Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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 ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) and the British High Commission ([6]) 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

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vote Closed!

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)

Close of vote
Result: No Consensus. -- Hux 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

(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'[13][14]", 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

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Close of !Vote Result: No Consensus. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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."[15] 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)

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 ([16][17] [18][19][20]). 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)

Gazzster: "I don't see anything wrong in asking an editor to vote a certain way. It is not underhanded; it is certainly transparent." I really don't understand how you can say this when on two of those users' talk pages he made his request in German and on one of them he later admitted himself that it was "conspiratorial". How can this be reasonably described as "transparent"?

"His own arguments were clear and open. Anyone could address them, and you had your opportunity and did so." On the contrary, they were certainly not "clear and open". The only reason I realized this was going on is because Chris Bennett happened to allude to it above. And the only reason anyone else would know is if they saw the same comment, or they just so happened to decide to randomly take a look. This is the absolute opposite of transparent - the opposite of the open spirit of Wikipedia - hence, as the guidelines note, when it is used to influence votes it is a practice that is frowned upon.

"he was communicating with editors who were ready to vote as they did anyway" Um, no. Four of the five people contacted appear to have changed their votes from "support" to "oppose" as a direct result of the canvassing. Prior to JDM's decision to influence the vote from behind the scenes, so to speak, one must assume that those editors were previously happy with the way they voted.

"It was hardly necessary for him to say anything beyond propose a poll" You appear to be misunderstanding the situation. JDM didn't propose the poll. G2bambino did and it had been ongoing for several days before JDM decided to go behind the scenes to influence the voting. -- Hux 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mate, how can you put so much weight on the fact that he wrote to me in German when it was an innocent short message I translated here below (last post in this thread), and the gist of which should be understandable even to someone with no German knowledge (the greeting, the goodbye, the reference to Encyclopedia and the link to the survey are clearly understandable, and that is all the message consists of). Also, you stress the word "conspiratorial" when that clearly refered to a (bad) joke I made on his talk page. Frankly, I believe that also shows how wrong this whole discussion went. Blur4760 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hux on this point. This is why I think this situation has deteriorated to the point where we should place its resolution in the hands of non-partisan admins via ArbCom. As the process has been personally and politically tainted, we should relinquish the final decision to others. --G2bambino 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Same here, those messages that JDM sent to certain editors was votesacking and campaigning and therefore violating WP:CANVASS. I 'm with Hux and G2bambino on this one, we need ArbComm to deal with this as a non-partisan, third voice that can help solve this conflict because in my point of view, this multi-issue dispute has gone on for too long. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for another 'page move' vote, but that doesen't seem possible. Arbitration Cmte it is. GoodDay 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee does not decide content issues like what the proper capitalization of an article should be. It decides user-conduct issues and has the authority to impose sanctions such as banning a given editor or group of editors who have acted poorly from editing a particular article or title or even the entire site. I strongly suggest that you all make a further effort to resolve this issue among yourselves before throwing it back to the arbitrators. There is also the possibility that the arbitrators might decide not to take up the case, and then where will you be? Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's all then have 'another' Page Movement vote (2/3 majority for consensus - eitherway), following the 'footnote vote' (which seems to be 'rejected'). If a consensus is reached, then the dispute has ended. Come on folks, it won't do anybody any harm. GoodDay 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In three of the five cases in which Hux accuses me of votestacking I contacted people who had already voted to ask them to change their vote based on new evidence presented. That clearly is not votestacking because they had already voted. I feel Hux owes me an apology for suggesting that it was.

Contacting a further two editors who had already participated in this discussion on this page does not constitute votestacking. (I don't even know how to send the kind of mass messages referred to.) It does constitute friendly notice. That said, I was unaware of any of those policies until just now and would ask people with such deep knowledge of Wikipedia policy to assume good faith.

In any case, everyone who has participated in this discussion will be invited to participate in any vote to lowercase the "r" in "Commonwealth realms."

Jonathan David Makepeace 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

JDM: "In three of the five cases in which Hux accuses me of votestacking I contacted people who had already voted to ask them to change their vote based on new evidence presented." Yes. Exactly my point. You canvassed people specifically in order to get them to vote the way you wanted them to vote. Again, the guidelines say (bold text theirs), "Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc."

"I feel Hux owes me an apology for suggesting that it was [vote stacking]." I don't think an apology is warranted. Canvassing in order to get votes changed so that the poll aligns with your opinion is vote stacking.

"I was unaware of any of those policies until just now and would ask people with such deep knowledge of Wikipedia policy to assume good faith" Given your past behavior I find it rather amazing that you have the gall to make a comment like this. Perhaps if you made the decision to respect the Wikipedia process rather than consistently try to use and abuse it as necessary in order to force your opinion into this article, that might be possible. I remain hopeful that you will choose to do this in the future. -- Hux 18:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment: Hux accused JDM of writing some messages only in German. I suppose that refers to this one message. It literally says "Dear blur4760, with these new informations from EB, could I convince you to change your vote? Kind regards, JDM". I don't think that is a very conspirational message. To leave a conspirational message would be rather stupid anyway, because there are scores of users who speak German who would have translated that message for any of you. I think JDM used the word conspirational as a joke, because I myself answered him in German, and added a translation with the following introduction "Translation for other users, so they don't think I start some cabal with you". Clearly, the part about the cabal was a joke too.
I thought using German to write a German native speaker was a rather nice gesture from JDM and I am sad to see that this is used against him now. Blur4760 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Blur4760 on this -- JDM's partisan canvassing in German is not the issue. Partisan canvassing, period, is the issue. --Chris Bennett 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

People who think they know better than the rest of us

User:Chris Bennett left this remark on the talk page of User:G2bambino three days ago:

"And the legalism, the cites of bogus authorities, the completely irrelevant side issues, the grammatical inorance [sic] even of people who claim to have BAs in English?? This isn't the wisdom of the common man, this is mob rule." [my bold]

TharkunColl 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Chris Bennett, that you are so frustrated with me, but I don't know what to say to someone who considers Cambridge University Press and the Commonwealth Secretariat to be bogus authorities. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the timing. You hadn't introduced those sources at that time, you were basing your case on the royal web site, apparently thinking that the queen herself was webmaster. (If you still think that site is a reliable authority, check out the historical pages.) You had declared that the FCO and Acts of Parliament were not good enough for you. I agree your more recent sources are of better quality, but for reasons already explained I don't think they are helpful -- because, unlike you, I don't hold the view that there is and can be only one true solution.

PS -- I assume you are the Jonathan David Makepeace who signed the essay at http://makepeace.ca/royal/? Its author has a remarkably conspiratorial view of how the editorial process works (not to mention a very peculiar view of the monarchy's relationship to Commonwealth Realms). --Chris Bennett 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume Tharkuncoll highlighted the phrases common man and mob rule in my comments (which were in response to some made to me) because he thinks they show me as some kind of elitist. For his information, and anyone else who cares, "wisdom of the common man" is just shorthand for the theory that WP is based on: that an encyclopedia can be refined and corrected by reflecting the collective wisdom of all interested editors. As for "mob rule", well, that's just shorthand for my view, which I have not tried to hide, that the process is being abused to illegitimate ends. I think Hux's and Nat Tang's comments above show that I am not alone in it.

But, yes, I am disgusted at what has happened here. Completely. --Chris Bennett 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't you guys have this quarrel elswhere (say, on your personal talk pages)? It's not helping matters here. GoodDay 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If Tharkuncoll or JDM wish to abuse me on my talk page I will happily defend myself on theirs. However, since they chose a public forum to attack me, and since their clear intent is to undermine my credibility (instead of addressing my arguments), I have no choice but to defend myself in that forum. --Chris Bennett 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen. I can see what is going to happen. The votes we have legitimately and properly taken will be denounced as contrived and improper; personal attacks will continue, including claims of abuse and votestacking; any attempt to edit according to the majority vote will be disputed and undone. And we will have acheived nothing.--Gazzster 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, Wiki does not encourage using votes as a method of settling disputes, its actually a sign that the consensus editing process has broken down.

Compare this dispute to the one that immediate preceded it on DABlinks (and which is on ice, unresolved, because of this farce). It was long, tedious, pedantic, and at times frustrating to the point of frayed tempers. But there was never any question that the parties involved were all acting in good faith and trying to work towards a commonly acceptable solution. The reason is simple: everybody engaged in dialogue, and nobody attempted to subvert the process using the kind of headbanging techniques that JDM has used here virtually from the start.

So yes, you have accurately described what is happening here: the process is indeed contrived, improper, abusive, and stacked. And indeed it is achieving nothing. Except to drive away knowledgeable editors who have worked on these articles for the last couple of years. --Chris Bennett 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster: I wish to make one point very clear: you will never see me ignoring valid consensus and reverting edits as a result. If you care to check out my edits you'll see that I have not been a part of any of the edit wars that have occurred here, on related pages, or anywhere else. However, as I've already said, what you will see me doing is pointing out what I think is unreasonable behavior if I should happen to see it. As someone who is concerned with helping maintain the Wikipedia process and the quality of its articles, I am not comfortable with letting unfair behavior fly under the radar. I'm going to call it like I see it and if you think that this is a problem then I would submit that we have very different ideas about how best to conduct ourselves here.

Additionally, I want point out that "claims of abuse and votestacking" are not personal attacks. A personal attack is, as the phrase implies, an attack on someone's person (e.g. "George Bush is an idiot") as opposed to their actions (e.g. "George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was immoral"). While the former is never reasonable in a forum like this, there is nothing wrong with criticizing a person's actions, provided it is done in good faith and (ideally) is supported with evidence.

Finally, your comment, "The votes we have legitimately and properly taken", simply isn't true, as I believe I have shown adequately above, with reference to WP:CANVASS. Presenting your opinion like this, as if it were fact, is unreasonable. -- Hux 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To Chris Bennett: claims of acting in bad faith? Hard to prove. I for one am not in 'bad faith'. I have to say I detect a whiff of sour grapes in the air.

To Hux: I have never accused you of acting in such a way. And I will not. Nevertheless you said 'you will never see me ignoring valid [my emphasis] consensus'. And you have contested the legitimacy of the vote in your last breath. You still voted, I noticed. True, claims of votestacking per se are not personal attacks, but might become so if we attribute motives without cause. You are entitled to your opinion. As Ive said b4, of course you are. But I have noticed on this page, from all sides (and there r more than 2 sides) that occasionally tempers fly and things r written and not retracted. I am aware of the difference between attacking a person and his opinions. I don't know why you think my 'opinion' is 'unreasonable'. Seems a perfectly reasonably warning to me. I mean, you just attacked the legitimacy of the vote then, didn't you? Why need you or anyone else respect the results of an illegitimate vote? What unreasonable in pointing that out--Gazzster 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gazztser: "You still voted, I noticed." If you check the timestamps you'll notice that I voted before the vote stacking began. Obviously there was no problem with the vote at that point.

"I am aware of the difference between attacking a person and his opinions." Then I would caution against the use of phrasing such as, "personal attacks will continue, including claims of abuse and votestacking", given that such phrasing implies that the poster does not understand the difference.

"I don't know why you think my 'opinion' is 'unreasonable'". I didn't say that your opinion was unreasonable. I said that presenting it as if it were fact is unreasonable.

Anyway, I don't see the point in speaking further on this matter. -- Hux 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you continue to do so.Gazzster 07:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I retract my last comment with apologies to Hux.--Gazzster 11:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the ArbCmte isn't gonna take this case, and all this bickering over 'accusations' & 'motives' isn't helping end this dispute (Realm or realm); Tommorow, I'm gonna call for another consensus vote on 'moving' the page to Commonwealth realm. Let's concentrate on the article, not on each other. GoodDay 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll have it now, he he. GoodDay 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for being somewhat confused here, TharkunColl, but what exactly was the point in posting that talk page comment? It doesn't suggest any underhandedness on the part of either Chris Bennett or G2bambino. As far as I can see it's simply one person expressing frustration on someone else's talk page. I see no reason for posting it at all unless you intended to embarrass one or both of them. If so then I expect most would agree that this reflects much more poorly on you than anyone else.

Also, I notice that the comment as originally posted differs in an intriguing way from the version you posted: your version misspells "ignorance" and inserts "[sic]" afterwards. Could it be that you did this deliberately in order to make it look as if Chris Bennett was himself grammatically ignorant and thus a hypocrite? In these days of ubiquitous cut & paste I find it very difficult to believe otherwise. Perhaps you could enlighten us. -- Hux 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)