Talk:Commonwealth realm

Lost links

I think we need to fix the links that are hidden in the chart - Did not even notice they were links until I saw the chart proposal above. As per WP:COLOUR "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." We should not hinder our readers by way of nice colors over user accessibility. If links are to be visible we must also keep in mind WP:CONTRAST "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color blind."Moxy (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Weve been discussing the Realm of New Zealand for a very long time now. I feel that most of us are in agreement on a couple of points.

1. The Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth Realm
2. The Realm of New Zealand is not a sovereign state.

Could I get the thoughts of other editors on these points, please? --Pete (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your feeling is wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Japinderum (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that both of those points are contentious. New Zealand as an independant state is, by definition, a Commonwealth Realm. The other dependant/semi-independant/independant states within this broader 'realm' are not mentioned as Commonwealth Realms in and of themselves, by any definate or reputable source. In any event, I still maintain that we should sort out exactly what constitutes the Realm of New Zealand on the Realm of New Zealand page, before inundating this talk page with something very specific that doesn't even apply to the page's subject as a whole. Trackratte (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The "definition" is quite shaky. We actually don't have a source about a definition, but a list and a remark - out of which we make (OR, SYNTH, POV, common misconception, you name it) the definition ourselves. Nobody says that CI and Niue are commonwealth realms. We have an explicit official source stating that "Cook Islands and New Zealand [the state] are parts of the Realm of New Zealand" (see above sections). Regarding sorting out whether the Realm of NZ is a Commonwealth realm - so far there is no definite answer to that, but even it isn't it should be mentioned here (albeit not listed as a Commonwealth realm). You know the compromise note I proposed about that. Japinderum (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelao may have great autonomy, but they are still included in New Zealand however broad that term might be interpreted. They are not independent states and therefore not Commonwealth realms. They are part of a commonwealth realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Referendum of the Falkland Islands

Should the Falkland Islands be included in the list of the United Kingdoms realms on wiki?

Since the people's voice of the islands have been heard. 99.8% of inhabitants have decided they wish to retain constitutional links with UK. Does this mean that they wish to be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonShiner69 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands are a UK dependent territory. Not a Commonwealth Realm. The referendum was not about becoming or wanting to become a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Realm of India or Empire of India

The use of the term realm may be inappropriate for India. The British monarch was only ever the Emperor/Empress of India, not the King or Queen. Perhaps India is a special case which should not be included in this article on realms. Malchemist (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

India was a Commonwealth realm (or as it was then called a dominion) between 1947 and 1950. It was then called the Union of India. India became a Republic in 1950, so George VI was king in right of India from 1947 to 1950. This is not related to his former title of Emperor of India. Although the term wasn't used at the time, India was once a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

-All true; although it was never officially called the 'Union of India' (its only official name 1947-1950 being 'Dominion of India'); but it was often referred to as such.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They, it, and the

An editor keeps changing the sentence in the lead that reads "...there are sixteen Commonwealth realms, with a... population of 137 million, of which all but about two million live in the six most populous states..." to say first "...there are sixteen Commonwealth realms, with a... population of 137 million, of which all but about two million live in its six most populous states..." and then to "...there are sixteen Commonwealth realms, with a... population of 137 million, of which all but about two million live in their six most populous states..." First the pronoun is singular; but, what is the "it" that supposedly possesses the states? Secondly, the pronoun is plural; but what is "they" that supposedly possesses the states? The editor needs to clarify.

Regardless, "the most populous states" suffices and has sufficed for years. The editor seeking to change it needs to find a consensus to do so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. The longstanding wording reads perfectly well. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity is avoided by using "of the realms" instead. Alternatively, omit to read "the six most populous: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica." Qexigator (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I rather thought the context was always clear; but, your minor addition doesn't hurt. I could also accept your second proposal.

Going by the aforementioned editor's last edit summary, it seems he/she was making edits with the mistaken belief that the collection of 16 countries under EIIR is, as a single entity, called the Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Could be. Qexigator (talk)

I have a more radical suggestion: cut the entire sentence except for the first clause about there being 16 Commonwealth realms. Notwithstanding the “longstanding” presence of these other statistics, they really don’t belong.

As Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section correctly says, the introduction should define the topic, make clear why it is notable, and briefly outline the major points of the article. Except for this sentence, it does it quite well. But the stuff about combined area and population is completely unrelated, both to the rest of the introduction and to the body of the article. It says nothing about what Commonwealth realms are, why the reader should care about them, how they relate to each other or how they came into being. It’s just a couple of arbitrarily chosen statistics, no more relevant than GDP or average rainfall.

I’m proposing to delete this material entirely, unless for some reason there is a true consensus for keeping it regardless of the Manual of Style. For very similar reasons I’m proposing to delete the two columns in the table about the size and populations of the individual realms, which tell the reader nothing about each realm as a realm. Anyone who wants to know those (or other) statistics about a particular realm ought to be able to find them in the article about that realm, and is unlikely to choose this article as the first place to look. --71.136.49.58 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made changes in a long time. The lead sentence used to read that the six largest (in geographic size) were the actual 5 largest fullstop. Then Jamaica was added by someone, and that broke the entire logic. Belize is larger in size than Jamaica, as is The Commonwealth of the Bahamas. So Jamaica would come in 8th based upon that logic. So to make the statement true again I quickly looked at population size of the realms and changed it from geographic size to population. I believe there was already a claim about the rest containing only around two million. I personally didn't see that statement as worthwhile as there's no 'superiority' based on population size. CaribDigita (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is as may be, but why does the geographic size or population of the realms, individually or collectively, belong in the introduction? Why are these statistics even relevant to this article? In fact, your point about an implied ranking is another reason to get rid of these statements, since the realms are all theoretically equal in status.

In case my proposal isn't clear, I am proposing to change the sentence to read: " As of 2012, there are sixteen Commonwealth realms, with a combined land area (excluding Antarctic claims) of 18.8 million km² (7.3 million mi²) and a population of 137 million,[3] of which all but about two million live in the six most populous: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Jamaica." (Maybe "As of 2012" should be changed to "As of 2013", or, better, "Since 1992", since that's the date the number was last changed and it would avoid having to update it every year.) If we do that then the question of "superiority" in size, population or any other statistical measure simply doesn't arise. --71.136.39.4 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about omitting the population information from the lead. Pop. is given in the Table, but that may need source dating. Territorial extent is sufficiently represented in the inset map. The table for Former Commonwealth realms is a useful adjunct to "Historical development" and should be retained. Qexigator (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, it should say "Since 1992, there are sixteen Commonwealth realms within the Commonwealth of Nations." Plain & simple for all. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - done. Qexigator (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've "undoone" it. While I comprehend that the lead is supposed to summarise the article and, in this case, the lead is the only place where the area and populations of the realms is raised, deleting the information completely isn't an appropriate solution. Rather, it should be moved to a suitable place in the article and a briefer mention made in the lead.

At first glance, the 'Current Commonwealth realms' section seems to be the most apt location for such information; though, this would be the first textual addition to that section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

One comment above has questioned the inclusion of this information, another has explained how it came to be altered in a way which "broke the entire logic". The information is unnecessary since population numbers are given in the table and the territorial extent sufficiently shown in the inset map. Let any editor who considers re-wording would improve, or that there is a place for further suitable information which could be placed somewhere else, not shirk from doing it, instead of idly reverting. Qexigator (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If the population numbers are given in the table (which, admittedly, I failed to recall or remind myself of earlier in this discussion), then the existence of a summary of that information in the lead was entirely appropriate, contrary to the objection raised by the anon user on 18 May and agreed with by two other editors (including yourself), which resulted in its relocation from the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Content of Table

The article's informative value for the reader would not be improved if the column for populations were omitted as proposed above. This is not about statistics. It is a simple way to show that, while there are wide variations in numbers, in the Commonwealth the realms are equally sovereign relative to each other and in external relations with other states. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How does it show that? I agree with CaribDigita: if anything, it has exactly the opposite effect, because a naive reader can easily and reasonably infer that the realms with larger populations have more status than those with smaller ones. To that extent, removing the column does directly improve the article's informative value, by not including potentially misleading data.

I also stand by my earlier points: (a) this information does not tell the reader anything about what it means to be a realm, so it's not relevant to the article (no matter how longstanding and well-sourced it may be, to address Miesianiacal's point); and (b) you can, or should be able to, get this information from the individual country articles, just as you would for any other country that isn't a realm, so there is no need for it to be repeated here. --2602:304:7882:7049:C96A:B1D5:9789:434E (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why press this unhelpful point by advancing a false inference and a false presumption? Qexigator (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The population numbers in the table are quite helpful and should remain. In fact quite some time ago, I checked this page for that very reason, to see the population stats. Your assumption that a reader would be misled by population statistics to infer that they are anything less than sovereign is ridiculous, and a bit insulting. Trackratte (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we not use inflammatory words like "unhelpful", "false presumption", "insulting" and "ridiculous"?

I'm pressing the point now because I don't see it getting a fair discussion. IMO the content of an article should be relevant to the subject of the article, and I don't understand how this column is relevant. Qexigator claims that these numbers are "a simple way to show that .... in the Commonwealth the realms are equally sovereign relative to each other and in external relations with other states" without showing any reason to believe this is true, let alone relevant, even when asked to do so, and when at least two editors disagree with him. CaribDigita thinks that the numbers do imply a ranking, and I see no reason to think Qexigator's claim is true and sees CaribDigita's point (that's what "if anything" means). So, I ask again: why does Qexigator think that these numbers show equality between the realms, and why does the article need to include these numbers in order to do that?

It's nice that Trackratte found them useful, but I still don't see Trackratte or anyone else explaining why they are relevant to this article. Trackratte happened to be interested in population size, but what if [s]he had been interested in area, GDP, or 1001 other possible statistics? Should we then argue that these equally useful numbers should be added to the table? --2602:304:7883:1F89:CD86:50F6:D52C:4AC7 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was poking issue with the part 'all the rest essentially only contained about 2 million people.' Thats the part that paints the picture that the larger Kingdoms of the realm were better. It-is what it-is though, and I no longer have any problem with the statement. I also had added that population to that chart several years ago because if such a statement was made, that about only sum ~two million live in the rest, it should be backed up by the figures at a glance. The source for the ranking I took from the country profiles on the Commonwealth of Nations website and rounded off to the nearest 100 000 or 10 000. Caribbean realms have high emigration rates which largely keep their population sizes level so you wont see much change there. CaribDigita (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Trackratte (00:36, 21 May ). IP's complaint about usage above of "unhelpful", "false presumption", "insulting" and "ridiculous" being inflammatory is incorrect. Qexigator (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyond anything to do with ranking (the realms are actually usually informally "ranked" according to the dates upon which they became Dominions and later realms), the population list illustrates the (sometimes significant) population differences between the realms.--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes to that, but not sure where there is a source for such "ranking". Qexigator (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Qexigator has a funny idea about what constitutes inflammatory language in exchanges of this type. What would be helpful, not ridiculous, and not insulting, is an actual discussion about why such statistics, and this statistic in particular, is relevant to the article, a point which no-one else so far seems willing to address.

OK, so let's go with the flow. Since the implicit consensus is apparently in favor of keeping the column as is, regardless of its actual relevance, then it should at least be tied back into the rest of the article in such a way that its claim to relevance is clear. In the interests of trying to bring this discussion quickly to a productive conclusion, here is a proposal on how to do that, taking into account the points which have been made:

a) At the end of the first paragraph of the introduction, add a sentence like "The realms are equal in status within the Commonwealth, although they differ widely in area, population, GDP and other measures of international importance."

b) In note *2 of the table, add something like "This column is intended to illustrate the wide variation between realms in characteristic national statistics. For other such statistics, like area or GDP, please see the articles on the individual countries."

--2602:304:7882:9D39:64FD:1913:C99:84A6 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Apart from mention of statistics, that could be a contructive proposal, subject to comments others may have, but I see no need for adding "GDP and other measures of international importance.", and a citation for status would be appropriate. Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding emphasis to the fact that the various realms are equal in status is great, and I think everyone is on board with that principle. However, the fact that a variety of countries within a given set (the Commonwealth) have different geographical shapes and sizes, with different GDPs and populations, is more than a little self-evident. Mentioning measures of international importance is a bit problematic as there is no acceptable measure of what that constitutes. Mentioning that one can check out the individual country pages for more details and statistics is once again, self-evident. Trackratte (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think populations are more relevant, since they provide notion of how many subjects are under the one queen. Similariy, land area indicates how much the Queen reigns over. GDP, on the other hand, isn't directly related to EIIR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Stats. based on how many people are in the separate 'Kingdoms', and the area of the Kingdoms I feel would be more relevant than going into all kinds of measure of the standard of living of people within each Kingdom. The realms have not undertaken any recent large scale talk of economic union, nor free trade blocs which delves into the GDP / Human Development Index / Trade bloc side of things.

Re Qexigator's points: You don't say what your problem is with "statistics". If you just don't like the term for some reason, we can use your favorite synonym -- measures, figures, whatever. If you don't like mentioning specific types of statistics like area or GDP, well, that's exactly my problem with including these population figures: I don't see the relevance -- but you and others have made it crystal clear that you want and intend that particular set of statistics to stay in the article no matter what, and there's clearly not going to be any discussion about why they are uniquely relevant to the article. So I'm trying to find a reasonable compromise by bowing to that demand while at least creating the appearance of a relationship between these numbers and the rest of the content of the article (which is not easy for me because I don't believe there is one). The intent of the last clause in proposal (a) was to incorporate a generalization of CaribDigita's point that "there's no 'superiority' based on population size", and thereby create some kind of basis, however weak (IMO), for a table column with some statistical data. However, that only gets us to inclusion of at least one statistic. It doesn't get us to population figures as being uniquely appropriate for this article, which is the claim being made in this discussion. Hence proposal (b).

As to needing a citation for "status", again your point is not very clear. If you are referring to status within the Commonwealth, no citation is needed. This is just the introduction and citations are adequately dealt with within the body of the article, including the Balfour Declaration. If you mean, like Trackratte, the phrase I proposed of "measures of international importance", if that's really an issue we can reword so that the phrase doesn't appear.

Re Trackratte's point about variation and need for Xrefs being self-evident, I quite agree; it's part of the reason I think there's no point in including these population figures in this article. My problem was to invent a justification for including population figures specifically in this table when no-one has given me one and there is actually nothing magically unique about them. That's why I proposed to say that they are just one example of variance between realms, which is a true statement and in line with the proposed introductory statement. It naturally raises the question of what about other stats? Hence "go look them up in the right place". But I'm not too fussed about taking that out.

Re Miesianiacal's point that area and population are somehow directly related to EIIR, but GDP is not, I would make two counterpoints. First, this is not an article about EIIR, it is an article about Commonwealth realms, i.e. the perspective is different. Second, I disagree about GDP. It's just as relevant or irrelevant as area and population. As late as the 1970s there was a real political movement for creating a Commonwealth trading block, and there are still people who want to see that: GDP is a direct (if not necessarily accurate) measure of the economic strength of the realms that EIIR reigns over. Equally, one could argue that the number of Olympic medals awarded to the realms is a measure of the athletic prowess of the realms that EIIR reigns over -- remember how people used to talk about the medal tally of the "Soviet bloc"? You may feel the example is absurd -- but that's my point: it's just as absurd as claiming that the populations of the realms tells us anything about what a realm is or how it came to be, which is the subject of the article.

So: two revised proposals:

a) At the end of the first paragraph of the introduction, add a sentence like "The realms are equal in status within the Commonwealth, although they differ widely by measures such as area, population, and GDP."

b) In note *2 of the table, add something like "This column is intended to illustrate the wide variation between realms in national characteristics."

I welcome alternate wordings and other proposals, so long as they take the goals and concerns I have raised into account, and not just the proposer's personal preferences and beliefs. --2602:304:7882:D289:4DAF:3797:FCE7:77FD (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Miesianiacal (16:08, 22 May). If anyone desires to create an article about statistics of Commonwealth realms, or about a political movement for creating a Commonwealth trading block, let them do so. It might earn a "See also" here. What is the point of persisting with this irrelevancy, to satisfy goals and concerns which appear to be no more than the proposer's personal preferences and beliefs, to which s/he is, of course, entitled and which the present commentator may agree are of interest in their proper place? Is "absurd" being used in a pejorative way? Qexigator (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Trade blocs, statistics and economic data: This may help (applying common knowledge and sense as basic OR):

• "A trade bloc is a type of intergovernmental agreement, often part of a regional intergovernmental organization, where regional barriers to trade, (tariffs and non-tariff barriers) are reduced or eliminated among the participating states." The trade bloc article includes 1_a list of articles listing 8 types of trade bloc, and tabulates nearly 30 trade blocs, based on data obtained from United Nations Statistics Division, with 4 columns about GDP; 2_A Table for Comparison between regional trade blocs, in force and proposed, none of those blocs being the Commonwealth realms: no source is cited.
• "A trade pact (also known as trade agreement) is a wide ranging tax, tariff and trade pact that often includes investment guarantees...."There are a variety of trade agreements; with some being quite complex (European Union), while others are less intensive (North American Free Trade Agreement). The resulting level of economic integration depends on the specific type of trade pacts and policies adopted by the trade bloc...Special agreements-World Trade Organization treaty, -agreements in the WTO framework (Textile Agreement and others).
• A proposed agreement in the List of free trade agreements is "The Commonwealth of Independent States (Not to be confused with Commonwealth of Nations) (CIS; Russian: Содружество Независимых Государств, СНГ, tr. Sodruzhestvo Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv, SNG) is a regional organization whose participating countries are former Soviet Republics, formed during the breakup of the Soviet Union. The CIS is a loose association of states and in no way comparable to a federation, confederation or supranational union such as the European Union. It is more comparable to the Commonwealth of Nations. Although the CIS has few supranational powers, it is aimed at being more than a purely symbolic organization, nominally possessing coordinating powers in the realm of trade, finance, lawmaking, and security." "CISFTA treaty signed on 15 April 1994 and in force since 12/30/1994, but not yet implemented."
• The List of economic communities is grouped in sections for Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Middle East, Pacific.
• "Population statistics is the use of statistics to analyze characteristics or changes to a population. It is related to social demography and demography. Population statistics can analyze anything from global demographic changes to local small scale changes. For example, an analysis of global change shows that population growth has slowed, infant mortality rates have declined and there have been small increases in the aged."
• Economic statistics is a topic in applied statistics that concerns the collection, processing, compilation, dissemination, and analysis of economic data. It is also common to call the data themselves 'economic statistics', but for this usage see economic data."
• Economic data or economic statistics may refer to data (quantitative measures) describing an actual economy, past or present. These are typically found in time-series form, that is, covering more than one time period (say the monthly unemployment rate for the last five years) or in cross-sectional data in one time period (say for consumption and income levels for sample households)." Qexigator (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Good god. I'm not arguing that realm GDP be added to this table, nor that the history of trading blocks be included in this article. My point was a purely editorial one: that one can quite reasonably argue that the case for adding, for examples, GDP or land area or Olympic medal count is just as strong and just as weak as the case for including population figures. Or maybe you don't understand the distinction??

This ought to be a very simple and straightforward discussion about a purely editorial issue: Does the population column belong in this article and, if we accept that it does, then how do we tie it into the rest of the article? For reasons that no-one will explain to me, the obvious answer to the first question (No, it's irrelevant) is not accepted by other editors. That position means we need to address the second part of the question. It's clear from the discussion that the only way to reach a consensus is to compromise, which means, for a start, that we stop burying ourselves in the weeds. The implicit compromise I offered several days ago is this: I stop pursuing the question of relevance, since this is apparently not up for discussion, and you drop the (again unexplained) claim that there is some magical property about population figures that uniquely justifies their inclusion, in exchange for my agreement to including them as one of many possible examples of variation between realms.

If we can agree on those principles for compromise then we can start talking text. If you want to offer a different compromise then feel free to do so. --71.136.41.183 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're chasing after a problem that doesn't exist. In any event, since we're speaking editorially, anecdotally, whenever I travel or have hosted others, the first question is always how many people live here. No one asks (in my experience), what's the GDP of this city, or gross area in KMs of this country. If I tell you Grenada has a nominal GDP of $822 million, that doesn't mean anything to the average reader without further analysis (how many people live there, what's the PPP, quality of life, etc), precisely the further analysis which can be gained through accessing the Grenada wiki page. Population though, in this instance of about 110,000 in Grenada, gives you an instant feel for what kind of country you're dealing with. I think the population numbers were included in the graph without any debate until now because it intuitively feels right. Without even thinking, as an editor I would want to include it, and as a reader I would want to find it here (as I intuitively had already done, in coming to this page for a quick and easy population comparison). Trackratte (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, I only introduced GDP as an example. Why are you insisting on pursuing this diversion to the death when GDP is not the issue. I don't care whether people ask first about population or banana production quotas (though you evidently travel in different circles than I do -- the usual first question I get is about the weather or the food). The issue is not the popularity of this statistic or that one.

The issue is do these numbers belong here and if so how do we tie them into the article? Surely you can do better than It intuitively feels right. That is not an answer unless you can back it up with a reason. I've glossed over it many times, but as soon as I actually paid attention to it it intuitively felt wrong, and I could immediately explain why. It's because these numbers are not relevant to the subject of the article -- "Commonwealth realm" -- they are only relevant to the individual countries concerned. You say you came here for a quick and easy comparison -- but would you have done so if you hadn't already known that the figures were here? I doubt it. And, some people (not me) are interested in things like GDP -- why should they be denied the same quick and easy comparison?

I've offered an approach that allows these population figures to be retained while giving a NPOV explanation of why they are there. That gives you what you want while giving some kind of linkage to the rest of the article, which is the least that I want. What's wrong with it?

On another point, I had thought that when Qexigator removed the phrases about total landmass and population from the Intro that we were making progress: issue discussed, resolved, on to the next one. I only just noticed that all [s]he did was to move them to a new section, without waiting for this discussion to be resolved, and without even fixing the "as of 2012" problem. That's dirty pool. People who won't engage in rational discussion and insist on behaving in such a childish fashion aren't qualified to be editors, even of WP articles. --2602:304:7883:23A9:B1C0:B4E:C6E1:DB9B (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have so far failed to gain any consensus to delete the material. You can keep beating your drum here to the same audience, if you wish; but, you cannot remove what a) has been present for a long time and b) more have said is worthwhile keeping, even if you disagree with their reasons. Alternately, you can take this to the next level in the dispute resolution process, if you feel so strongly about it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't feel strongly about this material as such, it's only a minor blemish on the article. What I do feel strongly about, and very strongly object to, is the complete refusal of the others involved in this discussion even to recognize the issues I was raising, which is classically illustrated in your comment. What does the fact that this "has been present for a long time" have to do with its relevance to the article? Why does the opinion of some editors that the material is "worthwhile" establish its relevance, and why this material in particular but not other similar material? All I ever got amounts to "because I say so".

It is clear from the track record around this article that there is a certain cliquiness attached to it, so that making certain types of change is not as straightforward as it ought to be. That's why I didn't just make this change in the first place, despite WP:BRD: because the material was long-standing it was going to raise someone's hackles if I just deleted it as I thought it deserved, so a preliminary discussion was necessary. I did hope that the case was clear enough that I could get consensus, or at least get a reasonable justification for keeping this stuff and agreement on how best to do so. I am appalled that neither the case against it, nor a compromise proposal, could even get a hearing.

This is not how the editorial process is supposed to work, either in WP or in real life. I do have some idea what I'm talking about: I'm not an editor by profession, but I have some 30 years experience in editing professional, technical and academic material, both alone and as part of a team. If an editor raises an issue, it is supposed to get discussed on its merits, not ignored or dismissed out of hand because of the personal preferences of other editors. Relevance is usually regarded as a basic issue.

It's a pity. This is potentially a very good article, with lots of great material on a complex and interesting topic. But it really needs a strong editorial hand. Some things, such as these population figures or the peculiar 1982 opinion that the Statute of Westminster allowed the UK Parliament to legislate for a Dominion by making a knowingly false claim that the Dominion had asked it to do so, should be omitted or downplayed. Much of the article's language is pompous and convoluted. Some of its logical flow could be significantly improved. It is overloaded with unnecessary quotations from obscure constitutional scholars (though at least most of these are buried in notes), and some points are massively over-sourced (7 separate citations for the notion of divisibility of the Crown!). Some important points (e.g. about the Indo-Pakistan war of 1947 and the reasons for the initial brief neutrality of South Africa and Canada in WWII) are buried in notes when they should be in main text. It tends to a monarchical POV (an understandable occupational hazard). And it seems never to miss an opportunity to emphasize the Canadian role in or opinion of some development, whether that was significant or not. I wouldn't mind having a go at fixing some of this myself, but it's clearly not worth the effort.

OK, you guys win on this point, not on merit but on sheer obstinacy. I'm not going away though, unless this cliquiness gets much worse. I'll make whatever corrections and additions I see from time to time that I think (rightly or wrongly) ought to be non-controversial. I hope you will at least accept that they are intended to be constructive, whether you agree with them or not, and I am happy to discuss any controversial points, so long as such discussions, unlike this one, are actually about the issues. But I'm not going to bother to try to improve the article on anything I think requires discussion here first. --137.110.32.63 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity 2602-- started by taking such a bad point, then taking umbrage with (feigned?) surprise at the objections, and closing with the wholly false notion of a clique. It may be that his/her latest review-like comments have some merit, and if proceeded with in a manner better suited to the work the result would improve the article. Is there an undue Canadian slant? Are the other points mentioned appropriate here? Does the above discussion excite confidence in the prospect of such revisal on 2602--'s part? Qexigator (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing feigned about it. I was never shown any reason to believe that the point was bad -- how can such a basic question as relevance possibly be bad?? -- only that everyone else involved found it unwelcome, which is a hallmark of cliquiness (which is not a conspiracy, just group-think). And I am genuinely shocked at the total refusal even to discuss it, or to respond to my explanations as to why the objections raised were unrelated to the issue I was trying to raise, or to present any meaningful discussion or counter-proposal to my attempts at a compromise. All I got was a series of diversions and denials. As to the larger problems with this article, consider this as a test case: if a minor matter like this one can't get a hearing then what reason do I or anyone else have to think that revisions which would require major textual changes have a snowball's chance?

That said, if I have managed to inspire you or others to discuss the article's problems and start fixing them in a constructive and productive fashion, then maybe this debate was worthwhile. I would suggest that you don't start with the Canadian bias, but with an overall analysis of the article to produce an agenda of issues, and only then start working on individual ones. But I am not going to involve myself in such an effort after this experience, unless I see it happening and starting to produce worthwhile results. Then I would be willing to contribute to it. --137.110.32.63 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with other personal unions

Something I though could be interesting is to look at is how this personal union differs from any others. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has a somewhat similar/ somewhat varied relationship since the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles Federation at the end of 2010.(Dutch Curacao, St Maarten now independent) Namely, some isles are now semi-independent countries, on equal footing with the Netherlands itself. But they differ because they consider theirs a single Kingdom with separate Parliaments as opposed to this, which is more like separate Kingdoms along with separate Parliaments almost... They still share a single Netherlands "Dutch" citizenship/Passport whereas these Realms each have their own citizenships/passports. It's an interesting way the two monarchies have done things. This personal union has less political ties than the Netherlands it would seem. However in ways it isn't because the U.K. and Canada were discussing the relevancy of merging their High Commission buildings around the world as a cost savings measure. CaribDigita (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, and pertinent to the topic Commonwealth realms. Is there a source to permit inclusion in this article or another, avoiding SYN? Membership of EU also affects questions of sovereignty of UK and Netherlands and overseas territories, in international and local law (citizenship, diplomatic practice etc.) of an as yet uncertain and speculative kind, which some governments may prefer to obscure for reasons of political expediency. Comparison is also awkward, due to Common law character of monarchy in Commonwealth realms, without adequate sources to cite. In short, the present sections on "Relationship of the realms", "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms" and "Historical development" seem to cover these aspects as well as can be expected, subject to updating. Qexigator (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was recently some debate here about whether or how to discuss the nature of the Realm of New Zealand, which was originally a unitary realm and is now a federal realm consisting of New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue, very similar in structure to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and, to a lesser degree, the Kingdom of Denmark. At that time, it was not agreed that that question should even be mentioned in this article. My opinion, even though I didn't like the way the discussion was conducted, was that that was not an unreasonable conclusion: any detail about the topic most properly belongs in the Realm of New Zealand article, since it was an internal development of the realm which did not affect its position as a realm within the Commonwealth, though I also felt that it would have done no harm for the changes to be mentioned briefly here, on the grounds that they show that a realm can change its nature substantially without affecting its position as a realm within the Commonwealth.

I don't see why we should discuss the Netherlands but not New Zealand, which is actually a Commonwealth realm whose nature has substantially changed to become something like the Netherlands. However, if the nature of the New Zealand realm was included, then I think it would be appropriate to point out the analogies to the Netherlands and Denmark.

A 20th century analogy to the Commonwealth realms, which relates to all of them, is the personal union between the kingdoms of Denmark and Iceland between 1918 and 1944. This was very similar, if not identical to, the relationships established between the Dominions and the UK by the Statute of Westminster. If the Netherlands is mentioned as a comparison, I think that this union should be too. It would be very relevant historically if it had any influence on the claims the Dominions made for a seat at the Versailles conference of 1919, though I don't believe it did. --137.110.32.63 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The main point (as I see it) is that the Commonwealth realms are not in a "personal union" in the way of the European dynasties and royal houses, including the monarchies of England, Scotland and Ireland, They have evolved as described in the article. Is there any authentic source to show that the constitutional theory and practice which influenced constitutional development from Briish colony to dominion to realm was actually influenced by what is mentioned above? Such as parliamentary debates? If there were, then perhaps that could be mentioned more suitably in some other article. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Netherlands is concerned, or the current structure of the Danish monarchy, chronology shows that it can only be the other way around -- the evolution of Commonwealth realms might possibly have influenced the changes in Dutch and Danish structures. I have no idea whether that is so. As far as Denmark and Iceland are concerned, it's chronologically possible but I don't know of any evidence, and I think it's unlikely. But the question of influence isn't why CaribDigita made the proposal, [s]he was only suggesting a comparison. --2602:304:7882:60E9:39AA:5C20:3FD7:1AA8 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point about chronology. Experience, at Wikipedia and generally, shows that there can be a healthy tendency among participants for picking up, and picking on, different aspects of a given topic: the positive and negative of pickiness in general. Hence, policies about OR, SYN, UNDUE etc. which are likewise liable to pickiness in the drafting and the application. That sometimes grates, unless seasoned with humour and common sense. Thus, my comment was not unaware of, but by way of set-off against, making such a comparison here or elsewhere if not adequately sourced. Qexigator (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Line of succession"

Mies: inappropriate for an article on multiple countries, many with their own lines of succession[1]. I am puzzled: is not the current line of succession identical for every one of the realms? The generic article on succession has little, if any, relevance here? Please let me know if I have missed something. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The line of succesion is indeed identical for all the realms. The article you linked to, though, is specifically for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom doesn't decide the line of succession for all the realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I have not missed something: the generic article is of no specific use in connection with Commonwealth realms, while LoS undoubtedly is. Perhaps you have not looked at it recently, but its opening sentence says in terms: "The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms". That, surely, meets the point?. Qexigator (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is incorrect; I just said the United Kingdom doesn't decide the line of succession for all the realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What in either article is "incorrect"? Neither says or implies, as far as I know, that the UK decides the line of succession in other realms, nor would they if linked. The fact remains that the current line of succession is identical in all of them. Qexigator (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The line of succession to the British throne is the the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom and whichever other realms have whomever is monarch of the UK be their monarch. The line of succession to the British throne is not the same thing as, for example, the line of succession to the Australian throne. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that he line of succession as described and listed in LoS is identical for all Commonwealth realms, is your point that LoS states, or could be supposed by a reasonably intelligent reader to imply, that the UK decides the line of succession in other realms? If so, can you pinpoint the ambiguity and offer a way for this to be avoided? Qexigator (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of population figures

No doubt I’m the wrong person to break this news, but there are some real problems with the population figures in this article.

• The sum of the figures in the table is 135 million, not the stated 137 million
• The country profiles at the Commonwealth secretariat website, which is the cited source for the table, gives numbers as of 2010, not 2012, and they are consistently lower than the numbers in the table
• The CIA Factbook of 2011, which is the cited source for the total of 137 million, is no longer available online. The 2013 edition gives estimates for individual realms as of July 2013, and they are also consistently lower than the numbers in the table.

--2602:304:7882:60E9:39AA:5C20:3FD7:1AA8 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good point, but let corrective figurework be left to others better at it than...Qexigator (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely at least one of the editors who believe that this is valuable information has an interest in ensuring that it is consistent and that it correctly reflects a single reliable source..... --137.110.32.63 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)