - as we have done with the "inclusion criteria POV" (the whole list) that treats all 203 (or 205) entries equally (e.g. as sovereign states). But, when we have an established practice used by many international organizations, why should we implement another one?

"free association coloring" - so you don't agree to color all states in free association. You want to color only the non-UN ones. Why? And what about the Vatican? Kosovo? the 9 others? Color them as "Non UN states not in free association"? If free association is so important maybe we should also have "UN states in free association"? In total - 4 colors (the 4th is "UN states not in free association"). And also - why should we give so prominent place to the "free association" and not have the same treatment for "no separate head of state"? I think better place for both is to be noted in the extants, not to be used as section/coloring sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox2

I made a draft of proposal2: Sandbox2.

CI/Niue are included only as example; the same can be implemented with combo NZ/CI/Niue as currently in the article - if there is no consensus to include CI/Niue. The sandbox is not to be directly copied onto the main page as there may be changes in the main page made before the forking of the Sandbox.

I tried to make 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 focused on Vienna-non-UN/non-Vienna extants - the others are mostly unchanged. Alinor (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we color the redirects, or they should remain uncolored, e.g. per "service notes are not states"? Alinor (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects should certainly be coloured. But i still oppose. Cook Islands and Niue are in line with other states without colouring. France is not equal to Cook Islands, the two are different. I can not support a proposal that takes two entities which i dont think have ever been listed on this article as sovereign states and place them in equal status with France. If their status must be changed because we are using Vienna, they still need to be shown differently. Sections work, but the second someone hits the sort button, it all mixes up and theres no way of noticing a major difference without having to read the details column. We should not expect people to be able to notice these two entities are different when they are the same colour and mixed with over 190 other states. Colour coordination is needed if we are going to use vienna. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects. Done.

"have ever been listed on this article" - as explained already: this isn't any argument and it's nearly irrelevant (it's relevant only to the question whether at all they should be included, not to the question how)

"changed because we are using Vienna" - as explained already: no, their are not included because of Vienna. The previous (still current?) consensus for their inclusion was reached before the discussion on sorting criteria/Vienna proposals. Vienna has nothing to do with the inclusion criteria.

"a major difference", "these two entities are different" - as asked already: and what is the major difference? A difference, that relates to their status as sovereign states, between Cook Islands and ... Vatican City? Tuvalu? Nauru? Marshall Islands? France?

See, as explained above, even the proposal2 as it is currently has too much "UN membership" POV. I think that much more neutral (and corresponding to practice of the UN and other international organizations) will be for all Vienna states (UN and non-UN) to be in the same section (with UN membership noted in the extants). As it is currently in the article (and "was for years") anyway. Vienna formula is a verifiable replacement for the unverifiable weaselish "widely recognized". But you and other editors insisted on creating additional section (with only 2 or 4 entities) based on the "UN membership" POV. I don't like even with that, but agreed in order to have a working compromise. I object any further deviation from established international practice. Also, we should take into account that the alphabetic sort features is there so that the list could get (if the reader wants) in a neutral state (without group sorting) - we deviate from this goal already, by including the "All States invoked" coloring (or any other coloring).

"We should not expect people to be able to notice ..." - yes, if a reader activates the "alphabetic sort" view this is in order to "remove" the arguably non-neutral groupings made by us.

CI/Niue and France are colored differently in proposal1. I don't like it, because there similar entities are colored differently ("UN membership" POV), but they are in the same section. Alinor (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Having them in the same section is even worse. Why can we not have them in different sections and with a different colour? that would solve my concern with this proposal and id support inclusion of Niue / Cook Islands and the change to the setup. Why is it so so so so important that Niue and Cook Islands are in line and the same colour as France? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Why can we not have them in different sections and with a different colour?" - I object that as it is over-representing the "UN membership POV" and this POV is the opposite of the "UN POV"/the POV of many international organizations and treaties. The established international practice by all these organizations and their member states is that 'CI/Niue are the same as France'. I still haven't seen any convincing reason why we should deviate from this. Regardless, in order to reach consensus and to accommodate the "UN membership POV" we all agreed that the main section, in the default view, will be UN members. Also, the lead note in the extants is to remain about UN membership.

You multiple times stated that "radical changes" to the "list as it was for 3 years" should be supported by substantial arguments. This 3 year list that you refer to is with only 2 sections - the first, "main" section included both UN and non-UN states, the second - 10 "extras". The problem with this arrangement was that it didn't include verifiable criteria for sorting the states between the "main" and "extra" sections. So, finally we came to consensus to use Vienna as sorting criteria. The least changes to the status quo would be to replace "main" with Vienna, "extra" with non-Vienna. Regardless, we accommodated the "UN membership POV" and added a section for it, placed before all the other sections and even in the default view.

"Why is it so so so so important that Niue and Cook Islands are in line and the same colour as France?" - because this will represent the "UN POV" - an opposite to the "UN membership POV" that is already over-represented trough the sections; because in order to do that we need appropriate coloring criteria and such hasn't been proposed yet. Alinor (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of status-quo list

If the only problematic issue is CI/Niue coloring I propose that we implement the overdue changes to the sorting criteria, as in Sandbox2, but without separate NZ/CI/Niue entries (we will use the current combo entry from the article) - we will not add/remove any entries from the list. Afterwards, we can decide what to do with CI/Niue.

So, are there any comments/objections besides these related to CI/Niue? Alinor (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you fix Sandbox 2 letter redirects, as was done in sandbox 1? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I think the non-working letter redirects in the TOC point to missing letters (e.g. no such countries added in the draft) - I assume that when all countries are added the letters will work. Alinor (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. We can not get round the Niue / Cook Islands issue by saying we will debate it at a later date. If this change is implemented, which will base the list on Vienna, then those entities will have to be added, i can see no justifiable reason for keeping them off and as ive said before im ok with them being added, provided it is to an appropriate section of the table and the difference between them and France continues to be shown if the sort feature is used. Until there is agreement on a colouring of these two entities, radical changes to this list which has separated entities for about 3 years, should not be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the differences between France and CI/Niue's legal status? I can think of two. France is a UN member and the others aren't. CI/Niue are associated states, like Micronesia, while France is fully independent. What else do we need to say on the page? I don't get it. Ladril (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to show those important differences without expecting them to read the details if its being placed in a single table. Being a non UN member in free association with another UN member state makes it very different to a full sovereign state like France. We can not add Niue and Cook Islands to this list for the first time, and give them equal status to france, when we treat other entities like Kosovo and others differently. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We all agree that there are differences between those, but differ as to what exactly the differences are. As has been said many times before, being in the UN is no indicator of sovereignty. It's an organization of states which is joined voluntarily. If I remember correctly, Indonesia left the UN for a while and geography books did not stop listing it as a sovereign state because of that. What I've seen they do in almanacs is to have a heading for each state specifying whether it's a UN member, and that's perfectly fine. But colouring some states according to some vague notion of "status" may be seen as a breach of NPOV. And it is a vague notion because you haven't given a clear answer to the question of what the colour is supposed to mean. Ladril (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you don't consider "non UN member" (Vatican) and "in free association" (Marshall Islands) to be very different from France. And, as both issues are obviously unrelated (e.g. there is no rule that all non-members of the UN are in free association, or vice versa) - why do you find a "non UN member in free association" (Cook Islands) to be very different from France?

In the proposal there is no change to the inclusion criteria, only to the sorting criteria. Vienna or Weasel sorting - this does not change the CI/Niue inclusion. There is no problem implementing Sandbox2 sorting with a combo NZ/CI/Niue box. And, afterwards, when CI/Niue inclusion is proposed - you can say "I oppose their inclusion if they are not colored, because ..." and we can continue so for ages, but in the meantime the article will have real and verifiable sorting criteria. Alinor (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to follow BW's motion and attempt a consensus on CI and Niue inclusion before any further discussion on sorting criteria. Ladril (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see any more constructive ideas how to resolve the issue - he basically insist that the only meaningful POV is the "UN membership POV", even as it is opposite to the POV of the "most important" organization - the UN itself, and that it should be represented everywhere and with all possible means, but at the same time fails to explain (or I don't understand) why we should do this... That's why I propose to implement at least the non-controversial part of the changes - as interim solution - until we reach consensus on CI/Niue.

Otherwise, I support implementing both changes at once - but is this possible? Alinor (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I just noticed that you make some parallel between CI/Niue and Kosovo/9 others. The difference is that CI/Niue are "part of the mainstream", they are members of multiple Vienna organizations, they are parties to treaties/conventions/organizations utilizing "All States" clause - they are "regular" states - unlike the 9others that are "pushed to the sidelines by the international community" - they either participate under "special arrangements" (invited delegations/special observers/'Chinese Taipei'-formulations/etc.) or don't participate at all. Of the 10others only Kosovo has Vienna membership, but it hasn't invoked an "All States" clause (and hasn't joined any organization after obtaining its IMF/WBG membership) so far, so it is "in between" - and this is reflected in its section place+coloring. Alinor (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what many people have trouble grasping is that, using the current scheme, CK and Niue are actually closer to "internationally recognized" than to "other states". We need to put the emphasis on this. Ladril (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for months. I've tried my best to propose numerous creative compromises to address the concerns raised by the anti-change camp, while still maintaining verifibility/neutrality. Unfortunately, it's clear to me that this is impossible. When the only justifications provided are either irrelevant ("It's always been this way") or unverifiable POV ("CI is less of a state than France") it's impossible to simultaneously appease these demands while maintaining verifibility/neutrality. Fortunately for us, consensus doesn't mean we need unanimous support. I think we need to either move forward with a proposal and see if there is a consensus in favour of it, or start a WP:RFM to help us find a consensus. We are no closer to a compromise than when the colouring debate started, and further discussion seems highly unlikely to solve the disagreement. TDL (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that those users advocating a change in the criteria are at a disadvantage. Canvassing the opinion of the userbase is likely to result in an avalanche of unreasoned votes against the change. A mediation is also unlikely to end favourably. Yielding in some aspects may be a better idea. Ladril (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

An idea: wouldn't it be much easier if we abandoned the idea of a sortable table and make a single table divided into three sections? Ladril (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This will satisfy BritishWatcher request to separate CI/Niue from France in all views (as there will be only this single view). This will remove the advantage of neutral sorting non-default view. This will represent only a single POV - supported by Wikipedia user(s), but the opposite of the POV of many international organizations. Anyway, I won't object implementing this if we implement the sortable table with all features added by TDL (hidden letter lines, direct redirects to states instead of letters, sortability of the extant column resulting in return to "default view" - eg. all that is in sandbox2), only with the sort-buttons removed - so that if there is consensus in the future the sort function can be easily activated.

You say that "yielding in some aspects may be better", but I think there was too much yielding already - coloring was added and more importantly - an additional section was added (without clear argumentation why it should be added besides "the UN is important"), that occupies the main place in the default view. The last one is a major change to the status quo - much bigger than potential including of CI/Niue - because if CI/Niue are included this will be only if they cover the status quo inclusion criteria (that are not changed - e.g. their inclusion is just correction of omission in the status quo list), but adding a new section (UN members) is changing of the structure of the article - and we don't even have proper explanation why we do it. If look here you will see that there were users opposed to adding additional section - and they have more convincing arguments that the users advocating now for the Vienna-split into UN/non-UN. So, IMHO, the yielding is already too much.

I don't know what is the procedure in such case, when some (most?) of the editors have reached consensus, but it's not unanimous and there are few (single? nobody? we need to hear BritishWatcher - maybe he changed his mind or has some new argument) in opposition. Simply implement? Or Canvass? I'm not sure that asking uninvolved editors to provide opinion would be productive - as this discussion spans more than 5 archive pages already - and most opinions are likely to raise issues, already discussed and taken into account. Or Mediation? Alinor (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ladril if the sort feature was removed, i will fully support this proposal and wont care about colouring at all. The only reason colouring was needed was because that sort feature is there to mix up states, making the sections irrelevant at the click of a button.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused. I'm not sure what's meant by "implementation of status-quo list" ... ? Is Sandbox2 the proposal, or still a draft? Nightw 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't clear enough. The meaning is to implement the status quo list in the Sandbox2 form - that means Sandbox2 with the addition of status quo states not currently entered in Sandbox2 and with the removal of CI/Niue as BritishWatcher is opposed to their inclusion as shown in Sandbox2. Alinor (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to their inclusion, i am opposed to their inclusion in line with states like France, like it or not the status of these entities is different. We can not implement a new system now and "leave Cook Islands/Niue" to another debate. The two things go hand in hand. This proposal is to make our list based on Vienna for the first time, and if its based on vienna then Cook Islands/Niue can not be left off. As far as im concerned this whole debate which has been going on for months has been about changing the present system so Niue and Cook Islands can be added to the list. What i dont understand is why some are so strongly against letting us show a difference between Cook Islands and France. Its ok for the sections, but why can we not colour Niue and Cook Islands a certain way for what ever reason be it in Free association with another UN member or shared citizenship etc. It just needs a difference for me to support the proposal, or the removal of the sort feature. I dont think that is unreasonable. All i hear back is "UN Pov". If we have sections split based on membership of UN or not, i fail to see how adding colouring to it makes it even more "POV". BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"This proposal is to make our list based on Vienna" - no, it isn't. The list will continue to be based on the Montevideo Convention (inclusion criteria). We will only replace the sorting criteria - from weaselish "widely recognized" to the verifiable Vienna. And also, in Sandbox2 - there isn't even a Vienna section.

"then Cook Islands/Niue can not be left off" - no, they can - if they don't cover the criteria set by the Montevideo Convention.

"show a difference between Cook Islands and France." - it is already shown in proposal2: default view - separate sections, extant notes; neutral sort view - extant notes.

I have written many words about that, so I will try to say it short: I oppose not the POV-of-the-UN, but the POV-of-wikipedians-about-utmost-importance-of-UN-membership - as it is contrary to the POV-of-the-utmost-importnat-UN.

You imply that since we already agreed on the drastic change to the article - the addition of new section based on UN membership POV - then you don't see any problem with using the same POV for coloring. That is the problem - even having the UN members section is tripping over the neutrality/reasonable arguments line, but all agreed on that (some because they advocate this POV, others - as compromise). Now, you want to use it also for coloring. What a compromise is that? This is like somebody proposing: "Since you already agreed to use Vienna for sorting criteria, let's also base the list inclusion criteria on Vienna, so we should remove all non-Vienna entities as they are not really states, you know - Vienna organizations are very important and globally representative; I oppose any list with two Chinas, Somalia and Somaliland, etc." Alinor (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, I agree an unsortable list with three sections may not be the absolutely most neutral solution, but sometimes it's best to let some less than perfect solutions gradually sit in instead of trying to impose the most appropriate one from the start. Even professional scholars have their POV biases, so we shouldn't be surprised that lay Wikipedia editors have their own. Maybe if we let people get accustomed to the inclusion of the new entities a more accurate rearrangement will be adopted in the near future. Ladril (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said that I won't oppose implementing Sandbox2-without-sort-buttons (but keeping all the rest of its features). I hope nobody considers this "using the back door" - as it is actually "implementing the non-controversial parts of the proposal - and continuing discussion on the rest". Alinor (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox2 without the sort buttons. I can support. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Sandbox2 without sorting and without separate colouring for CK and Niue. I'm fine with that. Ladril (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, below you said: "If we are including redirects in the list to the other sections, people will still be able to see the state exists in an A-Z list so i dont see the neutrality issue with removing the sort feature" - no, this isn't so. Having the redirects is not in order for "the people to see that the state exists" - redirects are used only as help for people searching a particular state (thus they already know it exists) under a name, different from the name we list it as.

And no, this doesn't solve the neutrality issue with removing the sort feature. That's why I write this comment here - to make it clear, that after implementation of Sandbox2-without-coloring - we will continue to discuss how/whether to implement the "neutral view" sort feature. As the "default view" is clearly POV-ed - it shows the "sorting criteria POV". Implementing "neutral view" A-Z sort will show the "inclusion criteria POV" (Montevideo Convention POV if you prefer). Alinor (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects. If we implement the Sandbox2 without sort buttons, then we should include all redirects that are currently included in the status quo article (redirects between sections). Alinor (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But you did not say that. You said you would not oppose Sandbox2 without the sort feature. We shouldn't include redirects if people are going to continue to push for the sort feature to be readded. Ill accept redirects in a single table without the sort feature if it resolves this once and for all, but not as a short term compromise that some are then going to unpick after the proposal is implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep the redirects done as in Sandbox1. Redirects are useful, and help. Additionally, they direct to the section, showing the position they are placed in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The redirects row should be coloured, so it stands out more clearly. Same colour for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can someone list the major differences between sandbox1 and sandbox2? I see the addition of colour, removal of the inter-sectional redirects, and less emphasized letter sectional headings. Are there other differences I'm not seeing? If we are going with an unsortable list, I think these three issues should be handled as in sandbox1 as opposed to sandbox2. TDL (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose having redirects to other sections unless all the redirects are coloured in. If they cant be coloured in it should be sandbox2 without the redirect to other sections. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These redirects exist in the status quo. They were only provisionally removed in sandbox2 because of the sortability feature. As well, you previously accepted the inter-sectional links. If you think they should be removed, start a new discussion on the main talk page. Every time we make a compromise to you (ie remove sortability) you just demand more and retract previous compromises you've made. TDL (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive not said i accept inter-sectional links without them being highlighted more clearly, it does not require different types of colouring for the different sections, it just should not be plain white as it is now in sandbox1. I have been opposed to intersection redirects if we are to have them they should be shaded a bit. Sandbox2 without the sort feature is far better. That was suggested as a compromise, but now the addition of going back to having intersection redirects has been requested. Also, this does not appear to be a "final solution". Alinor has sid if this is implemented, the debate will then carry on to add a sort feature because its not viewed as "neutral" still. Im not agreeing to implement this proposal, if after its implemented we then have to carry on endlessly debating the issue of readding a sort feature the current compromise is to remove. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think removing the inter-section redirects is an idea which is coherent with the sandbox2 setup. The addition of colour also seems logical in relation to what has been discussed so far (invoking the All States clause or not). These are points I'm willing to concede. Ladril (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As said above - inter-sectional redirects are part of the status quo. And just to make it clear - they are not colored.

Sortability and inter-sectional redirects go together, I mean - if have the one we remove the other and vice versa. There are also arguments for inter-sectional redirects to remain regardless of sortability presence/lack - but it was already agreed (?) to remove them, WHEN sortability is present.

So, the only "new" question is if/how redirects should be colored. Options are:

1. No background color on redirects - effectively this means that they will have the same color as the most populous coloring group (as naturally - this group remains uncolored, so that the table in general is less "intrusive to the eye".) - but I don't think this somehow implies that Somaliland is UN member or anything like that - the redirects are just a navigation convenience, after all! - clicking on it leads to properly colored/sectioned/noted row.
2. Each redirect having the color of the state it redirects to.
3. All redirects to have a "service note row" color - maybe same as section-breaks/table-head(those are the other "service rows") or some-different-shade-of-lightgray. Alinor (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Using "color of state redirected to" will result in the main section full of such colored lines. I think this will give casual readers the wrong impression that among UN members there are many that haven't invoked an "All States" clause. Also the whole look of the article will suffer. The "color of state redirected to" works for a sortable table without inter-section redirects - as then there are less redirects (only intra-section) and also most (all?) of the redirects will have the same background as their surrounding states. I would even suggest (but alas, I expect furious resistance, and as I consider this not-so-important I will be glad to go with some of the above options such as a as-light-as-possible-service-color):

• Coloring redirects with the same background as the majority of rows in the section, where the redirect is placed.

This will be much less obstructive to the look of the article. Redirects could be distinguished as "navigation/service notes" by having italics, smaller font size (currently they are 90%, we could lower this to 80% or below) or something else if someone has ideas. Alinor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A side note - if we are going with a partial implementation there are two options:

1. Sortable table without addition of CI/Niue; no redirects problem
2. Addition of CI/Niue without sortable table; redirects coloring issue

We can aways fall back to option1 if we can't resolve the redirects coloring issue. I won't oppose either, but also - couldn't we use a third way - sortable table with CI/Niue - per Sandbox2 - and continue discussing subsequent change to their coloring - maybe there will be some new argument/coloring criteria idea. Alinor (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"inter-sectional redirects are part of the status quo". We all know that. However if the list is divided into sections (independently of whether it is a single table or two) it makes at least a bit of sense that the sections are separate. This is achieved by removing inter-sectional redirects. Makes sense to me. I'm just trying to end this once and for all. Ladril (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be so insistent, but any alternative proposal you come up with will be strongly opposed. It's better to implement what we all agree on. I think BW has said s/he is fine with no further state colouring if the list remains unsortable. Why continue to discuss this? Ladril (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The status-quo list is unsortable and divided into separate sections and the inter-sectional redirects are not removed. So I don't understand what you mean by "This is achieved by removing inter-sectional redirects." - the status quo is the opposite. So, do you want inter-sectional redirects removed or present in the unsortable variant? Alinor (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsortable, no inter-section redirects. All States clause colouring scheme. Ladril (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This will be an additional change to the status-quo - and will reduce the navigability of the list. Why should we do this? Only because some are opposed to any mention of Somaliland in a section containing Somalia? Or want such mentioning, even if it serves only a service/navigation purpose with no actual meaning in itself, to be marked with contrast colors? Following this line of thinking - to remove anything that somebody opposes - maybe the 10 others should just be removed, so that there is no need for sections and inter-section redirects...

Anyway, let's see if there is a consensus for such interim solution. I think it is better to just implement sandbox2 and continue with the coloring criteria debate if new arguments/proposals for a change from "All states clause" are made. Alinor (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We should do this because, for the time being, the group cannot agree on something different. And even if it's not the absolutely best option, it's light-years better than what we have now. Sometimes it's better to call it quits. Ladril (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what we all agree on as some us of support one (or more) of these (some also think there are better proposals than these, but are willing to compromise by utilizing one of the below):

• Sandbox2
• Sandbox2 with another coloring (BritishWatcher?)
• Sandbox1 (or sandbox2 without coloring, it's basically the same) - anyone opposed to any coloring?
• interim solution sandbox2 without CI/Niue; method of CI/Niue inclusion to continue to be discussed
• interim solution sandbox2 without sorting; method of adding sorting feature to continue to be discussed

I assume that "sandbox2 without sorting" naturally means "with inter-sectional redirects" - as these are present in the status quo and were removed in the sandbox2 only, because of the presence of sortability feature. Additionally the question of redirects coloring is discussed/disputed. Ladril, as I understand your latest comment you propose "interim solution sandbox2 without sorting and without restoring inter-sectional redirects that were removed together with the addition of sorting". I propose also another option:

• interim solution sandbox2 (with both CI/Niue and sorting feature); changes to the coloring criteria to continue to be discussed Alinor (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't give a straight answer as I don't see a clear consensus forming around the idea of CI/Niue inclusion. From what I've read I think a majority of discussants are not opposed to the idea, but maybe I'm being too optimistic. Frankly I don't get the logic of the anti-CI camp. My first proposal was to make a third table just for the two of them (Cook, Niue), which they argued would make the page too complex. Alright then, it was proposed to make a single table clearly separating all categories, and now they want CI and Niue highlighted, coloured, branded, italicized, with notes added, etc. I thought we were supposed to be making things simple. * Scratchs head *. Ladril (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I support sandbox two without the sort feature and without intersection redirects, and no problem with Niue and Cook Islands appearing in that list without colouring. Whilst i would much rather that solution, i am prepared to support Sandbox 1 without sort feature and with the intersection redirects on the condition that the redirect rows in the UN section are fully shaded so they are different to the normal white entries. A single colour for all the redirects not worrying about which other section they are in would be fine. No problem with Niue and Cook islands being included in the list with this option either. However what ever option is chosen it should be a permanent solution, i oppose the idea we agree a temporary solution here and then have to continue this debate for the next few months. It needs to be resolved once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We can agree on a solution, but on Wikipedia everything is provisional. If today the group decides to paint the house colour red and tomorrow decides to re-paint it colour green, that's the collectivity's will. Not much a single user can do in each case. Ladril (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, as Sandbox2 is basically Sandbox1 with added "All States clause" coloring, why do you support inter-section redirects in sandbox1, but oppose them in sandbox2? Basically you say: "I oppose inter-section redirects if we use "All States" coloring for the states" and at the same time "I oppose "All States" coloring if we use inter-section redirects". Am I misunderstanding something?

About temporary nature of Wikipedia - I agree with Ladril explanation - that's why I propose to go straight to Sandbox2 implementation and continue discussing what is the best coloring criteria. Alinor (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict - written after Ladril comment of 09:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If I remember correctly the timeline is the following: When the consensus to add CI/Niue was reached the question came - where to put these? The proposal to add a third section was dismissed, because most of the editors were of the opinion that the two sections (let's call them "mainstream" and "leftovers") were enough, adding more sections is not necessary, would clutter the article, etc. Then we continued discussing multiple sorting criteria proposals - mostly revolving around division in only two sections (with few exceptions such as the "pure single list" and the odd variants of "mixed criteria"). No one of these proposals was appearing as promising candidate for consensus. Then the idea came to add "sorting" to the list, so that it can represent multiple of the criteria at once (e.g. not at the same time/aways - but depending on user choice). This was also by nature more neutral - we don't have to select one criteria/POV - we represent more than one POV. There was still opposition, but later the idea came to combine the "single sortable list" and "sectioned list" into the "sectioned sortable list". This appeared to gain consensus. As you remember many editors were opposed to more-than-2-sections, others were opposed to sectional divisions at all (because these are considered to breach the neutrality/inclusion criteria POV), others were opposed to "single sortable list", others were opposed to Vienna, others were opposed to UN membership POV, etc. - but all of these groups made compromises and agreed (in principle) with something like Sandbox1. It looked as final consensus and ready-to-implement, but users raised the issues of Kosovo and CI/Niue places in this nearly-consensus Sandbox1. I dare to say that not all of us agree that there is any issue with CI/Niue (as per Sandbox1 arrangement - in default view they will be clearly separated in section2 and in A-Z view they will have the explanatory notes in the extants). Anyway, multiple coloring proposals were made, and I think Sandbox2 resolves the Kosovo issue. That's why I think it is better to implement Sandbox2 (or Sandbox2 without CI/Niue) - and continue discussion on coloring criteria if there is a proposal for change.

Interim implementation of Sandbox2 without sorting will negate many of the things done in order to reach the consensus (alas not unanimous) on Sandbox1/2. I mean - the status quo is 2 section, most of the initial sorting proposals were 2 section, there are the arguments of neutrality (pushing for 1 section) and "too much complexity/clutter" (pushing for no-more-than-2 sections). I think that the sandbox1/2 3-section arrangement was accepted only because it was combined with the sortability feature. If we are going to implement a non-sortable list, then I think that the sections should be 2 - Vienna and Non-Vienna.

The 3-section division uses "mixed criteria" of Vienna POV (UN POV) and UN membership POV. It was accepted as compromise between these two when combined with sorting, etc. as "global compromise" with neutraility-NPOV/single-list/inclusion criteria POV (Montevideo Convention POV). Alinor (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the timeline I think that the best thing to do is an interim Sandbox2 implementation and continuing this discussion. Alinor (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, either of BW's proposals is fine with me. Ladril (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC) And yes, I dare say an implementation of sandbox2 would be a good idea as the next step, but let's hear from somebody who is not Alinor, BritishWatcher or Ladril. Ladril (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the sort feature is removed i have no strong feelings on the colouring of "all states". All i meant was, my first choice is without redirects (as shown in sandbox two) but if we must have intersection redirects like in Sandbox one i will support it if the row they appear in is shaded, so its not pure white like all other entries in the UN section. As for the temporary nature, of course other editors may arrive at some point and seek to change the status quo. But i dont think we should agree a temporary change now if tomorrow the same editors involved in this issue want to change it tomorrow. I dont see the point in making the change right away, if this long winded debate still has to continue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, I think an unsortable single table with three sections captures quite well the essence of Vienna, with additional criteria put forth by other editors (membership, All States clause, etc.). I don't think sorting and redirects are going to interfere with this. In this case I must again side with BritishWatcher. Ladril (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

multiple edit-conflicts with BritishWatcher comments :)

As it seems that BritishWatcher doesn't want to explain his coloring proposals (here) - and having in mind his comment above that he doesn't accept the proposed Sandbox-without-sorting as "temporary", but only as "permanent" solution - I object non-sortable list proposals. Adding sortability is a natural thing to do in a list of states/whatever-names arranged in a not alphabetical way, especially in cases like ours, where the exact criteria for non-alphabetical arrangement is very controversial (more than 4 discussion pages and counting). Alinor (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of the temporary implementation of some sandbox1/2 variant is that we implement as much as possible right away (thus improve the article) and continue with the discussion of the remaining issues. Going by that logic I proposed interim implementation of sandbox2 without CI/Niue - as CI/Niue coloring was the last remaining (any other issue?) non-consensus issue. Removing sortability feature, that was essential for reaching the nearly-consensus and for accepting major changes such as addition of new section (and thus presenting the UN membership POV as a the most prominent POV, more prominent than the UN POV) - I think that such addition is much more controversial than implementing of Sandbox2 only with the states already in the status quo (the 203 - no adding of CI/Niue).

Reading BritishWatcher's 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC) comment only confirms my position - I don't agree that "the sort feature is removed" - it is required. If we are going to abandon sorting feature, then I can't support the addition of new section to the article (UN membership) that is accomplished by using the 3-section mixed criteria of UN POV/Vienna POV plus UN membership POV. Alinor (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading BritishWatcher's 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC) comment below further confirms my position - I don't agree with removal of the sort feature combined with the 3-section mix of criteria. This ruins the consensus.

And I agree with Ladril that it is good to hear some other, besides his, BritishWatcher and mine opinions on interim implementation of Sandbox2 without changes. Alinor (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if we are going with a appease BW's demands I'd much rather go with sandbox1 + colours according to section, as opposed to an unsortable, uncoloured list. BW has stated that he would support this. Sortability is a big plus in my opinion, and I'd rather compromise on the colours than on the sortability.

Also, as mentioned above, there is no such thing as a "final solution" on wikipedia. Discussion on modifying the colouring criteria can continue after implementation, whether BW likes it or not. TDL (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what do you think of implementing sandbox2 - and continuing discussion of the BW proposal below. Alinor (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox2 with sortability? I'd clearly be fine with that. I'd be happy with sandbox2 as the "final solution". The problem is that the "no change" camp rejects this even as an interm solution. TDL (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but do we have to be unanimous in order to implement a change? I think that there are no other objections to Sandbox2 than the BritishWatcher insistence "that in non-default view CI/Niue should be colored differently than UN members". So, could we proceed in the following way:

1. Implement Sandbox2 without CI/Niue (now) - e.g. changes to status quo: adding new (3rd) section (UN members) and sectional sorting criteria improvement, A-Z sortability (allowing for inclusion criteria/neutrality non-default view), adding coloring and coloring sorting criteria
2. wait (1 week?) for proposals for CI/Niue coloring
3. Add CI/Niue - either as per Sandbox2 or as per some other consensus proposal
4. continue CI/Niue coloring discussion when somebody raises the issue Alinor (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We should not implement half an agreement then let this discussion drag on for months longer over outstanding issues. It should all be resolved once and for all now, obviously no change is final, but if we are to agree a compromise here those involved should at least accept the agreement for awhile, not start this very long debate again straight after implementation. Sandbox 1 with the sort feature and colouring based on sections id support (including coloured intersection redirects). Sandbox 2 with sort feature but colouring based on section i support, or without sort feature and no colouring. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts. I am prepared to support temporary implementation of Sandbox 2 in its present form if there is agreement. Keeping the sort feature and present colouring used, but leaving off Niue and Cook so we can debate colouring issues further. If there is support for making this change we would have to include a note mentioning Niue/Cook Islands as we make reference to Vienna which they would qualify on. But the debate on the Niue/Cook islands should try to be resolved within a week or so, this has already gone on long enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So in the introduction say something like "The 'Members of an United Nations specialized agency' section lists two states which, while not member states of the UN, are member states of at least one of the UN's specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency or are a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The list of these organizations (with addition of the UN itself) is referred to as the Vienna formula." Niue and Cook Islands also qualify for inclusion in this section but are in Free Association with New Zealand and listed there. " BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we can immediately go with Sandbox2 without CI/Niue for the moment.

For the interim period I agree that we mention CI/Niue Vienna organizations affiliations somehow. What about putting a footnote after the "Vienna formula" link in the sorting criteria section? The footnote to be something like "Besides the listed 194 entities member states of some Vienna formula organizations are also the Cook Islands and Niue, currently listed in the New Zealand entry." - and then, inside the NZ entry, to add to the CI/Niue notes the list of organizations that they are members of such as "Cook Islands, member of FAO, etc."? Alinor (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am ok with Sandbox 2 in its present form with the one exception of Niue/Cook Islands being left out and simply mentioning them in a footnote or making specific reference to them in the sort criteria in the introduction, as long as its noted somewhere we presently place them in the New Zealand section but they would qualify. Addition to the notes in the NZ section to give more detail to Niue/Cook Islands is also good. I can agree to all that, then we can focus on the specific Niue/Cook Islands issue if others agree with the temporary change. The new table design is certainly better than the status quo. Might be worth making this specific proposal again right at the bottom of the page, so its easier for others to find. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CI quotemine

In order to try and give salient points for people to discuss CI inclusion, I'll quote from the document alinor keeps linking to, the cookisstatus.pdf. Will try to include points for both sides. Sorry if some are a bit long, they are in order they appear in the document. I didn't include the long lists of countries with relations and membership in various organizations, but there are lists of those in the document too. The list of quotes here is long, but the full document is even longer. Interesting read though, if it's your thing. Hope this helps.

Extended content

"...the Cook Islands has, over the years, gradually assumed the powers and duties of a fully-fledged independent country." "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands.....by virtue of being Head of State of Her entire Realm of New Zealand...is also Head of State of...'the self-governing state of the Cook Islands' " " in 1981 the Cook Island constitution was amended...the queen's representative was appointed directly by the queen herself...the Cook Islands parliament was granted complete legislative independence of New Zealand in both internal and external affairs." "The current relationship of the monarchy to the Cook Islands is effectively identical to that of any independent Commonwealth monarchy, even though the queen is still nominally head of state ‘in right of New Zealand’." "Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand issued new Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand dated 31 October 1983, that document stated that “the said Letters Patent bearing date the 11th day of May 1917, the said Letters Patent bearing date the 18th day of December 1918, the said Instructions, and the said Dormant Commission extend to the self-governing state of the Cook Islands and to the self- governing state of Niue as part of the law of the Cook Islands and of Niue, respectively” and that “approval of the said draft of new Letters Patent (had) been signified on behalf of the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue.” " "the Prime Minister nominates an individual for appointment as Queen’s Representative to Her Majesty, this advice is communicated to The Queen through the Governor-General of New Zealand. The Governor-General has to ascertain that the Cook Islands Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty does not conflict with the advice tendered to The Queen by Her New Zealand Ministers." "The Queen’s Representative in the Cook Islands is treated on an equal basis with the Governor-Generals of Her Majesty’s Realms." “The Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self- government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State. They have worked out a form of full self-government in free association with New Zealand, but -- and here is the special feature -- they may at any time in future, if they so desire, move into full independence, or any other status that may become practicable, by a unilateral act, that is, one which New Zealand has denied itself power to countermand." “This new status is not sovereign independence in the juridical sense, for the Cook Islanders wish to remain New Zealand citizens and in the meantime they wish New Zealand to discharge the responsibilities in the field of external affairs and defence in consultation with them; but it means that the Cook Islanders have a continuing right to self-determination." "The Cook Islands and New Zealand interact with each other as two fully sovereign states." "In the conduct of its foreign affairs, the Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state." "Official relations between the Signatories are based on the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1968 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations." "The Government of the Cook Islands has full legal and executive competence in respect of its own defence and security. Section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 thus records a responsibility to assist the Cook Islands and not a qualification of Cook Islands’ statehood." "both the Cook Islands Representative Office in Wellington and the New Zealand Representative Office on Rarotonga on 4 August 1993 were redesignated High Commissions, thus full diplomatic relations were established between the two countries on that date." "The Cook Islands does not issue ist own passports, a privilege usually assumed by virtually all sovereign countries, but places this responsibility in the hands of the New Zealand Government" “Nationality in this sense may be distinguished from citizenship,...While it does not have distinct citizenship legislation, the Cook Islands has determined under its own laws who are its nationals and what the privileges are they enjoy by virtue of that status" "For a Nation just embarking on the path of conducting its own affairs it was seen prudent to accept (New Zealand’s) offer....to assume responsibility for the conduct of the Cook Islands external affairs, this responsibility to be exercised by New Zealand after consultation with the Government of the Cook Islands." "International acceptance of the Cook Islands as being a State distinct from New Zealand has been affected by the normal process in international law of ‘recognition‘. Recognition can take two forms: entering into treaty relations with the State concerned; and agreeing to conduct official relations with that State." "the Cook Islands recently became a contracting party to the Cotonou Agreement between 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and the European Union, that Agreement being open for participation only by independent States." "According to Dr. James Gosselin, a key advisor on foreign relations to successive Prime Ministers, the “establishment of diplomatic relations between the Cook Islands and the ACP and EU States would “serve to enhance international recognition of the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent State, separate from New Zealand, which could prove very useful in support of possible future Government initiatives”. Buried in the roots of Cook Islands’ diplomacy is Government’s major initiative - the long-term goal to gain membership to the United Nations. Each successive Government however, has so far failed to determine and fund a strategy to get beyond ‘talks’ with New Zealand over the question of ‘citizenship’." "The Cook Islands Government does not consult with the New Zealand Government on the appointment of Cook Islands representatives to other countries overseas." "The Cook Islands ...does not enjoy full diplomatic relations with Japan. Our Government has been pestering the Japanese for many years over formalising our ties but have been consistently stonewalled by Tokyo." "On that front, Japan uses two traditional excuses when it comes to refusing to recognise the Cook Islands. Firstly, we’re seen as being under NZ’s wing." "Japan has great difficulty with our claim to sovereignty because of the lack of distinction between Cook Islanders and New Zealand citizens." "Full membership by the Cook Islands in the Commonwealth was targeted by Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Robert Woonton in May 2001" "The Cook Islands Prime Minister and the Niue Premier participated on an equal basis at the Roundtable of Heads of Government of Commonwealth Pacific Island Countries held in Fiji in August 2002, although both states do not yet enjoy full membership in the Commonwealth. The Inclusion of both the Cook Islands and Niue in the roundtable talks was seen as a further indication of both countries’ increasing acceptance as equal members of the international community and a first step on the road to full membership in the Commonwealth." "The Cook Islands has been denied the chance to highlight plights and concerns of its women at the Commonwealth 7th Women’ s Affairs ministers meeting currently underway in Fiji because of its affiliation with New Zealand." "In the long term the present Cook Islands Government, like those before it, hopes it can get United Nations membership while still keeping New Zealand citizenship for Cook Islanders – like other countries (Byelorussia and Ukraine became original members of the UN in 1945 while retaining Soviet citizenship for their respective citizens) have already done."

So, once again, I'd like to propose my compromise colouring of CI/Niue with something like "no independent citizenship". It also technically doesn't have an independent head of state, with the head of state being the Queen in right of New Zealand, but it has an independent governor general etc., so in reality the head of state functions independently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Id support something like that, as long as there is a colour difference for these two compared to France. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

One editor expressed concern about a lack of detailed analysis on Niue's status. Here is an (archived) document on Niue: [1]. Ladril (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Chipmunkdavis' note about citizenship, I think it's a bit POVish. What we should be emphasizing is that, according to documents, CK and Niue have free associations (partnerships) with New Zealand based on a common citizenship and a shared head of state. That's a key difference. Ladril (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to reach a compromise, separating CI and France with minimal trouble. If saying they have a common citizenship with another state, I'd accept that. I wouldn't want that to mean NZ is coloured though. People from CI/Niue/NZ are all New Zealand citizens, and the head of state is the Queen in right of New Zealand. Besides, although CI/Niueans have all the rights of New Zealanders, New Zealanders don't have the right of Cook Island "permanent residents" (and I assume Niuean residents too). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You assume correctly about the last point. BTW, we're all trying to reach a compromise here, but one based on facts. As for citizenship, what we should be emphasizing is that CK and Niue have a common citizenship with New Zealand as a result of an association arrangement. Your previous wording suggested - perhaps unintentionally - that the relationship is a colonial one, which it isn't. About the colouring idea, I think it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth, so it should be abandoned for the time being. Ladril (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Non-UN Vienna states in Free association with a UN member state". That would clearly only cover Cook Islands/Niue. Other states in "Free Association" are either in the UN or dont qualify under Vienna. Although the easiest solution would still be to simply remove the sort feature, then we would not need colouring. If we are including redirects in the list to the other sections, people will still be able to see the state exists in an A-Z list so i dont see the neutrality issue with removing the sort feature. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the discussion about the inclusion of the associated states of New Zealand. Discussion about sorting goes in another thread. Ladril (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was writing a comment during edit-conflict. I post it here, but excuse any duplication with comments above - some of the things were already told by other editors above.

BritishWatcher, you say: "as long as there is a colour difference for these two compared to France." - so if the criteria is "UN members: white, CI/Niue: khaki", would it support it too? That is the problem - we need some meaningful criteria, not wikipedian wish for difference. Alinor (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained before what I think about the "no independent citizenship" thing. First, this is not "Cook Islanders have the same legal status as New Zealanders" - the real situation is "In New Zealand Cook Islanders have the rights of New Zealanders. Cook Islanders travel in third countries with New Zealand passports. But in Cook Islands New Zealanders don't have the same legal status as Cook Islanders." So, this is a type of non-reciprocal "benefit" given to the CI by NZ. But OK, this is a technicality, CI still doesn't have separate citizenship. Second, I think that if we single-out no-separate citizenship cases - then we should single-out also the no-separate head-of-state cases - as you see this is already mentioned in the extants - many states have only two notes - the "obligatory" UN status and the no-separate head-of-state note. Third, I think both citizenship and head of state issues are details, that should be mentioned in the extants, but do not have the importance to be used as coloring criteria (because coloring is very prominent feature of the list - maybe on equal footing with sectional division). Fourth, in a "citizenship coloring" proposal - what colors will have the Vatican, Kosovo, 9 others? Same as UN members/"having citizenship"? Do we have sources for that (I haven't found NKR passport for example - if you know such source - please put it here)? And also - I don't expect that somebody opposing "coloring CI the same as France" would accept "coloring Somaliland as Somalia". Alinor (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If we start making categories based on the specific legal statuses of a few states, the list will be a mess. Why not make a "no independent monetary policy" colour for Liechtenstein, a "no permanent population" note for the Vatican, a "no full sovereignty over its territorial waters" colour for the Marshall Islands, and so on? We agreed above to have three objective categories for states. Let's stick to that. Ladril (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, citizens of Abkhazia and Pridnestrovie use Russian passports because theirs are not accepted in the majority of other states. Do this mean we have to remove these countries from the list? Ladril (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The commonwealth realms have separate heads of state, the polity of the queen is different for each country. The queen of the UK is not the queen of Australia, the Queen of Australia is the Queen of Australia. Anyway, I think the lack of independent citizenship is particularly notable. A Cambridge admissions officer will never get a Niuean applicant. An immigration officer will never have to deal with whether Cook Islanders are allowed into the country.

I'm not sure about what a Nagorno Karabakh passport looks like, but this says that they exist, and gives some details about languages in it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again edit-conflict':

Abkhazia and Pridnestrovie have their own passports - see the link I provided. Of course their population can also (and mostly do, as you say) use another passports - if they have double citizenship. Alinor (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen in right of New Zealand. As explained on the CI/Niue discussion page this means "Queen in the right of the Realm of New Zealand". All three states in the realm are equal parts of the crown of the realm. In contrast to Tokelau and Ross dependency - those are parts of the NZ-proper. This is just like the Commonwealth realm. UK is biggest, but the others (Australia, Canada, etc.) are "equal" to it. In contrast Gibraltar/BOTs are part of the UK.

Coloring "Non-UN Vienna states in Free association with a UN member state". Again, as explained already - coloring should be for all 205 entries (thus more than 1 color). If this is the first (it covers 2 entries) color - what will be the definitions of the other color(s)? The combinations are many (applicable not so much) - because such definition is actually a mix of "UN members", "Vienna states", "free association". So, I can't even assume what you mean by that - please explain the full proposal, not only the CI/Niue part. Alinor (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, the NKR link is about "Recommendations for Constitutional settlement" - I'm not sure it implies that there are currently NKR passports.

The practical aspects of citizenship/head-of-state are one thing, but their "notability" in relation to the sovereign state status are different thing. I agree that "no separate head-of-state" has less practical implications than "no separate citizenship" (as having shared head of state doesn't give you any rights in the other realms of this head-of-state - for example Andorran seeking employment in France) - head-of-state functions are mostly ceremonial in all parliamentary states anyway. But, in sovereignty terms, I think the head-of-state can not be considered "not notable". Alinor (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder if there are. I assume all people in NKR would simply use Azerbaijani passports though, just like Somalilanders use Somalian passports. Easier to be a recognized national.

How many countries have exactly the same head of state? CI/Niue/NZ have one, the Queen in the right of the Realm of New Zealand. Andorra has two co-princes, an independent title. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The most are these. The others I know you already mentioned above.

NKR passport. I think that NKR people in practice use Armenian or Russia passports (from double citizenships - if there is NKR citizenship separate from the Armenian one). The question is if the NKR state issues NKR passports and thus claims to have separate citizenship. (as the rest of the 10 others) Alinor (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'm stressing is that technically they realms have separate heads of state. With the countries independence from the UK, the Queen's role was split. However, the Queen in her role as the Queen of New Zealand plays the same role with CI/Niue, the Queen of New Zealand (or the realm of New Zealand, to be technically correct). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The queen functions in the Cook Islands are regulated differently from her functions in NZ. Its functions in Niue are also different from both her functions in CI or NZ. There were links about NZ and CI in the CI/Niue discussion page and recently Ladril added source about Niue. This seems to me as nested crowns: Commonwealth queen is "queen in right of UK", "Queen in right of Australia", "Wueen in right of Canada", "Queen in right of the realm of New Zealand". Realm of NZ queen is itself "queen of the Cook Islands", "queen of Niue", "queen of NZ". Commonwealth->RealmNZ->Niue. Commonwealth->RealmNZ->NZ->Tokelau. Commonwealth->UK->Bermuda. Alinor (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I didn't utilize the exact title names in the example above. Alinor (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm basing all my arguments from the quotes above. In addition, your argument is wrong. There is no queen of Tokelau, and no Queen of Bermuda. Those are under the Queen of New Zealand and the Queen of the UK respectively. Similarly, there is no Queen of the Cook Islands or Niue. They are under the Queen of New Zealand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Similarly, there is no Queen of the Cook Islands or Niue. They are under the Queen of New Zealand." Wrong. As the sources say, the crown is divisible, and while there's no Queen of Tokelau, there is indeed a separate crown for Cook Islands and another for Niue. It's all sourced! [2]. Here if previous link doesn't work [3] Ladril (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's another long article, but from the introduction "The Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing States within the Realm of New Zealand, freely associated with New Zealand and linked by a shared Head of State: the Sovereign in right of New Zealand." So if you have quotes from further in the article, that'd be good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have, and they have been presented many times already. For your benefit:

"One aspect of Cook Islands and Niuean self-government is that their legislatures have full and exclusive power to make laws. Another aspect is that their Governments have plenary powers in respect of Cook Islands and Niuean matters. Put another way, the Crown in right of New Zealand (in the sense of the executive, rather than the Sovereign) is a divisible one."

"In the federal realms of Australia and Canada, the Crown as executive is divisible among the States or Provinces.69 'The Crown' in South Australia is a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in New South Wales, and 'the Crown' in Saskatchewan a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in Nova Scotia. Unlike Australia and Canada, the Realm of New Zealand is not a State. But its basic structure is otherwise essentially the same: an association of States and Territories recognising a single sovereign as Head of State,70 and in which the Crown as executive is divisible among those States and Territories.71 There is only one Queen in right of (the Realm of) New Zealand, and in Realm matters she or her Governor-General is advised by the Executive Council.72 But in matters relating to any one State within the Realm she is advised separately by her Ministers in that State.73 Hence, while it would be inappropriate to refer to the Queen in right of the Cook Islands (because the Cook Islands is not a realm), it is possible to speak of the Crown in right of the Cook Islands, or the Crown in right of the Government of the Cook Islands."

I thought Alinor had already explained this in detail. Ladril (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Crown may be divisible, my point is that it is still one queen for one realm, supported by the above quote you gave. If you read my comment at the start of this, you'll see I already noted that for all practical purposes it functions independently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't get what exactly your point is. No one is disputing that Cook and Niue share a head of state with New Zealand, but the Crown is a different one in each state within the Realm. I think that's what Alinor was getting at. Ladril (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the head of state for all three holds the same position, that of the Queen of the Realm of New Zealand. This is different than those of the other commonwealth realms, which was my initial point in response to Alinor's queries that have been going around lately. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems to me your point is: "However, the Queen in her role as the Queen of New Zealand plays the same role with CI/Niue". Wrong. There are affairs of the Realm as a whole, but for each part of the Realm the Queen is advised by different ministers. Internationally each state is different, even if they share the head of state. Ladril (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to dispute what my point is, that's really up to you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's so important to you, you win. Paint CK and Niue any colour you like. Ladril (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"A Cambridge admissions officer will never get a Niuean applicant."

Hmmm. I'm not very convinced of this, mainly because you're adopting the point of view of a state with which apparently Niue has no direct relations with. Seems similar to saying Cambridge would never get an Northern Cypriot applicant. Ladril (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's nothing to do with the UK. I just used that as an example, as on cambridge (and other uni apps) it asks for nationality based on passport. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is that your example is not very good (no offense). For example, universities of New Zealand consider Cooks and Niueans as people of a separate citizenship [4]. So indeed there is an awareness overseas of CK and Niue nationalities. Ladril (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Here is another source from an Australian scholarship program [5] And another from Belgium [6] And in Berkeley they identify you as a Cook Islander of Niuean [7] And to use a British example [8]Ladril (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An example was all it was. I'm sure we could all run around and pull universities that recognize such and such citizens for scholarships, my point was that when asked for a passport nationality, people from the Cook Islands and Niue will have to write New Zealand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And people from Isle of Man will probably have to write UK if they want to study in the USA, so what? Ladril (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But the Isle of Man is not a sovereign state and noone is proposing it be added to a single list here in line with sovereign states that have their own citizenship. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not a sovereign state, but it is not a territory of the UK either, despite the fact that its people are UK citizens. This is why people insisting that shared citizenship makes CK a New Zealand dependency are wrong. Ladril (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It makes Niue / Cook Islands a special case that requires to be highlighted from other sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. They are two special cases among several. Adopting a separate legend just for them would lead to lots of people asking us to highlight Somaliland, or Northern Cyprus, or Andorra, etc. The highlight you propose will create more trouble than it's worth. As a result, I support making an unsortable single list with three categories and strongly oppose any highlighting besides what the categories are intended to show. This doesn't mean I won't support notes about common citizenship, shared head of state, etc. in each entry as we see fit. Ladril (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also fine with a single unsortable list, or a sortable list with just the second and third sections slightly coloured (what the categories are intended to show). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Using sectional criteria for coloring criteria makes it redundant (in default view), and also this won't solve the Kosovo issue - that's why coloring was added in Sandbox2. Alinor (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are agreeing on an unsortable single table (once again, the list has always been one, keep this in mind). The colouring scheme for 'All States clause' seems to find no opposition as well. As for citizenship, a note for all three entries (NZ, Cook, Niue) indicating they share the same citizenship seems enough for me, and maybe for BW as well. Ladril (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

Chipmunkdavis, a quick reply to some note much above. You say: "There is no queen of Tokelau, and no Queen of Bermuda. Those are under the Queen of New Zealand and the Queen of the UK respectively."

Tokelau/Bermuda - I didn't say there are such queens. I said that "Tokelau is a dependency of NZ, unlike Niue - just as Bermuda is dependency of UK, unlike Barbados". Maybe my usage of "->" signs was misleading, so I excuse, I thought that these signs will be interpreted in line with the comment about who is dependency and who is not.

CI/Niue/NZ. The Queen of NZ-state is not Queen of CI. The Queen of the Realm of NZ is Queen of CI. The Queen of the Realm of NZ is Queen of NZ-state. The "realm" and the "state" of NZ are entirely different - only the name is the same and that is causing our confusion here. That's what I tried to show with the examples of dependencies vs. states in the Commonwealth realm. Alinor (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I misunderstood the arrows. But there is no "Queen of New Zealand State", separate from the others. I'll take a quote from above.

""Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand shall be the Head of State of the Cook Islands"

I'm not however saying it's a dependency. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Queen in right of New Zealand" This means she is Queen of the Cook Islands by virtue of being Queen of the Realm. It doesn't mean Cook Islands is subordinated to New Zealand the state. The Realm is just an association of states and territories. Nothing more. Ladril (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict basically saying the same as Ladril above:

The quote you give doesn't specify if the NZ reference is to the to state or the realm. This is more broadly explained in the sources discussing the constitutional, head-of-state and monarchical arrangements, but I will try to summarize:

There is Queen of NZ-state different from Queen of CI and different from Queen of Niue in the sense that the Queen of NZ-realm is "differently hatted" and "hears the advice" of different government in each of these cases. If an issue concerns CI the Queen of NZ-realm uses its "CI hat" and works with the CI government - the NZ-state and its government have nothing to do with that. If an issue concerns NZ-state the Queen of NZ-realm uses its "NZ-state hat" and works with NZ-state government - the CI and its government have nothing to do with that. That's what "equally divisible crown" means - the NZ-realm crown is equally divisible between the three states of the realm - CI, NZ-state, Niue. No one of the states is superior to the others, etc. - the "head of state of NZ-state" is not "head of state of CI". The confusion comes from the name of the realm - "NZ realm". Unlike the "commonwealth realm" that has a different name from its biggest state (UK), the NZ realm uses the name of its biggest state. Thus, when it is not specified what NZ refers to - the state or the realm - additional explanation is needed. Alinor (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In fact what the scholar in "The Strange Death of the Realm..." says quite explicitly is that, were New Zealand to become a republic and stop having the British monarch as head of state, the Realm of New Zealand would continue to exist... without New Zealand. In that case, Cook Islands and Niue would remain behind as parts of the Realm, while New Zealand and Tokelau would leave it. Ladril (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since we all apparently agree on all the facts best shut this down now. Thanks for responses. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What we argue about

BritishWatcher, please propose the whole coloring criteria - what you propose to be the color of other groups besides CI/Niue.

• If citizenship is the thing that warrants CI/Niue special coloring - what will be the coloring of UN members, Vatican, Kosovo, NKR (this is important for the verifiability), 8 others.
• If head-of-state is the thing that warrants CI/Niue special coloring - what will be the coloring of Commonwealth realms, NZ-state (it should be colored the same as CI/Niue), Andorra, France, rest-of-UN members, Vatican, Kosovo, 9 others.
• If free association is the thing that warrants CI/Niue special coloring - what will be the coloring of Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, rest-of-UN members (let's assume that here will be also Andorra, Monaco; Liechtenstein, San Marino; Nauru), Vatican, Kosovo, 9 others.

As Ladril said, such highlight will create more trouble than it's worth. I agree and that's why I think it is better to leave such details in the extant and footnotes (I think nobody questions that they are important - the disagreement is about the scale of their importance - I think we should not use such details for sections/coloring) - all of these are already included in Sandbox2. But regardless, we can't discuss such coloring proposals without knowing what you propose for the whole list, not only for CI/Niue. Alinor (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose... Sandbox two without the sort feature. The colouring of Niue and Cook Islands is no longer an issue of concern for me if the sort feature is removed, the whole reason for the colouring issue was because the sort feature meant all the sections could be mixed up at the click of a button, mixing different types of state. Without the sort feature that no longer would happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, please - this section is not about that - it is about changes to coloring criteria of Sandbox2 (as it is - with sorting and CI/Niue) that you want. The paragraph you written above is about the proposed interim implementation.

The otherwise appearing as consensus proposal - Sandbox2 - is opposed by you because of CI/Niue coloring. The arguments for your opposition (beyond the "UN membership POV") are still not entirely clear to me, but anyway. Alternative coloring criteria were mentioned multiple times, but not described in detail. I tried to summarize these here and kindly asked you to complete their description.

If there isn't any alternative coloring proposal we could go with Sandbox2 without any changes (any other objections besides CI/Niue coloring?). Alinor (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if later BritishWatcher or somebody else has some different idea for coloring criteria - then we could make the required changes. Alinor (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)