Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Commonwealth free trade issue

User:Miesianiacal: This is the sentence preceding the sentence in question: "Seeing the same similarities between the aforementioned four countries, and hence a stronger bond with them than with Europe in general, British Eurosceptics (who wish for the UK to leave the European Union) have expressed a preference for a free trade agreement between them: the CANZUK Free Trade Treaty." Doh! Commonwealth free trade! What pray tell are you reading? The sentence and ref you deleted yesterday (and now when I reinsert it you claim is OR?) directly presents a counter viewpoint to this from a RS. Please stop being (I assume intentionally) obtuse and argumentative. Juan Riley (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us carry on a bit with the references. I am unfamiliar with the National Post. However, the article uses it as a ref in the paragraphs under discussion. The ref appears to just vent a lot at US and everyone else and present the Commonwealth in some sort of spot to shine in this brave new world. On one hand it appears to present a minority viewpoint. On the other hand it says nothing explicitly about federation, free trade, or freedom of movement. I would prefer for the latter reason to remove it as it doesn't explicitly support the article sentences. What do folk here think? Of course that means you actually have to read it. Juan Riley (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for being so ignorant. The National Post is owned or at least founded by Conrad Black. The article in it ref'd is written by Conrad Black. From the dates it appears it was written only months after he was released from prison for fraud. Juan Riley (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. None of the sources talk about the Commonwealth Realms, they talk about either the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ or the whole Commonwealth. Nothing says that inclusion in any of the proposed agreements would be predicated on sharing the British crown. Presumably Australia and NZ would be free to become republics, as most other Commonwealth nations already have. Black thinks that Canada should become a republic. And unless his opinions receive ongoing coverage they lack weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I vaguely understand your point TFD. However, this article/section does not address the crown. Nor would I ever (except snickeringly) participate in such a discussion due to a distinct lack of neutrality. Juan Riley (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This topic of this article is "Commonwealth Realm", which is an independent Commonwealth state that shares the same monarch. Its about the specific constitutional arrangement, not a coatrack to hang everything that can be said about each of these 16 nations. If someone had suggested some sort of arrangement between the CRs, that might be worth mentioning. But relations between some of the CRs that have nothing to do with their being CRs is irrelevant. For example, Canada, Australia and NZ are part of the TPP, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with their being CRs. British and Canadians are two of the three largest groups of tourists in Barbados, but it has nothing to do with the three countries being CRs. Presumably none of these relations would cease if any one ceased to be a CR. TFD (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You added a remark about Commonwealth-wide free trade supported by a source that comments on Commonwealth-wide free trade ("Talk of the Commonwealth [emphasis mine] forming the dynamic, like-minded, free-trading core of a new British global network for prosperity..."; The Commonwealth [emphasis mine] is many things..."; "the polite welcome she received in Australia amounts to proof of boundless goodwill between Britain and the Commonwealth [emphasis mine]"; "[m]any Commonwealth [empahsis mine] members are far removed from Britain's way of seeing the world..."; "the same British respondents are strikingly hostile to the other Commonwealth [emphasis mine] nations on the list, such as India, South Africa (6% approval apiece) and above all Pakistan (1%) [none are Commonwealth realms]...") Australia, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand are not the Commonwealth.

I understand your point about a proposed arrangement among all the realms versus a proposed agrrangement between four realms. However, the CFMO specifically mentions the four countries sharing the same person as head of state--what makes a Commonwealth realm a Commonwealth realm--as one of the reasons behind its idea. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal: Is it your intent to confuse the issue or discuss it? Where pray tell in your edit warring has this thing you call a crown come in? Juan Riley (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal Yes you did comment here and said nothing about nothing. Every other edit of yours just deletes the sentence and when you think too much you just append OR and say nothing here. I can almost imagine you using your fingers to count to 3. Juan Riley (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm uncertain how you're confused by the simple statement Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are not the Commonwealth of Nations.

Please see WP:NPA. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It says the countries "share the same head of state, the same common-law legal system, the same western culture, the same respect for democracy and even the same language." It is not clear that sharing the same head of state is a requirement, or explanation why other countries that same the same head of state and the other attributes were not invited. Ironically, Canada does not entirely share the same legal system and language. You really need a secondary source to explain this. TFD (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Requirement" is your word. The person speaking for the CFMO mentioned the four countries sharing the same person as head of state as one of the justifications for the idea free movement between the four realms. That's quoted in the article. The quote only needs a source to show where its drawn from and that's been provided. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal Is trying to threaten me now. I can only laugh and I only talk about article issues on article talk pages. Juan Riley (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me. User:Miesianiacal now decides impolitely to add comments out of chronological order. Why would I not surprised? Juan Riley (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't have surprised me a week or so ago he edited my comment on this talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, one could use the same argument to edit articles about common law, western, democratic or English speaking countries. And not that there are countries that meet the same criteria, Barbados for example, that have not been invited. You need a source that makes the same connection you do. TFD (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the connection between sharing the same person as head of state and free movement. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is no connectiion then it does not belong in the article. Unless you are arguing that anything and everything about each of the 16 countries should be in the article. TFD (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a connection according to the people who propose free movement between the four Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than mentioning that the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ share the same head of state, what connection do they make? We already have sources that say they are Commonwealth Realms. Can you please explain the connection without naming any of the four states. TFD (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You can refer to the sources; a person speaking on behalf of the organisation is quoted. For anything beyond that, you should contact the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organization itself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So the only way to show it relates to this topic is by conducting original research. TFD (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

On the CFMO

This may or may not be the same issue. This is The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organization. Its web site is used as a reference for the concept that is clear in its name. Three other ref's for the concept are also used. It is then mentioned explicitly in the article with its web site used again as a rather questionable ref for this. First I will boldly eliminate CFMO's web site as a reference to the concept: since it is a purpose built primary source and presumably the other references are of a more secondary nature. Then I ask is it again a case where mentioning this particular organization is at all notable? If so it needs a reference which cannot be primary, i.e., its web site. Thus for the moment I will change ref for its explicit mention to citation needed. Juan Riley (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Note I provide the removed ref's here: concept and organization

There's no policy banning primary sources. However, the first one does (did) not support the information about "calls for closer integration between the largest Commonwealth countries—primarily the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—from calls for federation to those for freedom of movement and free trade". But, the second source does: "At the C.F.M.O, we believe in advocating for the citizens of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to benefit from a freedom of movement initiative..." It obviously, then, also supports the other claim in the article: "the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation (CFMO) advocates for the free movement of citizens between the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." There's no reason to delete the second source; in fact, it should be used twice: once where it is (was) and again to replace the first source.

WP:NOTABLITY does not apply here: "Content coverage within a given article or list... is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." WP:WEIGHT says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The National Post and The Guardian are both certainly reliable sources; PanAm Post appears to be. It's also been mentioned by Newstalk ZB (New Zealand), the CBC, and the BBC. I think one sentence worth of coverage is fair in a 7,500+ word article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The view points are being treated fairly and have not been deleted. The first sentence already had secondary sources (well I presume them all RS for right now). We have no problem there. I removed the suspicious and certainly primary ref. The second sentence explicitly mentions this unknown and suspicious org's name without anything to prove it is notable other than it exists. The second sentence will in time be deleted without another secondary reference indicating it may be notable. Juan Riley (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I just explained how notability doesn't apply. Secondly, saying the organisation should not be mentioned in the article simply because the organisation exists is a straw man argument; nobody said it should be there because it exists. Thirdly, and again, primary sources are not banned from Wikipedia. This site explains what the CFMO champions. It supports the sentence in the article that explains what the CFMO champions. So, too does this one and this one. Fourthly, the fact it's mentioned in a number of reliable secondary sources means it's not unworthy of the one sentence it has. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know how you keep explaining things. I and others do not agree with you. Now if you were to try to prove notability of CMFO you could perhaps look a bit. The Panam (which I don't know about either) article mentions CFMO...but....tada...more...that article references a CBC article. Something to make your north of the border heart fonder I guess. This would and should have been your answer for a secondary source acknowledging the very existence of said org. On the other hand I am not sure it passes my threshhold. Does one article mentioning them make them notable enough to explicitly mention in an encyclopedia article with a "as an example..." introductory clause? And remember, to I and others here notability is not in the mind of the beholder. Link included: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/free-movement-proposed-between-canada-u-k-australia-new-zealand-1.2998105?cmp=fbtl Juan Riley (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see from your edits that you have learned what a secondary source is. Now one of those is still primary. No matter. Now the discussion can come down to just notability. Juan Riley (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd start to be rude.

Primary sources are not banned. WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That's precisely how the CFMO's site was being used.

If we're not going to agree on whether or not recognition by the CBC and BBC (and the National Post and Pique and News.com.au) is sufficient to permit the organisation one sentence of mention in the article, this dispute will have to involve more editors. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You can deliberately ignore me, but ... Anyway, there is no organisation as such. James Skinner the pro-G.O.P. ex-British-Conservative South Wales Welsh British expatriate in British Columbia or immigrant to BC, Canada, IS the CFOM. I personally don't particularly feel too strongly for or against inclusion, unlike the "500; Waybackmachine-caching/mirroring-disabled (deliberate, by their own settings)" UCS, because I don't really have a bone in this, although his name, and the fact that James Skinner IS this (unincorporated) organisation, must also be included with any mention of the CFOM. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianical, this is not a forum to promote views held by tiny minority. TFD (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In reference to freedom of movement between those four Commonwealth states: 1) The view exists and appears fairly wide-spread, and its holders being a minority or not has no bearing on its inclusion, only on the amount of space spent on it, 2) it has wide coverage in national and international media including respected media outlets such as the National Post, CBC, BBC, etc, thereby providing a great number of reliable third-party sources, 3) their freedom of movement petition has over 100,000 signatures as reported in various media outlets so is not just the view of one person, 4) the view has support outside of the CFMO (such as the Conrad Black National Post article that was used as a reference, so the idea is not just a one man show and exists outside of the CFMO ambit), and 5) a primary source is perfectly fine in this context (ie there's nothing wrong in using an official Wikipedia/Wikimedia page as a reference for what Wikipedia's stated purpose is), particularly when backed up by a variety of third-party and reliable sources, which the idea is. I think we're carrying over baggage from the other discussion on the CUS or whatever the organization was called UCS (I was close). trackratte (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you mention any recent books about the Commonwealth that mention it? TFD (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I would have to spend the time. I don't see why though, as we already have plenty of reliable third-party resources. If you want to find where/if the concept of free-movement between countries is discussed in a given book then feel free to do so. If you want to find the most rigorous sources possible though, I would suggest you look at peer-reviewed academic journals, as anyone can publish a book in much the same way as anyone can publish a website. In fact, Conrad Black who is a proponent of the idea, has written numerous books and is a widely published author in print news media, online articles, as well as printed books. Maybe you can start with them. trackratte (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think things have gotten sidetracked. The first sentence of the section notes recent proposals "from calls for federation to those for freedom of movement and free trade". And last I checked there are acceptable secondary sources given. The issue is whether one particular org (CFMO) which lobbies for one of these proposals is encyclopedically notable enough to be explicitly mentioned in a seemingly tag-on second sentence: "For example, the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation (CFMO) advocates for the free movement of citizens...." In my opinion no. Now CFMO is mentioned in some of those sec ref's. However, it seems to me that its explicit mention in that second sentence adds nothing except an advertisement for a lobby org--with no encyclopedic information content. Juan Riley (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, my question was about the CFMO, not their proposal. Their petition has received a reference in news media, but that does not elevate it to any level of significance. As for reading what Black says, Black writes about lots of things. It does not mean that every opinion he expresses should be put into Wikipedia articles. You need to show serious secondary sources that cover the debate and those sources will say which writers are most significant. But I doubt any exist. I think we should remember that the relevant policy is weight, we should present views in accordance with their coverage in reliable sources, not decide what views should be presented and search for sources. TFD (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD, when you google "commonwealth freedom of movement" which is the idea and the proposal, the first hit is the CFMO's website, the second is their petition which has 105,000 signatures, after that you have 5 media stories from the BBC, CBC, National Post, and Huffington Post (all reputable media outlets) discussing the proposal, and all of them mention the CFMO. The point is, whether we like it or not, the organization has been linked with the concept in international discourse, so I fail to see how making mention of the organization that has become tightly linked with the concept, especially when the supporting references do the same, somehow takes anything away from the reader. As the organization is mentioned in all of these third-party sources, a single sentence in this massive article is not undue Weight. And the fact that it has been so widely covered, discussed in international media by a variety of different journalists and others, and has over 100,000 people signed on in support, shows that it is not fringe in the sense as some have portrayed it as being limited to the opinion of just a single individual. I don't see any credible reason at this point to not have it included. trackratte (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep raising this fuzzy notion of significance in way that implies you're aware of exactly where the hard division is between what's "significant" and what isn't. There's a need to provide "serious" secondary sources, for instance. Well, what's a "serious" source? You use the plural, so how many "serious" sources? Wikipedia certainly doesn't set a clear, fixed benchmark a subject must meet before it gets place in the encyclopedia. All WP:WEIGHT says is: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources..." I don't know if you're using "serious" as a synonym for "reliable" or not, but, we have reliable sources--a number of them--containing information about the CFMO. I think that meets WP:WEIGHT's criteria. But, since the line WP:WEIGHT sets is indistinct, I suppose a final decision comes down to the community. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aint User:Miesianiacal so bold. Lets just eliminate the section and then eliminate the ref he doesn't like. Juan Riley (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BOLD. And please look again at my edit summary: I stated very clearly the source does not support the material it's being used as a cite for. And I went further to say the source analyses the idea of trade among the whole Commonwealth, not just all or some of the Commonwealth realms. Free trade within the Commonwealth of Nations is a separate subject that has its own separate article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Miesianical, the policy requires us to present different views and aspects of a topic according to how they are treated in reliable sources. The policy is not fuzzy at all. For example, in NOR: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In this respect, I asked you "Can you mention any recent books about the Commonwealth that mention it?" [09:16, 20 November 2015] TFD (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy requires material get treatment proportional to other material. That's all; and it doesn't draw any hard lines. Sources factors into it, but there is no required number set, nothing about ones that are "serious" (again, unless you mean reliable), and no stipulation the sources have to be books. Since the line WP:WEIGHT sets is indistinct, I suppose a final decision on whether info about the CFMO stays in or goes comes down to a community decision. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Proportional to other material" does not mean that something that is routinely discussed in reliable sources has the same weight as something that does not. My advice is to see what reliable sources consider important and reflect that in the articles. Your approach is to determine what is important and stick it in. While I do not have to defend policy, the result of your approach is that we would forever argue what we think is important. In fact, that is now what we are now doing, as a result of your refusal to follow policy. TFD (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing policy with your own standards. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I grow weary of the POV pushing and day by day get more cynical of the sustainability of the WP model. Juan Riley (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte, if I type in "Paul Bernardo", I get even more hits. That does not mean it gets a paragraph in the Canada article. TFD (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhuh ... and if you type "Big Bird" into Google you'll get even more hits, that doesn't mean it gets a mention in the Ninja Turtles article. Awesome logic TFD, congratulations.

To return to the topic, if you type in "Canadian Freedom of Movement" then you get Section Six of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then Freedom of movement in Canada, followed by www.legislationline.org, and www.charterofrights.ca/en/15_00_01, and in fifth place you get Free movement proposed between Canada, U.K, Australia, New Zealand which mentions the CFMO. Canadian freedom of movement could easily be mentioned in the Canada article in the same way as Freedom of religion in Canada already is, because it's relevant to the article topic in question. We could also start a new article to deal with the topic as well, but in this case, since it's only a couple of sentences, I don't see the point in creating a whole new article just for essentially a single sentence. Replace Canada with the word Commonwealth and I think you get the idea. Now we can decide that freedom of movement shouldn't be mentioned at all in the article in the same way that we can make the argument that freedom of movement in Canada should not be mentioned in the Canada article (and reducing trade barriers between provinces which is a hot topic as well in Canada as well, where we could mention the CEOs council, the Fraser Institute, etc as advocates for that cause).

I'm not against removing references to organizations advocating for a concept which is a topic of discussion within a wiki article, however I do see it adding a piece of relevant information in this case, the organization is mentioned nearly every time the topic is in the reliable sources, and does not take anything away from the reader. The issue of Weight isn't a solid argument in this case, as the sole mention of the organization is backed up in the sources, in that every time the topic is discussed, the organization is to, thus making th two tightly linked in the reliable sources, so its sole mention is not undue weight. This article is simply giving it the same weight it has within the international discourse as evidenced through a number of reliable and reputable sources.

So in this case it's adding relevant information to the topic being discussed in line with the reliable sources, and is not causing any harm to the article or reader. I'm not terribly invested either way, I simply haven't seen any sort of logical argument for removing it beyond "I don't like it". trackratte (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

trackratte: You inserted CFMO did you not? Perhaps I am wrong. We can check. It was quite recent. So why is the argument why "we" want it removed? The argument is that some editors don't think the existence and explicit naming of this organization rises to the level of notability for this short paragraph in an article. The paragraph is about the various concepts (federation, free movement and free trade) not whether any of them have a lobby group with a web site. The concepts as legitimate current proposals in some sense by somebody have to referenced to a RS a Secondary RS. The freedom of movement concept has been so ref'd. Think they also might have been yours. End of subject? Unless you want to explain why you want to add CFMO. Juan Riley (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to establish that it has weight within international discourse. See Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." TFD (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent ref edits on the contentious paragraph

The Panam ref though otherwise I wguess okay explicitly gives the CBC ref as the source drawn on for its own article on free movement. Thus it is a duplicate and I removed it. When necessary the CBC ref took its place. Oh yeah there is no need to list the CBC as a ref two different places in the same sentence. So I left it only in refgangup at the end of the sentence. I haven't yet fixed the BBC ref. Ya think the people who put it in would but let me get another beer. Juan Riley (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm free trade

User: Miesianiacal One can split a hair only so far. Should we eliminate the mention of Commonwealth free trade entirely because nothing in the reference for the previous sentence EVER mentions realm? I will restore the critical sentence (yes I know you will say that's two on your fingers) but would accept just eradicating mentioning of free trade at all in the end--since it appears from my reading to be a rather fringe assertion. Juan Riley (talk)

I've already commented on this matter above. So, I will just repeat myself here:

You are drawing from a source that focuses on Commonwealth-wide free trade. ("Talk of the Commonwealth [emphasis mine] forming the dynamic, like-minded, free-trading core of a new British global network for prosperity..."; "The Commonwealth [emphasis mine] is many things..."; "the polite welcome she received in Australia amounts to proof of boundless goodwill between Britain and the Commonwealth [emphasis mine]"; "[m]any Commonwealth [empahsis mine] members are far removed from Britain's way of seeing the world..."; "the same British respondents are strikingly hostile to the other Commonwealth [emphasis mine] nations on the list, such as India, South Africa (6% approval apiece) and above all Pakistan (1%) [none are Commonwealth realms]...")

The CANZUK free trade proposal involves only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Australia, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand are not the Commonwealth. Ergo, any opinion on the chances of success of Commonwealth-wide free trade is not relevant. Any argument that an opinion on Commonwealth-wide free trade is equally an opinion on free trade between only four member-states of the Commonwealth is an engagement in original research, which isn't allowed.

I've politely reminded you of WP:NPA a number of times. Any further personal remarks made will mean a trip to WP:AN/I. Please keep things civil. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User: Miesianiacal {First an aside: I am embarrassed for you that you continually use language that always attempts to make others the uncivil party. This includes you counting of edits and threats of 3RR reports.} The sentence previous to the one you keep deleting (and for which you are partially responsible for I believe) is: "Also, British Eurosceptics (who wish for the UK to leave the European Union) have expressed a preference for a relationship "similar in nature and goals to the EU" between the same four countries: the CANZUK Free Trade Treaty." Nothing in the ref given for this sentence says "Commonwealth realm". So we should delete both sentences from this article? Since in your nuanced viewpoint when it serves your POV CANZUK is not the Commonwealth and then the article ref'd by the sentence you keep deleting says Commonwealth and not CANZUK you object???? I have to ask: what the hell is your point? Juan Riley (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a straw man argument.

You keep inserting a remark about Commonwealth-wide free trade as though it were a criticism of a plan for free trade among four Commonwealth realms. The two ideas are not the same thing. The opinion on the Commonwealth-wide free trade idea thus belongs as Commonwealth free trade, not here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of argument: is CANZUK Commonwealth realm? I am aghast how you wish to keep splitting hairs...and apparently only to support your POV. Juan Riley (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, CANZUK is not a Commonwealth realm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC):::::No, CANZUK is not a Commonwealth realm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice little splitting of hairs. I'll think about it. Here is a question for you: why should CANZUK fantasies be mentioned unless you start an article called the White Commonwealth? Juan Riley (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Then if CANZUK is neither Commonwealth or C. realm: delete the sentence: 'Also, British Eurosceptics (who wish for the UK to leave the European Union) have expressed a preference for a relationship "similar in nature and goals to the EU" between the same four countries: the CANZUK Free Trade Treaty." Juan Riley (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is still the same straw man argument. The question is: of what relevance is a remark about free trade among all the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations to an idea for free trade among four Commonwealth realms? You have not yet answered that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Can one of the two editors please state what the question is, concisely and civilly? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently I believe the question relates to the last two sentences of the last paragraph in the section "Relationship of the realms". I will repeat them here as they currently stand:

Also, British Eurosceptics (who wish for the UK to leave the European Union) have expressed a preference for a relationship "similar in nature and goals to the EU" between the same four countries: the CANZUK Free Trade Treaty.[32] Critics of free trade among all Commonwealth members have characterized it as "the ultimate Eurosceptic fantasy."[33]

I am responsible for the second sentence--though the wording was altered by Meisianical and the reference given (to an Economist article) had pre-existed in the article. I included it as a balance to the first sentence. Although I am loath to put words into another editor's mouth, I believe Meisianical's contention is that the first sentence references CANZUK only whereas the Economist article references generally all of the Commonwealth. This seems to be true. However, it is somewhat like splitting hairs. Especially since the wiki article is on the commonwealth realm of which CANZUK is but a fraction and which does not include all of the commonwealth. I believe that the first sentence by itself is certainly unbalanced--and is arguably presenting a minority if not a fringe opinion without any balance. One option is to find references that split hairs as fine as Meisianical desires. Another is to eliminate both sentences in this article--perhaps the entire subject is better treated in the Commonwealth free trade article. That is the gist of it from my side at least. Juan Riley (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I see too much commenting on contributors, and cannot figure out what the question is. I am leaving the Third Opinion request up for another editor who may be able to parse it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the final paragraph of the 'Relationship of the realms' section is a sentence outlining criticism of the idea of free trade among all Commonwealth of Nations member states, saying critics have characterized it as "the ultimate Eurosceptic fantasy." The question is one of relevance: Since the only other mention of free trade in the paragraph relates to a proposed free trade agreement among only four Commonwealth realms (Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: a subset of the subset of Commonwealth states that is the subject of this article), in what way is the remark about Commonwealth-wide free trade relevant to the rest or the paragraph or, indeed, any material on this page? Free trade among all 53 Commonwealth countries is a subject related to Commonwealth of Nations and, more specifically, its branch article Commonwealth free trade. This page is only about the 16 Commonwealth states all headed by Elizabeth II and the paragraph in question mentions proposed free trade between four of those countries only. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about all of them and anything that concerns all of them. It is not about everything about each one of them or two or three or four of them. We should not use it as a coatrack. The proposal for greater cooperation between the white Commonwealth Realms should be in an article about the white Commonwealth. TFD (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall we, TFD, politely call it CANZUK? Juan Riley (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think CANZUK refers to the proposed union, while white commonwealth refers to the "senior members" of the Commonwealth it seeks to unite. Any grouping of these four countries is open to charges of political incorrectness. TFD (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In either case it aint the Commonwealth realm. Juan Riley (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just seeing Imperial Federation and Imperial Federation League for the first time. Seems to be an idea which comes and goes, at one point being a political issue in the British House of Commons. trackratte (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It was more of a mainstream idea when the Empire was ruled from Whitehall and most trade of the dominions and colonies was within the Empire. Note that the first Canadian High Commissioner to London was appointed to the Lords and Dominion PMs were appointed to the Imperial Privy Council. And of course there was a major threat in the French Empire. But there is no political, security or economic advantage today, and instead there is promotion of EU, NAFTA, TPP and other arrangements. Note that there is a CANZUK-USA alliance called UKUSA. TFD (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I never knew the "five eyes" was called UKUSA. Also never heard of STONEGHOST...damn those blue-link rabbit holes... trackratte (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See "UKUSA Agreement": "[It] is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes." The fact you have not heard about it shows how successful it is. One hopes they read this article and realize that the Queen of the UK is different person from the Queens of the other CRs. TFD (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"The fact you have not heard about it shows how successful it is." --> Ha! Good point! trackratte (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If they're reading this, then hopefully they've figured out by now that the Queen of the UK and the other realms is the same physical person holding different offices (legal persons in the same way as corporations sole). Also if some poor analyst somewhere has actually personnally read this entire thing, 1) I feel very badly for them, and 2) someones tax dollars are being wasted! trackratte (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasted in supporting a monarchy? Well finally we agree on something. But taint a forum. :) Juan Riley (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying reading this thread equals supporting a monarchy? So according to your own logic you either support a monarchy, or you haven't bothered to read this thread... trackratte (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Provided

Response to third opinion request:

Reading the arguments from above which I've assumed is about the relevance of the statement "Critics...the ultimate Eurosceptic fantasy", I conclude that it cannot be presented as it currently stands. I've briefly scanned through the reference provided and all I see is the headline. Saying that all critics call it so would indeed be WP:OR. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And I understand your point; it's valid.

However, there remains the question: even if the sentence were reworded, is any opinion on free trade among all 53 Commonwealth member states relevant to an idea for free trade among four Commonwealth realms? My position is: no, absolutely not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert on Dec 9

Eleven days without reply to one party's question would indicate the other party is, for whatever reason, no longer interested in continuing the dispute. Despite not explaining how a remark about free trade among all Commonwealth nations is relevant to the idea of free trade among four Commonwealth realms, this revert indicates JuanRiley still feels there is relevance. I await his explanation of the connection between one idea and the critique of another. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 change to succession rules in the Commonwealth realms

Perhaps I've missed it. But we don't seem to be mentioning that the succession to the thrones of the realms, have been changed in March 2015. It would seem that 16 countries changing the succession to their thrones simultaneously, must be a first time world event & notable for this article. I won't push heavily for this inclusion, so what do others think? GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be mentioned. The Perth Agreement is mentioned, but not that the law has now been changed. Incidentally, 12 realms made no changes because whoever is sovereign of the UK is their monarch, which is now the position of Canada. TFD (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the official tally of which countries didn't? Was that an assumption or hard fact? I recall hearing Barbados did and a quick Google search for "barbados succession act Crown" pulled up the Barbados Parliament text. Barbados Act of 2013 CaribDigita (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In Perth, all realms except Canada, Australia and NZ said that no further action was required by them to change the succession as UK law would apply. The Barbados act merely confirms their consent, which by convention the UK should have and did get in Perth. I do not know which countries enacted similar acts, but it might be worth listing them. TFD (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is solved, thanks to Mies. The enactment of the change to the succession rules, has been added. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The title of this section was altered by an editor to be named later who did not start it

Your POV doggedness has indeed worn me down. Feel free to fill in history and recent stuff as you see fit. Says a lot about the "project". Have at it my laddy buck. Juan Riley (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any POV issue at play here. Can you point it out? I've put the same fairly simple and pertinent question about relevance to you multiple times, yet you won't answer it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go answer edit warring charges against you already. I am tired of you. Talk page editing of others comments...not the first time you did that with me. You like to rearrange history. Just go away. I don't care about these articles anymore. Your attitude has convinced me that it is not worth the effort. Let this article be the reflection of your view of history. I will just be amused. Juan Riley (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 5 I removed the first personalised header and altered the second because it is allowed by WP:TPO, if not because they could be construed as personal attacks (though passive-aggressive), then at least because "no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate... It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading..."

I have been trying to get clarification from you, as such can help me understand your motivation and I can respond. Refusing to answer a question is a blockade against resolution of a dispute. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You want to have your rather personal point of view reflected in WP without any contrarian input. Go right ahead. Apparently the only thing stopping you in this minor instance was me. And you wore me down. Go at it. No wonder a lot of folk have lost faith in this project. Chalk up another one. Juan Riley (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you're going on about. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal: You are the type of editor that drives other editors away. Juan Riley (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think there's something egregious about my behaviour, let the proper people know. Beyond that, I think it's best to end this particular thread. It is of no benefit to the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh should not be in the map as "former member of commonwealth".

Bangladesh was not a commonwealth member country. It gained its independence in 1971 from Pakistan, which left commonwealth long ago in 1956. So the map should not include Bangladesh as a former member of commonwealth. Shafkatsharif (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a problem. We show Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and I gather that they themselves maintain the delusion. Bangladesh itself is part of this fiction. I do not think that it was ever a Commonwealth Realm, in the sense that the British monarch reigned there. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is shown as part of the Dominion of Pakistan. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying that the USA is a former member of the British Empire. As East Pakistan, the region now known as Bangladesh was part of the Empire, the Commonwealth, and the Dominion of Pakistan. But the inhabitants fought a war of revolution to create their own nation. The nation of Bangladesh was never part of Pakistan. Peaceful transitions are one thing, but when a new nation is created through war, I don't think you can say that the new entity was ever a political component of the old one. There is a clear change of state. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The area that is now Bangladesh, was a part of the Commonwealth of Nations at one time. Anyways, good luck with figuring out this entanglement, folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh is a member of the Commonwealth. It has never been a Realm. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll go along with whatever yas decide, concerning the map. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The map shows the Dominion of Pakistan, as it is supposed to do. The map shows "former Dominions". Cutting out half the country will render the map nonsensical. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The map looks fine. I think the OP is unclear what a Commonwealth Realm is? --Pete (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Commonwealth realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101202194643/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130609145048/http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926053754/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/monarchandcommonwealth/newzealand/thequeensroleinnewzealand.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/NewZealand/TheQueensroleinNewZealand.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090710092956/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Overview.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101204005418/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Queenandanniversarymessages/Whoisentitled.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/Queenandanniversarymessages/Whoisentitled.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081028202032/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/output/Page4709.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4709.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100711003016/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2010/AddresstotheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly6July2010.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

On line in "Independent Dominions"

The line is: "Yet, the international status of the Crown was also illustrated by George VI simultaneously bolstering from both Canada and the United States support for the United Kingdom in the looming war with Nazi Germany.[86]" First shall we fix the grammar? Next, what does the ref cited have to do with the United States? Juan Riley (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commonwealth realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123050633/http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=3498 to http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=3498
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970617074036/http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm to http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216021559/http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england to http://www.snp.org/blog/post/2012/feb/scottish-independence-good-england

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"respective"?

What does the word "respective" do in the first sentence? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Respective" means "belonging or relating separately to each individual item". It points out that the position as head of state in each realm is legally separate and distinct from each of the others. DrKay (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Intro wording

@Poohpooh817: @DrKay: I've tried to have a compromise in the intro so we don't get into a larger edit war here. Let me know what you think. I tried to strike the balance between noting that Elizabeth II is the common sovereign but also noting that the realms are independent, so it is not right to say that the Sovereign of the United Kingdom is Queen of Canada (or any other realm) from a legal perspective. They are in personal union in the person of Elizabeth II, not the institution of the British crown, and DrKay is definitely right on this, but noting that the concept is not tied only to Elizabeth II is also true. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Poohpooh817: would a reference to the House of Windsor be acceptable rather than to the U.K.? This would be historically true since the Windsors have been the royal house of the Commonwealth realms since the Statute of Westminster 1931, and would avoid the unnecessary possibility of confusion over whether the Queen is Queen of her various realms because of her status as monarch of the United Kingdom. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, the concept of "Commonwealth realm" is not limited to the house of Windsor. The dynasty can change in the future. In addition, theoretically, a non-Commonwealth-realm kingdom that is a member of the Commonwealth may choose another member of the house as its monarch. I believe the current wording is correct and will not cause any confusion.--Poohpooh817 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The United Kingdom at some future point could abolish the monarchy and the reigning sovereign at that time would not cease to be Queen of Canada or Queen of Belize or any of the other realms because of an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdim. She would remain their sovereign unless they abolished the crown in the manner fitting to each of their constitutional orders. I don't even think the House of Windsor but is nevcedary, but I do see your objection to my wording so think that something like "share as their common monarch the head of the House of Windsor." Could work because it is undoubtedly just as true, and doesn't have any mention of the U.K., which as Danlaycock pointed out is undue weight to one realm even though that realm could abolish the crown without legally affecting the status of the others. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that TonyBallioni's wording is a big improvement. Poohpooh817's version could be rewritten with "sovereign of _____" where the blank is filled by any one of 16 states. Arbitrarily cherrypicking one is WP:UNDUE. TDL (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The blank cannot be filled by any realm other than the UK. Other Commonwealth realms may anytime choose to be a Commonwealth realm. The abolishment　of the UK's　monarchy is not supposed. In this sense, the UK is special among the realms, which is the only country where the Queen practices by herself as head of state, not through a governor-general.--Poohpooh817 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) - Sorry, I meant "Other Commonwealth realms may anytime choose to cease to be a Commonwealth realm." --Poohpooh817 (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The UK could actually abolish their monarchy much more easily than some of the Commonwealth realms. It only takes an act of Parliament there. Canada requires the more stringent of the constitutional amendment procedures. I'm unaware of the other realm's constitutional requirements, but I am sure they are varied. The UK is unique in that it is the oldest of the Commonwealth realms, but the Commonwealth realms are united in personal union by agreeing to share the same person as monarch and abide by the same rules of succession. That the monarch resides in the UK does not affect her legal status as independent sovereign of each of the sixteen countries. The fact that the UK might have more popular support for retaining the crown is of little consequence to the fact that the Queen is legally as Canadian as she is Australian as she is Belizean as she is Jamaican as she is British, and ignores the fact that each of these countries, including the United Kingdom, choose to be in personal union with one another and could at any point independently of the other choose to cease being so. The United Kingdom is no different in this regard. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be impossible to transition the UK from a monarchy to a republic with just an act of parliament. Most of the British state falls under the Crown, so parliament would effectively be all that is left of the UK. Everything else would need to be reformed with a new legal embodiment, effectively forming a new state.

It's not true that the UK is indifferent from every other commonwealth realm. The UK Parliament dictates the rules of secession, which all other realms follow. Theoretically, they don't need to follow the UK rules, but they always have. So the UK is special in some sense. It's not undue weight to say that the other realms' monarch is the monarch of the UK, maybe slightly misleading since legally there is nothing saying so, but the UK is de facto the lead realm.

Also, the Queen herself is only British. Not that it matters, she could be any nationality, and previous monarchs have had nationalities other then English / Scottish / British. The monarch is a person, the living embodiment of the Crown, and the current monarch only has one nationality, albeit not being a citizen of any country.

Rob984 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The person of the Queen's relationship to the various crowns of the different realms is governed by the various constitutional procedures in each realm. In Canada, she is indeed Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom, because the Parliament of Canada consented to this when it asked for the British North America Act 1867 and the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be included in its constitution when it was patriated in 1981. This was seen when Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. It was merely an act of the Parliament of Canada, not an amendment, because Canadian law designates that the Queen of Canada is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom, and has for some time [1]. Canada could amend this at any time through the process in its constitution, but chooses not to.

Australia on the other hand, does maintains its own laws of succession and necessitated the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 which changed the law of Australia to match the laws of the United Kingdom that were amended. To say that Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia because she is Queen of the United Kingdom is false. She is Queen of Australia because Australia agreed to share a common person as monarch and have the same line of succession as the other realms. All that to say: the relationship between the person of the Queen and her realms is very complicated legally. To say she that the realms have share as their monarch the British sovereign oversimplifies the constitutional arrangement of each of the sovereign nations, and gives the UK too much undue weight. The process behind the creation of the commonwealth is described further in the intro and I think keeping the wording as it is now is accurate and a good balance. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rob984: "UK Parliament dictates the rules of secession, which all other realms follow" - No that's not true. See the wikisource:Statute of Westminster, 1931: "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions". The UK isn't special in this regard. TDL (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So the UK Parliament determines the rules of secession, with approval from all realms? The UK unquestionably has a lead role here. And indisputably, the British monarchy is the oldest. To portray the UK as just another realm is disingenuous. Rob984 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the legislation is clear that any changes to the succession laws must be made by consensus of the parliaments of the 16 realms. There is no mention of any "lead role" here, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from. This is precisely what happened with the Perth Agreement. Consensus was reached by the states, and only then was approval sought from the 16 parliaments. I don't dispute that the UK has a purely symbolic lead role, but that's very different from saying that it "dictates the rules of secession". Legally they're all equivalent. The remaining 15 would continue to be commonwealth realms sharing a monarch even if the monarchy of the UK ceased to exist, for example as a result of the dissolution of the UK. Hence the proposed definition was not accurate.

In term's of the "but it's special because it's older" argument, that's as disingenuous as saying Delaware is special and plays a leading role in changes to the US constitution because it's old. TDL (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The UK's special status is that the Commonwealth itself is based on the monarchy of the UK. It does not matter if any other Commonwealth realm abolishes monarchy, but it does if the UK do it. By the way, is it also correct to say "...shares the same person who is the head of the Commonwealth..."?--Poohpooh817 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but Prince Charles wanted to move to Australia as Governor General, the Duke of Windsor was governor of the Bahamas, and the royal family was almost evacuated to Canada during the war. Geography is only incidental to the legal status. Re: head of the commonwealth. In theory this position is not hereditary. It was granted to the person of Elizabeth II. Her heir would need to be regranted it. It will most likely happen, but it isn't guaranteed, and if it didn't happen, it would not affect the heir's status in the realms. Like I said earlier, I think the mentions later in the intro of the history of how the Commonwealth was founded make it clear enough. The UK status really is not special constitutionally (all share her equally) so I think mentioning it in the first sentence is an issue of undue weight. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Quickly reading over all the commentary here, Poohpooh's sentiment that the UK dictates anything to the other Commonwealth realms, or is even a primus inter pares in any official or legal capacity is presently unsupported. We would need several sources to support this claim, as it is contradiction to a number of varifiable sources and legal/legislative documents. trackratte (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The act known as "The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013"(Ref ) for the Barbados Parliament alone breaks the idea of "supremacy". On page four it reads "AND WHEREAS the following recital is set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931: “AND WHEREAS it is meet[Sic] and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”; AND WHEREAS Her Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom has caused to be introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom a Bill to ensure that succession is not dependent on gender and to end the disqualification arising from marrying a Roman Catholic; ENACTED by the Parliament of Barbados as follows:"

Similar things have been tested like this before. The Caribbean states are supposed to leave the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and replace it with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) but many isles can't seem to get it done because HM Loyal Opposition party's across the Caribbean keep stonewalling the process. The UK created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which it transitioned to already. The Caribbean nations didn't get automatically moved with it. They remain the largest region still relying on the UK. They remain rooted in this semi-still remaining JCBPC that technically is superseded by the Supreme Court accord UK Parliament. For now the remaining Judicial Committee shares the building where the UK Supreme Court is,but supposedly the JCBPC was wrapping up UK cases already begun under their jurisdiction, and the Caribbean (or other jurisdictions') cases. A fast UK change of Monarchy would likely yield similar results in places that haven't amended their laws.Privy Council's complaint, Reflections on the Privy Council. What is the future for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? CaribDigita (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Independence referendums

Year held	Country	Yes	No	Margin of victory(%)	No Commonwealth realm, no colony or connection to another country
1961	Southern Cameroons	233,571 (70.5%)	97,741 (29.5%)	135,830 (41%)
	Northern Cameroons	97,659 (40%)	146,296 (60%)	48,637 (20%)
1961	Western Samoa Trust Territory	29,882 (85.4%)	5,108 (14.6%)	24,774 (70.8%)
1962	Colony of Singapore	407,048 (98.09%)	7,911 (1.91%)	399,137 (96.18%)
1967	Gibraltar	44 (0.36%)	12,138 (99.64%)	12,072 (99.26%)
1969	Rhodesia	61,130 (81.01%)	14,327 (18.99%)	46.803 (61%)
1970	Bahrain	?	?	?
1973	Northern Ireland	2,187,991 (1.1%)	1,485,852 (98.9%)	585397 (97.8%)
1980	Quebec	1,485,852 (40.44%)	2,187,991 (59.56%)	702,139 (19.12%)
1986	Falkland Islands	31 (0.55%)	869 (96.45%)	858 (95.9%)
1984	Cocos (Keeling) Islands	9 (3.47%)	250 (96.53%)	241 (93.06%)
1995	Quebec	2,308,360 (49.42%)	2,362,648 (50.58%)	54,288 (0.16%)
2002	Gibraltar	187 (1.03%)	17,900 (98.97%)	17,713 (97.94%)
2013	Falkland Islands	3 (0.2%)	1,513 (99.8%)	1,510 (99.6%)
2014	Scotland	1,617,989 (44.7%)	2,001,926 (55.3%)	383,937 (10.6%)

Braganza (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commonwealth realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105041628/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/R-12/page-1.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/R-12/page-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Should Newfoundland be listed as a former realm?

The Dominion of Newfoundland was a dominion at the time of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 however Newfoundland never ratified the bill and, in 1934, reverted to dependency status and direct rule due to a financial crisis and ultimately became a province of Canada in 1949 without ever resuming dominion status - so it's in a bit of a grey area when it comes to whether or not it was ever a Commonwealth realm. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the following in response to a post that was made here and has since been self-reverted. Since it's relevant to the issue, I'll post it here: The claim in your edit note that "NL never had a governor general as personal representative of the monarch; it was a Dominion more akin to Canada in 1867 than in 1931" is original research in that you are implying that this is evidence NL was not a realm. Do you have a source that makes that conclusion? The relationship between the monarch, the dominion government, and the British government and the viceroy evolved at different rates in different dominions in the years following the Balfour Declaration 1926. For example, the Australian government insisted in 1930 on its right to advise the King on the appointment of a governor general, as did South Africa in 1931 and the Irish Free State in 1928, however it was not until 1935 that the Canadian government advised the King on the appointment of its governor general (rather than 1931 when Tweedsmuir's predecessor was appointed), and it was not until 1967 that the Prime Minister of New Zealand exercised his right to advise the Queen on the appointment of the Governor General (according to the article Governor-General of New Zealand). As governors-general were no longer to be representatives of the British government, London appointed High Commissioners to take over that role but again, this was not done in a uniform manner. A high commissioner to Canada was appointed in 1928, South Africa in 1930, Australia in 1936, and New Zealand in 1939. Lastly, while the the modern distinction between a governor-general and governor is that the former is appointed to a realm and the latter to colony this is a modern distinction. The term governor general was previously used for governors of federated colonies and governors to smaller colonies, and did not signify that the colony in question was a sovereign state. That understanding came later so the fact that Newfoundland had a governor and other dominions had governors general cannot be taken in the 1930s as a signifier that one is a Commonwealth realm and the other is not.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought it was fairly clearly never a Dominion like Canada, New Zealand, Ceylon, etc., as it never had their degree of independence. It retained a governor who represented the British government (the King in his UK Council), as the governors-general of the other Dominions did up until 1926. However, I may have been wrong. The Balfour Declaration doesn't make exceptions when speaking of the Dominions and the Statute of Westminster does speak specifically about Newfoundland, which would make it seem that the Governor of Newfoundland became as much a personal representative of the King as the governors-general of the other Dominions were and the King in his British Cabinet and parliament had no power to legislate for Newfoundland (without the request and consent of the government and parliament of Newfoundland). By extension, then, George V was king of Newfoundland apart from his roles as king of the UK and any other Dominion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Newfoundland fits with the dominions annotated by "Note 3" which reads: "Part of the group of independent countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations that shared the same person as their reigning monarch, but only ever designated as Dominions, each becoming a republic or joining another sovereign state before the term Commonwealth realms began to be used." Perhaps the fact that these four countries (if one includes Newfoundland) fall in the grey area of countries that were Dominions after 1931 but were not, for various reasons, by 1952 when dominions began to be referred to as "realms" can be indicated more clearly either by creating a separate chart or colouring the rows? Really what we are discussing is a class of countries which were not Commonwealth realms but which may or may not be considered Commonwealth realms retroactively. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to your more recent comments User:Miesianiacal, I would argue that the Statute of Westminster 1931 gave all the dominions the same powers but that the various dominions then proceeded to assert these powers in a non-uniform and even haphazard manner over the following decades. I discussed above the uneven implementation by various dominions/realms of the right to advise on the appointment of their governor general. Another example, is that the dominions had the power in 1931 to cease referring judicial appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but to this day not all of them have exercised that right (for example, Jamaican cases still can be appealed to London). All states in 1931 had the right to end the ability of the UK Parliament to legislate for them in constitutional matters but implemented that right at different times, Australia in 1942, Canada didn't until 1982. So just because Newfoundland didn't fully exercise its rights under the Statute of Westminster 1931 (and later surrendered them) doesn't mean it never had them, it just means they weren't used. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commonwealth realm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055540/http://www.menzieslecture.org/1995.html to http://www.menzieslecture.org/1995.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030064730/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/king/023011-1070.06-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Governors General as Regents

"Though input was sought from the Dominions on this matter, all declined to make themselves bound by the British legislation, feeling instead that the governors-general could carry out royal functions in place of a debilitated or underage sovereign" — two problems:

A Vacancy as Governor General

What if the Governor Generalship is vacant during a regency? Who appoints the new Governor General? The UK regent? The local government directly? Or is the office left vacant? jnestorius^(talk) 11:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

B Irish Free State

This clearly does not apply to the Irish Free State, which had abolished the post of Governor General. Does anybody know:-

1. whether the UK did in fact seek any input from the IFS on the 1937 act
2. whether the IFS made any response
3. whether the IFS considered the hypothetical question of regency during the 1936–49 period?

My guess is the answers are

1. no, given the correspondence relating to the 1935 regency bill proposals.
   • Letter from Eamon de Valera to Stanley Baldwin (London) Dublin, 27 June 1935
   • Letter from John J. Hearne to Charles T. te Water (London) Geneva, 11 October 1935
2. not applicable
3. maybe nothing formal. Even if another Dominions were going to use the Governor General as a regent, it would still need some level of formal legal machinery to effect that, and none of them put that machinery in place with any great haste; therefore it is would not be surprising if the IFS gave an even lower priority to worrying about such hypotheticals. In the event of George VI becoming incapacitated for a long period, an act could be rushed through the Oireachtas establishing a pseudo-regency. Perhaps de Valera simply thought that to himself and was content, without the need to commit the thought to paper or confer with anyone else. jnestorius^(talk) 11:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Head of state in intro

The consensus is that the lead should mention that Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 Commonwealth realms.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Should it (or should it not) be mentioned in the lead, that Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC is for when discussion on the talk page fails isn't it? You should make the case first (and really should not solicit known Unionist editors) -----Snowded ^TALK 14:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're free to ignore this Rfc if you like. The question is quite 'neutral' & doesn't solicit any groups. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Prior to this you brought the attention of a single editor, who has previously supported your positions on these type of issues. to this page to solicit their engagement - you know that. You also know that an RfC comes AFTER attempts to discuss things on the talk page have failed. You need to make a case here and see what response you get -----Snowded ^TALK 14:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you make a case for why 'head of state' should or shouldn't be in this article. PS: It's good to see that you've taken an interest in this topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It has long been on my watch list. But I am not sure - I didn't remove it and I wouldn't necessarily put it in. Given you feel strongly on the subject make the case and lets see what people come up with. This is the point I have been making to you elsewhere, simply launching an RfC and expecting other people to discuss an issue while avoiding engagement is problematic. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I'll put an argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should have head of state in the intro of this article, as Elizabeth II is head of state of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand & the rest of the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support.... easily referenced.--Moxy (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Should be retained as in current version, and as from December 2016. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and suggest wiki link the term. Alternatively, this could be put in the footnote of her photo. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Flags?

Why were the flags removed? WP:FLAGCRUFT does not seem like a good reason for a bloody list of countries. I would revert it myself but it wasn't the only change in that edit and I'm not savvy enough to avoid breaking other stuff. Haltik (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lede links to Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, which has all the national flags. Errantius (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Links in intro paragraph

They should be there, and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Violate WP:OVERLINK again and you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I have just seen this talk page after my edit today was reverted. My point is very simple - the Realm of NZ is not the same as NZ, so the Realm of NZ is not a sovereign state, it is a collection of 'countries' that share the monarch of NZ as their head of state. This is confirmed by NZ statute law, the Interpretations Act 1999: "New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency. This means that the lead needs to be reworded. I am not suggesting how to do that but I do suggest that the term "Realm of..." is not the same for each of the 16 countries mentioned, which is currently implied in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The expression "realm" does not have an essential meaning to which all uses of it must be understood to conform. What is meant by it in "Commonwealth realm" and in NZ law are independent of each other. There is no issue here. Errantius (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you address the point raised. We are discussing the term 'commonwealth realm', not the word 'realm'. Not all Commonwealth Realms, as defined in this article, and as understood by common usage, are sovereign entities. Put another way, according to the current article, the Cooks are sovereign NZ territory, which they are not and they are not regarded as such. The article therefore needs to be reworded. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I restored the article to its status quo. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the status quo version; nor do I see where it states or implies that the Cooks are sovereign NZ territory. - Ryk72 ^talk 19:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite. The expression "Commonwealth realm" is an invention of the Commonwealth of Nations and means whatever the CofN means by it. All members of the CofN are sovereign states. The CofN operates among national governments: the structure of government within each member state is a matter for that state. Again: there is no issue here. Errantius (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Errantius - the term “Commowealth realm” was invented on Wikipedia. Any use of the term by the Commonwealth of Nations itself was much later. It has no formal status whatsoever. No law. No constitution uses the “Commonwealth realm”. I’ve opened a discussion (one that has been had before, no doubt) about the need to spell out the fact that there is no law behind this term. It is not the same as, say, dominion which most certainly is a creature of law; as is Dominion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP isn't that powerful. This article was begun on 2 October 2016 and see these first and second refs (now deadlinks) added on 13 October 2016:. The royals still like it, though actually I can't find it in the Commonwealth of Nations website. Sic transit. Errantius (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the discussion started below on its formality is one thing, but the supposition that the phrase "Commonwealth realm" is an invention of Wikipedia definitely requires a source there. Cause at this point and time, I could easily refute that statement by just directing those that find that true to Google Books/Scholars, and see the books and journals published pre-2003 (so before this article was made) that use the term "Commonwealth realm". Leventio (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just spent about 5 minute on Google Books searching the term I found about three isolated references to “Commonwealth Realm” that pre-date Wikipedia. Inevitably, in the vast quantum that has been written about the Commonwealth, use of a term like this someone at some point is to be expected. That’s hardly evidence that this term had any widespread usage at all before Wikipedia. I’d be interested to see an article in a scholarly book entitled “Commonwealth Realms” that pre-dates Wikipedia. The contrast with “dominion” or “realm” even is remarkable. Scholarly books were being written on those terms a century ago. Wiki is what’s put this term on the map. It has effectively been invented here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it’s an old chestnut... but shouldn’t we say this is not a formal legal term?

I’ve added a sentence to make it clear that “Commonwealth realm” is not a formal legal term. It appears in no constitutions. No laws etc. I accept its use on Wikipedia is irreversible. But the article ought to be transparent about this not being a formal term. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are both websites! They’re not laws! Can you provide a source where this “Commonwealth realm” term which was popularized on Wikipedia was used in a law please? Frenchmalawi (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

First off, try to keep the conversation in the same section, I almost missed this message entirely, because you didn't respond under the message your responding to (see WP:TPG for further details on that). Secondly, Google Scholars is a search engine for academic articles whereas Google Books is a search engine for books and legislative transcripts.

And in saying that, I never once suggested these were written in law (in fact, I stated "the question of formality is one thing," which is sorta implying that the very next thing I was stating is unrelated to this matter, which was why I didn't respond in this section). And in saying that, my response was directed at your assertion that the term “Commowealth realm” was invented on Wikipedia., to which I was replying that it clearly is not the case, as you can easily find references to the term in both academic sources, legislative sessional records, and books which predate the creation of this article (or Wikipedia for that matter).

And in saying that, I believe this article is moreso discussing the term as its used by the political and academic community, as opposed to defining a legal term (which again for the record, as far as I can tell, no one is asserting that it is a legal term). Whether or not you want the article to explicitly mention its an informal term is something that wasn't really relevant to the previous response I made (in that its an informal term that predates Wikipedia). Leventio (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, I cited those two websites solely to show that the expression "Commonwealth realm" predates WP. Nobody is suggesting that it has ever had any legal status, nor that that is a problem. We all seem to be in agreement on the present wording of the article in this respect, so let us treat both of these sections as closed discussions. Errantius (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Leventino, Wiki has changed since I used the discussion pages years ago. Now it has a “REPLY BOX” at the bottom of each discussion and when I click PUBLISH it appears somewhere. I use an iPad, if that’s relevant.

Uwer: Leventino and User: Errantius can we add a positive statement into the lede explaining that the “Commonwealth realm” term is not a legal term and is not used in any laws or constitutions? That’s what I requested and added and it was promptly reverted. What is the objection to that? Its absence makes the entire article misleading. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There had been something to that effect, which I agree is needed. I've now added to the end of the lede: "Commonwealth realm" is not a legal term, but a term used informally to distinguish those Commonwealth members that, independently of each other, have Elizabeth II as their head of state." It would also be good if someone could trace the origin of the term. Errantius (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

While I’d go further, I think that’s OK Errantius. As to the origins of the term, any honest account of it would need to acknowledge and explain that it was a term almost entirely unhear of until Wikipedia was established. And afterwards gained traction in popular usage. Similarly, it would explain that its a term that had no broad usage, if any at all, in any academic publications before Wiki was established. But I’m too long on Wiki to want to have the appetite to try to tell that story. It’d never be told. This place is too political for that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The article does not make any claim that the topic is a legal one, so to specify it is not a legal term is redundant. 2. "Legal term" here means a word with a meaning specific to the legal profession. So, your chain of logic is that because this article is not about a legal term, then we must include a disclaimer specficially stating that it is not indeed a legal word. 3. As you can see here (US Gov List of Legal Terms) and here (Wiktionary list of legal terms), words like "country" or "head of state" are not legal terms either, niether are articles like "cow" or "Canada". 4. So, to you use your logic we would put this disclaimer in millions of articles across Wikipedia, which from an editorial standpoint is counterproductive, clunky, and completely unwarranted. 5. Further, how WP works is that the status quo prevails until consensus is achieved, and where reverts to a new addition signal a lack of consensus. Continuing to jam in new content despite a lack of consenses at least four times now indicates edit warring. trackratte (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we have a slightly slimmed down, accurate article?

I went through the article and found rather a lot of objectionable statements:

1. Since the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the realms have been considered "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown". Is this quotation not misleading and inaccurate? The Balfour declaration concerned dominions. Yet here it is being discussed as if it concerned realms.
2. “Still, Boyce holds the contrary opinion that the crowns of all the non-British realms are "derivative, if not subordinate" to the crown of the United Kingdom.[33] The United Kingdom no longer possesses legislative power over any other country; however, some countries continue, by their own choice, to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as part of their own judiciary, usually as the highest court of appeal.” In my view, these two sentences are odd bedfelllows. The first sentence is entirely divorced from the second. Yet they are presented as if they are related and that the second sentence somehow explains whatever it is that underlines Boyce’s opinion (which I’d be interested to read more about).
3. “For certain ceremonies, the order of precedence for the realms' high commissioners or national flags is set according to the chronological order of, first, when the country became a dominion and then the date on which the country gained independence.” This is an interesting sentence. Is the implication that a realm is the same thing as a dominion? Was Tuvalu a Dominion (as opposed to being part of Her Majesty’s dominions) at some point?
4. Under the heading “Fully Sovderein dominions” there is various discussion of “the realms”. These places were dominions. Yes, dominions. At the time. They were not styled realms until years later. Is this not simply misrepresentation?
5. “With the British proclamation of Elizabeth II's accession to the throne in 1952, the phrases Commonwealth realm and Head of the Commonwealth became established, deriving from the words that declared the monarch as "of this Realm, and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.” Insofar as “Commonwealth realm” is concerned, isn’t this an extraordinary claim with no foundation in fact? We all know “Commonwealth realm” was not a phrase even used in the 1950s. To say it “became established” then is inaccurate. Indeed it is not a term used in any laws whatsoever, so even today, is not established in any formal sense. As an informal term, it has become established to some extent now. But in very recent years. Can anyone provide even one source that shows it was used in the 1950s? If any isolated source can be provided, can anyone seriously claim that It “had become established”?
6. “The Commonwealth realms' prime ministers thereafter discussed the matter of the new monarch's title, with St. Laurent stating at the 1953 Commonwealth Conference that...” Is this not more misleading gobbledygook? We all know that no one. No one referred tot he PMs in question as PMs of Commonwealth realms at the time. This is re-writing of history to suit what’s perceived as preferable nomenclature.
7. “On 6 July 2010, Elizabeth II addressed the United Nations in New York City as queen of all 16 Commonwealth realms.[109]” The source given for this impressive claims is her speech published on teh Queen’s website. But this is what the speech actually says: “I address you today as Queen of sixteen United Nations Member States and as Head of the Commonwealth of 54 countries.” Nowhere does she use the term Commonwealth realm. If she did, no doubt it would spark diplomatic protest in one or more of the countries where she is queen. The term is not uttered by the Queen. Has she ever used the term? I’d like to hear about how widespread the Queen’s use of the “Commonwealth realm” tag is.
8. “In recent years, advocates have argued for free movement of citizens among a subset of the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which they argue "share the same head of state, the same native language, [and] the same respect for the common law."[37][38][39][40] Opinion on the prospect of the plan coming to fruition is mixed.[41] British Eurosceptics (those critical of the European Union) have expressed a preference for a relationship "similar in nature and goals to the EU" between the same four countries: the CANZUK Union without repeating the "mistakes of Europe"—though this possibility has also been characterised as "difficult and in some ways far-fetched".[42] Despite this, public opinion polling conducted by organisations such as CANZUK International and YouGov have indicated widespread support for free movement of goods and people across Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with support for the proposals ranging from between 58–64% in the United Kingdom, 70–72% in Australia, 75–77% in Canada and 81–82% in New Zealand.[43][44]” What has this discussion concerning a proposal that would exclude most Commonwealth realms got to do with the article? If it is relevant, why isn’t the total freedom of movement that existed between the United Kingdom and Malta from 1 May 2004 until today (albeit, intended to end soon) discussed? I’m not suggesting it should be. This is nonnsense. It has nothing to do with he subject of the article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi: Thanks for bringing the problems to our attention, but why not fix them yourself instead of telling us about them on the talk page? If a statement is unsourced and doesn’t make sense, misinterprets a quote, or is irrelevant to the situation, you are welcome to remove it. That’s why we have the edit button. :) sam1370 (talk / contribs) 12:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Frenchmalawi has done right in notifying these matters for discussion (WP:TPG), because some matters may be controversial and some need to be better informed. Anyone who agrees or disagrees can now say so and we can seek consensus. I'll start:

7. Does the Queen use "Commonwealth realm"? Yes, prominently on her website, and has done so for some time (refs, dead but dated, below).

8. I agree that the CANZUK stuff is not sufficiently relevant and should go. Errantius (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Errantius: Ah okay, I see. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 00:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve raised 8 points Errantius. I should really have numbered them. Re point 7, and what the Queen’s use of the term “Commonwealth realm”, you have not provided a source that suggests the phrase has even once ever been uttered by her. You’ve just pointed to the royal website where the phrase is used. Not any utterance of the Queen which is what point 7 asked. Can you provide us with evidence that the phrase has ever been uttered by the Queen?

Re point 8, the CANUK guff; glad we agre on that point. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you feel inclined to weigh in on any of the other 6 points too, that would be great. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of these are actually fair points, in that the references themselves (or rather the content matter) is misconstrued to represent just the Commonwealth realms as opposed to larger subject matter they are dealing with (dominions, CoN). So in a general sense, I am very much in agreement, that this article needs to be cleaned up (or rather, its relevant materials moved to articles more pertinent).

Getting down to the first point though, while I agree that the historical context of the Balfour Declaration can be made clearer and cut down, it should be noted that the connection drawn to the Balfour declaration and the "evolution" of independent Commonwealth realms has been made in academic circles. So the article's content should be reflective of how its discussed in those sources (i.e. say in... This Realm of New Zealand: The Sovereign, the Governor-General, the Crown). In saying that though, a lot of this stuff would be an overlap of what is discussed in the Crown article (it already sort of is), so I wouldn't mind a trim down of the related sections to provide readers with quick context, and a hatnote to The Crown#Divisibility of the Crown, as that would be the more pertinent article. Same goes for your fourth and sixth points (correct it contextually, trim down/remove/move it, add a hatnote for readers to redirect them to The Crown article). [ps:looking over the Crown article, this content actually doesn't really exist there... but I guess my suggestion of moving some of the relevant content there as the more pertinent article still stands]

Agree with the second and third point. With regards to the second point, the second sentence honestly reads like it was inserted into that paragraph after the Boyce prose was originally added (which honestly should be expanded, as opposed to just leaving it like that). Regards to the third point, its actually a strange misconstruction of what is originally stated in the source used... so to answer the question, at least in the original source, dominion and realm are not conflated. Specifically in the original source, it states the flags are carried in order of original accession to the Commonwealth. So explicitly, it has nothing to do with dominion status or independence. That said, source provided one of three dates for the listed countries, date they gained dominion status and date they ratified the Statute of Westminister; or their date of independence. I assume thats why that sentence is weirdly phrased.

With regards to the fifth point, I actually agree that this portion needs a rewrite to reflect its actual usage within the academic community (which is where the term is primarily used). In saying that, if I were to take a stab in the dark of when its first came about, it would've probably been after 1949 (making such a distinction wouldn't be really necessary before that time seeing as how there were no Commonwealth republics). The earliest extant example of "Commonwealth realm," I could find was from "The Crown as Head of the Commonwealth - From Unity to Unity" (published in 1953), and was used in the context of citizenship ("The sole uniform concession to the memory of the departed unitary status lies in the express or implied provision of each of the new acts that a citizen of another Commonwealth realm shall not be treated or listed as an alien, but as a British subject"). So if anyone wants to dig deeper, I'd guess 1949–1953 would be a good date range to find the first instance.

Agreed with last two points as well (its mostly loosely associated trivial information). In saying that, with regards to the last question of point seven, the term "Commonwealth realms" has been used by the Royal Household and their offices in the past (as Errantius linked to their website). I mean, to be honest, its sorta moving the goalpost to see if she ever "uttered the phrase," but to answer your question, yes she has (as seen in the transcript for her 2012 address to the British Parliament) Leventio (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, I've numbered your points as you suggest and have renumbered my two points correspondingly. Frenchmalawi and Leventio:

1-6. I have no particular views but will add if anything occurs to me. However, one should be aware that this is a history of politics and administration rather than of law, of "muddling through" rather than of decisions - as is set out very well in Anne Twomey's The Chameleon Crown.

7. Leventio and I are agreed; hope you can agree with us. Though we need to separate the issues of first use and current use.

8. We are all agreed: I'll take the CANZUK stuff out. Errantius (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that 1953 source is using the term in the way you imply. It seems to be referring to the United Kingdom and its colonies, plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon, which were listed separately in the British Nationality Act 1948 when the citizens of those jurisdictions were given the status of British subjects. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I sorta did cursory searches for most of the stuff I posted up there, so my mistake if I did misinterpret that. Strike the whole narrowing down to '53 part of that point then. Leventio (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Kray for numbering the points. I don’t know how to do that anymore. I used to be able to do that kind of thing on Talk Pages. But the format is so diffferent now. On Leventino’s responses:

Point 1 - Re Balfour deck - That would be good if you could make it more accurate and clearer and cut down

Point 4 - where piece pretends references to “dominions” were references to “Commonwealth realms” - Again, I like your ideas and if you can find the time, that would be good to put them into action.

Re point 2 concerning what Mr Boyce says about whether realms other than the UK being “derivative, if not subordinate”. Glad we agree that it should be expanded. Woudl be good if you could have a stab.

Re point 2 and the oddly out of place sentence concerning the Privy Council. Agreed it is a misconstruction of what is originally stated.

Re point 5 as to when “Commonwealth realm” became established as a term. Let’s avoid stabs in the dark and clutching at isolated, early usages of the term. What’s in question is when did the term become ‘established’ (i.e. have fairly wide usage, even if only confined to academic usage etc.) Your pointer to a single usage in 1953 in a somewhat different context really isn’t much in the way of evidence that the term had becme “established”. I appreciate that you aren’t suggesting that you’ve presented a comprehensive analysis there. But I wanted to point out that this isn’t a question of when can we show the earliest date that the phrase was used. It’s a question of when it became established. You’ve mentioned that it would not have been necessary to use it before the India development of 1949. But in reality, I suspect a much more important reason why there was no need to use it was because those states that the term is now (‘backdated to apply to in a sense’) were simply “dominions”. That was a well established, formal, legal term. All the things that “Commonwealth realm” is not. There’d need to be a great deal more evidence than occasional, isolated uses of the term in order to attribute it to a period as early as that which you mention. Was it used at Commonwealth PM’s conferences for example in the 1950s? Suspect the answer will be NO.

Re point 7 as to use of the phrase “Commonwealth realm” by the Queen herself, I’ve been accused of “moving the goalposts”. I had said “The term is not uttered by the Queen. Has she ever used the term? I’d like to hear about how widespread the Queen’s use of the “Commonwealth realm” tag is.” So that’s uttered. There has been no goalpost moving. Referring one to the website of the royals is not addressing the point. The Queen has made many, many, many speeches. Has she ever, even once, used the term “Commonwealth realm”? I’m sure it will be used by a Royal some day. But that the Queen has apparently never used the term points to how cooked up its presentation is in the article. Are you agreed that we should take out the erroneous descriptions of the Queen making a speech at the UN in her capacity as Queen of Commonwealth realms and instead express the position the way the Queen did herself? Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

On point 5, I don't have any sources but we can probably tell from ngrams[2] that the term was almost non-existent before 2008. DrKay (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely agree with you Dr Kray, th term was almost non-existent before then. It took off after the Wikipedia took off. The two have a symbiotic relationship. Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

With regards to point seven. As I stated, I already agreed in principle (hence my "agreed with last two points as well"). Perhaps it was unfair to say it "moved the goalpost" (honestly I sorta missed that in your initial reply that you have stated the word "uttered", though I digress and avoids the crux of the sentiment of used and utters). In saying that though, I believe I was stressing the fact of that point being, yes, the term has been uttered by the Queen (and honestly the context was provided here 2012 address to the British Parliament, which for the large part, can be construed to meet the broad definitions of what this article describes (though again I think we all agree the scope of the article itself has exceeded its bounds... but to say that she "never used the term points to how cooked up its presentation is in the article," is a bit of a stretch as well [unless this portion of the statement was referring to the UN speech, than yeah... that was just a misrepresentation on whoever added that]).

Also in saying that, while ngrams shows the lack of "Commonwealth realm" in popular use until 2008, the idea that Wikipedia and popularity of the term CR have a "symbiotic relationship," is something I'd really request a source for. While its definitely an interesting personal note for the editors here to make when editing this article, I would be against including this in the article until we find a source that corroborates that (which was why I was leaning more on a "finding the origin" angle, that is much easier task to achieve than looking for a source that corroborated this in my opinion). Correlation is not causation, and we can easily be attributing this to Wikipedia when it may be a result of a myriad of things that came about at the turn of the millennium. Leventio (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You say that I, and by implication Dr. Kray, are stretching things .... but the only source you’ve provided for the Queen using the term was as late as 2012...years after the Wiki article was published... There’s no source for symbiotic relationship... how could there be of course. Academics don’t typically write about Wiki articles. But if you can provide much earlier references to the Queen using the term, you’d show I was wrong. Do share them with us if you identify any.

Have you put through any of your edit ideas that you mentioned? I had a go at a few, but have only made very minimalistic changes. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Point 7: the Queen "using" the term. I still think that she is using it when it appears prominently on her website.   Moreover, in that part of the site she is using it as Head of the Commonwealth. That's "established" enough for me. Whether those who write the site (which it can be assumed she generally approves) found the expression in WP in a time when WP hadn't shown its credentials ("Phil, you didn't tell me you'd got it from WIKIPEDIA!") doesn't seem relevant or in any case possible to explore. Errantius (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the stretch comment, I was specifically referring to the 2012 Queen speech, and if you didn't think the CR used in that instance was how it is broadly defined in the article (or what it tries to achieve). I was not sure if you were referring to that speech or the 2010 UN speech which was why I explicitly told you to disregard the comment if you were referring to the 2010 one. If you were referring to the 2012 one, I'd invite you to tell us what you think CR meant in that speech (I mean, honestly, I'd think it'd be hard to infer anything out of it). In saying that, I only brought the speech up cause you asked for an exam of utterance, and had nothing to do with whole discussion of the "symbiotic relationship with Wikipedia". Also, DrKay and I were specifically discussing the 1953 source and has nothing with what we were discussing.

And with regards to the "symbiotic relationship" with CRs and Wikipedia, yes academics do actually discuss about Wikipedia (just off the top of my head, an academic article has been written on the War of 1812s talk page war over who won that), so if Wikipedia was truly the source of its popularization, an article of that nature will appear. My only point was was a statement like that requires an RS (like I'm not even asking for a academic one, like a newspaper is fine too), cause right now all I'm being presented with is correlation, which amounts to WP:OR (and I'm not even saying that's what your saying isn't true, all I'm saying is a statement like that requires a source).

And in terms of implementing changes, no I haven't, as I laid out a broad suggestion of moving the content to more pertine t articles. I'd figure y'all want a more thorough conversation before we acted on any suggestions. The only real thing I brought up that is immediately actionable is implementing the Commonwealth flag thing (as in writing that sentence as its written in the source, being ascension date as opposed to DoI, dominion date). I can do that later, but Id sorta want at least a bit more clarification in approval before I do any large scale content move. Leventio (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Re. Point 7 and whether it’s appropriate to say in the article that the Queen addressed the UN as Queen of 16 “Commonwealth realms”. I continue to view that as inaccurate. The Queen never used the “Commonwealth realm” phrase in her speech to the United Nations. Do you disagree with me?

Re. Point 7 and evidence of an “utterance”. Good man. You have provided one. As I said, it was inevitable that it would be used by a Royal at some point. The example you provided was from 2012. Clearly, it’s not evidence for the Queen having used it before Wikipedia used it... If anything, it’s evidence of the symbiotic relationship I referred to. But let’s focus on the content and not get distracted.

If you’ve got evidence of the Queen having used the term in the mid twentieth century or, indeed, at any point in the twentieth century, do share it. We’d all be fascinated. There’s no need to get distracted on what academics say or fail to say about Wikipedia... If we are all agreed that the Queen’s usage of the term only dates to as late as 2012 then that’s the sort of important point that ought to be made in the article. It goes some way to illustrating how limited its popularity was as a phrase before very recent times. Are you disagreeing with that? Are you saying that the Queen was using the phrase in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s?

Well so far, I think there’s been pretty good agreement on all points. So far, we’ve all agreed that the CR phrase is an unofficial phrase not connected to law etc. (a change was made by another editor to pick that up in the lede). You’ve identified that the Queen used the term in 2012. If that’s the only time we can identify as her having used the term, then that that was the first time seems noteworthy enough for the article.. I certainly encourage you to go ahead with implementing your ideas. I think they sounded good ones and there’s evidence of some consensus here. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

With regards to point seven and the UN speech I've already said I agreed in my last two response.

Also, I sorta didn't realize you were thinking about including the 2012 speech in the article, I was just presenting it cause it was asked. Honestly, think it somewhat trivial to mention "utterances of," as the main point of these sections should be to provide context to the term... But saying that, feel free to add it if someone wants.

But back to the discussion, I don't agree or disagree with her uttering it in previous decades (as stated earlier, my searches were cursory searches, so to be frank, idunno). I only stated she uttered it (which is answering what you asked), and its usage by the Royal Household (who btw, most of her speeches are derived from those offices) predates this article (seen here). I should have stressed this in my last response, but the assertion that the term rose to prominence in the 21st century is not the issue I have (this can eventually be corroborated with sources...).

The issue I have is the insistence that a "symbiotic relationship with Wikipedia" exists (which none of the sources here state). I've yet to see any evidence of a relationship except for correlation (which again, correlation does not imply causation). To simply assert the relationship exists simply due to their simultaneously rise is nothing more than WP:OR, and a potential misattribution of its rise. Wikipedia is ultimately a reflection of what is in WP:RS, not what the editor rationalizes about it. With regards to implementing the changes, I can get around to doing the content move at some point this week probably (I'll try to do it tomorrow or Weds if possible). I'll probably hit this talk page up if I have any doubts about where to move the content though for further clarification on what y'all want (though for the most part, I think most of the content is getting moved either to Commonwealth of Nations or The Crown). Leventio (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Trackratte has removed from the lead, citing lack of consensus: ""'Commonwealth realm' is not a legal term. Rather, it is a term that has become popular in the twenty first century to informally distinguish Commonwealth member states that have Elizabeth II as their head of state from those that do not." However, I believe there is a consensus that "'Commonwealth realm' is not a legal term" is both accurate and vital to the article. I have amended the lead accordingly, to restore this and explain it. Errantius (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Errantius. It’s vital. Look forward to seeing your contributions Leventio. Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Point 1: A more appropriate reference would be not to the Balfour Declaration but to the London Declaration of 1949, concerning India as the Commonwealth's first republic, although it does not use the expression "Commonwealth realm".

Point 7: I have found uses of "Commonwealth realm" by the Commonwealth itself, e.g. "Governor-General". Commonwealth Network. Retrieved 26 May 2020. Others there are "President" and "Prime Minister". Errantius (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good work. You’ve found some more very recent references to the CR term. There is no doubt that the term is here with us to stay now. Look forward to your revisions. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I ought to add as a general suggestion that we really ought to keep it trim and on point. There’s a great article already on teh London Declaration. Here we are discussing a term that only came into any sort of regular usage about half a century after the London Declaration. So we ought to have an article that doesn’t suggest that the London Declaration is what gave rise to use of the term “CR”.... That’s my general suggestion again. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarch and Head of State

See Talk: Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. trackratte (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)