Talk:Statute Law Revision Act 1893

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement of repeal[edit]

In the Statute Law Revision Act of 1908 it states in this document: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1908/act/49/enacted/en/print.html that the statute law revision act of 1893 is only repealed in the UK

"and this Act shall not extend to repeal any enactment so far as the same may be in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom, except where otherwise expressed in the said schedule."

This FACT is not included in this article and deserves to have a section called Repeals and Amendments to clarify the facts of the document.

There is no primary source, or secondary source of this article, as well as the text itself is not posted on Wikipedia, only a subtle mention of the fact that this exists.

The Primary Source should be the UK, while the secondary source should be any other countries that have the sections of this act still in force or still in effect.

It is my contention this article is poorly laid out and organized.

(if I'm wrong in any of my contentions, I'm willing to listen and have a discussion based on facts, logic and reason.) Mjp1976 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Is there any proof that the Statute Law Revision Act of 1908 repealed the schedule to the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893 which pertains to the BNA Act in Canada? If not, I agree, this repeal statement should probably be removed. Also, are their multiple versions of the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893, one for Ireland, one for Canada, etc? I see no mention of anything to do with Ireland in the SLRA of 1893 archived on Solon.org, the Government of Canada website, or Wikisource. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the repeal was an accurate description of the effect of the repeal on the law of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which merely neglected to describe the effect of the repeal on the law of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. (For the avoidance of doubt, the Republic of Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom in 1893 and 1908, and both the Acts of 1893 and 1908 continued apply there after the partition of Ireland in 1922, because of Article 73 of the Constitution: see the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 [1], and especially the preamble and section 3).
The reason for the confusion is that this Act is part of the law of at least six countries, but most law books only discuss the law of one country. An English law book will normally tell you the effect of the repeal on the law of England and Wales, but not the effect anywhere else. A Scottish law book will tell you the effect in Scotland, an Irish law book the effect in Ireland, a Canadian law book the effect in Canada, and so on. As far as I'm aware, where an Act applies to more than one country, the amended text of the Act can differ between those countries due to an amendment being made by some but not all of the national legislatures of those countries, but the Act is still considered to be one and the same Act even if its amended text varies. In any event, I do not think it would be practical, at this stage, to create a separate article on the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 in Canada. A 6kB article is not big enough to need a WP:SPLIT. James500 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you say makes sense, and I agree is definitely a source of confusion given many countries are involved. However, the portion of this Act that specifically pertains to Canada is of extreme interest and importance to Canadians, as it repeals important sections of our Constitution, the foundational document of Canada. Perhaps most of the other revisions pertaining to other countries are dealing with comparatively trifling matters. But not so for this portion of the document. In this case, it doesn't seem to be a question of size (6KB), but rather of making this important information available in some form. Arkenstrone (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add something about the 1867 Act in a moment. I will try to avoid reproducing the prolix phraseology of the Schedule James500 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For greater clarity, would it be possible to amend the description of the repeal of SLRA, 1893 to make it clearer that it refers to only those sections and Schedules of the SLRA, 1893 that apply to Northern Ireland, and not to Canada, Autralia, New Zealand, India, and other Common Wealth countries? Then, when the time comes, future editors that are so-inclined can add a short note with link along the lines of, "For revisions in this Act that affect only New Zealand, please see xyz." Arkenstrone (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that we can further clarify the meaning of "His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom" without additional sources that actually explain what it means. For the time being, we could link "His Majesty's dominions" to Dominion#His Majesty's dominions, but, without further investigation, I cannot guarantee that the content there is accurate, or relevant to the statutory interpretation of the phrase. (Roberts-Wray [2] has a chapter on "Her Majesty's dominion's", but I have not had a chance to examine it yet). A reference to the Commonwealth would certainly not be accurate. Mozambique, Rwanda, Togo and Gabon are members of the Commonwealth of Nations. None of those countries is or has ever been part of "His Majesty's dominions". Those countries were formerly colonies or territories of Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal. James500 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better than before, with sufficient information to ward off the lion's share of confusion (that the Act, in fact, applies to multiple countries). And listing the Acts (which often include the country name) to which this Act applies, helps tremendously.
One thing that still stands out to me and can be improved is that the Schedule section begins with the repeal of this Act, by the 1908 Act, and the special proviso around that. Since this article is about the SLRA, 1893, it seems clearer to move this first paragraph to the end of this Schedule section. I.e., we first describe about what this Schedule to the 1893 Act does, and when we are finished with this, then we describe how this Schedule was repealed by the 1908 Act with proviso. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looks to me that there is still a bit of confusion because various repeals by future Acts are interspersed with the actual contents of this Schedule/Act. It seems to me that this Act should focus on the contents of this Act, and then provide additional "Further information" links to point to those Acts (1908, 1915) that repeal portions of this Act. Then we can deal with the details of those repeals in those Wikipedia articles. It would shorten the section, and I think make it clearer. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be organised in a way similar to the way that professionally published books about statutes are normally organised. That normally means you take the statute one section (or one schedule, or one paragraph) at a time. For an old example, in the following book, the amendments to section 8 go immediately after the description of section 8: [3]. They do not get hidden or dumped in another chapter or at the end of the book. Because that would be very confusing.
The article should not consist entirely of the whole of the unamended text of the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 and nothing else. The article should include what other sources (including books, periodical articles, law reports and other Acts) say about the Statute Law Revision Act 1893. James500 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the meaning of the remarks that cite the ground of repeal as "As to Crown, see Interp. Act. Rest spent".? Arkenstrone (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Schedule pertaining to Canada[edit]

James500, you stated that the included schedule is not the entire Schedule in the revision. That it is a brief extract. And that most of the Schedule does not extend to Canada. That most of the Schedule consists of repeals to English, Irish and Scottish Acts. Can you provide a link to the full schedule? Arkenstrone (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given a link to the full Act on the other talk page. For the avoidance of doubt, I will link to it again. The full Schedule is here. As you can see it starts with the Dublin Police Act 1837, which is obviously Irish, since Dublin is in Ireland. Next comes the Wills Act 1837, which is English. A little later comes the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1838, which is obviously Scottish. The Schedule actually repeals the whole or part of about 530 Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with Canada. James500 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just realized that. Thanks. So then for Schedules that have to do specifically with Canada, I'll probably need to add this information into the relevant Constitutional Acts for Canada instead of generally here. Maybe just include a link to the portion of the Act that has to do with Canada at the bottom of the page and rename the original article to "Statute Law Revision Act, 1893 (Canada)" or something similar which I can then link to from Canadian-specific pages.
Also is there any merit to Mjp1976's remark above? Arkenstrone (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkenstrone @James500 Yes because while the act was repealed. Each of these repeals that are made are made specifically. The SLVA 1908 states that the repeal only applies to the UK with regards to the SLVA 1893.
This means that Wiki Article needs to be corrected to include reference to the 1908 act and the sentence in particular being added to the article stating that the SLVA 1893 still applies to the Dominions but not to the UK is important.
@Arkenstrone is correct in stating that this law is of great importance to Canada as there is an important conversation with regards to legitimacy of Canada.
To give Context to the larger discussion not going on within wikiverse, because the Enacting Clause of the BNA Act 1867 was repealed in 1893, it has raised discussions about how laws work and how their standards, practices and customs operate within the UK System of Government and Law. If all laws in force are required to have an enacting clause to operate, the question has become how can they operate without one? Which creates a bigger conversation about the legitimacy of Canada after 1893.
Furthermore, my suggestions go to accuracy and creating accuracy within the wiki article. Inaccuracies should be corrected when found.
Mjp1976 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. At the very least, it is a question for broader debate within Canadian legislative circles pertaining to our Constitution. It's extremely important to make this information highly visible and easily accessible. James500 did a good job extending the Schedule section to add greater clarity to what the Schedule applies to, including any repeals, with mention of BNA 1867. I also added a "for more information" link to that portion of the the Schedule that pertains exclusively to Canada, for greater visibility, otherwise it's easy for this information to get lost amidst so many enactments and repeals. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observations[edit]

It is not verifiable to claim that Statute Law Revision Act 1908 repealed the Schedule "in the United Kingdom only". "His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom" does not include the rest of the world outside of "His Majesty's dominions". The Republic of Ireland is not obviously presently part of "His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom" and is not obviously presently part of the "United Kingdom", even for the purpose of section 3 of the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922, which actually refers to Saorstát Eireann (ie the Irish Free State, which preceded the Republic). James500 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the Schedule entries for the seven Acts 25 & 26 Vict c 48 to 30 & 31 Vict c 3 are listed under the heading Amendments to Schedule is to explain the scope of the repeal made by Statute Law Revision Act 1908 (ie the list is a list of entries that were not repealed). If anyone wants to explain what the Schedule entries for the Australian, New Zealand or Indian Acts actually did, the only way to do that, without making the article incomprehensible, would be to start a new heading for Australia, New Zealand or India, as the case may be. James500 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it seems like a good idea to define our terms in order to get greater clarity here:
1. How is the "United Kingdom" defined as of 1893? Today?
2. How is "His Majesty's dominions OUT of the United Kingdom" defined in 1893? Today?
3. How is "His Majesty's dominions IN the United Kingdom" defined in 1893? Today? Arkenstrone (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the paragraph that begins: "The Schedule repealed, as to all Her Majesty's Dominions, the whole of the Acts 25 & 26 Vict c 48 ..." be placed just above the "Amendments to Schedule" sub-section since it deals with the Schedule itself and not specifically with amendments to the Schedule? Arkenstrone (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. That paragraph is about the 1908 repeal. The key words are "These portions of the Schedule were not repealed" . . . [in] . . . "1908". James500 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some misunderstanding. The paragraph I am referring to is not about the 1908 repeal. It's about the contents of the SLRA 1893 Schedule (which repeals various sections of various Acts in multiple countries). That's why it should be outside (above) the Amendments to Schedule sub-section. It deals with the substance of this Schedule. The Amendments to Schedule sub-section has to do with the 1908 Act which amends/repeals portions of this (SLRA 1893) Schedule. (Incidentally, creating those two sub-sections in the Schedule section was a very good idea making things much easier to follow.) Arkenstrone (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References and reverting edits made in good-faith[edit]

James500 wrote in the reversion history: "It is not necessary to link to a copy of the Schedule every time the Schedule is mentioned. One link to https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FS5HAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA33 in the bibliography is enough. And we have that."

First, multiple references to content in the same article appear all over Wikipedia and is not an issue. This is quite common practice, especially if the content which is referenced, is supported by that reference, and appears in more than one paragraph. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and the section "Repeated Citations".

But more importantly, if you really have an issue with having similar, but differently worded content referenced twice (portion of Schedule that deals with the BNA Act in this article), then you ought to place the reference with the first mention of the Act, not the second mention. It makes more sense to put it there in the second paragraph of the Amendments sub-section, since you do so for all the other Acts for other countries mentioned (India, New Zealand, etc.). It's a question of consistency.

Third, I would appreciate a bit more consideration in your edit reverts, by bringing them up in the talk page before summarily reverting. This will make for a more cordial and less confrontational environment. It is also Wikipedia best-practices to discuss on the talk page reverting edits made in good-faith. See WP:RV for more information. Arkenstrone (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page with a massive WP:COTD and WP:TLW. This has reached the point where the excessive length, number and frequency of your comments is making it impossible for me to improve the article or get anything useful done. It is not constructive for you to bombard this talk page with every single thought that comes into your head, the moment that it comes into your head, every single day. This article does not need a constant running commentary on every single thought that comes into your head.
The link you added could not be described as a reference for that content (especially since footnote 60 on p 78, and footnote 59 on p 76, have no relevance to that content, and were cited elsewhere for a completely unrelated purpose). It was a "further reading" style link that tended to promote the reputation of one entry out of a list of seven by trying to make that entry look more important than the others. Your footnote could be construed as nationalist POV by spam link. None of the other seven Acts have a footnote like that. (The only footnotes are popular titles of Acts that have no short title, to facilitate linking, because we don't normally use session and chapter citations as a page name for articles or redirects). The list already includes an inline reference (the words "The Schedule" are a citation), and if we wanted a further reference, we ought to cite the relevant seven pages of the annual volume of public general statutes, since that covers all seven Acts equally.
As for reverting, the process is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, discuss, revert". What you propose is not compatible with WP:STATUSQUO either. Your edits are often WP:CIR. In any event, it is not clear that your edits are being made in good faith:
I am concerned that your account appears to be WP:SLEEPER with 400+ edits in 2009 and virtually no edits till 100+ this month in 2023: [4]. If there is an explanation for the behaviour of your account, you can provide it on my talk page. James500 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, WP:COTD and WP:TLW, please stop using Wikipedia guidelines to accuse other editors of wrong-doing only because you don't like the idea of having your edits incrementally improved upon. Anyone can see from the discussion and edit history that I have treated you and this article respectfully, and frequently deferred to your expertise/competency. You've made some very good edits/improvements to this article and I acknowledge that. My objective is to make this article as accurate and clear as possible, as it is an important topic for many Canadians. If it is too much work for you to respond to discussions regarding this article, may I suggest taking a break for a while and re-engage when you have more time? This doesn't have to all be done in one or a few days.
In reference to WP:CIR, my competency has to do with structuring, organizing, and communicating information in a way that is clear and easily digestible to the average reader (contrast to simply dumping factual information on a page overwhelming the reader with too many details that are difficult to follow or comprehend). What's the point of an online encyclopedia if it's incomprehensible to the average reader? Each editor has their own areas of competency and expertise. I acknowledge your competency in the subject matter domain, you would do well to acknowledge mine as mentioned above. I have not once, challenged you on the actual content/references of this article as being incorrect or wrong. All of my edits to this article have been to do with making things clearer and more digestible to the reader. And I suspect that you are also learning and improving your own subject matter competency as far as this Act goes as a result of our interaction.
Regarding the original content edit, I did not add any new references/links. I simply used the reference/link you were already using in referring to the same content but in a different form (referencing the repeal of sections of the BNA Act, 1867). If you wish to change that reference, or add a different one that you believe is more suited to that content, that's fine. That can be done without summarily reverting and dismissing. Your comment about construing footnotes as nationalist POV that I didn't add or create (you did) is nonsense.
You are incorrect regarding the edit reversion process WP:CYCLE. "Bold, revert, discuss" is not a Wikipedia policy, and is clearly marked in all-caps as OPTIONAL. That same page has a large section on alternatives WP:BRB including "bold, discuss, revert", "bold, discuss", and "bold, refine" among many others. Some processes work better than others in different situations.
Regarding your sleeper/sock-puppetry concerns, allow me to alleviate them here (since you mentioned it here). I have one Wikipedia account. I edited more often when I opened my account in 2009. I continued editing much less frequently as a result of life circumstances. I only edit topics that come across my radar and which are sufficiently important to me. This is one of those topics. Your effort to pre-judge me based on my edit history is not appreciated. Neither am I interested in forming a picture of your beliefs/world-view based on your general edit history. What's relevant is the article in question. Nothing more.
Any further discussion of issues unrelated to this article, should be moved to either my or your talk page. This is not the appropriate forum. Let's keep this talk page true to purpose. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned that the account "Mjp1976" is also a WP:SLEEPER. The account has 82 edits in ten years and no edits since 13 October 2021, more than a year ago. The account received an echo notification from this talk page on 28 January 2023 and showed up on this talk page 17 hours later. James500 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the harassment from james500 an iban is now in place. My showing up on this page is because I enabled Watch. Mjp1976 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule to Act[edit]

The addition of the word Accordingly is a huge improvement in terms of clearly communicating what's in your mind. It links nicely to the previous paragraph, and makes it clearer what this paragraph has to do with: i.e., the parts of SLRA 1893 that weren't repealed by SLRA 1908.

However, that paragraph still has an issue which makes it very difficult to follow. Too many thought fragments are being concatenated in the highlighted text resulting in confusion. The highlighted phrase needs work:

Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal, as to His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom, so much of the Schedule as repealed, as to all Her Majesty's Dominions, the whole of the Acts 25 & 26 Vict c 48 and 31 & 32 Vict c 57, and parts of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict c 72), the Act 27 & 28 Vict c 77, the Indian High Courts Act 1865 (28 & 29 Vict c 15), the India Military Funds Act 1866 (29 & 30 Vict c 18), the Act 29 & 30 Vict c 74, and the British North America Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict c 3).

Here's one succint and clear (in my opinion) re-wording:

Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal, as to His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom, the whole of the Acts 25 & 26 Vict c 48 and 31 & 32 Vict c 57, and parts of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict c 72), the Act 27 & 28 Vict c 77, the Indian High Courts Act 1865 (28 & 29 Vict c 15), the India Military Funds Act 1866 (29 & 30 Vict c 18), the Act 29 & 30 Vict c 74, and the British North America Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict c 3).

Arkenstrone (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed text is not factually accurate. The proviso to the 1908 Act excludes from repeal the entries in the 1893 Schedule that relate to the eight Acts, not the eight Acts themselves, which had already been wholly or partly repealed. James500 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Let's try again using less formalism and a bit more lay language:
Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal those sections in this Schedule relating to Acts associated with His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom, namely, ...
(This definition of dominion on Britannica seems helpful.) Arkenstrone (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "Acts associated with His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom" is not factually accurate and will not work. (1) A number of Acts relating to those dominions were repealed by the 1893 Act so far, and only so far, as they extended to the UK. For example, 26 & 27 Vict c 23 is "An Act to alter the Boundaries of New Zealand". It was repealed by the 1893 Act so far, and only so far, as it extended to the UK. I don't have time to find out why an "Act to alter the Boundaries of New Zealand" extended to the UK in the first place. I don't have time to find out why it was repealed in the UK but not in NZ. But it did and it was. And the entry for that Act [5] was repealed, as to the UK, by the 1908 Act. (2) The "sections in this Schedule pertaining to ... 25 & 26 Vict c 48" and the other eight listed Acts were repealed so far as they extended to the UK. The "sections in this Schedule" included the words "Repealed as to all Her Majesty's dominions" which prima facie include the UK.
The Britannica article is about the wrong kind of dominion. Acts of 1893 and 1908 cannot have been intended to refer to something that did not exist till 1926.
There is no point in you trying to copyedit an explanation of the effect of the 1908 Act if you simply do not understand the effect of that Act. You are very unlikely to write an accurate explanation by random chance. And you do not understand the effect of that Act. James500 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A number of Acts relating to those dominions [outside the UK] were repealed by the 1893 Act so far, and only so far, as they extended to the UK"
It is apparent that those Acts/parts that were repealed in the UK alone was done because they had no relevance in the UK as they had to do with the dominions of Canada, New Zealand, or Australia, etc. It looks like a way to clean shop and get rid of mootness and redundancy in UK legislation. I.e., obviously, an act to alter the boundaries of New Zealand doesn't have anything to do with the UK. So they repeal it in the UK, but not in New Zealand. Same for the other Acts/parts.
Perhaps this was done in preparation for the dominions outside the UK becoming separate countries with indepedent legislative bodies. I.e. getting rid of all legislative references to Acts/parts relating exclusively to dominions outside the UK in UK legislation.
In any case, here is a new formulation that attempts to use simple English (no legal phrases such as 'His Majesty's dominions out of the United Kingdom' which convolutes things when attempting to explain to laypeople):
Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal a substantial portion of the Statute Law Revision Act 1893 Schedule that pertained to dominions outside the United Kingdom, but were repealed within the United Kingdom. This includes the whole of ...
--
Regarding 'dominion'. That's not technically accurate. 'Dominion' existed well before 1926. It's just that it wasn't formally defined until 1926. For example, this excerpt from this short article:
"Dominion of Canada is the country’s formal title, though it is rarely used. It was first applied to Canada at Confederation in 1867. It was also used in the formal titles of other countries in the British Commonwealth." Arkenstrone (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "new formulation" is factually inaccurate, and/or vague and ambiguous, and/or something very close to gibberish. Your "new formulation" is also grammatically incorrect and exceptionally difficult to understand. Amongst many other problems, "the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal . . . but [was] repealed within the United Kingdom" literally means that the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 was repealed (which is irrelevant to this article and presumably not the intended meaning); and the plural "but were repealed" (instead of the singular "but was repealed") makes no sense in that context. Worse still, that in turn implies that portions of the Schedule to 1893 Act were not repealed in the UK (which is not true). If I had not read the conversation on this talk page, I would have no idea what your "new formulation" was intended to mean.
As for the word "dominion", it has at least two different meanings. It can refer to the Dominions created by the Balfour Declaration 1926 [6] and the Statute of Westminster 1931 [7]. The problem is that not all of "His Majesty's dominions" were Dominions within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Anyone reading the what your "new formulation" would probably think that the word "dominions", used without qualification or explanation, refers to Dominions within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster 1931. They would think "dominions" specifically referred to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, the Irish Free State and possibly India, Pakistan and Ceylon (each of which had dominion status at some point) and nowhere else. Because that is what the word "dominions", used without qualification or explanation, refers to most of the time. And that is not what "His Majesty's dominions" means. "His Majesty's dominions" included lots of other places that are not Dominions within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster 1931. James500 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I address your concerns above, let's briefly try a different tack. Please explain the meaning of the following quoted phrase that appears in the article, as it is incomprehensible to me as expressed (and likely most people). Just state it in regular common English, and use more than one sentence if you need:
"Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal, as to His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom, so much of the Schedule as repealed, as to all Her Majesty's Dominions, the whole of the Acts ..." Arkenstrone (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation of why I am not going to answer above question at this time is here. I also note this removal of my previous statement that the continuation of this discussion would be unconstructive. James500 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a lock on this topic that was removed. It goes against Wikipedia guidelines and the spirit of a consensus-based online encyclopedia to unilaterally lock discussion topics on article talk pages because you are unwilling to discuss further. That's the purpose of article talk pages: to discuss content-related issues.
It also goes against Wikipedia guidelines to remove large portions of useful discussions on talk pages which you did and I restored. Please refrain from removing discussions from talk pages. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one final version that I believe can resolve the problem if you are willing to discuss. The convoluted phrase of the sentence in question is removed since it is already mentioned in the previous paragraph in a clearer form: "However, the proviso to section 1 of the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 provided that this Schedule was not repealed so far as this Schedule was in force in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom." This sentence clearly provides the context. Refering to this we can then simply say:
Accordingly, the Statute Law Revision Act 1908 did not repeal, as to the above, the whole of ... Arkenstrone (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-specific content and effects of SLRA 1908 repeals dispute[edit]

We already discussed that it makes sense to point to a separate article for Canada for further information, rather than bog down this article with too many details. Especially given that similar issues may arise in future for other Commonwealth countries affected by SLRA 1893, at which time additional pages can be created for those countries if necessary.

What you are doing here appears to be a form of revenge editing that has nothing to do with the dispute in question. You are behaving badly, taking things personally, and not in the spirit of an editor who is genuinely interested in working with others to produce a clear and intelligible article.

This is notice that I am requesting dispute resolution as it appears you are unwilling to discuss things further despite my best efforts to avoid responding in-kind to incivility and personal attacks, choosing instead to focus on the content. I will also include a notice on your talk page. I am reverting your recent edits to this article and your recent removal of the associated Canada-specific article, and will place a notice and lock on both articles. Please refrain from editing these two articles until this dispute can be resolved. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits that have separated the one large difficult sentence into 2 parts, making it easier to comprehend has addressed my concerns. That edit makes the effects of the SLRA 1908 repeals much clearer. If there are no further issues and no changes concerning the Canada-specific portions and references, the article as it stands is acceptable, and the content dispute label can be removed. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the Article from the Top down.[edit]

This section makes sense: "This article is about the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

What is the relevance of this: "For the Act of the Parliament of Victoria, see Statute Law Revision Act § Victoria. For the Act of the Legislative Council and Assembly of Barbados, see Statute Law Revision Act § Barbados." with relation to this article specifically? How is a Province in Australia namely Victoria relevant to this article about the UK or even Barbados when we are talking about the UK? They may be members of the Commonwealth, but my question is what relevance is there for their addition as a notation to the article??

Starting at the top of the article (opening Paragraph):

Paragraph 1 - Sentence 1 is accurate.

Paragraph 1 - sentence 2: relevance? Why the commentary? When did commentary become relevant? Put it into an observations section or remove it. who is this cotton fellow and why does the link to that reference go nowhere. All references are able to be verified.


Paragraph 2: is now 13 years out of date. This paragraph and sentence while useful are now out of date and should be updated for accuracy and relevancy. So how does it remain relevant to have this in an article in 2023?

Paragraph 3: While this adds context to the article about the Republic of Ireland, should there be a section with some sections with regard to the effects of the statute law revision act on current or former Commonwealth members?

Paragraph 4: see 3

Paragraph 5: see 3

Paragraph 6: see 3


Paragraph 7: Relevance, Furthermore the stylus of writing does not fit within the current demeanor of the article, let alone follow the flow of relevant information. These appear to be legal cases regarding this act in a court or a tribunal in the UK. How particularly is this relevant to this article? This looks like it was just dropped in for a lack of a better place by an editor. Have these changes even been vetted as relevant to the Wikipedia article? And if they are, should legal proceedings regarding the act have their own place in this article for more elaboration regarding the specific issues around these cases? However, I still ask, are they relevant to the article??


The Rest of this entire article is poorly written in its entirety, and it needs to be rewritten wholesale. I would suggest that all the reference links need to be vetted, verified, and corrected. I would suggest a rewrite and redesign of this article.

The biggest issue is the effect on the colonies/dominions. For reference: Colonies and dominions were used interchangeably under the interpretations act of 1889 as later referenced in the statute of Westminster 1931. This is why they went from lower-case dominions to upper-case Dominions as it signified a change in the position of authority. In legalese, the use of title case vs lower case creates separate meanings of words. Being a Dominion of Australia, Canada, India etc changed them from the dominion of Australia, Canada, India, etc. This signified being under direct imperial rule vs being independent and sovereignty of the nation in the Commonwealth.


The Article misses the hierarchy of authority of the imperial government over colonies and territories. Therefore, the extent of the laws of the imperial government automatically without limitation extended to every corner of every realm of the British Empire unless they stated so in law. And in the 1893 and 1908 Statute Law Revision Acts, create limitations


In this case, the statute law revision act 1893, and 1908 use the same exact text regarding the repeals in the last paragraph of part 1 in both acts, so therefore, there can be no ambiguity regarding the intent or continued intent of the UK government of the day. Their intentions were clear and concise in their stylus of writing.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1893/act/14/enacted/en/print & https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1908/act/49/enacted/en/print


Therefore I think instead of having a bunch of notes all over the place referencing each colony, I think doing tidy up by creating a section called Effects on Colonies and properly listing these effects. Simplifying this article should not be that hard to do. 


For reference, the correct term is Colonies, even though dominions and colonies were used interchangeably up until the statute of Westminster in 1931. Reference the interpretations act 1889 18(3) to see the term used interchangeably. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1889/63/pdfs/ukpga_18890063_en.pdf

18(3)  The expression " colony " shall mean any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands, and of British India, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one colony.


The 1893 act itself states: 4. This Act may be cited as the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act, 1893. The title of the page does not reference correctly to the act. I think the page name should be representative of the proper title of the act for proper reference.


~~~~ Mjp1976 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statute_Law_Revision_Act_1893&oldid=1208198134"