Talk:Commonwealth realm

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move.--Húsönd 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "realm" in "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun and should not be capitalized, any more than one would capitalize Commonwealth Country or Commonwealth Citizen. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's a specific title that differentiates Elizabeth II's realms within the Commonwealth of Nations from, say, Letsie III's realm of Lesotho. --G2bambino 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - it seems logical to me that it should be "Commonwealth Realm", however I can't find definitive proof from British government web sites to back that up. -- Hux 07:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Note: changed from oppose - see note below.)

There is no basis in English grammar for capitalizing the word "realm" in Commonwealth realm. The Commonwealth realms are a class of entity, not a specific entity. Therefore, they fall squarely into the definition of a common noun. Can anyone show me even one example outside Wikipedia of a publisher or a government capitalizing Commonwealth realm within the body of a non-legal text? (I doubt you'll find one even in a legal text.)

With regard to G2bambino's comment, why capitalize Commonwealth realm but not the realm of Lesotho?

Jonathan David Makepeace 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By this logic it is wrong to capitalize "Act" (as in "Act of Parliament"), yet you'll find that it's always spelled "Act" in every official document and competent historical reference. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but the reasoning you give is certainly flawed. (And the Lesotho thing is more than likely a simple oversight.) -- Hux 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to capitalize the word "act" in the phrase "an act of Parliament." One would capitalize it only in certain contexts. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point: it is correct to capitalize it in some contexts but not in all contexts. "Realm", when used in the context of the official Commonwealth designation (implying specific constitutional meaning), should be capitalized, and since attaching it to the word "Commonwealth" inherently puts it in such a context, the phrase should be written, "Commonwealth Realm". It's the same reason why we write "United Kingdom" and not "United kingdom". -- Hux 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] enjoys some kind of official designation? When did an official body award that designation? One capitalizes "United Kingdom" because it is the short form of a country's name. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support unless there is evidence that this is an official title. None has been provided so far. JPD (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's a proper noun in reference to a specific group of monarchies. [1] (look under Belize's relations with the UK) Reginmund 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace itself doesn't even capitalize the expression. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace is not the final arbiter here. Clearly there is some inconsistency, as can be seen by searching for "Commonwealth Realm" on all ".gov.uk" sites. I'm going to change my vote above because I'm not as confident that there is definitive proof here. -- Hux 07:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search for "realm" on ".fco.gov.uk" and, as you can see, in every instance of the word in the context of a Commonwealth Realm it's spelled "Realm". I'm inclined to rely on the FCO for guidance on this over Buckingham Palace, so I'm leaning more strongly to the argument that it should always be "Commonwealth Realm" when using the phrase in full. -- Hux 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Brian | (Talk) 07:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Would those who argue that "Commonwealth Realms" [sic] is an official title please cite the authority that gave them that title? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - I agree with Jonathan here. I also notice that this is going to be an edit war if not stopped. Please try to fix it. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, no ground for capitalising it. —Nightstallion 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalization in general

Further to the above proposal, and to John David Makepeace's edits and Bastin8's reverts, I'd like to get some opinions on capitalization of various terms in general, becuase there's definitely some disagreement. A few opinions:

• "Commonwealth Realm", should always have both words capitalized.
• "Commonwealth", when used as shorthand for the official title, "Commonwealth of Nations", should be capitalized, but when referring to commonwealths in general it should be lower case.
• Ditto, "Realm", "Statute", "Act", "Dominion", "Parliament", etc.
• BUT: "monarch" and "monarchy" should always be lower case because neither is an official title.

Are we generally agreed on this or am I looking at it differently from most? I ask because I've seen some instances of capitalization on these articles that seem a little...haphazard to me! ;) -- Hux 11:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, but question the final point re. "monarch." Of course, talking about a general monarch or monarchies (ie. "a monarch reigns over a realm" and "European monarchies were overthrown by fascist movements") should not be capitalized; but, when speaking of a specific monarch or monarchy (ie. "Queen Elizabeth II is the British Monarch" and "the British Monarchy is over 1000 years old") should the words not be capitalized? It is the Canadian Monarchy, but a monarchy; no?

Specifically related to "Dominion": JDM has been arguing for the de-capitalization of the word at the article Dominion as well. --G2bambino 13:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is "the Canadian Monarchy", is it? Like I said, as far as I'm aware, "monarch" and "monarchy" are not part of any official titles in the Commonwealth, so on that basis they shouldn't be capitalized. Compare with "queen", which is definitely capitalized when part of a title. -- Hux 08:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the points regarding Commonwealth, realm, statute, etc. (even monarchy), but I will observe that despite the name of this article, and the recent category name change, all the royal website's references to "Commonwealth realms" use that capitalisation. The form with both words capitalised quite possibly originated in Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall that there was a discussion about this very topic some time ago wherein capitalized versions were found outside Wikipedia; though I think it was within very lengthy debates about other topics and may not necessarily have taken place at this talk. Thus, it's been difficult for me to dig up again. --G2bambino 15:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely capitalised versions outside Wikipedia. There may even be capitalised versions that weren't influenced by Wikipedia. That is a fairly minor point. The real question is whether these uses are more correct that the capitalisation used by the royal website and other British government sites. JPD (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, capitalization on the royal Web site is haphazard, perhaps because the editors have been exposed to too many legal texts that capitalize all nouns, whether proper or common. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but in this case, it consistently supports your view. By the way, I think the issue that is debated is whether "Commonwealth Realm" is a proper noun, or a modifier and a common noun. Merely asserting that it is one or the other doesnt' really solve the dispute. JPD (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll repeat what I wrote above. Because "Commonwealth realm" is a class of entities, not a specific entity, it falls squarely into the definition of a common noun. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are "Commonwealth realms" - countries within the Commonwealth that have a monarch - and there are "Commonwealth Realms" - countries within the Commonwealth that have Elizabeth II as monarch. As a specific title, in this case "Commonwealth Realms" is a proper noun. --G2bambino 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops - I hadn't seen the section above. Returning to the question of whether it is a specific title, my memory is that in the many discussions, we did establish that the term "Commonwealth realms" was used to a limited extent before Wikipedia, and Gbambino and others argued against various other ideas (sometimes in the same discussion as already mentioned) by making use of a distinction between "Commonwealth Realms" and "Commonwealth realms", conveniently ignoring the fact that our indepedent sources used the term "Commonwealth realms" to refer to they were calling "Commomnwealth Realms". The distinction being made was in my opinion OR, and we should not make use of it, however useful it is. After all, it is not all that unusual for two-word terms to be defined in specific ways that aren't obvious just from the two words. JPD (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Obviously, my memory differs from G2bambino's - I could well be wrong. It would help if one of use managed to find these discussions. JPD (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it would be useful if we could dig out the old discussion. Either that or dig out all the references again. I do recall the Buckingham Palace website being cited as a place where "Commonwealth realm" was used, but I also seem to remember other sources being brought up wherein "Commonwealth Realm" was the format.

In the meantime, there is the issue of user comprehension: if we do go with "Commonwealth realm" here, how will we differentiate between the Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth realms? --G2bambino 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "Commonwealth realm" is specific to those countries of which the British monarch is head of state. Other monarchies within the Commonwealth are not Commonwealth realms. However, even if they were, why would one capitalize only the ones of which Elizabeth II is Queen? Because she's white? Jonathan David Makepeace 17:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF?? Any country that's a kingdom is a realm - look up the word "realm" in a dictionary. Thus, any country in the Commonwealth that's a kingdom is a Commonwealth realm. But "the Commonwealth Realms" is the name given to the group of realms in a personal union. If there were other personal unions within the Commonwealth, perhaps it would be different; but there aren't, so it isn't. --G2bambino 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the relevant page on the royal Website:

Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms.

Note, however, that they mistakenly capitalized "the" before "Queen." Suffice it to say that, while Buckingham Palace may not know when to capitalize things, they are usually right when they don't.

Jonathan David Makepeace 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the Buckingham Palace website has already been raised, both here and at the previous discussion about whether or not to capitalize "realm" in this context. --G2bambino 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you guys talk about this, one should look into it on here 1st (Capitalization & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)) to get a better understanding of how to go about solving the matter. That-Vela-Fella 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To expand a little on the third point I made above, the capitalization of "realm", when used on its own, seem to be quite a subtle thing. Obviously it should always be capitalized when used as part of an official title (e.g. "the Realm of New Zealand"), or with reference to specific constitutional implications (e.g. "Fiji became an independent Realm in 1970"). However, I would argue that "realm" should not be automatically capitalized even when used with reference to Commonwealth Realms (as opposed to other realms). For example, I think it should be, "all the realms were legally equal in status", because that in that sentence the word, "realm" is being used more generally, as shorthand for a group of countries, rather than as shorthand for their official titles. Similar rationale should be used for words like "statute", "act", etc., as well, I think. -- Hux 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely a matter of style. The version of English that JDM is promoting would not capitalise realm in the Fiji example you give, but the FCO does. The same goes for Statute, Act, etc, where legal documents use different conventions to those used in other context. Given the style used by the FCO, it's hardly surprising that the FCO also capitalise Realm in the phrase "Commonwealth Realm" although other sources (including government sources) do not. The only question for us is which style is the one that is used in Wikipedia.

As for the idea that th capital is needed to distinguish two different sorts of realms, as I have said before, it would hardly be the first time the a two word term has a special meaning not immediately obvious from the combination of the words. The group of monarchies in the Commonwealth is not the sort of group that would usually be referred to anyway. At any rate, it is not all clear that without any definition given, "Commonwealth realm" would mean "a realm that is a member of the Commonwealth" as opposed to, say, "a realm of the Head of the Commmonwealth". JPD (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"The only question for us is which style is the one that is used in Wikipedia." I would say that where there are multiple options where one provides clear utility to the reader, then we should go with that one. (What I said above about when to use "realm" and "Realm" is a good example of that, I think.) If there are two (or multiple) variants, neither of which are particularly superior to the other when it comes to utility, and there is not clear evidence that it should be one or the other, then I think we should leave them alone and respect the status quo. If both variants appear in the same article then the variant that appears most often should be considered the default and the other variants changed to conform to it, i.e. kind of like what we do when there is a mix of, say, British English and American English in an article.

Does that work? -- Hux 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has offered even a shred of evidence that "Commonwealth Realm" is an official title accorded to the realms of which QE2 is Queen. Indeed, the Website for the only authority who could grant that title, i.e., the Queen, does not capitalize it, despite the fact that it capitalizes all sorts of things normal people wouldn't. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Nobody has offered even a shred of evidence". Are we reading the same page here, because I could swear that if you search this page for the text, "It's a proper noun in reference to a specific group of monarchies", you'll find some evidence.

"the Website for the only authority who could grant that title, i.e., the Queen". The Queen is not the authority that can grant this - the governments of the Commonwealth Realms have that power because despite the requirement of the royal assent, by convention she does what she's told by her governments. If we're going to rely on online sources for this then the best sources would be things like the FCO, the British High Commission, or some other government source whose job it is to deal with Commonwealth related issues. -- Hux 08:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been any evidence that it is an "official title", just evidence that it is a term used by official bodies. The only evidence for capitalisation is from sites that capitalise many things that aren't proper nouns and Wikipedia wouldn't capitalise, so it isn't evidence that it is a proper noun at all. Anyway, there is no reason to rely on online sources. JPD (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three levels of reliability here (from lowest to highest): 1) no evidence, 2) evidence of use by official sources, 3) evidence from those sources that it is an official title. I propose that in the absence of #3 it is reasonable to rely on #2. Given that #2 provides us with conflicting usage, we must then decide which usage to follow. In my opinion, the FCO and the British High Commission are better sources to follow since they are directly concerned with Commonwealth affairs. Further, given that we've already agreed above that there is a difference between "realm" (general) and "Realm" (specific, with constitutional implications), the phrase, "Commonwealth Realm" clearly implies a specific, constitutional reference, hence both words should be capitalized.

"there is no reason to rely on online sources" This assertion is absurd. If those online sources are the websites of government agencies that are specifically tasked with dealing with Commonwealth issues, then there is every reason to rely on them. -- Hux 10:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear that my reply to your "If we are going to rely on online sources" meant that we do not need to rely only on online sources, not that they are not reliable. At any rate, while the FCO may be the agency most involved in "Commonwealth affairs", that is not really their focus, and none of the examples you have provided have been in that context. (They are parts of general descriptions of a particular country. In fact, it is telling that the FCO only use the term in the description of one of the 15 other countries, and most of the British High Commissions were not included in your search.)

But that's not the important point. Your #2 and #3 are not different levels of reliability, they are evidence of different things. There is no evidence that it is an official title. (This should be spelt out in the article, by the way.) There is evidence of official use. The official use we have seen varies in capitalisation, only capitalising in contexts where legal-style capitalisation is employed. We do have a choice as to which usage, but since it is only a matter of style, that choice should be based on our in-house style, not by choosing which other websites to follow.

I do not at all agree that there is a difference between "realm" and "Realm", except possibly when used as an abbreviation of a longer title, or when used in similarly in legal documents. If Wikipedia does not in general use that style, then it shouldn't here. JPD (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, nobody has yet outlined how to differentiate between a Commonwealth realm under Elizabeth II and a Commonwealth realm under another monarch if we go with "Commonwealth realm" here. Or, are the anti-capitalization proponents under the impression that we'll be adding Lesotho, Brunei, Malaysia, Tonga and maybe Samoa to the list on this page?

I think Hux has it perfectly right on this one: "'Realm', when used in the context of the official Commonwealth designation (implying specific constitutional meaning), should be capitalized, and since attaching it to the word 'Commonwealth' inherently puts it in such a context, the phrase should be written, 'Commonwealth Realm'. It's the same reason why we write 'United Kingdom' and not 'United kingdom'." --G2bambino 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, G2bambino, noone has yet given a compelling rason why "Commonwealth realm" would be understood to mean "a realm which is a member of the Commonwealth" as opposed to, say, "a realm of the Head of the Commonwealth", which are equally likely meanings given only the meanings of the two words. The use of nouns as adjectives in this way is never straightforward, especially when we are dealing with words like "realm" which are rarely used outside specific contexts anyway. The idea that "Commonwealth realm" includes Lesotho etc. has never been advanced outside discussions like this on Wikipedia, and has no basis.

In your second paragraph, you draw attention to the real issue, and then contradict yourself. The "kingdom" is capitalised in "United Kingdom" because "United Kingdom" is itself a proper noun, a specific (shortened) title of one country. It is not at all because the word "kingdom" is capitalised in contexts that imply specific consitutional meaning. This issue is not whether "Commonwealth R/realms" is an official title, which it isn't, but precisely whether or not the single word "Realm" should be capitalised in the contexts you describe. Apart from the fact that it isn't at all clear what you mean by "official Commonwealth designation" or "specific consitutional meaning", the capitalisation in sentences like "Fiji became an independent Realm in 1970" is nothing more than a particular (valid and sometimes convenient, if slightly archaic) style, that is not universally used. In particular, it is not the style generally used in Wikipedia. JPD (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JPD: As has been said, the word, "realm", is synonymous with "kingdom" and is a general term that encompasses any kingdom. On the other hand, "Realm", within an article about the Commonwealth, has specific constitutional implications, chief among them being that Elizabeth II is its head of state; if a Commonwealth nation is not, specifically, a "Realm" then she is not its head of state. The two variants have subtle but important differences in meaning that need to be respected, especially in articles whose raison d'être is the discussion of Commonwealth, constitutional issues.

G2bambino's point - that because there is a difference between "realm" and "Realm" there is also a difference between "Commonwealth Realm" and "Commonwealth realm" - is perfectly sound. However, I would argue that the latter phrase should simply be avoided, so as not to confuse. We can very easily substitute it with a phrase like, "realms of the Commonwealth". -- Hux 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk about a red herring. As I've already explained elsewhere: "realm" and "kingdom" are synonyms. Therefore, all kingdoms within the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. However, within that category, there is a more specific sub-grouping of countries with a certain common characteristic that have been collectively, and uniquely, defined by a title: the Commonwealth Realms; perhaps not officially - ie. not through any law - but it seems a common nomenclature used in foreign offices, embassies, the Commonwealth Secretariat, etc. "Realm" in this sense, therefore, does not stand on its own as a common noun; it is always joined with the word "Commonwealth" to form the "title" for the specific group of countries under EIIR, "Commonwealth Realms." I believe this is what Hux was referring to with the United Kingdom analogy. --G2bambino 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For at least the third time: It is not clear to me that even "Commonwealth kingdoms" must mean "kingdoms that are members of the Commonwealth". This is nothing more than your assertion, which is even less valid when using the word "realm", which has different connotations combined with the same basic meaning. (Note that a quantum group is not even a group) I understand the distinction that you are making, I just don't agree that the term "Commonwealth realms" has the natural meaning that you claim. Yes, "Commonwealth Realms" is used as a term/title to refer to the more specific subgroup, but is often (perhaps even originally) used as a term/title in that way without the capital R (including in Hansard, the royal website and so on, with the Commonwealth Secretariat not using the term at all online). It is not used only as a "title" for a specific group of countries, but as a term that can refer to any of those countries. It is precisely that difference that makes the UK analogy fail. A technical term with a specific meaning is not the same as a title. Most terms like that are not capitalised. Argue for a change in the style we use if you think it is convenient, but don't pretend that the term is something it isn't. JPD (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JPD: "It is not clear to me that even "Commonwealth kingdoms" must mean "kingdoms that are members of the Commonwealth"." In all seriousness, what else could it possibly mean? Does the phrase, "Seville oranges" similarly cause you to doubt that it is referring to "oranges of the variety known as 'Seville'"? -- Hux 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless I already know that there is a variety of oranges known as "Seville", I don't know whether "Seville oranges" are any oranges from Seville, or a particularly variety of oranges, known as "Seville". By G2bambino's logic, it couldn't possibly be referring to a variety, unless we say "Seville Oranges". Thank you for the illustration. JPD (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse; replace "Seville oranges" with "Granny Smith apples" then. And your logical argument fails because there is no distinction between "apple" and "Apple" (or "orange" and "Orange") in any contextual use of those words. And in any case, wouldn't this article be the perfect place to explain to the reader the difference between "realm" and "Realm", thus negating the argument that the reader might be ignorant of that difference? -- Hux 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Granny Smith apples" is unambiguous, so it is clear that we are talking about the name of a particular variety. It is also natural for "Commonwealth realms" to be the name of a partiuclar variety of realm, but you and G2bambino are arguing instead that it must refer to realms in the Commonwealth, and that if it were a name, both terms would be capitalised. As demonstrated by your examples, that is not how names work, even when there is ambiguity.

As for my argument, you still haven't understood it. I am not arguing that a reader may be ignorant of the difference between "realm" and "Realm", I am arguing that even this is not one of the contexts where such a difference should exist. Of course, much of the evidence you give for the difference existing even in other contexts is flawed, but that is beside the point. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's this simple: there is a useful, semantic difference between "realm" and "Realm". I'm not arguing about whether or not "Commonwealth Realm" is an official title (I've already said that I'm unsure whether it is one, due to conflicting usage on government websites), but given that "Realm" refers specifically to the sixteen countries in the Commonwealth that have Elizabeth II as their monarch, as distinct from the other monarchies that don't, it is reasonable and accurate to use the phrase, "Commonwealth Realm" to refer to them and it is reasonable for the article that describes precisely this situation to be titled, "Commonwealth Realm". I'm having a really hard time seeing why this is so amazingly objectionable. -- Hux 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What else could a Commonwealth kingdom be other than a kingdom within the Commonwealth? Unless one could describe the Commonwealth of Australia as a commonwealth kingdom; but that seems a bit odd. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point of this debate. If you agree "Commonwealth Realms" is used as a title of sorts for a sub-group of kingdoms within the Commonwealth of Nations, then the crux of the issue ends up being conflicting sources which write the term with both the capitalized and non-capitalized version of "realm" (the only Hansard version I've seen capitalized it). Given conflicting information, it's then essentially left to us to decide which format to follow; which is essentially what Hux said above.

It seems you support that "Commonwealth Realms" - with the capitalized "realm" - can be applied as a "title" to the group of particular nations - should "Commonwealth Realms" therefore be the title of this article? - but the term "Commonwealth Realm" cannot be used for each of those nations individually, only "Comonwealth realm." I can see a parallel between this and the States of Australia: one would speak of the "Austrlaian States," but would say Queensland is an "Australian state." But this still leads me to again question: how do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm? --G2bambino 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what "Commonwealth" means as an adjective. It's not clear that "Commonwealth kingdoms" means anything at all. With realm, it is even more complicated, as I have already given a perfectly good alternative meaning. If that meaning doesn't also work for "kingdoms", then we have proved that the words are not perfectly synonymous. I don't agree that it is a title - it is a technical term, whether referring to the group or a nation individually. I would say "the Australian states". In fact, that is what Wikipedia consistently does when talking about the Australian states. We don't follow sources on matters of style, we follow our style guide. That is what I said in reply to Hux above. (By the way, you mean the only Hansard version you remember - a British Hansard quote with small "r" was quoteed in archive 4 or 5 in a discussion you took part in.)

I still don't see why we need to differentiate between a realm in the Commonwealth (a realm of the Commonwealth makes no sense at all) and a Commonwealth realm. Commonwealth realm is a technical term that has never been used to refer to Malaysia, etc. except by you. In the rare case it is worth observing that a country is both a Commonwealth member and a realm in the broader sense, we can call it a realm in the Commonwealth (or better, monarchy/kingdom in the Commonwealth, but only because they are more normal words - I am not claiming the difference is relevant to this discussion). JPD (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

JPD: "It's not at all clear what "Commonwealth" means as an adjective." What else could it possibly mean other than "of or relating to the Commonwealth of Nations", given that "Commonwealth of Nations" is linked in the very first sentence of the article? I mean come on: the context is pretty clear to anyone that understands how to use a web browser.

"With realm, it is even more complicated, as I have already given a perfectly good alternative meaning." What meaning was that? I'm not seeing it.

"We don't follow sources on matters of style, we follow our style guide." But as has been correctly pointed out, the style guide, like every other aspect of Wikipedia, is not something we must stick to 100% of the time. There are occasions when it is better to depart from it. I would strongly argue that "making the article more useful to the reader" (which is what happens when we note the difference between "realm" and "Realm") is a textbook example of that.

"I still don't see why we need to differentiate between a realm in the Commonwealth (a realm of the Commonwealth makes no sense at all) and a Commonwealth realm." Again, as has been explained, a "realm" in the Commonwealth is any kingdom in the Commonwealth, whereas a "Realm" in the Commonwealth is one of the sixteen kingdoms of which Elizabeth II is the monarch. I'm having real trouble understanding how you a) cannot see this distinction, and b) how you cannot see that the distinction is a significant one that any reader of this article would benefit from understanding. -- Hux 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that it means "of or relating to the Commonwealth of Nations". But there are ways in which something may be "of" or "relate to" the Commonwealth other than simply being a member. For the third time, a "realm" in a generic sense may relate to the Commonwealth by being a member, or it may relate to the Commonwealth by being a realm of the Head of the Commonwealth, that is, those whose "realm-ness" and membership are related. I don't see why the former interpretation of the phrase is any more obvious than the latter, especially since the word "realm" is usually used to draw attention to the ruler. This is exactly analogous to oranges, which may relate to Seville by being grown there, or originating there. It would be ridiculous to claim that the common meaning of "Seville oranges" refers to those grown there. It is less obvious what the common meaning of "Australian football" is, but the issue here is much less ambiguous than these examples, because there is no evidence that anyone outside these conversations has ever considered "Commonwealth realms" to have the broader meaning that G2bambino ascribes to it, and there is plenty of evidence that people have used it in the manner he wishes to reserve for "Commonwealth Realms".

You are absolutely right that we can choose to use a slightly different style from that described in the MOS (which is not even self-consistent anyway). I believe that the biologists have done so in situations which have some similarities to this. But let us have discussion about the advantages of using a different style, rather than arguments based on nonexistant distinctions between "Commonwealth realm" and "Commonwealth Realm". There is a distinction between monarchical countries in the Commonwealth and Her Majesty's Realms, yes. The sentence you quote does imply that I don't wish to make that distinction, but I hope it is clear from its original context that I actually meant that there is no need to do this when using the phrase "Commonwealth R/realms". That distinction is already made quite easily in many ways. While a "realm" in the Commonwealth definitely could be understood to be any kingdom, and "Realm" has been used in certain contexts to refer to Commonwealth Realms, it is not at all clear that this style has ever been used in order to make this distinction, and it is definitely not the most common way of referring to and making a distinction between the two notions. It is not the common way, and I would say, definitely not the best way, a sentiment with which you seem to agree just below. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: "how do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm?" As I suggested above, the best way to do this would be to do exactly what you just did: use phrases such as "realm of the Commonwealth" to refer to places that are not Commonwealth Realms, so as to avoid confusion. -- Hux 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has no difficulty with this distinction, and I strongly suspect the Queen would be most perturbed to find people muddling the difference between the Commonwealth realms and the other monarchies within the Commonwealth. It's really quite simple. There are Commonwealth realms, and there are other, indigenous monarchies within the Commonwealth.

Miscapitalizing words doesn't give them any more prestige. It just makes the article look slanted and unprofessional.

Jonathan David Makepeace 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is at least the third time in a matter of days that you have cited Buckingham Palace as the authority here. On each of the two previous occasions you've received a reply explaining why the replier disagrees with you, but you have chosen not to address those replies. Why are you now saying the same thing yet again? It adds nothing useful to the discussion. -- Hux 12:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no one has explained why the usage on the Head of Commonwealth's Web site shouldn't be considered, even if it isn't definitive.

But in any case, I cited two different pages, one on which the Head of Commonwealth's site explicitly refers to those countries of which Elizabeth II is Queen (and only those countries) as "Commonwealth realms." The other page shows how the Head of Commonwealth's Web site refers to other monarchies in the Commonwealth. G2bambino asked, [H]ow do we differentiate between a generic realm of the Commonwealth and a specific Commonwealth Realm?" I merely pointed out how the Head of Commonwealth's Web site does it.

I don't respond to every point you make because I would be repeating JPD's excellent points.

Jonathan David Makepeace 00:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan David Makepeace: "Actually, no one has explained why the usage on the Head of Commonwealth's Web site shouldn't be considered, even if it isn't definitive." Firstly, I don't think anyone here has argued that it shouldn't be considered, so that's a straw man argument. Secondly, the objection is to your implication that because it says "Commonwealth realm" on royal.gov.uk, we must use the same format here, as if royal.gov.uk is the final arbiter on this point. I've already given you what I think is a decent reason why that doesn't fly, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself. -- Hux 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM, while we seem to agree on several points, I must point out that it is not "miscapitalisation". It is simply using a different style. We are perfectly able to make the decision to use a particular style, and such a decision could not be called original research. Having said that, I think Hux is wrong to think you are saying royal.gov.uk is the final arbiter - it is merely evidence that using "Commonwealth realms", as would be our normal practice, is perfectly acceptable and can work well. Using "Commonealth Realm" could work just as well, even though it departs slightly from the MOS. However, implying that "Commonwealth realm" is wrong, or has a different meaning, would be a bad idea. JPD (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it departs from the MOS then it is wrong within the context of Wikipedia, is it not? So far, the only excuse advanced by those who wish to capitalize it is that it is an official title with a meaning distinct from the uncapitalized "Commonwealth realm." However, they have been unable to show any evidence that the capitalized and uncapitalized versions have distinct meanings or that the capitalized version is an official title. Hence my concern that they are engaged in original research.

However, I now realize that the Queen's Web site probably doesn't capitalize the term so as not to undermine Commmonwealth unity and support for her successor as British monarch to be given the title Head of Commonwealth. This isn't my fight; it's hers.

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"If it departs from the MOS then it is wrong within the context of Wikipedia, is it not?" The MoS, like all guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, is not absolute. In cases where sticking rigidly to it would result in Wikipedia being less useful to the reader, editors should depart from it. This is a very good example of such a case: since "realm" and "Realm" have different meanings, preserving that distinction makes for a better, more useful article.

"So far, the only excuse advanced by those who wish to capitalize it is that it is an official title with a meaning distinct from the uncapitalized "Commonwealth realm."" Nope. That is neither the only argument, nor is an argument that (as far as I can see) anyone is actually making at this point.

"However, they have been unable to show any evidence that the capitalized and uncapitalized versions have distinct meanings" This is not true and you know it. Evidence has been shown that "realm" is different from "Realm" and thus that "Commonwealth Realm" means something different from "Commonwealth realm". For you to say otherwise is disingenuous.

"This isn't my fight; it's hers." Then why on Earth are you - and only you - making such a big deal out of this? -- Hux 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hux is absolutely right about the MOS. However, I have to agree with JDM that there has been no evidence provided that "realm" and "Realm" have different meanings. There have been assertions to that effect, and there has been evidence of the word "Realm" being used in a context where it is both capitalised and understood to refer to QEII's realms only, but there hasnt' been an example of one source using "realm" and "Realm" to have different meanings, in other words that the capitalisation is used for the purpose of distinguishing between two meanings. It may be a useful way of indicating a semantic difference, there may even indeed be contexts that haven't been mentioned here where it is used but even if that is the case, I would argue that capitalisation is not the most helpful way to make that distinction in an encyclopedic context. Moreover, such evidence would not affect the overwhelming evidence that "Commonwealth realms" is most commonly used to mean exactly the same thing as "Commonwealth Realms". This really isn't a big issue, and probably wouldn't have generated so much debate if both sides hadn't kept insisting that it is anything more than style. JPD (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet more on the dablink

After Hux's edits to the dab, I thought we should open up another (hopefully brief) discussion about its contents. In particular, I re-added the sentence about EIIR being monarch of the other Realms; this was originally inserted, by my understanding, to avoid any misconception that the non-UK countries were under the British Monarch (perhaps Chris Bennett can clarify if I'm wrong). As there is somewhat of a circle of links between here and various other articles, edits to the dab here may also have an effect on the dabs of other related pages. --G2bambino 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't track these pages minute by minute, so I haven't seen this partucular reedit. But, yes, my aim, reflected in the current wording, is intended to avoid the misapprehension that non-UK monarchies are in any way subordinate to the UK monarchy.

One change I did revert just now is to restore the phrase "pointers to articles" in place of "information", when refering to the disambiguation page. In the debate about wording of links in DAB links there was much pontification about the need to adhere strictly to WP policy, to ensure scrupulous accuracy in a DAB link. The principle should apply to the wording of the DAB link. There is no actual information about any of the other monarchies on the disambiguation page. --Chris Bennett 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The phrase, "...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms", is redundant when the very first sentence in the DAB says that the article is about, "the common features of those countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that have the same monarch" (emphasis mine).

WTF??? If you had problems with the DABlink wording why didn't you raise them when I moved a motion on the text???

Because I wasn't involved in the discussion at that time. I've only been contributing to it for the last couple of days. I am many things, but psychic isn't one of them! -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please make up your mind whether you think the contents of a DABlink are entirely self-contained or whether they will be interpreted in the context in the article in which they appear. You can't have it both ways as it suits your mood. That wording is there precisely because people like you were taking the position that the contents of a DABlink are entirely self-contained. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you're saying this - I've always argued that DAB links are entirely self-contained and I'm not seeing how anything I've said has been contradictory on that point.

Further, it doesn't make sense to argue that the phrase, "...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms", was put there in accordance with the idea that DAB links are self-contained. The whole point of the "self-contained" argument is that such qualifying text is unnecessary. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

2) Like all DAB links, the fact that it says, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", is purely because that's the title of the page it links to. It implies nothing beyond that. If you disagree with this, please point out how the links in this DAB imply anything about the rulers of Prussia. By your logic, we must change that DAB so that it says, "for the unincorporated community in Pennsylvania, see King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which has never had a Prussian ruler and is not in Prussia."

And now you are taking the opposite position! I'm sure you have a vast and intimate working knowledge of the arcana of Wikipedia policies, but most readers do not. Pretend you never saw a WP in your life, read the DAB link without that qulifyig phrase, and tell me you don't think it suggests that EIIR is queen of all Commonwealth Realms in her capacity as Queen of the UK.

I don't think it does, personally. But here's the much, much more important point: this article makes it clear that she is not, and the "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" article makes it clear that she is not. If the article consisted of the DAB and only the DAB then you might have a point, but when a major feature of both this article and the "Elizabeth..." article is to precisely explain Elizabeth's constitutional position with regard to the realms, worrying this much about the precise wording of a DAB is just ridiculous. To draw an analogy: let's say you're the mayor of Hicksville and in Hicksville is a signpost pointing to New York. What you're doing here is the equivalent of spending all day worrying about the font of the signpost, rather than, say, making sure Hicksville's roads aren't full of potholes. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you are serious about your king of Prussia example: the words community and Pennsylvania answer the question. There is nothing equivalent in the DABlink here. That's why the phrase is needed. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And the phrase, "that have the same monarch", answers the question here. Another example: the Girth article. By your logic, the DAB should read something like, "A girth is also a piece of equipment used to hold the saddle on a horse, although it should not be inferred that the word 'girth' relates specifically to horses". -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

3) Even if someone somehow managed to totally fail at reading comprehension and, in addition, has no clue what a DAB is for, the first three sentences following the DAB make it 100% clear that no such subordination of countries to the UK exists.

Flipping sides again....--Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, how so? -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

4) This article is about the somewhat unusual situation whereby one person is the separate monarch of multiple countries. It is reasonable to assume that people coming here to read it are going to be open to learning this fact if they don't already know, further mitigating that astonishingly unlikely chance of them making the asserted assumption.

If they get far. If they link out through the DABlink then they will also have picked up some bad information unless the DABlink is worded correctly. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Imo, the chances of anyone making the inference you allege is somewhere between "very slim" and "none". In fact, I'd go so far as to say that when people need an example to define the phrase, "making a mountain out of a molehill", we could point them to this discussion. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And as far as "pointers to" versus "information", that edit would've been completely unnecessary if my previous one had been left alone. I mean seriously, what on Earth was wrong with, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies, see..."?

Same problem, only worrse. (a) there are no articles at that link, only a list of articles and (b) that wording doesn't warn you that there are no additional articles about some of the monarchies to be found by going to that link. --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: a) The phrase, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies, see...", is simply shorthand for, "if this isn't what you want, this link will send you in the right direction". To argue that it must be replaced with "pointers to" because the DAB says it goes to "articles" when in fact it goes to a list of links to articles is so pedantic I'm lost for words. Re: b) why on Earth would it need to? The point of the DAB is to attempt to get people to where they want to go. As long as it sends people in a direction that is more likely to provide that result then that's all that matters. Again, the change is needlessly pedantic. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing it to refer to "monarchies of some of these countries" (whether it's "information" about them or "pointers to" them) makes no sense because not all the links on that disambig page are for monarchies. The page is about general issues relating to those monarchies and to the Commonwealth Realm situation that are not contained on this article, hence, "For additional articles that relate to these monarchies".

Seriously, this is getting beyond ridiculous. -- Hux 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This issue is entirely about some people, such as yourself, being overly legalistic and rigid in their application of certain Wiki policies, even when those policy statements themselves admonish editors to be flexible and to use judgement. The primary aims should always be accuracy and readability. Instead we're wasting time threading those camels through needles in order to satisfy unreasonable and dogmatic demands that we conform at all costs to the smallest letter of the law. IMO we found a way to do it that wasn't utterly foul two days ago. Why not leave well enough alone? --Chris Bennett 21:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"This issue is entirely about some people, such as yourself, being overly legalistic and rigid in their application of certain Wiki policies". On the contrary, this issue is about you and (G2bambino) obsessing about trivial and utterly pedantic wording choices in the least important part of the entire article and raising a big stink about it whenever anyone simply tries to make the DAB do what DABs are supposed to do: send readers in the right direction as succinctly as possible.

"The primary aims should always be accuracy and readability." When it comes to articles, sure. But when it comes to DABs the primary aim should be utility. The DAB is nothing more than a tool to help readers get to where they want to go.

"Instead we're wasting time threading those camels through needles in order to satisfy unreasonable and dogmatic demands that we conform at all costs to the smallest letter of the law." I am making no such demands with this DAB. I'm simply trying to get you to see that you are wasting way too much time worrying about the tiniest detail in the part of the article where such concerns matter the least.

"Why not leave well enough alone?" Exactly my point! It was fine before, now it's needlessly verbose and needlessly pedantic when such verbosity and such pedantic explanation is neither necessary nor helpful in a DAB. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting beyond ridiculous.... yet, it was you, Hux, who edited the dab again.

What are you talking about? I've only ever made two edits to this article, both of which were to the DAB, and both of which were yesterday. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm with Chris Bennett on this one; I'm not sure Hux, that you understand how poorly educated most people are on the Commownealth Realm situation

That's irrelevant because, as I've said already, a) the article right below it is all about the Commonwealth Realm situation, and b) the "Elizabeth..." link explains it as well. The bases are already covered. For some reason, you and Chris Bennett seem to be under the impression that one of the functions of a DAB is to head off any and all possible ambiguity, and I'm entirely failing to understand how you've managed to arrive at that point of view. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

in Canada I can tell you for certain that many people mistakenly believe the country to either still be reigned over by the "Queen of England," or think the prime minister is the head of state (92% at the last poll). The situation of the personal union is complex enough as it is; this plus the fact that the EIIR article is titled as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is exactly what causes false impressions and misunderstanding; yes, people can read into the detail and realise the EIIR article is mistitled, but I think that there should be at least an attempt at some simple clarification before hand. What Chris Bennett proposes is neither unwieldly nor completely useless. --G2bambino 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

DABs are signposts, nothing more. Signposts do not address every possible inference that could be drawn by any possible reader, they simply point the way. -- Hux 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that Chris Bennett (and, again, he can correct me if I'm wrong) is arguing that because of the given circumstances we're dealing with here - a) a complex consitutional/geographical/national situation, and b) an improperly titled Wikipedia article - the clause of WP:DAB that states "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" applies to this particular situation. I tend to agree with him, and can't see what benefit removing the words ...who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms actually brings. --G2bambino 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. If it were up to me the sentence would read per my original proposed modification: "For information about the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II." Simple, unambiguous, and, unlike the previous statement, accurate. When I first made it I thought it was a trivial and obvious fix. Instead, for nearly a week now, I have had to deal with boneheaded literalism, insisting on the mantra that DABlinks must always have the full article of the referenced title under any and all circumstances whatsoever because It's a Policy. So I proposed the current wording in an effort to find a compromise that would appease this concern and settle the issue. I don't like it, but it does meet the letter of the law, and it is accurate. --Chris Bennett 15:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bennett: I accept the reasoning that it's okay to divert from the guidelines in certain cases. I think it's much better to have "Elizabeth II" than to have two separate phrases that specify her precise constitutional position, so I would support your original proposed modification on the basis that I don't see how else this disagreement can be resolved. Will you, in turn, drop the "pointers to" issue? -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: "an improperly titled Wikipedia article". When you say, "improperly", are you speaking from a constitutional perspective? Because in terms of Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is exactly consistent with WP:NCNT. -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you have compromised to meet some of Hux's concerns. Now, will Hux compromise to meet yours? Further, I note that Lonewolf has gone very silent on this issue, though he edited British Monarchy today. --G2bambino 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your noting so is most odd, given that the former is inaccurate, the latter is irrelevant. What is your point? -- Lonewolf BC 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In short, I concur with Hux. I won't go through this dog-fight of a discussion in point-by-point, post-by-post detail because do not think that would be useful. Hux has already said about everything I would. -- Lonewolf BC 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we can assume that if Hux capitulates to some of Chris Bennett's concerns, as Chris Bennett has done for Hux, then you'll follow suit as well? --G2bambino 19:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think anyone has "capitulated" to meet any of my concerns. My only two concerns here were the last sentence of the DAB ("who is separately monarch of each of the Commonwealth Realms") and the phrase, "pointers to", and nobody is stepping down from either of those, as far as I can see. -- Hux 09:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bennett said he bowed to your concern about dabs not piping links or using redirects, or, as he put it, they "must always have the full article of the referenced title under any and all circumstances whatsoever because It's a Policy." Personally, I'm ambivalent to the "pointers to," and am content with the Elizabeth II solution. So, if Chris Bennett agrees with your proposed wording at Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation), then we'd be well on our way to a final compostion... I hope. --G2bambino 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino: "Chris Bennett said he bowed to your concern about dabs not piping links or using redirects". This doesn't make sense. I'm the one who is bowing to the suggestion that we use the Elizabeth II redirect, rather than stick rigorously to the guideline that says we shouldn't used piped links and redirects in DABs. We obviously can't capitulate on the same thing! But anyway, let's not dwell on this since it's essentially settled. -- Hux 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux asked me:

Chris Bennett: I accept the reasoning that it's okay to divert from the guidelines in certain cases. I think it's much better to have "Elizabeth II" than to have two separate phrases that specify her precise constitutional position, so I would support your original proposed modification on the basis that I don't see how else this disagreement can be resolved. Will you, in turn, drop the "pointers to" issue?

Of course I'm willing to go back to my original proposal on Elizabeth II ;-) But your determined opposition to it over the last week has left me gunshy. How are we going to ensure that the issue isn't reopened by a member of the Strict Policy Conformance Police?

As to the "pointers to" issue, my Comp Sci background makes me queasy about confusing pointers with objects, but it's the lesser issue. If that's what it takes to really close this issue, then I'll capitulate: replace it by "information". --Chris Bennett 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my BA English background makes me queasy about "pointers to" and since we're dealing with English language composition here, rather than computer programming... ;)

"How are we going to ensure that the issue isn't reopened by a member of the Strict Policy Conformance Police?" Frankly, your attitude here is in need of a rethink. It's clear you've labeled me as an absolutist policy conformist policeman over this single issue, a stance that is neither accurate nor reasonable. I did not adopt my position out of a simple, knee-jerk adherence to guidelines. I adopted it because I think it makes the most sense from a utility standpoint, i.e. the usefulness of Wikipedia to its readers. I simply pointed to the guidelines because it makes sense to stick to them by default, since it avoids having to reinvent the wheel every time. But as you can see, I agree with you that there is room to go against the guidelines in certain situations. So let's have a little more respect around here, eh? -- Hux 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's please move this to Talk:Commonwealth Realm monarchies (disambiguation). Chris, I hope you don't mind if I move your above comment there - it is pertinent to the discussion. --G2bambino 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

personal union or shared monarchy

The article states "They are independent kingdoms, and the sovereign is separately and equally monarch of each state; thus, they are in personal union with one another." A personal union however can also come about through the co-incidences of dynastic relations between royal families and can also end because of them (like Britain and Hanover 1714-1837 or the Netherlands and Luxembourg 1839-1890). The tie between the Commonwealth Realm however is of a slightly different nature as one Crown operating seperately and independently within sixteen different legal contexts and with the titles all having a shared element. Therefore I'd prefer the term "shared monarchy" to "personal union"Gerard von Hebel 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Personal union, you'll see that the situation with the Commonwealth Realms matches one of the several ways in which a personal union can arise. Therefore, the phrase is accurate. The phrase is linked multiple times in this article, so if anyone is confused by the absence of the specific reason why it is appropriate here then they are free to follow that link and find out more. -- Hux 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We have cited references that refer to the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as a personal union. I also think it's adequately explained as to how they came to be in this situation. Is this really the first time in history countries have voluntarily aligned themseleves in a personal union? --G2bambino 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, a personal union does not only refer to "co-incidental dynastic relations". The Union between Sweden and Norway is usually described as a personal union, although, while not voluntary, it was closer to the situation of the current Commonwealth Realms than to, let's say, the Netherland-Luxembourg union. Blur4760 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realms have not "voluntarily aligned themselves". They were created like that, and are therefore like that by default. They can voluntarily dissociate themselves, but to remain as they are requires no act of volition on their part at all - it is simply how they were when they came into existence. TharkunColl 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. The original SoW, which is what effectively created the first Realms, was a direct result of pressure from the Dominions of the day. The independence of Burma established that all colonies which became independent at later dates could choose to become republics, and after 1950 they could even choose to become republics within the Commonwealth.

The phrase "shared monarchy" implies that there is a single monarchy encompassing multiple countries. That is false. There is only a "shared monarch". The moarchies are separate instiotutions. "Personal union" is the correct description of their relationship to each other. --Chris Bennett 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; and let's not forget when each non-UK Realm patriated its constitution - there was ample ability to choose not to be in a personal relationship at those points. --G2bambino 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On the personal union issue, it is worth noting that every example in history has been inherently unstable. They function either as a temporary phase leading to full union, or they break apart. But then a true personal union is between pre-existing states, which the Commonwealth Realms aren't. TharkunColl 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when? A personal union is simply a set of otherwise independent states with a shared head of state. The set of historical accidents leading to that arrangement is irrelevant. I'll grant you that the history leading to the personal union of the Commonwealth realms is unique, certainly on this scale (Austria-Hungary? Denmark+Iceland? are the closest similar examples that come to mind), but that doesn't make it any less a personal union. As to its long-term stability -- I wouldn't count on it lasting more than a generation after the queen's death. --Chris Bennett 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, every personal union in history has not been inherently unstable (the England/Scotland union appears to be doing just fine after nearly 400 years, for example). But in the second place...so what? What relevance does this argument have to anything beyond a conversational piece? It doesn't seem to be related to any proposed article change. -- Hux 08:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "union" implies that the parties to that union already existed. In this case, only one pre-existed and created all the others. I think you're certainly right about its transitory nature though. It is clearly just a phase in the extremely protracted dissolution of the British Empire. TharkunColl 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal union seems more accurate (for example)- in Canada, you've got the Queen of Canada and no other royal title. There's no consort of Canada, prince or princess of Canada (this also shoots down the 'Canadian Royal Family' discription). GoodDay 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Two things: To TharkunColl, saying that we are in "a phase in the extremely protracted dissolution of the British Empire" is a personal prognosis and thus has no implications for a verifiable article (unless attributable to a source). Furthermore, to me union only implies that the partners of a union exist while the union exists, not that they have to exist before the union. For instance, Iceland did not exist as a sovereign state before being created as such by Denmark. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two is commonly refered to as a personal union.
Secondly, to GoodDay, the concept of a Canadian Royal Family was not born in Wikipedia. The Canadian Heritage for instance lists members of the Royal Family ([2], notably Angus Ogilvy, who was never a member of the British Royal Family), the Canadian Heritage Trust uses the word "Canadian Royal Family" ([3]), as does the office of the Governor General ([4]). Blur4760 23:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really imagine that the inclusion of Sir Angus Ogilvy was a deliberate policy decision, rather than just sloppy research? The fact that he's dead now, yet is still listed as a member of the Canadian royal family should be a bit of a giveaway. So, despite being dead for 2½ years, the fact that he is currently listed on the Canadian heritage website should mean - if that's an authoritative source - that he's still a member of the Canadian royal family, correct? Or perhaps the Canadian doppelganger of Sir Angus, who exists totally independently of his British counterpart, is, by some administrative oversight, not actually dead yet? TharkunColl 11:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. You are making a Straw man argument. 2. But to humour you, here are some more Canadian government sites that refer to a Canadian Royal Family [5] (although not all of them). 3. And no, I don't think it was sloppy research, because the page distinguishes between private visits by Ogilvy and official visits that were made as a member of the Canadian Royal Family (something that can easily be seen by simply reading the page I provided). Blur4760 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: Given that there is, without any doubt, such a thing as "the Canadian monarchy", that is constitutionally distinct from any other monarchy, I think it stands to reason that one can legitimately refer to "the Canadian royal family". -- Hux 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I disagree fundamentally with your idiosyncratic POV interpretation of the constitutional position, that does not make me a troll. Note - this apparent non sequitur was not intended for the above user (Hux), but was in fact made in reply to this comment by G2bambino, which he removed a few seconds later: "I'm not sure why we should humour Thark any longer; he really is just being a troll, causing undue aggravation here and at a number of other articles." TharkunColl 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is nauseatingly childish. However, because Thark refuses to accept my retraction of my comment I will protect my reputation and make clear that I removed my comments for various reasons, inlcuding the avoidance of unecessary disruption, before, I thought, Thark had replied. I assert that I will take this particluar incident no further. --G2bambino 16:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. PS. we need a WikiProject for the Commonwealth related pages. It would help coordinate those pages, with guidelines. Thus helping end 'edit wars' and protracted discussions'. GoodDay 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we fly off on tangents, perhaps we can get back to issue: is 'personal union' a valid term for describing the relationship of the Commonwealth realms to each other in the person of Elizabeth Windsor? Some maintain that it is not, for the relationship is not analagous to any other historical instance commonly referred to as a personal union. In this they are probably correct. But one could suggest that none of these historical instances are analagous to each other. Compare the 'personal union' between Austria and Hungary and the one between Great Britain and Hanover. In the first, the head of the House of Habsburg (already King of Hungary) was forced to accept the union by necessity. In the second, the sovereign of Hanover succeeded to the throne of Great Britain as a result of an Act of Parliament of that nation. And if we look at other instances, we see varying factors coming into play: dynastic succession, force, election, legislative will, etc.

So I suggest, as others have before me, we look at the term personal union in itself, abstracted from any context. What do the words mean? personal union- the union is in a person, not in a legislative authority. Does that fit the case here? The Commonwealth Realms are all independent sovereign entities, who share the same person as head of state. The description fits.

Now, as to the term shared monarchy: that is, I suggest, more problematic. As others have observed, the term can be taken to mean that there is but one monarchy which exercises sovereignty over 16 nations. And this is, as most of us agree, incorrect. The term can also be taken in another sense; shared monarchy can be understood as abstracted from any particular constitutional role. 'Monarchy' is here the principle of sovereignty exemplified in the person of the head of the House of Windsor. In this last sense, the term is used not only by Wikipedia but by many other external sites. I suggest we can keep on using the term, with an explanation.--Gazzster 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer shared monarchy. Here's why, the commonwealth will continue as is (with its ties to the British monarch) upon/after Elizabeth II's death. If it were 'personal union', then that union would end with her death. GoodDay 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'personal union' may imply (but not necessarily, I grant- take the case of an elective monarchy) that the heir to the throne of one country will also succeed to the throne of the other. Under present constitutional law, all of the realms are bound to recognise the lawful successor of Queen Elizabeth. So the personal union would continue. Don't confuse 'Commonwealth' with 'shared monarchy'. They are not the same. There are republics in the Commonwealth.--Gazzster 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant 'Commonwealth Realms' (which aren't republics). Does the 'person' hold it together OR does the 'office', perhaps it's both. Their lies the true answer. Good luck in finding it, folks. GoodDay 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Many personal unions have continued as such after the death of the first monarch, e.g. England+Scotland, England+Hanover, Poland+Lithuania. The term "shared monarchy" only appears once in this article, in connection with changing the line of succession: "Alternatively, a Realm could choose to end its participation in the shared monarchy." This reads a little oddly to me. Perhaps, "Alternatively, a Realm could choose a different head of state."?? --Chris Bennett 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bennett: I agree that it's potentially confusing. Since the section already mentions that it's a personal union, I changed the line to read, simply, "Alternatively, a Realm could choose to end its participation in the personal union." I think that works better. -- Hux 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I just checked the article more closely and while the phrase "shared monarchy" no longer appears, there are several reference to the concept of the monarchy/crown being "shared". I think this is still problematic since, as noted, "shared" implies that there is one monarchy recognized by all sixteen countries, whereas as far as I'm aware there are sixteen separate monarchies that all happen to be headed by the same person. If I'm right then all those instances of "shared" need to be reworked so as to avoid confusion. Are we agreed on this or have I missed a vital point somewhere? -- Hux 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I think it's a reasonable question I am not too concerned about it. The quote from Toporoski embedded in the text makes it pretty clear that the "sharing" of the Crown is a transcendant, almost mystical, concept at this time. I think that's fair enough. --Chris Bennett 14:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good examples, Chris. Last point- yes, but we would have to explain that a realm would have to overturn its own constitutional legislation to change the succession or abolish the monarchy.Under presdent law they are mutually obligated to observe the Act of Settlement.--Gazzster 00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a discussion of how a Realm could choose a different head of state. I suspect the detailed constitutional mechanics would vary from Realm to Realm. The whole question is hypothetical anyway, so I don;t think it needs extended treatment. --Chris Bennett 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Im not suggesting an 'extended treatment.' Only that the statement "alternatively, a Realm could choose a different head of state", is true, but needs to bed qualified. Under present law the realms cannot choose a different successor without overturning legilation.--Gazzster 01:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier in this section, I'm having trouble seeing the need for debate on this particular point. This article links to Personal Union, where it states (emphasis mine):

Personal unions can arise for very different reasons, ranging from near coincidence (a princess who is already married to a king becomes pregnant, and their child inherits the crown of both countries) to virtual annexation (where a personal union sometimes was seen as a means of preventing uprisings). They can also be codified (i.e. the constitutions of the states clearly express that they shall share the same person as head of state) or non-codified, in which case they can easily be broken (e.g. by different succession rules).

Unless I'm mistaken, the Commonwealth situation is covered by the bolded part above, in which case it's accurate to use the term, "personal union" (assuming that the "Personal Union" article is itself accurate, of course). I don't agree with GoodDay's suggestion that if it's a personal union then it would end with Elizabeth's death. Given that all sixteen countries are constitutionally bound to recognize the same rules of succession, the personal union will simply continue to be embodied in her successor, just as it has always done with the English/Scottish union, for example.

"Shared monarchy", on the other hand, is a much more debatable term, plus it's pretty ambiguous so for that reason alone I think we should avoid it. -- Hux 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You've all convinced me, I'll go with Personal Union. It's not really a big issue with me. GoodDay 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm: When? (I)

Who invented the term Commonwealth Realm, and when was it first used? Furthermore, when was it first used to include the UK? Unless we can get proper citations, this article ought to be merged into Dominion. TharkunColl 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this just a continuing argument? Going back to the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom dispute over usage of sixteen... as oppose to UK and fifteen...? GoodDay 23:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So can you provide an answer then? TharkunColl 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Me, a republican? I'll defer to others for this one. GoodDay 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Commonwealth Realm#Historical Development, and the McIntyre article in the references. The term Dominion was phased out of official use starting in the late 1940s. It was replaced by Realm, for those Commnwealth countries which shared their crown with the UK, on the announcement of the accession of Elizabeth II in 1952, followed by the various Royal Style and Title Acts in 1953.

This question has been extensively discussed on this page many times, see the archived discussions.

PS: People interested in this topic are not necessarily monarchists.

--Chris Bennett 00:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Chris says, this is covered ground: there are no longer any dominions. The very term 'dominion' from dominus, lord, implies an unequal relationship. And the sovereignty of the British Crown over the other realms ceased years ago.--Gazzster 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tht's not quite the issue. The meaning of "realm" is very similar, and it would be fair to say that the realms are still Her Majesty's Dominions. The issue was that the word dominion had been used as part of the phrase "British Dominions", rather than "His Majesty's Dominions", so a change in terminology avoided the oldre connotations. JPD (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Well Tharky, there's your answer. PS- I know Chris, I'm not a monarchist either. GoodDay 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(To JPD) The meaning of 'realm' is not 'very similar' to 'dominion', and it would be in fact grossly unfair to refer to the realms as 'Her Majesty's Dominions'. 'Realm' is in fact the complete opposite of 'dominion'. A dominion is a subject nation or territory, dominated, in this case, by Great Britain in former times.A 'realm', in contradistinction, is a sovereign state. The terms represent opposite concepts. The issue I am addressing is the idea, proposed by Tharkuncoll in the beginning of this section, that Commonwealth Realm does not include the UK, and should be interchangeable with dominion. The term dominion is no longer used by the nations that were dominions, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As to whether the UK should be classed as a Commonwealth Realm- it is a realm, and it is in the Commonwealth.--Gazzster 12:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, the relevant meaning of the word "dominion" in the dictionary is "a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway.". If as more specialised terms, the words have come to indicate opposite concepts, it is because of their use in the Empire/Commonwealth. Originally, they had the same meaning, and the "domination" that you talk of referred to the king's domination, just as "realm" (from French royaume) refers to the king. It is this notion of dominion that appears in the word "kingdom". It is actually more suprising that the term "Dominion" came to be used in a way that excluded the UK, than that Commonwealth realm includes it. The change to "realm" was simply a move to discard the extra baggage that "dominion" had acquired. As for the notion that a Commonwealth realm is simply a realm in the Commonwealth, see all the discussion above, as well as TharkunColl's relevant example below. But yes, all these things have been discussed many times before (with references), so TharkunColl's question is fairly pointless. JPD (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, realm and dominion did not have originally 'the same meaning.' 'Dominion' was invented for Canada to label a self-governing territory under the British Crown. It was later applied to other self-governing territories; Australia, New Zealand, etc.Realm was later used to refer to these former dominions, and nations granted independence later, as sovereign nations under their own Crowns. The difference between dominion and realm could not be more striking.Yes, TharkunColl makes an interesting and relevant point below. But, as I told him, the term dominion is no longer relevant nor accurate.--Gazzster 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The title "Dominion" was used for Canada, using a word dominion which had existed for a very long time before that and had a meaning very similar to "realm", which was also in use as an English word a long time before it appeared in its current form. I'm not going to both arguing about whether it is currently appropriate to use the term "dominion" - the point is that any difference between the two titles is purely because of their usage, not the other way round. They weren't "invented" for these purposes. JPD (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments about the history ansd usage of terms are irrelevant. The point is that in the context we are discussing, dominion and realm are not interchangeable terms. In fact they have broadly different meanings. I don't see how anyone could dispute this.--Gazzster 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have said has agreed with you as far as it is relevant to the original question. All I did was dispute your argument based on etymology, and said the difference was based on historical use, not etymology. JPD (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A realm, and in the Commonwealth? Like Swaziland for example? Actually, the UK shares with Swaziland something that's very rare in the Commonwealth - the fact that it is reigned over by a native dynasty. TharkunColl 12:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tharky, you are avoiding the points I make: 1) the term realm is very different from 'dominion' and 2) the UK is a realm, and in the Commonwealth. Why should it not be referred to as a Commonwealth realm. Your point about a 'native dynasty' is irrelevant. And I think a native of Swaziland might object to you demeaning his/her nation.--Gazzster 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way did I demean Swaziland? TharkunColl 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, and I assume you did not intend this, you compared Swaziland to the UK, implying it to be an insignificant country compared with the UK, which should not enjoy equal status as a member of the Commonwealth.--Gazzster 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I pointed out that Swaziland, like the UK, has a native dynasty, and that this is very rare within the Commonwealth. How you could possibly read this as an insult to Swaziland is beyond me. TharkunColl 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for misunderstanding you. However I still dont understand the point of making that comparison. What has that to do with whether the UK can be called a Commonwealth Realm or not?--Gazzster 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The analogy was this - can Swaziland be called a Commonwealth Realm? Under your definition above, then yes. It has its own king, and it's in the Commonwealth. Yet it is not a Commonwealth Realm, because it has its own native dynasty. As does the UK. TharkunColl 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Swaziland is one of the realms of the Commonwealth because it is a) in the Commonwealth, and b) has a monarch. However, Swaziland is not a "Commonwealth Realm" because Commonwealth Realms are only those that have Elizabeth II as their monarch. (And on a side note, define "native dynasty", because the idea that the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty is natively British is distinctly debatable!) -- Hux 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, I see that. Quite an interesting point there actually , mate. Well I suppose we would distinguish a 'realm not presided over by EII which is a member of the Commonwealth', from a 'Commonwealth Realm', used a term for a nation in the Commonwealth presided over by EII.' I think I see your point. Its getting messy, isn't it? Please elucidate your argument.--Gazzster 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's simply a question of categorisation. We could make a list of all Commonwealth countries reigned over by Elizabeth II. Or we could make a list of all Commonwealth countries reigned over by a native monarch. Only the UK would be in both categories. TharkunColl 13:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the term 'Commonwealth Realm' should only refer to a monarchy which is also a member of the Commonwealth? If we want to talk about monarchies which share the same monarch wse need to come up with a different term? I see your point, but the term dominion will most certainly not cut it.--Gazzster 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is inane. Elizabeth II's own proclamation of accession in the UK said: "...the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of this Realm, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." Another reference from Hansard was raised in which the British PM said something to the effect of "other Realms," thereby obviously including the UK as one of them. This Time article from 1957 also says of Canada: "Largely gone from official terminology is the word 'Dominion.'" (And note, it's capitalized!)

In effect, a realm and a dominion are the same thing; however, within the context of the British Empire/Commonwealth, the two words acted as informal titles: "Dominion" meant a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom, "Realm" means a sovereign nation under Elizabeth II. Dominion is no longer used in that context, so there's absolutely no reason to merge this article with Dominion. TharkunColl is still just pushing his POV that the non-UK realms remain subservient to the UK. --G2bambino 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you have completely misrepresented my argument. At no point have I ever tried to argue that the former Dominions remain subservient to the UK. The monarchy, however, is quite clearly British. How can you possibly say that it isn't? TharkunColl 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding what your argument is. As far as I can tell, it's simply that you think that the "dominion" article should be merged into this one and I think the arguments made above have sufficiently made the case for not doing that.

If I'm missing the point here then please could you explain exactly what your argument is and what effect you think it should have on this article? -- Hux 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Monarchy of the UK is "clearly British." The monarchies of the other countries clearly are not. If you're going to argue that the non-UK countries are under the British Monarchy, then you're attempting to state that the non-UK Realms are subservient to the UK. Even by calling the Monarchy/Crown/Queen "British" in a Commonwealth-wide context, you're giving prominence to Britain that flies in the face of the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. This, however, would not be surprising coming from you, given your earlier comments like "the Canadian monarchy is an adjunct of the British monarchy," "please stop attempting the relegate the UK to just one of 16 realms," "stop attempting to demote the UK to just one amongst 16 places of which she is queen," "if the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so," "a monarchy where the monarch only visits once in a blue moon, where the monarch has no power or influence whatsoever, and where the monarch is head of state of another country on the other side of the world, is no monarchy," "Australia is a monarchy in name only," etc., etc., etc. --G2bambino 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it isn't British. What you seem to be missing is that it is also Antiguan, Australian, Bahamian ... and Tuvuluan. To a large extent, that's the central point of the article. --Chris Bennett 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "missing" it, because it isn't true. She may well be Queen of Antigua (etc.), but she is not herself Antiguan (etc.). She is British, as is the institution of the monarchy. TharkunColl 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not correct to say that "the institution of the monarchy" is British (unless you are solely talking about the British monarchy) because there are 16 separate monarchies here that just so happen to be reigned over by one person. That person is Elizabeth II and she is British, Canadian, Jamaican, etc. You realize we're talking about nationality here, not ethnicity, right? -- Hux 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been at this for eighteen months, Thark. Give it a rest. --G2bambino 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tharkun is trying to claim that "Commonwealth Realm", which is defined to only include Her Majesty's Realms, is simply a euphemism for Dominion and doesn't include the UK. As you (and many others previously) have spelt out, the change was made specifically in order to emphasise the equality of the UK. G2bambino sums it up very well (although the British PM actually said "other Commonwealth realms", according to Hansard). JPD (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall, Tharky wants the UK to be recognized in the 'Commonwealth of Nations' as first, among equals. So far, consensus on this (and relating articles) are against that idea. It doesn't look like that will change. GoodDay 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really possible that you have so seriously misunderstood what I've been saying? It has nothing to do with any putative equality, or otherwise, between the realms. It has everything to do with what, in practice, is the Queen's major role. TharkunColl 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer the article deleted, hold an AfD. It would settle this quickly. GoodDay 21:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of her sixteen roles EIIR spends the most time on is irrelevant to your attempts to relegate the non-UK Realms back to colonial, inferior, Dominion status. --G2bambino 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made no attemps to do that whatsoever, and nor would I want to. The real problem here is your own POV, presumably based on the unpalatable fact that the head of state of your country is actually the British monarch. TharkunColl 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is the POV problem? As has been shown innumerable times, there are 16 monarchies called Commonwealth Realms, each of those monarchies being separate from one another and headed by Elizabeth II. In her capacity as the British monarch, she is British, in her capacity as the Jamaican monarch she is Jamaican, in her capacity as the Canadian monarch, she is Canadian, and so on. It is simply wrong to say that the head of state of any of the non-UK Realms is "the British monarch". And I say this as an Englishman, for whatever the hell that's worth. -- Hux 05:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid another G2bambino VS TharkunColl battle, let's have an AfD. GoodDay 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no real desire for this article to be deleted. It is simply that this, and many, many other articles on the British monarchy need to be examined for POV, and revised. TharkunColl 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, getting those articles examined for PoV, and revised; is a major task. All I can tell you is, disputing on the relating 'talk pages' is not the way. Perhaps Administrators are needed in such a move. If you feel it's worth the hassle, good luck. GoodDay 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Already saying that they "need to be revised" seems like anticipating the result of the examination, doesn't it? Why can you be so sure that an "examination" would have precisely the result you desire? Or would any other result invalidate the examination because it did not yield your expectations? Blur4760 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thark, your own words that I drew out above prove otherwise.

The fact remains that reams of referenced material has been composed in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia on the subject of the Commonwealth, the shared Crown, the personal union relationship, the monarchies of the individual Realms, and so forth. Identifying and removing POV is one thing, but you've been trying for a year and a half now to remove or alter all references to the Realms being equal to the UK under the Crown as you believe it to be false. Of course, lacking supporting evidence, you've been completely unsuccessful, and have resorted to repeating yourself over and over again, in denial of all contrary facts placed before you. Frankly, I think it's time you stopped wasting everyone's time and ceased stirring up controversy when things run counter to your imperial, pro-Britannia viewpoint. --G2bambino 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again you indulge in ad hominem attacks. When have I ever expressed "imperial" views? Your trouble is that you think that law defines reality, but in fact it doesn't. Under law the Queen is Queen of all those places equally, but in practice she devotes almost the whole of her time to the UK. For Wikipedia to base its articles purely the former view is POV. Your POV, because you act as if you own all these articles related to the British monarchy. TharkunColl 22:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you spin things so that now she is Queen of all places equally, but Canada's head of state is the British Monarch because EIIR spends most of her time in the UK. Simply more OR and POV. All further discussion with you should cease until you come up with some reliable, supporting evidence for your arguments. --G2bambino 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: "When have I ever expressed "imperial" views?" Did you or did you not say the following:

• "the Canadian monarchy is an adjunct of the British monarchy"
• "please stop attempting the relegate the UK to just one of 16 realms"
• "stop attempting to demote the UK to just one amongst 16 places of which she is queen"
• "if the colonies really do want independence, then they should have the courage to do so"
• "a monarchy where the monarch only visits once in a blue moon, where the monarch has no power or influence whatsoever, and where the monarch is head of state of another country on the other side of the world, is no monarchy"
• "Australia is a monarchy in name only"

If so, then I doubt anyone would deny that you are clearly expressing an imperialist viewpoint, particularly when your edits change factual information into information that wrongly suggests the UK is constitutionally superior to the other Realms.

"Under law the Queen is Queen of all those places equally, but in practice she devotes almost the whole of her time to the UK. For Wikipedia to base its articles purely the former view is POV." How is it POV, in articles whose purpose it is to discuss the constitutional position of Elizabeth II, to describe that position from a constitutional perspective? Which country she spends more time in makes no difference to that at all; it's neither here nor there. -- Hux 06:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada's head of state is the British monarch, because they're the same person! To concentrate solely on the legal separation of the monarchies, but ignoring the obvious fact that they're the same person, simply serves to highlight the extent of your distorted, one-sided interpretation. TharkunColl 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Canada's head of state is the British monarch, because they're the same person!" I am really, honestly, utterly failing to understand how you are incapable of seeing the problem here. This article is about the constitutional position of sixteen sovereign nations and their relationship to Elizabeth II. The statement, "Canada's head of state is the British monarch", carries the implication that there is some kind of causal relationship going on, i.e. that constitutionally Elizabeth is the head of state of Canada because she is the British monarch. This, as has been shown ad nauseum, is not the case because each of the sixteen monarchies is constitutionally separate.

"To concentrate solely on the legal separation of the monarchies, but ignoring the obvious fact that they're the same person". In what way is this or any other related article ignoring the fact that they are the same person? The very first sentence of the DAB points out that they are the same person and the very first sentence of the article proper points out that they are the same person. What on Earth are you talking about?? -- Hux 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claims that the UK is above the other Realms, the latter remaining Dominions of the Queen of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever make any such claims? The UK is not above the others, and if its Queen remains their head of state, that is through choice. They are fully sovereign. TharkunColl 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Your own words are quoted above. 2) This whole discussion was started by your statement in which you said the UK should be separated out and the remainder of this article be merged with Dominion. --G2bambino 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggested merger was simply because they describe the same thing. "Dominion" is just an old term for what is now called a Commonwealth Realm. TharkunColl 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should stay as it is; 1) the term Dominion is no longer used, 2) the UK was never a Dominion. --G2bambino 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not start this again. It takes up heaps of cyberspace, with consequent archiving of valueless argument; it creates bad feeling, the calling in of administrators, and quite frankly, makes discussion a far less enjoyable experience. Let us avoid getting personal and assuming motive.

Now TharkunColl brought up a good point; if we are going to call any of the realms within the Commonwealth whose head of state is E2, a Commonwealth Realm, what about the realms, like Swaziland, which are members of the Commonwealth but have a native dynasty? so is the term Commonwealth Realm in the context we are using, the correct term? I think its a valid talking point.

What we do know is that realm is most certainly the term to be used for the sixteen nations in personal union under E2. But 'Commonwealth' realm? We know that dominion, according to the specific usage of colonial times, is not the accurate term to use.

To address a point discussed above; the Queen is in fact a citizen of Australia, Canada, NZ, Antigua, etc. For the head of state is obviously the first citizen of a state as well. So in a very real sense, E2 is Australian, Canadian, etc.

TharkunColl, you have a right to argue that the articles you talk about are tainted by POV. But you have had your arguments tested many times. Continuing to push doesn't really help. G2Bambino, can I suggest you avoid assuming motive? Your both fine editors but you seem to jump on each other as soon as the other starts commenting.--Gazzster 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We discussed non-EIIR realms vs. the realms of EIIR issue earlier - though I'm not sure that anything was resolved.

As per Thark: c'mon Gazzter, you yourself singled out and pointed out his imperialistic attitude towards the non-UK Realms at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (remember his "gem of a comment"?). I do agree that these cyclical debates are a waste of time and bandwidth, which is why I think he should drop all this until he has sources to support his claims. --G2bambino 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: "if we are going to call any of the realms within the Commonwealth whose head of state is E2, a Commonwealth Realm, what about the realms, like Swaziland, which are members of the Commonwealth but have a native dynasty?" We've already been talking about this for quite a while. I've proposed that we explain the difference between "realm" and "Realm", use "Commonwealth Realm" to refer to the realms of which E2 is monarch, and refrain from using "Commonwealth realm" entirely, in order to avoid confusion. If we want to refer to the realms in general - those that have E2 as their monarch and those that don't - we can just say "realms" or use phrases like, "realms of the Commonwealth".

"What we do know is that realm is most certainly the term to be used for the sixteen nations in personal union under E2." But it's not though. A "realm" is any nation that is ruled by a king or queen, a "realm" in the context of the Commonwealth is any nation in the Commonwealth with a king or queen, and a "Realm" in that context is any nation in the Commonwealth with E2 as its monarch. Therefore, "Realm" is the best term to use for the 16 nations of which E2 is queen. -- Hux 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know its irksome, m8, and, true, I have been guilty of biting and protracting discussions. But I realised that it doesn't really help. The best thing to do, is, as you imply, restate your position and asked for sourceable argument. As I say, Thark's arguments have been tested many times.--Gazzster 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using "Realm" for those with E2 as their head of state, and "realm" for those with some other monarch, is that it would be a pure invention of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it would seem, through the act of capitalisation, to accord a higher status to those with E2 as monarch, which goes against the ethos of the Commonwealth in which all nations are equal. TharkunColl 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thark on this one. He has a point.--Gazzster 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For once, I also agree with TharkunColl. However, the notion that "Commonwealth R/realms" is an appropriate term for the 16 realms did not at all originate in Wikipedia, and so there is no problem using that. It's not a very common term, but it is used where appropriate, and so the only mistake we are making is turning it into more of a big deal than it should be. Of course, using "realm" or "Realm" as a shorthand for "Commonwealth R/realm" is generally not a good idea, but in the context of an article called "Commonwealth Realms", is probably quite appropriate. JPD (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why categorise?

Why attempt to label them at all? Why not simple refer to 'Canada', 'Australia' ',NZ', etc. The title of this article could be as simple as, Realms of Elizabeth II. KISS principle, folks?--Gazzster 08:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there is a lot of history to be explained here, so such categorization is necessary. It is a fact that various places once had official titles of one type and changed to have official titles of another type as they became progressively more independent from the British Empire. It would be pretty hard to explain that change without using those titles. ;) -- Hux 13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Gazzster! Going back thru the archives for this page, I'm just astounded at how hot a topic Commonwealth Realm is. This most approach some sort of record for a Wikipedia article Talk page. Does someone keep statistics on this sort of thing? Nudge67 08:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of articles that would need revising if we chose that solution, though in principle I think it might work. Elizabeth II of what though? After all, she's not the only Elizabeth II in history (e.g. Elizabeth II of Bohemia). The Wikipedia rule is to name monarchs after the country with which they are most closely associated. TharkunColl 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That cannot apply in this case, for one of the points of the article is to explain the equality of the realms under a common monarchy (monarchy here intended in a non-specific sense). I would suggest that we can and should make an exception to the rule. We could name the monarch after her house name. The title would then become Realms of Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor.--Gazzster 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be the green light for people pushing to rename the article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and we's never hear the last of it. Why is it so bad to admit that the realm she is most associated with is the UK? TharkunColl 15:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is "admitted"; it just seems not "admitted" enough for your tastes. --G2bambino 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a rotten idea. This article is not about Elizabeth II or any particular monarch. This arrangement has evolved through George V, Edward VIII and George VI as well as Elizabeth II, and it will certainly outlive her, though whether by 10 years or 100 is anyone's guess.

This proposal seems to have come out of TharkunColl's comment that Swaziland is also a monarchy and is also in the Commonwealth. People do not seem to recognise that this is a red herring -- and he has just illiustrated what will happen if we take the bait. Yes Swaziland is a monarchy and yes it is in the Commonwealth. So what? The term Commonwealth Realm is defined to be one of those Commonwealth members who share a monarch in personal union -- so Swaziland is not a Commonwealth Realm -- by definition. The other members of the Commonwealth, whether they are monarchies or republics, are just that: other members of the Commonwealth, nothing more, nothing less. As a group, whether they are monarchies or republics, they have nothing else in common.

Someone will no doubt note at this point that there is an article called Commonwealth Republics, and then argue: so what should we call Swaziland and the other separate monarchies as a group? And there is indeed such an article. It is bogus, consisting of little more than a list of Commonwealth members which are republics -- for the simple reason that there is nothing else to say about them as a group. Just so: once you have said that there are some Commonwealth members which are monarchies but not Commonwealth Realms, there is nothing more to be said about them as a group. For this reason, the Commonwealth Republics article should never have been written and should be deleted. Bad articles should not be used to drive other bad decisions.

The reason this topic generates such hot air is because it attracts bush lawyers like flies to a fresh cowpat. --Chris Bennett 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. --G2bambino 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Commonwealth Realms are that "by definition", then why has no one simply provided a citation for that definition? Perhaps there isn't one. TharkunColl 15:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: Queen and Commonwealth; "Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms." --G2bambino 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting - it has a small r, and would seem to exclude the UK. Also the separation of the monarchies is hardly implied in that sentence. From what are those realms independent? TharkunColl 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing the topic. --G2bambino 15:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I asked for a definition of Commonwealth Realm (proper noun), and all you found is a description of Commonwealth realms that appear to exclude the UK, and have the Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent of something. TharkunColl 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked for a source that says the group of countries headed by EIIR are known collectively as Commonwealth Realms. One was provided. --G2bambino 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not. Since one of the main points of this discussion centres on whether it's a proper noun or just a description, you only provided a citation for the latter, which no one is disputing. Furthermore, your source appears to exclude the UK. Just look at this sentence a little further down: "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms, and with other members of the worldwide Commonwealth organisation." This is the official website of the monarchy and is therefore the most authoritative source of all. TharkunColl 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You asked for a definition of Commonwealth Realm; a definition is a description. According to the source provided the Commonwealth Realms are "countries within the Commonwealth [that] have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs." Please stop being obtuse. --G2bambino 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is YOU who are being deliberately obtuse, and disingenuous as well. The source does not use "Commonwealth Realm" as a proper noun, which is what I asked for, and it also excludes the UK. TharkunColl 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As the given name for a unique entity (a group of nations) it most certainly is a proper noun. --G2bambino 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just because you assert something, doesn't make it so. In any case, the royal website makes it clear that the UK is not one of them. Wikipedia has been guilty of perpetuating an untruth, and we need to re-examine all the articles that mention Commonwealth realms. TharkunColl 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, just because you assert something, doesn't make it so. True, but currently irrelevant.

...the royal website makes it clear that the UK is not one of them. Source?

Wikipedia has been guilty of perpetuating an untruth. Source? --G2bambino 18:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the statement from the website I quoted just a few lines back: "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms, and with other members of the worldwide Commonwealth organisation." TharkunColl 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. --G2bambino 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So not only is it a small r, but the UK isn't even one of them - according to the official royal website. Do you disagree? TharkunColl 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The term 'Commonwealth realms' could be read to include the UK as well. But there is actually no group of nations, no supranational entity called the 'Commonwealth Realms'. I believe that is a valid point for discussion. All the realms are sovereign entities with no connection between them other than sharing the same person as monarch. Their belonging to the Commonwealth has nothing per se to do with their being realms. It rather involves a free desire to remain associated with the parent country and the former dominions and colonies.--Gazzster 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there is no supranational entity called the 'Commonwealth Realms'. But there is a group of Realms in the Commonwealth with a common monarch. Explaining what their relationship is to each other and to the monarchy and how it came to be is more than sufficient justification for writing an article about them.

Such an article has to have a title. As I have explained earlier, there doesn't have to be an official usage "Commonwealth Realm" in order to justify using the term as a title for such an article in an encyclopedia. All you need is precedent, and more than enough has been cited in this and earlier flameouts on this topic -- Acts of Parliament, citations from Hansard etc. -- which are amply documented in the discussion archives. That precedent includes capitalisation of the word Realm when it is used in association with one of the countries concerned in a monarchical context. As the article itself goes to some length to explain in the second paragraph (because of the last time someone got over-excited about this topic), "Commonwealth" is simply a disambiguator. The phrase "Commonwealth Realm" is not widely used because it is normally not necessary. The Realms are normally discussed within a predefined Commonwealth context; you only need to qualify "Realms" when no such context has been established. A Wiki article is an example of a discussion which is not taking place within a predefined Commonwealth context.

There was no reason to reopen this inane debate. There is no reason it should have persisted, for over 10 days now. There is no reason for it to continue now. The title of the article is accurate as it stands, there is no reason to change it, it is JUST FINE AS IT IS and as it has been for years! Tharkuncoll, sbut up, go away, and do something that's actually useful. --Chris Bennett 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We may have to go to the 'Mediation Committee' to end this dispute. That would be reasonable. To those of you, who are deeply involved, consider it. GoodDay 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research Tagging

The capitalization of the word realm in this article constitutes original research by implying that Commonwealth Realm [sic] is an official title. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I've been avoiding this topic because of its utter triviality, but this is just absurd. --Chris Bennett 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Head of Commonwealth's own Web site doesn't capitalize realm in Commonwealth realm.

Commonwealth realm is a common noun as evidenced by the fact that one can put the word "a" in front of it, e.g.: Canada is a Commonwealth realm, just like South Africa is a Commonwealth republic, Belarus was a Soviet republic, Ontario is a Canadian province, etc.

The term "Commonwealth R/realm" appears nowhere in the Canadian government's Web space.

When the arbitrators take on this dispute they will need all the facts on the table. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just lunacy. Picking an OR fight about whether to capitalise a single letter!? Give me a break!

If you really need convincing, see the text of the Royal Styles and Title Act 1953, PDF available at http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth14i_doc_1953a.pdf Realm is capitalised throughout. In the title of this article, Commonwealth is simply a disambguating modifier.

You made a motion to make it lower case. You lost. Get over it. --Chris Bennett 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Polling for consensus is but one step in Wikipedia dispute resolution, and the poll elicited two supports and one strong support (in addition to my obvious support in making the motion) to three opposes and one weak oppose. That proves there is no consensus for either position.

You will notice that the document you cite also capitalizes the words styles, titles, territories, warrant, etc. throughout the text in a way that only a document written in the particular style of British legislation would.

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things are somewhat telling here: 1) JDM ignores capitalized examples, and 2) JDM relies on one example to "prove" his version is correct. I.e., he attempts to simplify the argument and bend it in his favour by relying on one source to the exclusion of all others. Plus, he fails to realize we don't have to necessarily follow a format because someone else does - if that were not the case the EIIR article would call her "Queen of England" as opposed to "Queen of the UK." This issue is more complex than JDM makes it out to be, encompassing grammar syntax, user ease and comprehension, WP guidelines or the relaxing of, etc. --G2bambino 14:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalized or not, it's not that big of a deal. If JDM's motion is 'silly', aren't we being just as silly 'arguing' with him? Anyway, since it's 3 to 1 (I'll go with 'Realm') in favour of keeping it capitalized, that should settled it. I'll prefer 'Realm', so we can end this dispute. GoodDay 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Make that 4 to 1 for "Realm" being not only okay, but an important and useful distinction in this article from "realm". -- Hux 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

5:1. Having two versions to choose from (one being uncapitalised, the other capitalised), both backed by sources, and choosing one for a good reason does not constitute OR. Blur4760 21:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All texts cited so far that capitalize "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] also capitalize other common nouns in the particular style of British legislation.

The assertion that "Commonwealth realm" could refer to a country such as Swaziland with it's own, indigenous monarchy is so far completely unsubstantiated. So far, every usage of the term has been with respect to those countries of which the Head of Commonwealth is also head of state.

The allegedly official title "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] does not appear anywhere on the Commonwealth Secretariat's Web site. So far no one has cited any authority for the allegation that "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] is an official title. Indeed, the term appears to be used by neither the Commonwealth itself nor the Canadian government. Capitalizing it implies an official status that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems to lack.

Indeed, it seems unlikely to me that the Head of Commonwealth (currently the British monarch) would capitalize the expression because it would imply that the Commonwealth realms had a higher status within the Commonwealth than other members of the organization, which would be divisive.

The Commonwealth itself sensibly seems to make no distinction among its members. Member country profiles on the Commonwealth Secretariat's Web site don't even note whether the country is a Commonwealth realm, republic or other monarchy within the Commonwealth.

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on this article is 5 to 1, against you. That kinda decides the issue, doesn't it? GoodDay 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Make that 6 to 1. I haven't bothered to vote before, but if piling on the numbers is what it takes to kill this idiotic discussion then I'll add my vote to the Oppose team. --Chris Bennett 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan David Makepeace: "The assertion that "Commonwealth realm" could refer to a country such as Swaziland with it's own, indigenous monarchy is so far completely unsubstantiated." Swaziland is a member of the Commonwealth (link). The word, "realm", means, "a country ruled by a king or queen" (link). Therefore, "Commonwealth realm", means, "a country in the Commonwealth that is ruled over by a king or queen". Since Swaziland is ruled by a king and is in the Commonwealth, it is a "Commonwealth realm". Substantiation complete.

"So far no one has cited any authority for the allegation that "Commonwealth Realm" [sic] is an official title." Straw man. As far as I can see, nobody is asserting that it is an official title at this point. You can't simply ignore that and keep citing sources that don't capitalize it - that's disingenuous.

"the term appears to be used by neither the Commonwealth itself nor the Canadian government" But it is used by at least two different offices in the British government, both of which are offices that deal specifically with Commonwealth issues as a major part of their function.

"Capitalizing it implies an official status that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems to lack." Your claim that there is no evidence to the contrary is false, as has already been pointed out to you more than once. Just because you don't like the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. If you can do nothing else, please at least do this discussion the common courtesy of being honest. -- Hux 06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Make it 6 to 2, since I prefer the uncapitalised version, but disagree with most of the arguments put forward by both camps, especially the assertion that capitalisation is wrong and the ridiculous assertion that Swaziland is a "Commonwealth realm". JPD (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, Swaziland is not a 'Commonwealth Realm'. Like the republics in the 'Commonwealth of Nations', it's a member nation who's 'head of state' isn't Elizabeth II. GoodDay 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not a "Commonwealth Realm" but most definitely a "Commonwealth realm." Hux's "substantiation" above explains why quite nicely; I can't fathom how JPD comes to find that "ridiculous." --G2bambino 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; thus the reason Swaziland isn't listed on this article. GoodDay 18:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistant titles

Just a comment - Has anyone noticed the inconsistancies of EIIR titles. Some of them have Queen of the the UK then Queen of Canada (for example), while others have Queen of Australia (only). The former seems to support Tharky's views (UK, first among equals), while the latter supports G2bambino's views (all are equal). How did this develop and should we give an explanation for it. GoodDay 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They were originally all the same. Then, at some point each country changed the title on their own; when the format of the title was agreed on in 1952/3 the only thing that was to always be consistent throughout the Realms was "of Her Other Realms and Territories" and "Head of the Commonwealth." The Canadian gov't just hasn't bothered to follow the other Realms in the dropping of the UK from the Queen's title; this may have something to do with the fact that any change in laws touching on the Monarch or vice-regals must be approved by all eleven parliaments in the country. --G2bambino 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought it might've been something of that nature. Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm: When? (II)

Proof that this article is wrong

Firstly, the official website of the monarchy spells it with a small r: Queen and Commonwealth; "Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms."

Secondly, the term does not include the UK: Queen and Commonwealth; "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms, and with other members of the worldwide Commonwealth organisation."

This whole article, as it stands, is tendentious POV. TharkunColl 23:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it POV. I would assume good faith. Let's not be too hasty.As to a) Commonwealth Realm, is not a proper noun, I agree. There is no such political entity as a 'Commonwealth Realm'.As I've suggested, the 'Commonwealth Realms' is not some kind of supranational association, like the Commonwealth of Nations itself or the UN.

As to b) the term 'Commonwealth realm does not include the UK; I do not see how the quotation demonstrates that. The UK is a realm, and it is a member of the Commonwealth.--Gazzster 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It states that "The Queen and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth realms". TharkunColl 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As I say, the UK is a Commonwealth realm. The phrase does not necessarily exclude the UK. From my point of view, I could say, as an Australian, 'the Queen of Australia and the Royal Family retain close links with the Commonwealth Realms.'I have not mentioned Australia as a Cr. I do not necessarily exclude Australia as a Commonwealth realm. I simply do not mention it, because it is a given - superfluous to do so. You see my point?--Gazzster 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This single isolated quote, from an informational page on the royal website, is supposed to override all the citations of "this Realm and her other Realms and territories" in her styles and titles as passed by Acts of Parliament in every single Realm, including the UK? This is a completely irrational style of argument. It is good evidence that the advocate has a bee in his bonnet, or is a troll.

Judging by the earlier discussion on Dominions vs Realms, Tharkuncoll hasn't actually read beyond the title line of the article. The last time we went around this loop, with AVD, we ended up generating the following text (second paragraph of the article) to address such pedantic definitional issues:

While the term "Dominion", as a title, can still be used to refer to any of the Commonwealth Realms other than the United Kingdom, it has been increasingly replaced by the term "Realm" since the 1950s. Both terms are unambiguous when used in a Commonwealth context, but, on those occasions when it is necessary to refer to these realms collectively in a different context, they may be distinguished from other realms as "Commonwealth Realms".

I don't see that we need to add anything to this. --Chris Bennett 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd actually argue that 'dominion' cannot be used a title. Certainly not in Australia, where it has never used as a title and is nowdays considered demeaning. The full title is Commonwealth of Australia. Realm does not equal dominion as Ive argued above. As to the UK not being a realm of the Commonwealth; if it isn't it, it has no right to a seat in the Commonwealth of Nations or a vote.--Gazzster 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of proper nouns, Wikipedia has this to say: "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London or John)." By that description, a unique entity - the group of nations headed by EIIR - is represented by the proper noun "Commonwealth Realms"; this is similar to the "United Nations" or "United States," and would apply equally to "Dominions."

When we single out a particular country from the group is where the problems seem to arise. Is a country that is one of the Commownealth Realms a unique entity in itself, and therefore would be represented by a proper noun, which would therefore be capitalized?

I would argue that it is; a Commonwealth Realm is unique in that it must be in the Commonwealth and have EIIR as sovereign; this is what separates it - indeed, all of the Realms - from "Commonwealth realms" like Lesotho or Swaziland. Then again, I could be wrong. --G2bambino 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, I know this can sound gvery pedantic. I can hear editors screaming out, 'stop!' but it is important. First, you can, I believe, talk about the Dominion of Canada, but the 'Dominion of Australia' does not, and has never existed. As an Australian who knows what my nation's title is, I object violently to it being called a 'dominion'. So we cannot make dominion and Commonwealth realm interchangeable terms. It is simply incorrect. Secondly, the analogy between Commonwealth Realm and United States or United Nations does not hold. In the latter cases we are talking about proper nouns for single political entituies constituted under those names. And the constituent states of the unions have unity because of a legal foundation. But the various nations who have E2 as their monarch are independent sovereign states. The only union is a personal one, which, for all intents and purposes, does not establish constitutional unity. And what will we call these nations if one of the realms withdraws from the Commonwealth, yet retains the Windsor monarchy?--Gazzster 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need any constitutional unity or legal designations - let's please stop bringing this up as a requirement to make a title a proper noun. In this case there is indeed an entity - a specific group of nations - and we know that these nations are collectively referred to as the Commonwealth Realms. I drew a parallel between the group of countries called the Commonwealth Realms and the group of countries called the United Nations; I did not do so between the singular "Commonwealth Realm" and the plural "United Nations" or "United States." Please be clear on the distinction.

As for "Dominion," again, I did not say there was such a thing as the "Dominion of Australia"; I said there was a group of countries that were collectively referred to as the Dominions of the British Empire, of which Australia was one. Of course, as realm, kingdom and dominion are synonyms, Australia is indeed a dominion; more specifically, it is one of Elizabeth II's dominions; but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

Again, the problem aways seems to arise when we single a country out from the group. Was Australia, by nature of simply being one of the Dominions and not by any national title like Canada's case, a Dominion? Similarly, is Australia alone a Commonwealth Realm? I would say yes. --G2bambino 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, some may say that were being pedantic, but we name things to reflect their essence. The United States are called the United States because they are a number of states united by a single constitution. So it deserves a proper noun. We call the Blue-eyed Mongoose, if such a creature exists, that proper name, because it is a mongoose with blue eyes. To use Commonwealth Realm as a proper noun does not hold, because it does not reflect the essence of realms under E2 who happen to be in the Commonwealth. It does not belong to the essence of those nations to be in the Commonwealth. Again I suggest the possibility of such a nation to withdraw from the Commonwealth, yet retain the monarchy.

Since this possibility has never arisen, we don't know how it would be addressed if it did. It would surely depend upon the circumstances at the time. As things stand, the facts are (a) all the Realms are in the Commonwealth (b) there is a need to distinguish this group of countries from other groups of countrues in a way that doesn't assume a preexisting context (c) the commonn factors are that they are Realms under a single monarch and that they are members of the Commonwealth. "Commonwealth Realms is a correct, natural and simple description. --Chris Bennett 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would counter (a) by repeating that that the realms are not realms because they are in the Commonwealth. So Commonwealth Realm is not a descriptive name; (b) yes, these realms share a common context in that they are in personal union with E2, and that is how they should be described; (c) 'Commonwealth Realm' is not a proper term, for as TharkunColl has said, it excludes nations with native dynasties for no adequately explored reason.--Gazzster 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: "the realms are not realms because they are in the Commonwealth. So Commonwealth Realm is not a descriptive name". This is a fallacious argument. The phrase, "Commonwealth Realms", doesn't imply that they are "Realms" because they are in the Commonwealth, therefore your conclusion does not follow. "Commonwealth Realms" is synonymous with "Realms of the Commonwealth".

"'Commonwealth Realm' is not a proper term". If it's not a "proper" term then how do you explain its presence on the websites of both the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the British High Commission? One would think that two agencies whose very function is in large part to deal with Commonwealth issues would know what they're talking about. -- Hux 17:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather, it belongs to the essence of those nations that they are united in the person of E2. The article should reflect that. Sure we can talk about a Commonwealth realm, ie., a realm that belongs to the Commonwealth. But there is no association of nations called the Commonwealth Realms. I repeat, dominion and realm are not synonymous; the latter is an evolution from the other. A realm is a sovereign entity; a dominion (in the British colonial meaning) is a self-governing territory under the limited sovereignty of the British Crown. I would suggest that the word 'Dominion' in the title of Canada has a sense proper to Canada alone and no longer has its colonial meaning, and cannot be appropriated to the other realms. If you can show me where the Australian government recently refers to Australia as a dominion I would like to see the document.--Gazzster 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Until 1953 it was true that the Commonwealth of Australia was formally a Dominion, even though it was no longer "a self-governing territory under the limited sovereignty of the British Crown". George VI's titles include the "British Dominions across the Seas" -- and that included Australia. When I was a schoolboy in Sydney in the late 1960s it was still taught to us that the Commonwealth of Australia was a Dominion within the Commonwealth. --Chris Bennett 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Until the war, and even after, Britain retained elements of sovereignty over Australia, particularly in that Australia had no Foreign Office of its own, and the British government actively made comments on Australian affairs, including its government's choice of governors-general. Until the 1980s the Privy Council was still the last Court of Appeal in Australia. But this is no longer the case. I repear, 'dominion' is an inappropriate and demeaning word. Australia never refers to itself as a dominion. 'Realm' alone is appropriate.--Gazzster 22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Howabout settling it this way (though I prefer Realm), find out wich has more 'sources' Realm or realm. The most sourced, should be used. Will that satisfy things? GoodDay 14:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The point that User:G2bambino has been trying to get across to you is that "Realm" is capitalised because it is a formal word with specific constitutional meaning in the Commonwealth context. (And I've been trying to tell you that the "Commonwealth" is there in the article simply to establish the Commonwealth context within the article!) Numbers of citations, one way or the other, doesn't change that argument. Either you understand it and agree with it or you don't. The fact that you can even suggest this method of resolution tells me you don't understand it, even now. --Chris Bennett 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What I do understand is this: Continued 'edit warring' causes pages to be 'protected' and good intentioned editors to be blocked (3RR violations). Also, constant arguing and an unwillingness to try a new avenue to break the logjam, leads to nowhere. Try 'Mediation', it's required because of situations likes this (a dispute over one letter). It's the redicules situations that neccesitate 'Mediation' or sometimes 'Arbitration'. GoodDay 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, how can you contradict yourself by saying "they are united in the person of E2" yet follow with "there is no association of nations called the Commonwealth Realms." We have plenty of evidence to show that those nations associated by their personal union under EIIR are collectively referred to as "Commonwealth Realms." This debate is not about the existence of such a thing as "the Commonwealth Realms" - that is undoubtedly proven - rather, this is about: a) is "realm" in "Commonwealth Realms" capitalized, and b) can countries that are within the Commonwealth Realms singularly be accurately dubbed a "Commonwealth Realm." Let's please stick to the subject. --G2bambino 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. There is no such association as the Commonwealth Realms. There is the Commonwealth of Nations. There is no Commonwealth Realms. The fact that 16 nations share the same person as sovereign does not set them aside with a special character. They are all unique sovereignties with no constitutional unity, as we have been at pains to point out on this and other talk pages. Hanover, England, Scotland, and France have, at various times, been in personal union. We would not consider inventing a proper noun for these nations. I have not seen 'plenty of evidence'. I concede Commonwealth realm is a perfectly acceptable word. It means a realm that is in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Realm, as a proper noun, is an invention.I am sticking to the subject.--Gazzster 00:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: We are not inventing a proper noun here. As I've noted multiple times in the "Easily resolved issue" section below: this is not a proper noun/common noun issue. It's purely about whether or not "Realm", when used on its own in this context, should be capitalized. If it should be then obviously it stays capitalized when used in phrases like, "Commonwealth Realm". Again, compare with Commonwealth English, which is also not a proper noun. -- Hux 06:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Commonwealth English is a proper noun. It is a label for a specific form of English. Though, incidentally, I don't know how valid that is either. There is no particular unity in the English spoken by Commonwealth nations that distinguishes it from the English spoken in the United States or any other country. Even English alone as a noun is proper. But then, Wikipedia does tend to invent new terms. I deny that the issue is solely about what you say it is. Demonstrably, it is not. Realm, standing alone, is not capitalised. That is another Wiki innovation. But even if there were such a thing as Realm, standing by itself, it would be proper, for the inference would be that it refers to a particular realm. --Gazzster 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Commonwealth English is a proper noun. It is a label for a specific form of English. Yes, exactly; just as "Commonwealth Realms" is a label for a specific group of countries, as pointed out here. --G2bambino 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: "Actually, Commonwealth English is a proper noun." No, it isn't. It's a noun phrase. (For what its worth, you're talking to an English grad!) The issue is, purely and simply, "Is 'Realm', in this context, capitalized when used on its own." If it is then it obviously stays capitalized when part of a phrase.

"Realm, standing alone, is not capitalised." And yet an abundance of evidence has been presented showing that, in this context, it is, while only one site has been presented showing that its not.

"But even if there were such a thing as Realm, standing by itself, it would be proper, for the inference would be that it refers to a particular realm." But it doesn't refer to a particular realm. It refers to a group of realms. Compare with "Act", as in, "Act of Parliament", which is also not a proper noun, but is still capitalized. -- Hux 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well these and others issue might be decided soon. Btw, Im an English grad too, and I teach English.--Gazzster 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

GoodDay has suggested mediation of this dispute, and I feel that is the only way it can be resolved. Do others agree? Jonathan David Makepeace 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed If we don't resolve this, the article will only get 'protected' and many valued editors will get blocked (due to 3RR violations). If we continue this stalemate, nothing will be gained and good will towards each other, might be lost. GoodDay 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no issue here, just a couple of trolls trying to create one where none exists. Capitalisation of a single word??? Give me a break! --Chris Bennett 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to the inferrance that I am a troll! I have a right to make my case here. I have. You have a right to counter. You have. My arguments werte reasoned, based on facts. Where's the trolling??!!! Thewse kind of accusations might lead one to thinik that a certain opinion is attempting to own this page to the exclusion of others. --Gazzster 22:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

comment That's the point, we are offering you a break. A break from the stalemate. GoodDay 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So generous of you. The way to break the "stalemate" is for you guys to recognise that you made your motion, and you lost it, and be graceful about it.

I ignored this capitalisation issue because of its triviality, until you guys refused to accept that losing your resolution should have put an end to the matter. Instead you decided to up the ante, with your ridiculous OR claim. At that point you graduated from being legitimate editors to being trolls. People have tried politely explaining things to you, they have tried not so politely explaining things to you, and I have tried being blunt and direct with you. Nothing gets through. All you do is to find new ways to roil the waters -- now by demanding mediation.

It is crystal clear that nothing short of getting your way will satisfy you. If, as I expect, mediators refused to get involved on such a trivial matter, or if they rule against you, that won't stop you. You'll then raise it to arbitration. And when that goes against you you will still find ways to push your agenda.

I don't know what your agenda is and I don't care. What I do know is that it is actions like yours that drive serious people away from editing Wiki articles. --Chris Bennett 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

comment Mediation requires consent of the parties. I tried. Now it's on to the next step. Jonathan David Makepeace 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You waited a whole four hours to get consent? --G2bambino 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What did I just say would happen? Trolls are so predictable. --Chris Bennett 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this page being Commonwealth Realms. However, I'm more interested in this dispute ending. Take it to Arbitration, it's inevitable. GoodDay 21:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, colorful edit summary. Why are you both trying to get each other blocked? You're both being each others 'anchors'. GoodDay 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

People, some of us live on the other side of the world and have just woken up with hangovers lol. Wait for us. I have no objection to mediation. Also, I still resent being called a troll.--Gazzster 22:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

People, please, enough with the "troll" comments. A troll is someone who, you know posts comments purely in order to get people riled up. It's clear that everyone in this discussion stands by what they are saying, so nobody is being a troll here. Please, let's all remain civil. Disagreements like this can be extremely frustrating at times, but that doesn't give any of us the right to lash out at others. -- Hux 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Right on. Being labeled is frustrating, so stop it folks. GoodDay 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I do believe Chris Bennett is referring to JDM and Thark when speaking of trolls, and I am highly inclined to agree with him. But, though I personally also see mediation over a single letter as utterly rediculous, and would rather see this simply end now rather than head to that level, I won't oppose any mediation requests. This bullshit has to end somehow. --G2bambino 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"I do believe Chris Bennett is referring to JDM and Thark when speaking of trolls, and I am highly inclined to agree with him." Then, with respect, you don't understand what "troll" means here. As the Wiki says, "a troll is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy...in order to bait users into responding". You yourself have said that various people are trying to get their POV inserted into the article. This immediately disqualifies them from being described as trolls because it suggests that they do actually stand behind the content of their posts, whereas the key aspect of trollish behavior is that the content is irrelevant; the intent is purely to piss people off and cause disruption.

But this is all beside the point. The key issue is that even if you do decide they are trolls that doesn't justify throwing out such belligerent labels and it certainly doesn't justify the extent of anger that has now arisen on this page. We all need to remain civil. -- Hux 20:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether JDM meets the technical definition of a troll or not. I do know that he has intentionally behaved in a highly inflammatory fashion throughout this debate, to such an extent that I cannot believe he's an honest actor. My point in calling him a troll was precisely that: to draw everyone else's attention to the fact that he is not an honest actor.

In my experience, once you realise that your antagonist is not playing by the same rules as you are, it makes it alot easier to predict what will happen next, and so it has proved here. JDM's actions in labelling this as OR the instant he lost his motion, in calling for mediation and closing it the instant he sees a view that mediation is not justified, and then escalating to arbitration, all on this utterly trivial issue, all the while continuing to make changes to the text reflecting his "POV", changes which he presents as a transparently fictitious "compromise", are entirely comprehensible once you understand that his intention is precisely to be disruptive.

People who aren't playing straight aren't dealt with by treating them as though they are. --Chris Bennett 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation requires the consent of all parties. Chris Bennett's opposition means that arbitration is the only remaining option. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators is already telling us to involve more editors and seek consensus. I guess thirteen editors over the course of a week wasn't enough. We may be left to our own resources, leaving nothing but a revert war. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's your choice, so be it. Are you really so incapable of recognising that you can't win 'em all??

In the meantime, stop messing with the article on the very point that you have chosen to place under arbitration. Everyone else is keeping their hands off it right now, precisely because of your action. Why can't you? --Chris Bennett 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Easily resolved issue

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is crystal clear that this article's title should not be capitalised, whatever the meaning of the term really is. Can we at least agree to that? —Nightstallion 23:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The title of an article, even if it is not a proper noun, as some of us are arguing, should have each of the principle words begin with a capital. The same rule applies to titles of books, films, etc. This iws quite apart from the dispute re; Realm and realm.--Gazzster 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I get what you mean. Do you claim that all articles should capitalise their names accoring to the guidelines for titles, i.e. that Positron emission tomography should be Positron Emission Tomography, for instance? —Nightstallion 08:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. --Gazzster 08:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's easily resolved then: You're wrong. That's not the way it's done on Wikipedia, and almost certainly never will be; cf WP:NAME#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles, which states:

“ Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games). The first letter of an internal wikilink need not be capitalized and will direct the reader to the same page (for example, computer and video games or Computer and video games can be used interchangeably as needed). ”

Now that we've clarified that, the only question is whether "Commonwealth Realm" is a proper noun or not; as noone has been able to prove it is, we should all be agreed that the title of this article should be Commonwealth realm instead. If someone does have proof of this construction's proper-nounness, of course, that would be different, but if not, then it's quite obvious, really. —Nightstallion 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no evidence that it is ever used as a proper noun. TharkunColl 09:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to my opinion; a title should have all major words capitalised. But, OK, I bow to Wiki convention and I can do nothing about it. But yes, the question is, is Commonwealth realm a proper noun? I say no. It is grossly unfair to accuse myself and others of trolling. We have produced coherent arguments.Responding by personal attacks might indicate an unwillingness to considerthem.I have said, I have no objection to mediation.--Gazzster 09:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave that aside for a minute, I'm just trying to get agreement on those issues which we *can* agree on; we can always discuss what do to about the more complex problems after that. So let's simply see if there's any argument in favour of "Commonwealth realm" being a proper noun for starters. —Nightstallion 10:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Nightstallion's is the voice of reason. I will begin. I can see nothing in favour of Commpnwealth Realm as a proper noun. According to the Pocket Australian English Dictionary: proper- peculiar or rightly assigned or suited to an individual or occasion. So a proper noun is a noun which is 'rightly assigned or suited' to what it names. I contend that 'Commonwealth Realm is not 'rightly assigned or named'. This is because what we are attempting to name are realms sharing the head of the House of Windsor as their monarch. 'Commonwealth' does nothing to indicate that. The fact that these realms happen to be in the Commonwealth is entirely incidental to their nature.--Gazzster 10:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with that; as I've said, after reading the entire lengthy discussion of this talk page I've seen no conclusive evidence that this word is a proper noun; and neither do official sources universally employ it as such. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that it should be Commonwealth realm instead. —Nightstallion 13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sided with Realm version, only to try and end this dispute. It doesn't really matter to me, which way it's written. Either title will do. I'm really more interested in the article's content, the title itself (R or r) has no misguiding effects on me. GoodDay 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: The proper noun argument is a red herring. The contention here is not whether or not "Commonwealth Realm" is a proper noun, but whether or not "Realm" (capitalized) is used to mean "Commonwealth countries whose monarch is Elizabeth II". If "Realm" does indeed mean that (and there's plenty of evidence that it does), then the title of this article should be "Commonwealth Realms" for exactly the same reason that Commonwealth English has both words capitalized. -- Hux 17:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so.

This has been stated, very clearly, innumerable times, in this so-called "discussion". Misrepresenting the issue is not the way to resolve it. But some people here clearly have an ulterior motive, and some others don't seem to recognise that. That's why it isn't getting resolved.

User:Gazzster is correct that the usual English convention outside Wikipedia is to capitalise nouns -- proper or otherwise -- in article titles and section headers. See any English scholarly journal you like. The Wiki convention is actually the normal convention in French. Why Wiki decided on a policy outside the norm on this point I don't know, but since they did, since it is embedded in a million articles, and since it doesn't (normally) create any problems, we have to live with it. But I can't help noting that this debate could never have arisen if Wiki had followed ordinary English convention. --Chris Bennett 18:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

While I won't jump into the main issue here, I can't help but point out the failure of that analogy. The English word "English" is never written with a lower-case e. -- Jao 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Whether or not "English" can or cannot be written with a small "e" is irrelevant. The analogous situation being described is that "Commonwealth" and "Realms" are both capitalized when used separately (the latter only in the specific, Commonwealth context being described) and thus stay capitalized when joined together, just as "Commonwealth" and "English" do. I'm simply trying to illustrate proper nouns have nothing to do with this discussion, that's all. -- Hux 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From July 27 to August 2, an Rfc was held with the conclusion being: leave the article as is Commonwealth Realms. Aren't we really beating a 'dead' horse? We should respect that Rfc. GoodDay 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen. As I have said before: The motion was made, it failed. That should have been the end of the matter.

The fact that it wasn't is clearly down to the actions of one or two individuals who are only interested in getting their way at all costs, aided and abetted by some fellow-travellers who don't realise that their good-will is being exploited to an illegitimate end.

This will stop when we (a) stop talking about it (b) revert any and all actions that try to implement the failed motion, in whole or in part, as soon as they occur.

Can we go back to the previous reopened issue, agreeing on the DABlink wording? Contentious, but honestly so. I think we almost had a resolution when this capitalization bomb blew up to distract our attention. --Chris Bennett 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it takes two sides to continue this pointless discussion (we the R side, should just stop responding to the 'r' side's complaints). Riga Mortis is setting in, let's bury this now. GoodDay 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

...the only question is whether "Commonwealth Realm" is a proper noun or not... noone has been able to prove it is. Uh, but I did prove it is. For the third time: On the subject of proper nouns, Wikipedia has this to say: "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are nouns representing unique entities (such as London or John)." By that description, a unique entity - the group of nations headed by EIIR - is represented by the proper noun "Commonwealth Realms."

What noone has been able to do is prove that wrong. --G2bambino 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

People have repeatedly pointed out the error in that assertion. It's rather like saying that "Commonwealth Members" is a unique entity because no other countries are Commonwealth members except Commonwealth members. Besides, Wikipedia naming policy calls for the singular, and there are sixteen of them. It's "Commonwealth realm," just like "Canadian province" or "Commonwealth member." Jonathan David Makepeace 21:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry; didn't read Chris and GoodDay's above comments, with which I agree. My last statement above will hopefully be my last on the subject (fingers crossed). --G2bambino 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even according to the Wiki definition of a propernoun, Commonwealth Realm does not fit. The term does not represent a unique entity. It is an entirely artificial name. They are not realms because they are in the Commonwealth, and being in the Commonwealth does not define them, unify them or make them unique, as opposed to a republic in the Commonwealth. But I've said my peace.I came in on this discussion without knowing what had gone on before. It was certainly not my intention to troll. A decision has been made. I will say that this decision will inevitably arise to difficulties for us, as the last few days have shown. The phrase is demonstrably uncomfortable with several intelligent, rational editors, several of which have bbeen implicitly accused of trolling for demonstrating their intelligence. Simply to say, 'this is the decision weve made, lets stick to it and never review it' shows short-sightedness. Let us adopt a 'let's wait and see and revise if necessary policy'.--Gazzster 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The only citation provided - from the royal website itself - uses a small r. This really should be enough to convince all except those who wish to impose their own agenda on Wikipedia. TharkunColl 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: Again you are being thoroughly disingenuous. You've been involved in this discussion from the outset and you know full well that multiple sources have been presented other than that of royal.gov.uk. If people cannot trust each other to be honest in presenting their positions then what hope does this dispute have of ever being solved? -- Hux 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question from an arb: is there any proof at all that this term is defined outside of Wikipedia? Mackensen (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Ill run a google search and put the results here.--Gazzster 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Result of Google Search

If we search 'Commonwealth Realm', we find that the primary sites are either Wikipedia or refer to Wikipedia. Where they dont, a number of sites capitalise the first letter of both words as a title. A smaller number capitalise as it were a proper noun, and others do not.--Gazzster 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize that this question seems like pedantry, but I submit that it's a matter of vital importance that we know what kind of noun we're dealing with here. I'm sure it seems irrelevant now whether Wilhelm I was German Emperor or Emperor of Germany, but the distinction was important (he was the former, incidentally). I have two follow-up questions:

1. What entity would be the authoritative source on whether there is a "Commonwealth (R|r)ealm" or not?
2. What does that entity say on the matter?

--Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will search for an authoritive source, if any exists. But I respectfully submit that what kind of noun it is is important. If it is a proper noun, it defines a group of countries as one. If it isn't, it is merely a description that can be modified if necessary. If it is proper noun, it can't be. Now I live in Australia. I have never heard of my country referred to as a 'Commonwealth Realm' except here. The analogy to the title of the sovereign of Germany does not hold. True, one is a title, the other is a description. But they both infer the same meaning. Commonwealth Realm implies a specific entity. Commonwealth realm is a description. It is not a pedantic distinction. --Gazzster 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Reading your comment I'm confused--I asserted the importance of the distinction, and gave the example of another important distinction that might appear trivial to an outsider observer. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise. I read your comment too hastily. mea culpa! Thanks for your interest.--Gazzster 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fall for this red herring! As I noted recently above (see post starting, "PLEASE NOTE:"), this is not a proper noun/common noun issue. The "Realm" in "Commonwealth Realm" should not be capitalized because the phrase is a proper noun (it's not), but because "Realm", when used on its own in this context, should be capitalized. Therefore, when put into a phrase it should stay capitalized, for exactly the same reason that both words in Commonwealth English are capitalized.

Evidence for capitalizing "Realm" to mean "Commonwealth nations whose monarch is Elizabeth II" (as opposed to those nations that have a different monarch) can be found across multiple government websites. For example, the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10]) and the British High Commission ([11]) both capitalize it. Given that a large part of the function of both these offices is to deal with official Commonwealth issues, I'm inclined to regard them as reliable. -- Hux 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. My impression was that the discussion was revolving precisely around what I was saying to the arbitrator.The "Realm" in "Commonwealth Realm" should not be capitalized because the phrase is a proper noun (it's not), but because "Realm", when used on its own in this context, should be capitalized . 'Realm' by itself, even in the context you refer to, is unqualified, and by itself, is not capitalised. If it were part of an official title, for example, 'The Realm of Candyland', then yes, it is capitalised. But if it is not part of an official title, eg, 'the realm of New Guinea' it is not. I looked at your sites. I did find Belize referred to as a 'Commonwealth Realm', true. But what does that mean? Does it mean a realm in the Commonwealth? If so it doesn't fit in the category of what we are describing in the article. What you need to find is an authorative descvription of what a 'Commonwealth Realm' actually is. As I suggested to the arbiter, this will be difficult, for the only authority that can define that is the individual nation itself, being as it is absolutely sovereign. There is no power that can define what kind of country it is save the country itself. So no, the British Foreign Office or High Commission is not a sufficient authority.

I would suggest that your arguments are in fact the red herring. To the best of my reading, the discussion revolves whether 'Commonwealth Realm' is a proper noun and a descriptive noun. Nevertheless your contribution is welcome.--Gazzster 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: "'Realm' by itself, even in the context you refer to, is unqualified, and by itself, is not capitalised." I'm confused as to why you say this, given that I just provided six different links (that you say you looked at), all but one of which show "Realm" capitalized when used by itself (the sixth showing it capitalized as part of the phrase, "Commonwealth Realm").

"What you need to find is an authorative descvription of what a 'Commonwealth Realm' actually is." But like you said, that doesn't appear to be possible, so I suggest that we rely on the most reliable sources we can find, and imo those sources would be sites like the FCO and British High Commission. They're certainly more reliable than information sites like royal.gov.uk, which contain a number of verifiably inaccurate statements.

"I would suggest that your arguments are in fact the red herring. To the best of my reading, the discussion revolves whether 'Commonwealth Realm' is a proper noun and a descriptive noun." Well, having been involved in the discussion for quite a while, on more than one talk page, my perception is that the only person advancing the notion that it should be kept because it is a proper noun is G2bambino. JDM and TharkunColl appear to have jumped on that and argued the reverse in order to get the title changed when in fact the issue that all of us have been discussing for much longer than that is the difference between "Realm" and "realm", a difference that, if I recall correctly, was already agreed upon by everyone involved except JDM and TharkunColl. That's why this is a red herring. -- Hux 13:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the case, but, if we are discussing a new issue, it is certainly our right to do so. Indeed, more editors than the ones you mention seem to consider it important, whichever side of the argument they are on.--Gazzster 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Hux may be interpreting silence for consent. Certain British legal documents capitalize "realm" in phrases like "Her Majesty's Realms," but that does not mean that one should always capitalize the word "realm" when it refers to one of the Queen's realms. Afterall, every kingdom is somebody's realm, be it Elizabeth II or the king of Swaziland. For example, try Googling the phrase "a realm in its own right" and look at the sentence from Patrick Wilken's scholarly article: "Brazil, for a time, would blaze a different trail, becoming a realm in its own right—a co-kingdom." It's a reference to a specific realm--in the lowercase. Or do we mean to argue that only Elizabeth II's realms should be capitalized? Jonathan David Makepeace 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM: "Or do we mean to argue that only Elizabeth II's realms should be capitalized?" Since the beginning, it has been argued that, in the context of the Commonwealth, "Realm" refers to those countries that have E2 as the monarch, while "realm" refers to all Commonwealth kingdoms. Imo, the available evidence supports that distinction. -- Hux 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

Why don't we 'move' the article to Realms of the Commonwealth. This way the R must be used, while nothing is taken away from the article title. Surely both sides (R & r) can agree to this. GoodDay 13:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution for the title of the page, but I fear that similar objections will resurface if anyone uses "Realm"/"Commonwealth Realm" in the body of the article. Still, it would at least resolve the title complaint so I will definitely support that. -- Hux 13:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; we might also move Commonwealth republic to republic of the Commonwealth, for consistency's sake. —Nightstallion 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Better make that, Republics of the Commonwealth. GoodDay 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Republic of the Commonwealth" sounds like the name of a country. A weird country with a massively split personality. ;) -- Hux 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Realms of the Commonwealth and Republics of the Commonwealth seems to me a good solution for the titles. For now. Because, at Hux says, it doesn't really solve anything. But it might give us time to stop writing and actually come up with a solution. But let's not edit while this issue is under arbitration.--Gazzster 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with those as titles for the articles, but nothing else written with the capital Realm unless it refers to the article(s) itself. That-Vela-Fella 22:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea, title only. The content will have to wait, until the discussion resolves itself. GoodDay 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are two articles, one entitled Realms of the Commonwealth, the other Republics of the Commonwealth, then presumably countries such as Swaziland will be in the former, right? There are those here that advocate the (in my opinion POV) idea that the British monarch has no connection whatsoever with the monarchies of the other countries of which she is Queen. If this is really so, then the Commonwealth realms that don't have E2 as their monarch are no different at all from those that do - i.e. they all have independent and separate monarchies. To single out those with E2 as their monarch is to therefore tacitly admit that there is some special connection between them. TharkunColl 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: "There are those here that advocate the (in my opinion POV) idea that the British monarch has no connection whatsoever with the monarchies of the other countries of which she is Queen." Nobody has advanced this idea as far as I can see, because to do so would be to advocate a nonsense statement, thus indicating that the speaker does not understand the constitutional situation. Your statement above is nonsense because when talking about the British monarch there are no "other countries of which she is Queen". The British monarch is head of only one country: the UK. Elizabeth II is head of sixteen countries, one of which is the UK. Secondly, the British monarch does indeed have no connection with the other countries (or rather, that monarch has no constitutional authority in the other countries). However, Elizabeth II has constitutional authority in all of them.

"To single out those with E2 as their monarch is to therefore tacitly admit that there is some special connection between them." There is some special connection between them: E2 is the monarch of all of them! This situation is surely notable enough to state in the relevant articles, isn't it? -- Hux 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth nations (like Swaziland) will need a seperate article. GoodDay 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's scratching their head, I've since changed my views. Swaziland does belong in this article, along with other Commonwealth monarchies that don't have 'Liz' as their monarch. GoodDay 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think they would need a separate article. Realms of the Commonwealth is the obvious place to make the point that some of the realms have their own monarch while others have E2 as their monarch. The only potential issue that will arise in that explanation is that at some point we'll have to use the term "Commonwealth R/realm", the capitalization or non-capitalization of which will likely open up these same arguments. However, that would still be a better situation than the one we have right now, so it's worth doing on that basis, imo. -- Hux 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Swaziland is a realm, and it's in the Commonwealth. On what grounds is it excluded from this article? Note: the actual statement by User:GoodDay to which this was a reply is as follows (he edited it after I had responded): "But Commonwealth nations (like Swaziland) aren't in this article. I'm not sure I follow you." TharkunColl 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC) TharkunColl 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Its 'head of state' is King Mswatti III, not Queen Elizabeth II. Just like India's head of state is the 'President of India'. GoodDay 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If it has a king, it's a realm, correct? TharkunColl 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, the Swazi realm. But this article covers only those Commonwealth nations, which have 'Liz' as their 'Head of State'. Swaziland doesn't have Co-Heads of State (like Andorra), that's just the way it is. I didn't organize the 'Commonwealth of Nations' (that was done, way before I was born). This murky part of the Commonwealth, is over my head (perhaps someone else can explain better). GoodDay 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the entire basis of this article is flawed. Whoever created it obviously regards having E2 as monarch as somehow more important, or at least more noteworthy, than having someone else, and has created an edifice that only exists in Wikipedia. TharkunColl 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sooo, unless those 'other monarchies' are included? You wont support 'moving' the article to Realms in the Commonwealth? GoodDay 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl: "Whoever created it obviously regards having E2 as monarch as somehow more important, or at least more noteworthy, than having someone else, and has created an edifice that only exists in Wikipedia." You keep saying this, even though you know it's not true, because each time you say it you are presented with evidence that clearly proves there is an official distinction between realms in the Commonwealth with their own monarchs and those of which E2 is monarch. Why do you keep doing that? -- Hux 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we 'move' the article to "Realms of the Commonwealth"? One simple reason: this includes kingdoms in the Commonwealth not under EIIR, whereas "Commonwealth Realms" specifically are the kingdoms in the Commonwealth that are under EIIR. --G2bambino 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, that shouldn't be a problem. "Realms of the Commonwealth" can contain information about all the realms and make the distinction between the E2 and non-E2 realms clear. I'd argue that in fact this makes the most sense from the point of view of the reader. -- Hux 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; I missed that. I'm still somewhat opposed to such an idea as it ends up being an article like Commonwealth republic in that there's nothing distinguishing about the countries save for the fact they're all kingdoms and are in the Commonwealth of Nations. Commonwealth Realms are specifically countries in the Commonwealth under EIIR and they have been given - not by Wikipedia - the collective title "Commonwealth Realms." Thus, I would argue the only change that needs to be made here is the addition of an "s" to the end of the present title. --G2bambino 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Have an E2 monarchies section, and add a non-E2 monarchies section. It might help. GoodDay 15:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there would have to be, which is why I say this won't bring the "r" vs. "R" issue to an end. Nor will it stop Thark from claiming there's no such thing as the Commonwealth Realms. Thus, a "Realms of the Commonwealth" article has no inherent purpose. --G2bambino 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the title, is a beginning. The ArbCmte has requested we settle the disupte. Should the R win out (in the content), Tharky and others who oppose, will have no choice but to accept. They can complain as long as they like (we just won't respond), complaining is OK as long as they don't disrupt the article itself. If they do -call the Adminstrators. Remember, it takes 2 to argue. GoodDay 15:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A beginning to what end, though? Beyond there being no actual purpose to such an article, I can guarantee there will be a section of "Realms of the Commonwealth" called "Commonwealth Realms" or in which the Commonwealth Realms must be called out as such, which will just incite another "r" vs. "R" debate. If arguments over the capitalization of "realm" continue there, why move at all? --G2bambino 15:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until the 'page move' vote ends (Aug 14) first. Then, continue this discussion (if the vote is to 'move'). GoodDay 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I just think time will show the move to be completely unnecessary; a step in the wrong direction, in fact. --G2bambino 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I think "Realms of the Commonwealth" is a good idea

I think some editors are viewing this issue too strictly through the lens of, "this article is X and must remain X", when instead a better way of looking at it might be to think about what the article should be, with regard to usefulness for readers. Here we have a broad group of nations, some of which have discrete monarchs and some of which have E2 as their monarch. I think it makes the most sense for this article to be about all of those countries. The alternative is to have two separate articles, one of which (the one about the non-E2 realms) will inevitably be a deletion candidate due to the group being non-notable on its own, the result being that the reader will be worse off.
Instead, if we have one article covering both groups, it will be able to describe the distinction between them and it will inevitably end up covering the E2 group far more extensively anyway, since its constitutional history is much more notable. In fact, frankly I don't think that doing it this way will even result in significant change to the current content - all it needs is a couple of paragraphs about the situation with the non-E2 realms and it's done. Therefore, I don't think that the attitude, "This article is about the Commonwealth Realms only and it must stay that way", is a very logical or helpful argument.
Yes, it's true that moving to "Realms of the Commonwealth" will not solve the overall "R" vs. "r" issue. However, it will solve the title issue while also making the article better for the reader, imo. That's why I think it's a good idea. -- Hux 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But, what is so notable about countries in the Commonwealth that happen to have a monarchical head of state? At least, what could be said in "Realms of the Commonwealth" that couldn't be, if already not, covered at Commonwealth of Nations? --G2bambino 18:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Once you've listed those monarchies, and said they're in the Commonwealth, what else is left to say? Nothing, because they have nothing else in common. The group of monarchies that is the current focus of the article is another matter entirely. This arrangement is virtually unique, historically, and absolutely unique in its scale; the arrangement is complex, with all sorts of ramifications, some of which are still unfolding; and it's historically important, because it is central to understanding the (relatively) peaceful dissolution of the British Empire, as well as to understanding key issues in the internal politics of several of the Realms. The existence and the focus of the current article is entirely justified, and should not be changed. --Chris Bennett 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

funny?

I don't want to interrupt you: Even though the letter R ... oh no I mean r in realm ... is very important, I wonder how you can discuss it so long and even create an RfA for it. Why don't you just change it, whenever you feel like it. If you want, you can do it every day for a year. Who cares? Or maybe you spend some dollars to buy another CPU for the servers or change the r^HR only once a week. ;-) --Raphael1 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh, now you went and made me spill my 'pepsi'. I had the right one baby, ah huh-ah huh. GoodDay 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is a somewhat bizarre discussion. If only we had a real edit war going, we could bring it to WP:LAME (while I do not think that the entire issue is trivial, I can see that it must seem absurd for an outsider). Blur4760 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can editors nominate an article for WP:LAME? If so, this dispute would make a good candidate. GoodDay 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, jeez. No kidding. --G2bambino 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this argument is utterly lame. Nearly two weeks of argument about whether to capitalise one word? It doesn't get lamer! --Chris Bennett 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I'm beginning to lean toward 'deleting' the article. It's starting to go 'beyond' funny. If no resolution is reached by 'August 14', I'll be suggesting an AfD. Heh, even the 'best' sitcoms didn't last forever. GoodDay 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are about to make it. Blur4760 07:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote: page move

Let's try to get some consensus here. I suggest that we leave this section open for voting for at least seven days. Please confine discussion of this to the compromise section above, where it is already taking place.

• Proposal: The article, "Commonwealth Realm", should be moved to "Realms of the Commonwealth".

Please vote below and, ideally, briefly explain your reasoning. -- Hux 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeas

• Agree - "Realms of the Commonwealth" solves one of the major sticking points, i.e. capital or lower case "R" in the title. The article will have to be updated to show a distinction between realms that have their own monarch and those that have E2 as their monarch, but I don't think this will be a problem. In fact I think it would make for a better article as it is the kind of information that would be useful for the reader. -- Hux 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - And let us leave aside for the 7 days as well the question as to whether realms like Swaziland and Tonga should be included. --Gazzster 07:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - This will help include non-EIIR "realms"...basically per Hux. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - But we must include all the realms, including those with monarchs other than E2. All should be given equal treatment. TharkunColl 11:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Agree All voters have a point, but it might be best to change, per Hux above. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, better than the alternative... —Nightstallion 14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, this way the R must be used, also it takes nothing away from the article title. GoodDay 14:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nays

• Oppose - The point of the article is to be about Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's realms. If you want an article about all monarchies in the Commonwealth (per Commonwealth republic), create an article called Monarchy in the Commonwealth of Nations. Otherwise, stick to Commonwealth R/realm. Whichever one of those is correct, 'Realm of the Commonwealth' is wrong. Bastin 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons as Bastin. "Realms of the Commonwealth" sounds like an article about any realm in the Commonwealth, while "Commonwealth R/realm" has a narrower meaning. Furthermore, I disagree with TharkunColl's proposal that the article should be about every monarchy in the Commonwealth. This article should be about the particularities and development of those Realms that share a personal union relationship, otherwise the article would be quite witless. Blur4760 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "Commonwealth Realms" is the title given - not by Wikipedia - to the collection of countries in the Commonwealth that are headed by Elizabeth II. Even if these are covered in an article who's scope includes all realms of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Realms will still have to be singled out from the other kingdoms of the Commonwealth within such an article, and thus the issue of whether or not to capitalize the "r" in "realm" will emerge again anyway. Further, expanding the subject of this article dilutes its very purpose - do we really need an article on a collection of countries simply because they are all kingdoms and all in the Commonwealth? --G2bambino 14:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary, verbose, and, as been pointed out, implies a need to drag in countries like Swaziland and Tonga, which defocusses the article. It is about the arrangement by which a group of countries share a common monarch. The current title succinctly and accurately reflects the topic.

The only reason I can see for this proposal is that people are trying to find a way to appease one individual who has a near-pathological obsession about capitalisation which he won't give up until he gets his way, however he does it. That is an extremely bad reason to make such a change. --Chris Bennett 15:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sounds like something that Wikipedia made up. "Commonwealth realms" gets 8x more hits on Google than "Realms of the Commonwealth". I don't think we should hide from these disputes. What if someone actually wants to know if the R is capitalised? Reginmund 16:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the group is generally referred to as the "Commonwealth Realms", the "Commonwealth realms" or anything else, then that's where the article should be. If there is no such generally accepted term, then we should have a more descriptive title to connect the 16 (Realms of Elizabeth II, Commonwealth countries under the House of Windsor or something like that). "Realms of the Commonwealth" is not a good choice because it would include Swaziland et al., and there's really no point of having an article about the monarchical subset of the set of Commonwealth members. We don't have Kingdoms of the European Union, after all. -- Jao 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • While the EU is fundamentally different in about every regard from the CW, we *did* have an article called Monarchies in the European Union until it was expanded to Monarchies in Europe... —Nightstallion 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • While this is a little off the subject, I never said that the EU and the Commonwealth are similar, but in this aspect I think my analogy holds. The fact that Swaziland and Malaysia are both Commonwealth members while Japan is not doesn't really make the monarchies of Swaziland and Malaysia more related to each other than to the Japanese monarchy. The same argument could be made about the monarchies of Sweden and Denmark (in the EU) and Norway (outside it). As for Monarchies in Europe, I do see a point of that, because in some sense they share a tradition that non-European monarchies (ex-colonial or not) do not. -- Jao 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, I agree with you there. —Nightstallion 21:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Nay. This is a laudable try at finessing a solution, but for better or worse "Commonwealth Realm" (or "... realm") is the term, and "common name" is the applicable guideline. "Realm of the Commonwealth" is awkward and unfamiliar and would hardly ever be used directly. Perhaps most of all, that page-move would not quiet the Realm/realm issue, because there would yet be the text of the article. -- Lonewolf BC 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Commonwealth Realm" is the official name and is much more commonly used anyway. Realms of the Commonwealth sounds much more awkward anyway. Therequiembellishere 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose If we wanted to be 'correct; according to NZ Laws, it would be "Commonwealth Nations of which [the Queen is] Sovereign" Brian | (Talk) 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I've removed the {{Rally}} template. It's quite all right to go out and ask all talk page participants weigh in so long as you contact all sides equally, which appears to have happened. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, it looks like CB and JDM have taken the 'gloves' off and are head to head. We seem to be on the verge of an 'edit war'. GoodDay 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected. Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As it should be. This 'argument' is getting lamer by the hour. If the compromise isn't adopted by August 14 (if there's no resolution by then). I'll be suggesting an AfD, for this article. GoodDay 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an absurd idea. 99.5% of the content of the article is a) useful, b) notable, and c) uncontroversial. A few editors disagreeing on the remaining 0.5% is no justification for a deletion proposal. -- Hux 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. It's just this dispute has gotten so frustrating, it's even getting me (a republican) upset. GoodDay 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finally protecting the page! About bloody time! --Chris Bennett 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

seeking consensus : single vs two meanings

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.

---

I'm trying to see whether there are any points that all (or nearly all) of us agree on. Do we all agree that Commonwealth R/realm has only one meaning, i.e., a country whose current head of state is Elizabeth II? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, R/realm includes 'Commonwealth monarchies' that don't have 'Liz' as their monarch. GoodDay 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No - as per GoodDay (though, I'd say it is certainly the lower case "r" "Commonwealth realms" that includes all monarchies in the Commonwealth, whereas the upper case "r" "Commonwealth Realms" includes only those under EIIR). --G2bambino 22:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Bastin 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No - per GoodDay and G2bambino. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No. - No evidence has been presented that any such term as "Commonwealth Realm" exists. TharkunColl 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No - per GoodDay and G2bambino. --Chris Bennett 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No - per G2bambino. I also note that once again TharkunColl is being disingenuous - he knows full well that there is evidence for it, because he has been involved in multiple discussions where it has been presented. He just doesn't like that evidence. -- Hux 05:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No - 'Commonwealth Realm', even if realm were in lower case, signifies a realm that is in the Commonwealth. That includes the realms like Swaziland and Tonga which are members of the Commonwealth and have a monarch other than Elizabeth II. Also, there is nothing in the term to indicate that Elizabeth II is the common monarch of these realms, and a term should descrtibe what it signifies. Belonging to the Commonwealth is quite incidental to the quality of the realms we are attempting to group.--Gazzster 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Close of !Vote Result: No, we do not all agree that Commonwealth R/realm has only one meaning. Although my vote was "no", this was not my decision, but the decision of the grand majority and of the arguments presented. Although this debate is closed, the issue may be resurrected in a new talk page section. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:27, 8 August 2007 (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.

By what authority was this discussion closed less than one day after I opened it? Jonathan David Makepeace 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

seeking consensus : common or proper noun

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.

---

I'm trying to see whether there are any points that all (or nearly all) of us agree on. Do we all agree that Commonwealth R/realm is a common noun? Jonathan David Makepeace 21:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, I don't have a clue - gramar isn't my 'forte'. GoodDay 22:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

comment, Spelling isn't my forte either, it's grammar. GoodDay 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No - It all depends on the context to which the label is being applied - all monarcies within the Commonwealth, or only those monarchies within the Commonwealth under EIIR? --G2bambino 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No - grammatically, it's not a noun at all. Only single words can be nouns, common or otherwise. "Commonwealth Realm" is a nominal phrase aka noun phrase. "Realm" is a noun. "Commonwealth" is an adjective, qualifying the noun. --Chris Bennett 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No per G2 and CB. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No - per Chris Bennett. Plus, as I've pointed out above, this line of argument is a red herring. "Realm" should be capitalized in the title simply because it is capitalized when it is used on its own, just as we capitalize both words in Commonwealth English. Proper vs. common noun is irrelevant. -- Hux 05:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No - while Commonwealth Realm (or realm- I would argue that capitalising the R attempts to make it proper) is a noun (Just as Blue Whale or Great Britain is a noun, it is a proper noun. There is an association of nations called the Commonwealth of Nations, but none called the Commonwealth Realms. There is no common foundation between realms in the Commonwealth that would justify a proper noun, especially considering we would have to include native monarchies other than the UK. 'Realm' by itself, is not capitalised. We only capitalise Realm (and it becomes a proper noun) when used as or with association with a title, eg., the Realm of Kingsland.--Gazzster 06:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"'Realm' by itself, is not capitalised. We only capitalise Realm (and it becomes a proper noun) when used as or with association with a title, eg., the Realm of Kingsland." For umpteenth time, this is not true, as the following links show: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] -- Hux 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is asking for a vote and an explanation of the vote, not for a discussion. You had an opportunity to counter what I stated. You did, several times. I stand behind my argument. Get over it.--Gazzster 10:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, please remain civil. Secondly, there is nothing in this section that precludes discussion; JDM did not request that it should be for votes. Thirdly, and most importantly, if I see anyone posting something that is blatantly untrue then I will respond to it. If clearly untrue statements are used in support of arguments (whether deliberately or accidentally) they should be called out as such, otherwise readers who may not realize their inaccuracy will be misled. Understand that this is not personal, but rather for the benefit of the debate as a whole. -- Hux 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Close of !Vote Result: No, we do not all agree that Commonwealth R/realm is a common noun. Although my vote was "no", this was not my decision, but the decision of the grand majority and of the arguments presented. Although this debate is closed, the issue may be resurrected in a new talk page section. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:27, 8 August 2007 (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.

(In reply to hux's comment above, starting, "Firstly, please remain civil".) "So 'for the 'umpteenth time'; 'not true'; 'do not be fooled by this red herring': waving your degree at me; this is evidence of calm objectivity? I was merely attempting to remind you to remain civil. You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this thing. Chill, man.--Gazzster 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being in any way uncivil. "Get over it", however, is definitely uncivil, imo, hence my request. And other than "for the umpteenth time", which was indeed representative of a measure of frustration, I'm perfectly chilled, thanks. Also I didn't wave my degree at you - I simply mentioned it (qualified with "for what it's worth", even!) in order to make clear that I do know something of what I'm talking about when it comes to English grammar, that's all!

So basically you've misinterpreted my mood by quite a bit (which, to be fair, is not uncommon with this communication medium). ;) -- Hux 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By what authority was this discussion closed less than one day after I opened it? Jonathan David Makepeace 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about that too? I just assumed the 'closing' editor was an Administrator. GoodDay 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing does not have to be done by a admin if it doesn't involve deletion. These proposals were clealy going to fail and so I technically close them per SNOW as you clearly asked if all agree and most of the answers were "no". Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Jonathan David Makepeace 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, I thought we had agreed on a 7 day moritorium. I fear we're heading back into a chaotic discussion.--Gazzster 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledge other styles

JDM has been attempting to insert a bracketed sentence at the head of the article that reads: "or 'Commonwealth realm'[18][19]", unfortunately not raising it here at talk first.

Does this seem like a viable solution to this seemingly never-ending problem? This would be similar to the sentence at the top of Lieutenant-Governor (Canada) that says "In Canada, the lieutenant-governor (often without a hyphen[1], pronounced [lɛfˈtɛ.nənt])..." The only problem I see with this (in both cases) is that it sets up a situation where no one format is seen as correct and both versions appear in various places all over Wikipedia. --G2bambino 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly beginning to think this article should be 'deleted. The discussion is getting lamer by the hour. If the 'proposed' compromise is rejected (on August 14), then what? That's my benchmark -August 14- ,if there's no resolution, I'm suggesting an AfD for this 'debacle'. GoodDay 00:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An AfD won't go anywhere; an article this detailed won't be deleted over a single letter.

As I understand it there was already an informal "vote" of sorts to leave the article as it is, yet JDM, alone, keeps pushing for change. If we don't see the above as viable (and my confidence in it isn't great), and JDM continues to behave as he currently is, then its JDM who should go, not the article. --G2bambino 01:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my AfD 'threat', it was a moment of 'pure' frustration. GoodDay 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Well someone 'block' him, he's beginning to drive at least this editor 'away' (who'll be next?). GoodDay 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I think for a second that it will satisfy JDM, but I would accept a footnote at the first occurrence of Commonwealth Realm within the body of the article, i.e. where the term is defined, that read something like:

(n. 1) The term is also seen uncapitalised, as "Commonwealth realm"; see for example <JDM's favourite URL>.

That recognises that the other convention exists, but also says that within this article we are going to keep it capitalised. It's an approach which might finesse this idiotic and apparently unresolvable dispute about which convention is "correct". --Chris Bennett 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly live with that. --G2bambino 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As can I. It is a fact that both forms are used, depending on which site one happens to be visiting. -- Hux 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine by me too. Perhaps a new section could be added to the article describing the non-E2 realms - even if it's just to point out that they are not generally included in the term TharkunColl 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a very sensible idea, both the note about the capitalisation and the short section about other realms within the Commonwealth. —Nightstallion 10:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The article already says in passing that there are other monarchies in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't oppose repeating that statement in the introductory section, e.g. by adding a sentence after the first sentence in the third paragraph reading something like:

"The Commonwealth includes a number of monarchies which are not in personal union with the Commonwealth Realms, as well as a number of republics."

But that is the most that needs to be said (and just about all that can be said). --Chris Bennett 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the note supposed to say? "The Head of the Commonwealth/head of state of all the Commonwealth realms plus virtually all academics do not capitalize Commonwealth realm, but this article violates Wikipedia policy because the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses an archaic legal style in which it is capitalized. The Australian and Canadian governments and the Commonwealth Secretariat never even use the term." Come on, people, get real! Jonathan David Makepeace 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof that it violates Wikipedia policy? Proof that the Queen herself uses "Commonwealth realm", as opposed to her tourism-focused website? Proof that "virtually all academics" use it? Any reason why you're ignoring the evidence that "Commonwealth Realm" appears to be by far the more commonly used variant online? (Of the first 100 Google listings, there are only 16 appearances of "Commonwealth realm".) -- Hux 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Queen is her own webmaster, and "virtually all" are weasel words; so, no, I don't think the footnote will say that. We should wait, however, until we see if the footnote route is approved of by most editors before deciding on its composition. --G2bambino 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, all but one. How, pray tell, can people approve a footnote that hasn't been drafted? Jonathan David Makepeace 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not being asked to approve the text of the footnote, just whether or not the small "r" issue should only be mentioned in one. --G2bambino 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote on footnote solution

I loathe to bring editing down to democratic vote, but this must come to an end somehow.

Thus, I ask that people vote on the proposed resolution offered by Chris Bennett above, wherein the article remains with the capital "r" format of "Commonwealth Realm" with a footnote explaining that the words also appear as "Commonwealth realm" in some sources outside Wikipedia.

If the result of the vote is in favour of implementing this proposal, all further discussion on the matter ceases (save for minor details on footnote wording, etc.), and thereafter any involved editors who attempt to revert to a non-capitalized version of "Commonwealth Realm" and/or move the footnote into the main body of the article will be reported.

I'll also take the liberty of moving the informal votes above to an "official" format here. --G2bambino 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When does this vote close? I see that the vote on moving the page is formally open till 14 August, though there is no longer any activity on it and it seems clearly lost. Do we have to hold this one open till then too? --Chris Bennett 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's August 15. GoodDay 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's better to leave the important votes (i.e. those that call for direct change rather than a simple gathering of opinion) open for a longer period, even if they appear to be quiet. Two reasons for this: 1) for my vote, I contacted everyone on this page and not all of them have voted so let's give them time to do so, and 2) I think it would be a good thing if this debate slowed down in general. Lots of bad changes happen when people don't have time to sit back and really think about what they're advocating. If things progress too quickly it increases the chance of purely reactive changes being made, and that can only be a bad thing. -- Hux 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I raised the issue because the opinion votes were closed (JDM's position having, as Nat Tang said, been overwhemingly lost), the renaming vote had a clear end date, and there was no statement here. If G2bambino, as the proposer of the motion, agrees, let's take 15 August as the closing date. (Who knows, JDM may even realise in that time that he actually has a way out here that is something he has said he can live with, and change his vote. Though I'm not holding my breath.)

There is however a procedural issue. The renaming vote closes before this one. While current votes are running against renaming, the numbers aren't overwhelming, and it is possible that that may change before this vote closes, leading to a result that is inconsistent with the premise of this vote. If that happens, I think we should take no action until both votes close. Hopefully they will be consistent with each other, but if they are not we will then need to discuss how to reconcile them.

(I'm also not sure what the criteria for passage are on each vote -- 50%+1? 67%? On this one 50%+1 seems appropriate since its a very trivial editorial change, but I'd hope that major changes, like changes to an article title, if subjected to vote, should only be adopted if approved by a significant margin.) --Chris Bennett 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't consider that we have two concurrent votes going on at the same time; I assumed the above one was finished as everyone involved had voted. However, I agree with you, Chris, that no action should be taken until both votes close. I'm also fine with ending this one on Aug. 15. --G2bambino 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be a bugger, but this "vote" clearly violates WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then all votes here and everywhere on Wikipedia do. Why, then, bother gunning for consensus at all when it can't be achieved through votes on a possible solution? --G2bambino 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it violates either of those articles. WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE don't say that nothing can ever be decided by voting, just that votes should not be the primary method of establishing consensus and that votes are generally not used when discussing article changes. That leaves the way open - wisely, imo - for voting to play a part in certain circumstances and I would argue that an inability to move on due to protracted disagreement with no conceivable end in sight is one of those circumstances where it can be a useful tool. It shouldn't be regarded as the final word (because consensus can change), but that doesn't mean it should never be used at all. -- Hux 11:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nat, you're being a bugger! ;-) WP encourages consensus, but in this case the normal meechanism, discussion leading to compromise and agreement, has completely broken down because of JDN's obdurate insistence that all must kowtow to his demands in precisely the form that he specifies them. That being the case, we must find another mechanism to achieve consensus. Indeed, it was JDM who introduced the vote in an effort to stack the deck, which so far has failed.

Now, I don't like having to go through this exercise. It is not a good way to edit an article. And in fact it is clear that it will have no more effect on JDM than anything else except total submission. He has already said that the outcome of these votes means nothing to him -- though I have no doubt that story will change 180 degrees the instant he should manage to get a majority of one in any vote that favours his view.

From my current position, the main reason to go through this unpleasant and unnecessary exercise is to flesh out the track record of JDM's behaviour for all to see. Unless he actually sees the wisdom of accepting the compromise which this proposal is offering to him, which he has said he will not do even though it meets exactly the requirements he gave to Gazzster, we will eventually be able to take this record to the Powers That Be and submit a motion to get him banned from WP. That, in my view, is the most appropriate longterm outcome of this farce. --Chris Bennett 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Can you believe JDM actually had the gall to request a half hour ago that this page be unlocked? And I thought it couldn't get any more bizzarre. (BTW- he and Thark are ripping up a stink at Passport as well; more of the "UK #1" stuff, again. Sigh...) --G2bambino 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support --Chris Bennett 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support --G2bambino 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- Hux 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support TharkunColl 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support —Nightstallion 10:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Blur4760 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Therequiembellishere 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- GoodDay 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Jonathan David Makepeace 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose john k 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose --Gazzster 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose TharkunColl 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. —Nightstallion 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Blur4760 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- GoodDay 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Therequiembellishere 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose -- That-Vela-Fella 00:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

"Commonwealth Realm" [sic] violates Wikipedia policy, and a vote here will not change that. Commonwealth realm is a common noun, just like Commonwealth republic. Some here refuse to accept that clear point of grammar, possibly in order to somehow elevate Commonwealth realms above Commonwealth republics, but their ideological refusal does not change the grammatical fact. Jonathan David Makepeace 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How does "'Commonwealth Realm' [sic] violate Wikipedia policy"? JDM, please reply on my talkpage. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM, I see you made the following comment to Gazzster on his talk page:

At this point I am willing to settle for a mention of the diverging styles right at the beginning of the article so that people will know that the British monarch and most academics use "Commonwealth realm."

The footnote text attached to the first three words in the article that I suggested:

(n. 1) The term is also seen uncapitalised, as "Commonwealth realm"; see for example <JDM's favourite URL>.

which is what motivated this motion, would give you exactly that.

The end to this insanity lies in your hands, as it always has. The motion is a motion to give you what you have told your supporters you would settle for. So why not do it? --Chris Bennett 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Chris. He even conceded elsewhere that the capitalized version is acceptable, only to him it's not because it's "archaic." JDM goes on to say "'Normal' British (used by non-law academics and virtually the entire publishing industry) capitalizes such words only when they are part of a name or title..." Well, what is "Commonwealth Realms" if not a name or title for a specific group of countries?

Regardless, you're right to question JDM's reasons for not accepting exactly what he said he would accept. --G2bambino 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. That is an important quote, and highly revealing. I reproduce it here for others to see:

"Legal" British is an archaic and highly inconsistent usage used in certain British legal and government circles that tends to capitalize words relating to government or the monarchy, e.g., Her Majesty's Dominions, Realms, Territories. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses this style, hence Commonwealth Realm(s). But it really depends on the whim of the editor because there are no fixed rules. That's why the Queen's Web site can use "legal" British but not capitalize Commonwealth realm(s).

First, the whole discussion with User:Mackenson from which this is extracted is a great deal more rational and collegial than anything he has ever said here. We have already seen his interest in exercising power. Currying favour with those who hold more power than you do is part and part and parcel of the same behaviour: Bullying.

Second, I completely agree with this paragraph. As used in the Commonwealth, the term is an archaic and legalistic usage, and it was deliberately chosen because it had that property. It was resurrected for a specific and rather arcane purpose. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate that the WP honour the origins of the term by captilsing it.

Third, the sentence I have highlighted is very relevant: This issue is ultimately not a matter of "correctness", about which reasonable people can differ (while unreasonable ones cannot). It's an issue of editorial judgement. The title to this article was capitalised when it first appeared in 2003, and that capitalisation has not been changed since, though the article has gone through extensive evolution. Until this point, every single editor has regarded the title as acceptable, even if they personally may not have agreed with it.

So, instead of looking at this as a change to be made in the abtract, we should consider that weight of editorial history. Speaking personally, if the article had been created as "Commonwealth realm", I could have lived with that, even though I prefer the capital -- and I would have opposed changing it for editorial reasons. Just so: even though I think "Commonwealth Realm" is the more appropriate title, the main issue is not whether it is right or wrong but whether there is any point in changing it. I see none. --Chris Bennett 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I see a 'light' at the end of the 'tunnel'? Can it be happening? GoodDay 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting a warm, tingly feeling! -- Hux 05:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One's bladder can only hold out so long, I'm afraid.... ;-) --Chris Bennett 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to view "commonwealth realm" as a proper noun. john k 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That vote has been closed. This motion is about a proposed edit. It is independent of the parsing of the phrase. Maybe you should review your vote. --Chris Bennett 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The vote, so far as I can tell, is on a) keeping the article here; and b) including that phrase about how sometimes "commonwealth realm" is used. At least, this is how G2Bambino describes it. I disagree with a. I don't even slightly care about b - b might deal with any confusion that might arise from the current title, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the current title inspired absolutely no confusion based on the fact that it is capitalized. I think "Commonwealth Realm" violates style guidelines, but I don't think it's misleading, or an interesting enough question to warrant discussion in the article. Therefore, I'm voting against the proposal. john k 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is to say, if the article stays where it is, I'd just assume not have the note that is suggested by the poll. john k 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though not the reason you originally gave! In fact I'd prefer not to add the footnote either. I made the suggestion in the hope of killing the topic with a compromise solution that is commensurate to its importance (i.e. vanishingly small). --Chris Bennett 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my fingers crossed, this struggle may be coming to an end. GoodDay 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance. Jonathan David Makepeace 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not a chance"? So, you're already threatening to cause continued disruption over this matter? If you do persist in doing so - by, for example, such disingenuous things as putting words in people's mouths - then I think you'll find yourself quickly banned from Wikipedia. --G2bambino 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've been saying for a while now, JDM is not an honest actor. What clearer illustration do some people here need to see that he has no intention of ceasing to flog the rotting carcass of this dead horse until he finds a way to get whatever he wants, and consensus be damned? --Chris Bennett 21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this vote cannot change Wikipedia policy. Secondly, the vote is being held without the note having been drafted. G2bambino has already indicated that he wants a note that doesn't inform people that "Commonwealth realm" is the form used by the British monarch and all but one of the academic articles cited on Google Scholar. Indeed, what will the note say when the term isn't used by the Australian or Canadian governments or the Commonwealth Secretariat? "The Queen and most academics say one thing and the British FCO says another--we thought we go with what the FCO says because the Queen is ignorant?" Jonathan David Makepeace 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

God you know how to blow smoke where there's no tinder. The vote is about an approach. If we (or at least the overwhelming majority of us) can agree on the approach, then we will have a second vote on how to implement it. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of chances to run amok in that discussion too.

As to the wording, you have of course chosen to avoid mentioning my original comment in favour of a sarcastically-worded strawman of your own devising. My original suggestion was the neutral and benign:

(n. 1) The term is also seen uncapitalised, as "Commonwealth realm"; see for example <JDM's favourite URL>.

Note that that wording was only for example, and is not the subject of this vote. At most it's a starting point for the next vote. --Chris Bennett 21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it (I tend to miss things), JDM . What Wikipedia Policy are you referring to? Educate me, please (I'm not being sarcastic). GoodDay 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know as well. Imo, it can't be the common/proper noun thing because "Commonwealth Realm" is being capitalized simply because "Realm" in this context is capitalized. Of course, if he disagrees then he'll have to take this issue up at a bunch of other articles as well, e.g. Act of Parliament. -- Hux 05:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[I oppose] on the grounds that we are thus clearly inventing a new term, which as I and others have pointed out, does not adequately signify the nature of the realms we are describing. A footnote will not solve anything. We need to come up with a different term entirely which has the advantage of being a descriptive name. Also, remember the moritorium; a consensus on any of these issues we have voted on, either way, within a day or two does not justify editing. In fact, we should wait until August 14 before we even resume discussions on these points. This gives other interested parties time to consider and vote.--Gazzster 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Inventing a new term!? Multiple sources have been brought out here that refer to such a thing as the Commownealth Realms. Let's not start another straw man argument over the validity of the term itself! --G2bambino 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah! But that is precisely what is in dispute. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your simply asserting that it is 'straw man' argument does not make it so. You have seen my argument on the topic. If you weant to counter me, which is great (you may even convince me) refer to my argument. And Id rather my contributions were not shifted to another place without my permission. It was certainly valid of me to vote with an explanation, exactly as we have done with the two other votes.--Gazzster 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the term "Commonwealth R/realm" is in dispute? Really? When was it revealed that all the sources provided were fallacious?

As per moving your comments: it was done for the sake of clarity and readability. Neither your vote nor your reasoning for it was altered or confused by the move. --G2bambino 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct term is what the Queen, ceremonial head of the British Commonwealth, uses (in my opinion). Therefore, the correct term would be "Commonwealth realm". Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, that's not the point. Editors should not edit each other's comments. It is not for you to decide even 'for the sake of clarity and readability' I(and there was nothing about it unclear or unreadable where it was). Some might think it indicates a certain lack of respect and even objectivity.Other editiors have also pointed out that the sources you indicate are not authoritive. The British FO, for example, is not authoritive. But I will not further throw this discussion into chaos by bringing my arguments up again. If you want to, please refer to them. I repeat, we should stop arguing until the moritorium is over.--Gazzster 22:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have become unclear and unreadable if we had had this conversation in the vote section. Don't take things so personally. Jeez.

This isn't about the authoritativeness of the sources (though they all seem to meet WP:RS), but about the actual existence of the term "Commonwealth R/realm." Forgive me if I'm skeptical when someone tells me what I see right in front of my face doesn't actually exist. --G2bambino 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., never uses the expression "Commonwealth R/realm(s)" in its articles on dominions (of the Commonwealth), the Commonwealth, Elizabeth II or the United Kingdom. However ...

On p. 454 in vol. 4 of the Micropaedia the article on Elizabeth II states her title as "queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories, head of the Commonwealth of Nations."

p. 98 in vol. 21 of the Macropaedia in the article on the United Kingdom: "This loosening of the previous connections was taken a stage further in 1949, when India stated its wish to assume the status of a republic but to remain within the Commonwealth. The other members gave approval. The crown thus became an institution applicable to individual Commonwealth countries, which remained realms, but not to the Commonwealth as a whole."

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Today's Main Page 'featured article', no less. Talk about timing. GoodDay 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of JDM's "damning citations." The one Macropedia article get's the Queen's title wrong; the other talks about generic realms. Am I missing something? --G2bambino 00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we can finally lay to rest the notion that "Realm" should be capitalized whenever referring to the Queen's realms. As for the rest, I suspect that God Her- or Himself could inform you that you are mistaken on this point, and you would not believe Her or Him. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, how you've argued yourself into a tizzy. I never claimed "realm" should be capitalized whenever referring to the countries under EIIR. What I have always asserted is that "realms" in "Commonwealth Realms" should be capitalized, especially here at Wikipedia. Do try to keep up, old chum. --G2bambino 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying is that although it is very rarely capitalised in the real world, we should do so at Wikipedia. Isn't that precisely what Wikipedia is not? TharkunColl 08:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree there, yes. —Nightstallion 11:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank, define "rarely capitalised." Do you have in your possession written record of every utterance of the words "commonwealth realm."? Besides, both you and Nightstallion above voted in favour of keeping the article as is, with a footnote r.e. the lower-case version. That means you wish to see the capitalized version remain here. --G2bambino 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's you that need to provide evidence, since the majority of sources we already have do not capitalise it. I think it may be necessary to change my vote in any case, because no solution has yet been reached on the non-E2 realms. TharkunColl 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic here. These are two entirely separate and unrelated issues, so it is not a valid reason to change your vote. On the other hand, if it is your belief that there is a connection, then you've conceded the point that "Realm" does not mean the smae thing as "realm".

Reading this, it seems to me you've changed your vote because you're in a snit with G2bambino. Also not a very good reason.

If this motion passes, we can then debate separately whether and how the article should cover other monarchies. I've already made a suggestion.

I invite you to rethink this when your temper is cooled. --Chris Bennett 01:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't; I'm not making unsubstantiated claims. The number of sources we have is the point: they're not every source out there. In fact, we have no idea just how many sources are out there. So, it's ridiculous to claim without doubt that "Commonwealth Realms" is "rarely capitalized in the real world." Perhaps what you meant to say was it's "rarely capitalized in the sources we currently have."

I'd think the non-EIIR realms is another matter all-together; mention of them can be put in or not regardless of the "R/r" issues. --G2bambino 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed rarely capitalised in the sources we have - so it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary, if you think it exists. TharkunColl 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Find evidence that contradicts the point that "realms" is rarely capitalized in the sources we have? Why would I attempt to embark on such an inane mission? --G2bambino 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, can you provide a citation to a work that uses the term "Commonwealth realm" in referring to a country of which Elizabeth II is not Queen? So far I have been unable to find any. The British monarch's Web site states: "Some countries within the Commonwealth have The Queen as their Sovereign, whilst remaining independent in the conduct of their own affairs. They are known as Commonwealth realms."[20] Can you cite any evidence that the term is used in the way that you suggest? Jonathan David Makepeace 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Please address what Chris Bennett asked of you above; it's that which is now the crux of the matter. --G2bambino 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires attribution of assertions. The British monarch's Web site defines Commonwealth realms as countries within the Commonwealth having the Queen as their sovereign. Can you present evidence to counter that definition? Jonathan David Makepeace 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to give attribution to anything that isn't relevant to this article. Again, the main matter at hand is your failure to address Chris Bennett's question to you. Perhaps you didn't see it above, so allow me to post it afresh so there's no confusion. --G2bambino 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests, you have still failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that the term is usually capitalised - indeed the sources we have indicate the exact opposite. Please address this issue. TharkunColl 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And you've failed to provide evidence that the term is usually not capitalized. I doubt we're going to prove whether it's usually anything. With conflicting forms in the real world, we can only decide what's best for here. JDM said he was willing to keep the article as is with brief mention of the other non-capitalized format; we're still waiting to see why he's now reneged on this stance. --G2bambino 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence that it is not capitalised comes from the royal website itself, and the fact that most of the sources provided do not capitalise it. And on a related note, please stop trying to insert your POV into the Passport article. Other users may wish to take a look at that and help keep your idiosyncratic and pedantic interpretation of the monarchy out of it. TharkunColl 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Buckingham Palace website is but one source. Most sources you have do not capitalize it; you do not have all sources in existence.

As per Passport, why don't you try discussing the matter at Talk:Passport, as you've been asked twice now to do, instead of here? --G2bambino 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Because part of your technique for controlling these articles is to talk everyone to exhaustion, saying the same thing over and over again. There really isn't any need to keep repeating it. TharkunColl 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Sure, whatever. --G2bambino 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, since Buckingham Palace defines "Commonwealth realms" as countries within the Commonwealth having the Queen as their sovereign what do you suppose "Commonwealth Realms" are? Jonathan David Makepeace 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's it, JDM. Keep flogging this dead horse while CB's very pertinent question to you remains still unanswered. --G2bambino 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We must assume, then, that you cannot document your opinion. Jonathan David Makepeace 11:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If I can intervene for a second, most arbs reading this discussion would come to the conclusion that G2bambino either cannot or is not interested in answering the questions raised, and that he's being a jerk about it. Sources have been brought forward that directly contradict Wikipedia's capitalization. We're supposed to reflect the world, not dictate it. If you have sources that prove your assertions you're obliged to bring them forward. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen: With respect, it is extremely frustrating for editors to dedicate not inconsiderable time and effort to a discussion, presenting opinions and backing them up with evidence, only to be told by someone who hasn't been so involved that no such evidence has been presented. It has, several times. For example, I noted above that "Commonwealth Realm" appears to be more commonly used than "Commonwealth realm" and to back that up I linked to the first 100 Google listings for the phrase, in which there are only 16 appearances of "Commonwealth realm". This is surely significant, isn't it? -- Hux 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But the evidence has been cited. Repeatedly. However, certain people refuse to regard it as admissible because it contradicts their view. No point in talking to brick walls.

The key items are the various Royal Styles and Titles Acts. This is the primary source, since it is where the term "Realm", meaning a monarchy ruled by QEII, was formally created. It is surely definitive for that reason. For your reference, here is a URL to the 1953 Australian version of that Act: http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth14i_doc_1953a.pdf

The second relevant item cited is the webpage of the Foreign and Commonwealth office. This is the principal government agency in the world, that has to deal with the monarchical aspects of Commonwealth affairs at a working level. (It is not actually a matter for the Commonwealth Secretariat, since relationships between the monarch and the individual Realms is not a Commonwealth issue.) The FCO draws a clear distinction between "Realm" (with capitals) and "realm" (without). Wherever a country is described as a "Realm", it is a country whose monarch is QEII. The only "realm" mentioned on the site is Sweden. See this URL and the links therein: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390518&action=search&sf=mini&referrer=FCO+Main&stq=0&pubId=1006886514545&q=realm

Both these sources are primary sources, and so infinitely more authoritative than the Encyclopedia Brittanica (which in any case is not what it was).

So, there is absolutely no doubt that the term "Realm" (with caps) is used in formal contexts to mean, specifically and explicitly, a monarchy is personal union with the others ruled by QEII. It is that personal union, what it consists of, and how it came to be, that is the subject of this article.

Now, those formal contexts are implicitly Commonwealth-related. That is why the term "Commonwealth Realm" (either with or without a capital R) is extremely rare: the Realms, as a group, are just not a common topic of discussion, and when they are it is almost always within a preestablished Commonwealth context, so there is no ambiguity. Wikipedia is actually one of those very rare exceptions: a discussion about the Realms that must first establish the Commonwealth context. The addition of the modifer "Commonwealth" to the preexisting "Realm" solves this problem, cleanly and neatly.

It does, however, create a secondary problem. Although the phrase "Commonwealth Realm" is rare, it does occur, but in both capitalised (see the FCO) and uncapitalised form (see e.g. Hansard, at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-04-25/Writtens-3.html; incidentally predating Wikipedia by a number of years; for a capitalised (and more current) example of "Realm" in Hansard see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040907/text/40907w32.htm). But there is a choice to be made for the convention to be used in WP.

Again, the editorial issue is what should guide the choice. In other examples, it is normally clear from the context that we are talking about a monarchy ruled by QEII. But WP is an encyclopedia, and the word "realm" (no caps) is an ordinary English word for the domain of any monarchy. And the Commonwealth contains several monarchies that are not ruled by QEII. So this Wikipedia article, which is not about those other monarchies (even if one wrongheaded participant here wishes to dilute it that way), needs a term that not only establishes the Commonwealth context but also clearly distinguishes this group of monarchies from the eclectic desiderata. Since "Realm" (capitalised) does precisely that by definition, the natural editorial choice is to capitalize.

The issue is not simply a matter of quoting precedent, it's an editorial matter about the best way to write the article. In any other connection, the capitalisation issue would be a matter of extreme pedantry (either way). But this article is describing an arcane and complicated constitutional subject to readers who are not constitutional scholars, and the concept of a Realm is at the heart of the topic. The terminology used needs to be precise, accurate, succinct and clear. Lawyers capitalise terms for a good reason: the convention means "whatever the term may mean outside this document, as used in this document it has a precise meaning, which is <this>". For the reasons I have outlined, this article faces exactly that issue, and "Commonwealth Realm" solves it perfectly.

Now, the proponents of retitling and reediting the article to say "Commonwealth realm" have shown absolutely no awareness of these issues. The (relevant) arguments I have seen are: that the current usage "violates Wiki policy" (but WP's overriding policy is to use judgement appropriate to the context); that "Commonwealth Realm" is not a proper noun (demonstrating ignorance of both grammar and fact: "Commonwealth Realm" is a nominal phrase, "Realm" is the noun, capitalisation is not just about grammer but also semantics, and the capitalised form most certainly has a precise meaning that distinguishes it from the uncapitalised form); the usgae is an archaic legalism (but the article is about the resurrection and adaptation of an archaic legal concept); and, finally, that the uncapitalised form is more widely used.

As to that: Granted that the other usage exists, and, to the extent that the phrase is commonly used at all, it may well be true that the uncapitalised form is more widely used. But it is not more authoritatively used, and what this article needs is the most precise and authoritaive usage. The suggested footnote would deal with the capitalisation question more than adequately, and even JDM has said that some such solution would be acceptable to him, though he evidently didn't mean it. In other articles tangentially mentioning the Comonwealth Realms (such as the current brouhaha in Passport) the uncapitalised form might be fine, because rigorous precision about them is not necessary. But in this article it is. --Chris Bennett 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerk? Give it a rest. There are sources that confirm the capitalization of the term; JDM has admitted the capitalized format it acceptable; JDM has asserted he would accept something like the latest proposed solution. So, I will not answer the above questions because they are not relevant and will not move us towards any end to this ceaseless and absurd debate kept alight by one uncompromising troll. Get a clue before throwing insults around. --G2bambino 14:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore that and thank Chris for his exhaustive reply above which is exactly what I was looking for. Your demeanor above (and here) is unhelpful and provocative and, to use your phrasing, does not move us towards the end. Nor does calling people trolls, which has been all-too-frequent on this page. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't accept your double standard of admonishing my behaviour while acting distastefully yourself. Especially when it seems to elude you that what JDM and Thark were asking me had nothing at all to do with the focused points Chris spelled out above; they were simply attempts to start more straw-man arguments in which I would not get involved. And for that you call me a jerk. Please. --G2bambino 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you've got me confused with someone else, but never mind. First of all, that's not a double standard, that's hypocrisy. Second of all, it's not clear that there's a strawman argument when you don't actually refute any of the points raised and instead call people trolls or reply with a dismissive "LOL, whatever." This is unhelpful, as I've indicated above, and I'm going to call it what it is. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now, surely you have better observational skills than that. A) Troll: to use your words: I'm going to call it what it is. By all definitions that is exactly what JDM is: note his unwillingness to even acknowledge Chris Bennett's significant points and questions, instead choosing to try to reel me into a useless argument over Commonwealth non-Realms. B) A straw man argument has no valid points to refute, they're simply a distraction away from the main issue, which is exactly what Thark and JDM were attempting to do, and exactly what I was avoiding. C) Dismissiveness: Thark tried to start a debate about a completely separate issue (that of the article Passport) here. I told him to take it to Talk:Passport. He responded by claiming it wasn't worth his while. I laughed it off. And d) jerk: nobody but you called me one, so no, there's no mistaken identity.

Anyway, this is turning out to be just another addition to the quagmire that is this talk page, and it certainly isn't helping anything related to this article. --G2bambino 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've read through the talk page of Passport and I see the same thing. If he's making a strawman argument (as you allege) then it ought to be easy to give a definitive answer and put it to rest. I'll take back calling you a jerk if you agree to stop calling people trolls and assent to actually give a substantive reply, even if you think it isn't worth your while. Mackensen (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, in the interests of fairness, that there is a difference between a) calling someone a jerk, and b) saying that someone is being a jerk. Mackensen implied the latter (by saying that other people viewing G2bambino's posts would come to that conclusion) and such a statement is not a personal attack because it focuses on someone's actions, not on their person.

Additionally, I've already made this point once but it seems it needs to be made again. A troll is someone who posts repeated, inflammatory statements purely (key word) to irritate people and cause disruption. This is clearly not happening here since however much one may disagree with someone else's argument, it is obvious that everyone genuinely stands behind what they are saying, therefore by definition nobody here is a troll. -- Hux 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see I already gave my definitive and substantive answers, both here and at Talk:Passport; this doesn't, of course, mean they'll be accepted by my opponents as such. I will, however, bite my tongue on the troll thing. --G2bambino 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, man. Youre a great editor; so dont get carried away. After all, it's only an online encyclopedia (pardon the blasphemy, all!). I've been following the debate, and I don't see that JDM and TharkunColl are guilty of what you accuse them of. In fact, they raise some bloody good points. As do you. And you only yesterday tried to bring the Passport debate into Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and invited ediors from there to refute Thark, so you can hardly castigate him for doing the same, eh?. It is to be accepted that there will be disputes on talk pages, but when, in this case, some discussion gets narky things get nowhere the experience is spoilt for everyone. Rock on, mate!--Gazzster 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question to JDM

JDM, I see you made the following comment to Gazzster on his talk page:

At this point I am willing to settle for a mention of the diverging styles right at the beginning of the article so that people will know that the British monarch and most academics use "Commonwealth realm."

The footnote text attached to the first three words in the article that I suggested:

(n. 1) The term is also seen uncapitalised, as "Commonwealth realm"; see for example <JDM's favourite URL>.

which is what motivated this motion, would give you exactly that.

The end to this insanity lies in your hands, as it always has. The motion is a motion to give you what you have told your supporters you would settle for. So why not do it? --Chris Bennett 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War on 'Discussion Page'?

Are my eyes deceiving me? Is their now a 'possible' edit war on discussion postings? Better clear this up guys. GoodDay 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's a good thing I didn't get to involved in this insanity. Couldn't someone just once & for all settle the matter by getting hold of a person working for the Commonwealth's head office to see what the official position is? That-Vela-Fella 06:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth doesn't use the term and wouldn't weigh in. We do, however, know what the Head of the Commonwealth's usage is. Jonathan David Makepeace 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We're hopeless! We can't even shut up for 7 days! This constant bickering (it is not balanced discussion) will acheive nothing, and will compromise any chance of a final vote being accepted after August 14. Let's save our words for then!--Gazzster 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Further sources

Forgive me for not putting in this effort sooner, but I think I have found fairly definitive sources. The Commonwealth Law Bulletin is published by the Commonwealth Secretariat. They lowercase "realms". The Cambridge Law Journal is published by Cambridge University Press. They also lowercase "realms."

Anne Roland. "Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: A Canadian Perspective", Commonwealth Law Bulletin, (The Commonwealth Secretariat), 32:4, page 579

"Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. However, as with Canada, over time, many members began to see the Judicial Committee as being out of tune with local values, and an obstacle to full judicial sovereignty. Australia effectively abolished the right of appeal from the Commonwealth Courts by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975, and from the state courts by the Australia Act 1986."

Rodney Brazier. "Royal Incapacity and constitutional continuity." Cambridge Law Journal, (Cambridge University Press), 64(2), July 2005, pages 363 and 372

"As will be seen, a Regency is effected by a much more formal process than that which is involved in appointing Counsellors; a Regency cannot be declared by the Sovereign alone, but is done by others—indeed, the Sovereign might not agree that a Regency should be declared, but has no power to prevent it; a Regency provides a single deputy, whereas plural Counsellors are appointed; a Regent is subject to few limitations on his or her powers, whereas Counsellors are subject to many; the declaration of a Regency must be declared to the Privy Council and to the Commonwealth realms, but no such communication announces the appointment of Counsellors."

"And, if the latter, would the material time be when the declaration was received by the Clerk of the Privy Council, or when the Clerk communicated it to the Privy Council113 (presumably at a meeting convened for the purpose), or when it had been communicated to the Commonwealth realms?"

I can dig further if people think it is necessary.

Jonathan David Makepeace 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Johnathan. Good digging.I should think the Commonwealth Secretariat is as close to an authority as we could get.I say this knowing that the vote has not finished, and the matter is still open to discussion.--Gazzster 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Henceforth, Her Majesty's Realms shall be known as Commonwealth realms to me. I change my vote. Blur4760 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself as well, Commonwealth realm it is. GoodDay 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have a consensus here, would it be okay to discontinue the arbitration case? Newyorkbrad 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Commonwealth realm already exists as a redirect to here, we need an admin to transfer the page. But it seems that we have a proper consensus now. TharkunColl 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly agree on this point, as you know, I strongly urge that we let the seven days expire, and allow further argument. If we do what you suggest as the result of a discussion between five editors after only five postings, it is likely we would be accused, probably justly, of a coup de tat. We could, however, propose another vote.--Gazzster 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that's what I've been meaning! If only that was done over a week ago... Anyways, I've been looking around a bit & saw nothing capitalized as it being an institution or organization. As was touched on, it's like all the other places (be it a Commonwealth republic, monarchy, territory, state, etc.), but I do see as to the distinction needed for the Queen's special situation with the 16 nations she's the head of state of. Pity the term dominion is no longer used, I'm sure it would have helped solve this problem ages ago. All I could think of for now is the Queen's realms to distinguish from the other realms within the Commonwealth. That-Vela-Fella 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly tricky, isn't it? I think the truth of the matter is we are treating of something (ie., a realm which has E2 as monarch) which doesn't really have a name. And there is no particular reason why 16 sovereign realms of widely different culture, language, geography, politics and ethnicity should have a common name. But I've said this before and won't bog the discourse down by looking for discussion.--Gazzster 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Did everyone read Chris Bennett's points above r.e. precedence and editorial matters, then? --G2bambino 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We read it. He's entitled to his opinion, but nobody is bound by it. I'm sure Chris would be among the first to admit that. We too are entitled to our opinion. We can disagree with Chris or anyone else. We have expressed it. I made a point of reminding folks not 2 edit until the 7 days had expired; you must have read that. You're getting awfully jumpy, man; leaping on everyone who doesn't agree with you. Chill.--Gazzster 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody stated or even implied you were bound by anything. I see no instruction not to comment here for 7 days. I didn't particularly "leap" on anyone here; I asked a question. I have an answer from you, very quickly offered, I might add. I don't see one person's quick response as any more "jumpy" than another's. --G2bambino 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It was quick m8, because I was on the page, obviously! I'm usually a very cuivil editor, as my history on this and other pages will show. But there is a point where I get tired of editors (not only yourself) who continue to pointlessly push their when they have done so clearly, without misunderstanding, many times! Please, your spoiling the experience of editing for a lot of people.--Gazzster 03:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong person, there, mate. --G2bambino 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I get that correctly? We're all agreed now that it should be lowercased? —Nightstallion 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not all agreed in the least, no. And I suspect User:Chris Bennett will have something to offer himself. --G2bambino 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I am more than a little disheartened that anyone would think, after all this debate, that posts from five editors over the course of eighteen hours could even remotely be considered a consensus when this debate has involved the constant participation of nearly four times that number, spread all over the globe. Surely an admin should know better. (EDIT: And now I see another admin did the same thing earlier, after a mere two hours and three user comments. What the hell?!) -- Hux 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First: Since JDM has throughout pursued this issue with such life-or-death intensity, I'm glad to see he is finally working on the intellectual argument for his PoV. It makes a refreshing change.

I ignored this issue for the first days it was debated. It struck me as being in the same class of nitpicking as the business of wikifying any mention of a date -- a futile waste of time, but mostly harmless, one way or the other. The only potential risk, if it was accepted (and as I saw it then), was that it would mean changing the title of the article, an outcome that would be totally out of proportion to the importance of the issue. Since it was clear there was no consensus to change at that time, and since IMO any rational person would see that the issue was too trivial to be worth pursuing, I figured that he would make the normal response: accept the result and move on to better things. Wrong -- I had no idea that a single letter could mean so much to a man.

My attitude changed when I saw, not just that he wanted to pursue the matter, but how he chose to do so: the "original research" tag, the repeated editing of the page to insert a PoV that he knew full well was controversial, escalation to ArbCom as fast as was humanly possible and on the flimsiest excuse, bogus votes, whipping up support from people who have never previously shown an interest in the topic, bait-and-switch on willingness to compromise, blanket declarations that he would never accept defeat, the lot. I've been chastised for saying it, but I'll say it again: this track record clearly shows that we're dealing with a demagogue whose chief interest is in getting his way, not an ordinary editor wishing to improve WP. That has been my biggest concern all along -- indeed a major criticism of WP as a concept is that it is unduly susceptible to this type of behaviour. I believe that people should consider its implications seriously.

So, while I'm glad to see him adopting a more normal approach, I remain sceptical that I am seeing a change to a more collegial attitude, rather than the adoption of a more sophisticated tactic to the same illegitimate end.

Second: As to the new data that so many here seem to have found persuasive, at least for the moment, it not does change, or even address, any of the substantive points I made in my summary to User:Mackensen.

• the founding evidence of the Royal Styles and Titles Acts, which first codified the term Realm as applying specifically to those monarchies ruled by the Queen
• the use of capitalization by the FCO, the primary government agency that actually has to work at the monarchical aspects this setup (not to mention Hansard)
• the need in WP to establish a clear context and precise definition of whatever term is used to characterise these monarchies in an article that is about them, a need that does not exist in the Commonwealth law journals cited because the context is preestablished
• the fact that "Commonwealth Realm" serves the editorial needs of the article.

IMO the last two points are key issues, even though they have received almost no attention. The only reaction I've seen here to my comments is that I'm "entitled to my opinion" -- the clear implication being that my opinion isn't worth much. That's not good enough. This is supposed to be a community of editors. Editors who don't take into consideration the overall context, purpose and history of the article when considering a change that affects its title and the presentation of its core concept are not doing their job properly.

The question to date has been: "which use is 'correct'"? The answer, which we established long ago, is: both are documented in legitimate sources, and the term is not common anyway. JDM's additional citations don't change that answer one iota. The right conclusion to draw is that both usages are "correct" and that the choice for WP is one of editorial judgement. Even JDM, in what was no doubt a moment of weakness, admitted as much to User:Mackensen, though not here. So, let's move on to the the editorial issue.

The editorial history on the point is as follows:

• The article was created in 2003 with a fully capitalised title and with a fully lower-case text (as in "commonwealth realm"), and virtually no substance, just an inaccurate list of Realms
• Commonwealth was capitalised almost immediately
• Realm was capitalised as soon as the article expanded from being a simple list, however the usage was inconsistent until an anonymous user cleaned it up in 2005
• Since then it has been consistently capitalised by all editors of all viewpoints and persuasions.

So, from an editorial viewpoint, the question is: "why change a well-established usage?" [Well-established in the article, at least.] Capitalization was not originally chosen with a long term view in mind of how the article would evolve. But since 2003 it has moved from being a simple list into a detailed and sophisticated presentation of a very arcane topic. (No doubt it could be better and no doubt it is wrong on some or even many points -- that's not the issue here.) The more detail appears on the nuances of the relationship between the monarch and the Realms, the clearer it is [at least to me] that the article needs to refer to the monarchies using a succinct term that is well-defined within the context of the article. "Commonwealth Realm" has clearly shown that it is fit to purpose.

Do either of the proposed alternatives perform this function any better? I don't see that they do:

• "Realms of the Commonwealth": Not used (though the phrase "Realms within the Commonwealth" is used by the FCO) and verbose
• "Commonwealth realm": Commonwealth lawyers are not naive, but WP users must be assumed to be. Because "realm" is an ordinary English word, the ordinary meaning of the phrase, encountered in isolation by the naive WP reader, is any realm of the Commonwealth. For the needs of this article, it would have to be explicitly redefined as referring only to one of the monarchies in personal union. There is an established convention for such formal narrowings of definition: capitalization. By choosing to depart from that convention, WP would be (a) establishing precedent not following it and (b) losing a useful visual reminder these Realms share a property that other realms do not have.

In summary, no, I don't accept that this evidence changes anything, and I think the footnote solution should be implemented for the following reasons:

• It addresses the capitalization question at the level of importance that it merits
• The existing usage has good precedent
• The existing usage has a demonstrated track record of serving the needs of the article
• It is a very bad thing for WP to have its content decided by force of demagogic tactics than by reasoned discussion

--Chris Bennett 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that it's incorrect is neither here nor there? TharkunColl 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You know full well that the usage is inconsistent and that therefore no definitively "correct" usage exists. Will you please stop being disingenuous by stating your opinion as if it were hard fact? -- Hux 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently missed that point, here it is again:

The answer, which we established long ago, is: both are documented in legitimate sources, and the term is not common anyway. JDM's additional citations don't change that answer one iota. The right conclusion to draw is that both usages are "correct" and that the choice for WP is one of editorial judgement.

Now, can we stop discussing theology? --Chris Bennett 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Answering Chris Bennett) I would like to address some of your comments .

Thanks for your response. I reply point by point.

1) Starting off your address by implying that other editors, one in particular, is acting unprofessionally is unhelpful, and not necessarily accurate.

It's certainly unpleasant to have to do it. But it is accurate, as the track record of provocative escalation that I listed clearly shows. If the editor concerned had acted in a measured and professional fashion, this issue would never have reached the intensity it has. He may be starting to do so now, I don't know, but he has created a steep hill to climb if he wishes to convince me of his integrity at this point.

For instance, he could have shown willingness to propose alternative approaches for discussion, or to consider alternate approaches that were proposed to him (and, I remind you, he had actually said -- to you -- that he would consider), or to consider the whole range of arguments on the issue. Instead all we see is the continued and insistent harping on the same single note, with the guarantee that he will continue to do so till he gets his way. You really regard this as professional behaviour?

As for not being helpful, it is not my fault that he has created the absurd situation we now find ourselves in. I think that, given the track record, it is helpful for people to consider the nature of the company they keep. I agree it raises the temperature, but sometimes that has to be done.

2) If one editor appears to be canvassing support, the truth might be that other editors have opinions that concord or are similar to his. Please give editors credit for being able to use their own brains.

I'll stipulate that these voters have genuine, reasoned and deeply felt opinions on the matter. But it's not just a matter of using their own brains. I thought the timing of some of the votes was a little coincidental, so I looked at the User Talk pages of the voters concerned -- and indeed I found a message from him prompting those voters to vote. Contrast his behaviour with that of User:Hux, who sent notifications to all parties concerned equally and without prejudice that there were calls for votes. After all, this is not, or should not, be treated as a political campaign.

3) It is problematic to refer to terminology of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, which does not actually use the term, 'Commonwealth Realm', but only realm by itself.

What it does use -- and in fact create -- is the term "Realm" as meaning, specifically, any monarchy ruled by Elizabeth II. It should be obvious that adding "Commonwealth" would have been redundant in the context, since all the Realms were Commonweath members; indeed the phrase would have suggested that there were other Realms which were not in the Commonwealth.

Which is the whole issue of context. I repeat my point, which you have ignored: The topic is almost always discussed in a preestablished Commonwealth context. WP is not such a context -- and that is the reason the "Commonwealth" part of the phrase is needed.

4) ‘Commonwealth Realms’ is not a descriptive name for these realms.

'Tis too!!  ;-P

Seriously, that's precisely what it is. It is used that way outside WP, and it has been used that way within WP for 4 years without a complaint till now. Aside from the issue of R vs r, there is no other descriptive term in use.

5) Meeting editorial needs is not a valid reason for using the name if there are grounds for saying that the name is inaccurate or misleading. Some editors have argued that the latter is the case here.

I understand "misleading" here to mean that the term suggests something other what is discussed in the article, i.e. it is not appropriate to this topic but might be appropriate to something else.

I'm not going to review the entire record on this, but I believe the only editor who actually holds this position is User:Tharkuncoll, who wants the article to be about a different subject than what it actually covers.

6) Precedent is not necessarily an argument forretaining a usage if it is misleading, as several editors have argued intelligently.

The argument I have seen from "several" editors is not that the term is misleading, but that it is flat out wrong. This is clearly false.

I depart from User:G2bambino in that I do not hold that the usage "Commonwealth realm" is wrong. My position is that both forms are "correct", but that the fully capitalised form is preferable in this article because it is inherently precise. Apparently this is a hard concept to explain. If you had ever been involved in contracts, patents or standards work, it would be very familiar.

7) The resort to precedent and editorial style as major arguments is an implicit acknowledgement that other arguments are not conclusive.

Both sides have resorted to precedent! What else is a quote from the Commonwealth Law Journal??

But I agree with the basic point. It follows immediately from the conclusion that both forms are correct: the decision becomes a matter of editorial judgement.

I thought that expanding the discussion from the dogmatic to the pragmatic might help resolve it in a reasonable fashion. Maybe not, since you seem to interpret it as a sign of weakness.

8) Your contention that we are deciding the issue by ‘ demagogic tactics’ ignores the very real reasoned arguments that editors have put forward. While some canvassing has occurred (on both sides) that does not negate the instrinsic value of the arguments. We should address the argument, not the person.

I agree, and the argument of one side has been addressed, repeatedly. The arguments of the other side have not. [As to canvassing, as distinct from notification of ballots, I've only seen it from one side, but let's not argue about it.]

Unfortunately, given the track record of the chief proponent of "Commonwealth realm" and his declared aim of winning this issue come what may, it seems pretty clear that this issue will not be decided on its merits. I expect it to be decided in one of two ways:

• Exhaustion of one side because of the continued drumbeat of the other. Certainly, I have no interest in any continued involvement in these topics if that's how this issue gets decided. See Gresham's Law.

• Arbitrator fiat

9) Capitalisation does not narrow the meaning of ‘Commonwealth realm’. Some might argue, as they have, that it makes it more confusing. The word ‘Commonwealth’ in conjunction with ‘Realm’ does nothing to describe a nation in personal union with E2.

As I noted, the use of capitalisation to narrow meaning is a very well established legal convention. This is essentially a legal topic. It is reasonable to use legal conventions when discussing a legal topic.

As to "Commonwealth" adding nothing, you would just entitle the article "Realm"? Seems pretty confusing to me.

10) You deny the value of the latest research without actually analyzing it.

Not true. I stated that it showed use of "Commonwealth realm". I further showed that it took place in a preestablished Commonwealth context and was addressed at an audience of users who understood that. Neither of those conditions apply here. Hence IMO it doesn't advance the disussion.

--Chris Bennett 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

--Gazzster 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bennett has been neither unprofessional or unhelpful; again, Gazzster, you target the wrong person for the wrong behaviour.

I have not accused Chris of gbeing unprofessional. On the contrary, I respect him as a serious and intelligent editor.I would like to think that there is no personal animosity between us. I am following my own advise by addressing the argument, not the person.

Chris points out a number of disruptive and disingenuous things JDM has done; he is entitled to do such a thing, and in the whole, he is correct.

I have not said he is not entitled to an opinion. I would in fact be disappointed if he did not say what he believes.

The remainder of your retort continues to ignore almost all of Chris Bennett's points r.e. the use of "Relam" vs. "realm." I'm especially baffled by your assertion, which you've raised before, that "‘Commonwealth Realms’ is not a descriptive name for these realms." Again, Buckingham Palace, the FCO, and a number of other sources prove that wrong. So, it is a moot point.

I have argued my case on this point before. I won't bore others by going into details again. But in short, a name should describe the essence of a thing. It is not essential to a realm in question to belong to the Comnmonwealth. So 'Commonwealth' is not a descriptive word. It may become a term of convenience, but it is problematic to make it a proper noun for this and other reasons. Refer to what I have written on the subject.

If both versions are correct, but the one presently used here is perferred by lawyers and legislators, is better suited to the context of Wikipedia, and the other form can be addressed in a footnote, the question remains: why change what has stood, and functioned well, for over four years? --

But has it served us so well for 4 years? That is precisely what is in dispute.--Gazzster 06:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino 18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's worry about all those things after the Footnote vote's 'final tally' on August 14. We can wait 'til then, can't we? GoodDay 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no time limit on this. But the points need to be addressed, either now or later. --G2bambino 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Later then, there's no hurry. GoodDay 18:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

--Gazzster 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)==Stacking the deck== Throughout this discussion I have tried to be fair to all involved, even to the point of criticizing some actions from people who are apparently on "my side". This is the reason why, when attempting to reach consensus by proposing that the page be moved to "Realms of the Commonwealth", I scanned this entire page and sent a message to everyone on it asking for their input. I believe that this is the proper way to do this sort of thing as it respects each participant equally and gives everyone the opportunity to participate.
Conversely, what I don't think is reasonable is to canvass only those whom one believes will vote a certain way and solicit their votes in order to stack the deck towards one particular opinion. For this reason, I feel that it is important to highlight the fact that Jonathan David Makepeace has done exactly that in response to G2bambino's "footnote vote". On Aug 8 and Aug 9 he posted several messages to the talk pages of select users ([21][22] [23][24][25]). In some of those posts he writes only in German, raising suspicion that such a choice was a deliberate attempt to hide his actions. In the last link he then admits that this was exactly his intent when he says, "OK, no conspiratorial German". On some of those pages he then thanks the user for doing as he asked.
In my opinion, this kind of activity is in clear opposition to the guidelines at WP:CANVAS. As that page notes:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki." Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc.

The Wikipedia process is, above all, about people being open and working together to create the best, most useful encyclopedia there is. This process is fundamentally damaged when people engage in covert behavior to engineer articles so that they conform to their personal opinion. This vote-stacking is just one of the ways in which JDM has attempted to do this. He has also proposed votes and, when the vote didn't go his way, immediately opened up a mediation and then an arbitration case. He has also been making his case away from this discussion, on admins' talk pages where nobody is able to counter his arguments. None of this is reasonable behavior, imo.
I'm not asking for anything to be done about this, I simply feel that it's important that people be made aware of what's going on, and if this "exposure" results in the practices described stopping then I think that would be an improvement over the current progression of the discussion, which at this point is becoming progressive more unwiki by the day. -- Hux 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in asking an editor to vote a certain way. It is not underhanded; it is certainly transparent. His actions are clear for everyone to see. I mean, you could see what he was doing, couldn't you? And you had a quick look around the talk pages? It would be wrong if he was resorting to fallacious arguments or making personal attacks on other editors. But he didn't. His own arguments were clear and open. Anyone could address them, and you had your opportunity and did so. And I also don't see what the big deal is cause he was communicating with editors who were ready to vote as they did anyway. We know this by their contributions. So he was pushing an open door. It was hardly necessary for him to say anything beyond propose a poll, a poll which you, at least implicitly, agreed to and voted upon. If you think he or any of us co-conspirators have violated any policy, test your accusation by reporting.As things are getting a bit personal on this page, I remind you that I continue to respect you as an editor and your contributions.--Gazzster 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)