Talk:CANZUK

Proposed merge with CANZUK International

Articles cover same content, CI International exists to promote the CANZUK idea. There is little distinction between the two, that does not merit the content fork. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Surely it is more relevant to have a page talking about the concept rather than advocate groups? The concept of Canzuk is something that has been discussed by a range of writers, philosophers, lawyers (in academic journals), columnists, politicians and historians. I would be open to a merger, but the heading and substance of the page should be concept-based and not advocate-group based. People searching for the term would be misinformed if taken to a specific group when they are trying to find out what the concept of 'Canzuk' is. Pixisu1 (T) (C) 13:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.56.108 (talk)

Agreed, although there is much overlap, the two pages are separate. "CANZUK" is an idea, while "CANZUK International" is the main organisation advocating the idea - similarly to Conservatism and the Conservative Party (United Kingdom). Both should remain as separate pages to reflect the difference between idea and organisation.--Graham kent (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I would support this merge. There is considerable overlap and duplication between these pages; commentaries on 'CANZUK' don't necessarily distinguish between the concept and the organisation. Perhaps the other page should be merged into this one? Robofish (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am against such a merge. CANZUK is an idea, CANZUK International is a political organisation attempting to lobby the idea into existence. Here's an exmaple: Would you merge Stonewall & LGBT Rights in the UK? I wouldn't as they're separate entities, one is an idea (that we should have LGBT rights) and the other is a political organisation attempting to lobby for that idea. What if another political organisation comes into existence that supports the idea of CANZUK? By merging CANZUK & CANZUK international we are suggesting that one political organisation has claim over an idea. Friendly Engineer (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a 5-year-old thread, and the proposed merge seems to have failed. Meters (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal was a mess. It was proposed on this page in June 2017 by user:TheMagikCow [1], but it was never proposed on CANZUK International. The proposal notice was removed in October 2017 by user:ErdbärMitSahne [2] without noting the removal in this thread or in the edit summary. If someone wants to pursue this merger a proper merge proposal should be opened, but I don't think they should be merged. Meters (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Statistics table

Perhaps in the statistics table you could have statistics of other countries or entities for comparison, for example, the US, the EU without the UK, China, etc. Any thoughts? It would put it into greater perspective. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Britishancestryformersettlercolonies.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of Term

In current usage the term CANZUK is being used universally to refer to a proposed free movement zone based on the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement. As such the first paragraph of the page seems to be out of date. Later on, the page uses the term correctly. Rather than simply change the opening paragraph I'm raising it here. Robert Brockway (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Pan-nationalism category

Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1FC7:B801:DD2C:EA81:B524:EAF6 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I would leave it out for the time-being because there is nothing in this article or the pan-nationalism that connects CANZUK with pan-nationalism. TFD (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly a pan-nationalist movement from a demographic that merely refuses to consider themselves an ethnolinguistic group (English-speaking white people, or just more generally English-speaking people regardless of race), even though practically everyone else around the world groups them this way.

The fact they have regional subgroups is irrelevant, every single ethnic group on the planet has subgroups and regional variances in accents and dialects and cultural norms. 2.99.70.19 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Opposing views

Albeit that there are criticisms of CANZUK, these surely require some qualification. CANZUK nations are indeed "majority white", but all are amongst the most culturally and ethnically diverse in the developed world - and vastly more so than the majority of EU nations, which many CANZUK critics seem to prefer. It is, of course, true that the CANZUK offer has not been extended to the rest of the British Commonwealth, but this is for the obvious reason that the CANZUK nations have similar living standards, and would therefore be spared massive demographic shifts in the event of free movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

English-speaking rates are also vastly different in these other Commonwealth countries. The actual rates of fluent English-speaking in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and India are actually shockingly low compared to the common perception.

Sure, large numbers of people in some of these countries might be able to communicate with a very rudimentary and broken grasp of English, but they are simply nowhere close to being like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States where English is the native language of the vast majority of the population.

Most people in the other countries speak indigenous tribal languages as their first language, and often other local languages as a second or third language before English.

Not to mention huge percentages of all these countries have absolutely no fluency in English whatsoever. They are not comparable to the core English-speaking countries whatsoever, and that's not even getting into often vast cultural differences. 2.99.70.19 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Brexit

After brexit has happened, will we see significant info and details as to when CANZUK would appear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiActic (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I very much doubt it, though some have proposed a “Coalition of the Sane” consisting of Canada, New Zealand and an independent Scotland. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Canzuk.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Economic Comparison

The "Total land area (mi)" column is redundant and clutters up the table. No other table in this article gives area in square miles. It is good practice to stick to SI units. I suggest that it be removed. Mark63424 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mark63424: Agreed. In fact, why do we list the areas at all in a table on economics? We compare the sizes in the "Country comparison" table, so why repeat the information? I think both columns should go.

New talk page posts go at the bottom of the page, which may be why no-one noticed this and responded before now. I have moved it to where it should have been chronologically. Meters (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll give this a few days, and if there are no objections I'll remove both columns. Meters (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Official names

I've removed the "official names" row from the country comparison table. This was a relatively recent addition and it seems to serve no useful purpose. We don't use them in this article, and one of them has been obsolete for 70 years. Meters (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea. That should stop any unnecessary edit disputes in that area. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

British heritage

I'm concerned about these edits which says the movement is tied to British heritage. The source, makes no reference to that. The editor also goes out of the their way to say :

• NPOV. should be made clear how polarised this is. CANZUK is generally favored by white conservatives from the four countries, and opposed by both white and nonwhite progressives. A brief summary of why is given, backed up by ample quotes and a study co-authored by a scholar from the university of Cambridge

However they don't say what the NPOV issue is. The study from Cambridge is never cited. I'm probably going to edit this, but thought it was worth raising here to err on the side of caution. This page might need protections. Zaurus (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just clean it up as you see fit. No need for protection because of one IP's edits 10 weeks ago. Meters (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Opposing views

I just deleted a link to an FT article which criticized a Canada-UK trade proposal and discussed possible ramifications to NAFTA. Although trade is a component of CANZUK, it's a stretch to say this is a criticism of the CANZUK proposal. Particularly considering that EU-style-freedom of movement between similar economies is one of the key ideas in CANZUK, the quote "distance and the size of trading partners matter more than historical links in determining trading relationships between countries" is quite irrelevant as in Vancouver, I can fly to London or Sydney in less time than many parts of my own country. If we're talking milk, I get it, but we're not. Let's not conflate the two issues. Actually, I believe that possibly all of the citations in this section are similarly related to the greater topic of post-Brexit trade. I think it might be worth going through them and deleting any that don't concern themselves with CANZUK. Zaurus (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Citizenship

This is interesting trivia, but seems like a stretch to say it's related to CANZUK. Zaurus (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The source is "Anglo-Saxon Citizenship" (1897). A. V. Dicey proposed that British subjects be recognized as American citizens in the U.S., while Americans would be recognized as British subjects throughout the British Empire. The term Anglo-Saxon refers to the unity of the British Empire and the U.S. in language, not ethnicity.

The paragraph is faulty OR and I will remove it. While reciprocal nationality between the U.S. and British Empire could be seen as a precursor to CANZUK, we would need a reliable source that says that.

TFD (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada endorses CANZUK free movement

At the May 2023 National Liberal Convention in Ottawa, the Liberal Party of Canada voted to adopt CANZUK free movement as official party policy.[3] [4]. As this is a key policy in the CANZUK proposal, this endorsement is relevant to mention in this article. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The Liberal Party endorsement should be included in this article. It seems unclear to me why the edits mentioning that were reverted. Freedom of movement is necessary to any CANZUK proposal. Something focused on foreign policy or military cooperation would already be covered by AUKUS or the Five Eyes. UAmtoj (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is a reliable source saying that the Liberal Party endorses CANZUK? The Liberal policy does not mention CANZUK. A CANZUK spokesperson interpreting a Liberal policy as being an endorsement of CANZUK is not sufficient. Meters (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The absence of an acronym does not change that the policy calls for exactly what CANZUK is meant to be, and that is a free movement arrangement. I see no room for interpretation when freedom of movement is the one goal all supporters of this idea can agree on. All else is secondary. UAmtoj (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

They may be supporting the same thing, but the Liberal party does not mention CANZUK. Unless they do I do not believe that we can say anything like " the Liberal Party of Canada voted to adopt CANZUK free movement as official party policy". Bob's uncle may support this policy too, but we don't say that the Liberal party voted to support Bob's uncle's position. I've pinged the Canada project for more input. Meters (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this counts as CANZUK or not, I would hesitate to call this a proper endorsement. Because while the party membership can vote to adopt policy proposals, the party leadership isn't required to accept, follow and implement it (or even put it in the campaign platform). Trudeau publicly disavowed the tenth resolution in that list. While Trudeau hasn't disavowed this free movement one, he also hasn't said anything about it at all; so how much does it really count for? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It should not be listed as an endorsement. It is fine to note however that the party members at the convention adopted a policy that included free-movement and said it should be prioritized. Though it is true, that even if the party members adopted it, party leadership can ignore it. It is worthy of mention, but must be put in proper context.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that the Liberal Party now supports the free movement of labour within the four countries, which is one of the recommendations of CANZUK. It also mentions free trade agreements, although it's not part of this specific proposal. But I think we need, per no synthesis, a rs that makes the link. TFD (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I am saying the fact that they have a policy to support free movement can be mentioned, as is supported by the RS. It can't be worded as a blanket endorsement of CANZUK or its policies though.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We cannot because of synthesis. You need a reliable source that establishes the connection. TFD (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This article and List of CANZUK endorsements are about CANZUK. Mention of a Liberal policy that happens to coincide with a CANZUK position might be worth mentioning in an article about the Liberal Party's positions, but without the Liberal Party explicitly stating that it is endorsing CANZUK it should not be mentioned in an article about CANZUK. All we have so far is CANZUK supporters (possibly others?) pointing to the policy and claiming that it is a CANZUK endorsement. Reminds me of the "if you support X, wear jeans on Friday" campaign an advocacy group once tried at a local university campus. Meters (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was an endorsement of CANZUK, I said it was an endorsement of CANZUK free movement. Just because the 2023 Liberal National Convention didn't use the acronym (and instead wrote out the names of the countries in the order they appear in the acronym) does not mean this change has nothing at all to do with CANZUK. Free movement is the main policy advocated by those who support CANZUK, and it makes no sense to include one political party and not the other even though they have both endorsed the exact same policy in the exact same way. I can understand adding language to distinguish this from a full endorsement of all the policies associated with CANZUK (like military/foreign policy coordination, free trade, etc.), but to not mention it at all as if it is totally irrelevant doesn't make any sense. I think it is up to you to justify why this endorsement isn't relevant to this article rather than simply declaring it isn't. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to justify its inclusion and to get consensus.

It's not an endorsement just because you claim it is.

In your edits to List of CANZUK endorsements ([5] [6]) you added the Liberal Party as endorsing CANZUK. No mention of just the free movement. So yes, you have indeed claimed that the Liberals are endorsing CANZUK.

I have not looked at any of the other claims for support, but any that have similar synthesis as this one should b removed. Note that the 2018 Conservative claim is likely fine since the party explicitly referred to supporting CANZUK. For example, see https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-canzuk-wont-work/ where the then-leader was quoted as tweeting, "Get CANZUK Done.” Meters (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

And the existing cited sources in the article clearly show that the Conservatives were explicitly supporting CANZUK in 2020. Meters (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So, what exactly constitutes endorsing CANZUK, if not an endorsement of free movement in the CANZUK countries. Is it just the use of the acronym? Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

See Synthesis of published material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."

In this case you are taking the definition of CANZUK from one source and the Liberal Party policy from another and concluding that the Liberals support a CANZUK policy. You need a reliable source that makes the connection.

It could be that the Liberals deliberately avoided the term CANZUK for any number of reasons. The last thing we would want therefore would be to have the Liberals have to respond to a claim about them made in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supposed to report claims, not make them. TFD (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It isn't synth to say that the Liberal membership voted to support and prioritize free movement. That is literally what they have done. I agree it can not be listed as an endorsement or an outcome of CANZUK advocacy without better sources. Using the sources we have to say only what they actually say, isn't synth.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with saying that in the appropriate place, which would be an article about the party or their policies. As I explained above, it would not be appropriate to make the comparison in either of the CANZUK articles. Meters (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It's implicit synthesis because if it is added to the article the implication is that they support part of CANZUK's platform. TFD (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Or part of it. Specifically, the free movement part. It could be synthesis if it is worded poorly. If not, it is fine. For example, wording saying something like the Liberal party has not endorsed CANZUK, but members passed a motion in 2023 calling on the party to promote free movement and calling it a priority. Something like that isn't Synth. It is clear that the Liberal party membership has "endorsed" some of the policy aims (but not others) of CANZUK, without endorsing the idea broadly (or the organization). The problem with synth is suggesting something that is not true (ie that they endorse CANZUK broadly, or the organization specifically). If you don't do that there is nothing wrong with mentioning it. It should be mentioned.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What about this sentence: "New York is the largest city in the U.S.?" It's true, it can be sourced. We would not add it because it is not clear what relevance it has to the topic. We would need an rs that explained its relevance.

Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about a topic, per weight. Sometimes they omit information we might find important. TFD (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevance is a different question. I would say that trivia about an American city would not be relevant to this article. It is relevant that party membership supports free movement and closer relations between the countries that this article is about. CANZUK is a bit of an amorphous thing, as the "proposed alliance" might include "increased trade, foreign policy co-operation, military co-operation and mobility of citizens between the four states" or some but not all of those things. So Liberal members supporting one of those things is relevant to note in the CANZUK#Supporting views section. But, we are now having a different conversation. I see you are no longer claiming it would be synth then. You just don't think it is relevant to the article. I don't see how it is not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning that the vote is relevant to this article and do not dispute it. That is not my objection. Per no synthesis, you need a reliable secondary source that says it is relevant.

If you add it to the article now, the implication is that it is relevant to the topic, which is synthesis. If it was not relevant, you would not add it. But until a source says it is relevant, we cannot include it.

TFD (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. This material simply does not belong in the CANZUK article without clear evidence of an intention to support CANZUK. It's synthesis to claim that there is such support, and it's synthesis to imply that there is such support by including otherwise irrelevant info. Meters (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a rather rigid interpretation of WP:SYNTH. It is a part of the WP:OR policy meant to avoid "imply[ing] a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source", not as general test for what information is relevant or should be included in articles. It doesn't help that CANZUK International is claiming it is a broad endorsement, when it is only support for some of their aims, but I don't see a problem if the article content isn't overstated. That said, given this extremely strict interpretation of synth some are set on, I guess we are stuck, and will have to wait for a further RS to come along and state the obvious that a policy about encouraging free movement is relevant to an article about the concept of that free movement. The policy seems to be covered here, here, and here but as far as I can tell they don't use the magic acronym (though I could be missing it as the Hill articles are behind a paywall).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing SYN and WEIGHT which are two separate reasons to exclude the material. No one has argued that SYN is defined as WEIGHT.

You want to add the story because you believe the Liberals are supporting one of the aims of CANZUK. IOW, the Liberals support freedom of movement, CANZUK supports freedom of movement, therefore the Liberals support one of CANZUKs aims. That is prohibited by SYN.

Weight says we cannot include the observation because it has received insufficient coverage in reliable sources.

An argument that someone's synthesis is good is no reason to include it.

Suppose the Liberal Party is asked if they support CANZUK and they say no because CANZUK is a white supremacist attempt to restore British imperialism. Then we wouldn't be able to add your text without including their response. But they have not replied because no one has made this connection in reliable sources. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia is not the place to publish original interpretations or to become part of the debate. It should merely report debates. TFD (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not confusing anything. I agree, it would be synth to say the Liberals support the aims of CANZUK. It is not to say they have not endorsed CANZUK, but have a policy to support one aim: free movement. But the way the article is writen you don't even need to say they support one of CANZUK's aims. You can just write as a matter of fact that they have a policy to support free movement between the relevant countries. We seem to be talking past eachother. I don't know if the Liberal's don't want to be associated with the term CANZUK or not. I don't care. And it doesn't matter for our purposes. If all we are saying is that they have a policy to support free movement, it doesn't matter. Synth is about avoiding implying incorrect things. If we aren't doing that synth doesn't apply. You aren't going to convince me that this rigid application, is how Synth is meant to be applied. In light of that rigid, perhaps wrong, interpretation though I agree we are at an impasse and there is no consensus to include it in this article. So we will have to wait for a RS which mentions the term CANZUK or otherwise makes the obvious connection, whether that RS asks the Liberals for a comment on their feelings about the acronym or not.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that the free movement the Liberal party proposes is the same thing that CANZUK does? Only by reading through both proposals and coming to a conclusion, which is synthesis.

How onerous is it to require that in order to say that the Liberals support one of the tenets of CANZUK you need a source that says "the Liberals support one of the tenets of CANZUK?" Wikipedia is not the place to go to for information that reliable sources ignore. It's supposed to summarize rs. TFD (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I was joking that this was about the acronym, but people here are actually serious about this. Could you imagine if this were applied across all of Wikipedia? How ever would we know that the article on the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is about the USSR when that constitution doesn't even use the acronym "USSR"? How can we know the Pledge of Allegiance is about the USA, those letters don't even appear in that sequence in the pledge! I do hope that the RS that inevitably gets accepted mentions the UK and not the United Kingdom, otherwise we will forever wonder what country it's referring to... Hihellowhatsup (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• We would need to see a reliable source for this, not primary sources. That is, a journalist-written newspaper, magazine or CTV/CBC/Global/CityNews article treating "Liberal Party endorses CANZUK" as a news story, not a PDF of a party-published policy resolution summary or content on the self-published website of a CANZUK advocacy organization. The very definition of notability in Wikipedia hinges specifically on the extent to which the topic has generated coverage and analysis in third-party sources independent of itself (i.e. media coverage and books), so by definition something cannot be notable at all if it doesn't have that — as noted above, something passing the proposed resolutions stage at a party membership convention is a far cry from the party brass actually adopting the thing as policy. Lots of resolutions have been proposed and passed by grassroots members at party conventions, without ever becoming true party policy — so we would need to see real coverage and analysis of this as news, not just primary sources, before it was notable enough to be included here. It's the same principle as how our articles about films aren't allowed to exhaustively document every single award the film ever wins (or claims to have won) at any small-fry (or fake award-mill) film festival on earth: they're only supposed to document awards that are notable by virtue of the media treating "film wins award" as news, and not non-notable awards where you have to depend on the film's own self-published marketing or the self-published website of the film festival. We care about things like this only to the extent that media can be shown to care enough about the thing to cover and analyze it as newsworthy. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are about defined topics. It is of course true that one topic may have different names and the same name may apply to different topics. For notable topics there are sources that explain the terminology which we can use. For example, Tony Blair called his party's ideology socialism, while others might call it social democracy. There are sources that explain how these two terms can be synonyms although they can have different meanings as well. As editors, we are supposed to understand which meaning the author is using.

OTOH, if the Tories agreed with one of Blair's policies, we would not say that had adopted a socialist policy. For example, the Tories support allowing women to vote. We wouldn't add that to an article about socialism unless the source made a connection.

TFD (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Territories

Re: Territories and dependencies

I recommend changing this section to "External territories and dependencies."

Canada and Australia are federal states consisting of sovereign provinces or states and terrtiories that lack sovereignty. New Zealand and UK are unitary states where only the national government has sovereignty. Under a unitary state, the entire land mass of the country is in essence an internal territory.

While we might want to explain how power is distributed internally in each country, this is not the section to do so.

The purpose of the section should be to list external territories under the control of each country. This information is significant because it explains what territories outside the four countries may come under CANZUK.

The section should therefore exclude internal territories: Canada's Yukon, NWT and Nunavat, and Australia's NT, ACT and Jervis Bay Territory. TFD (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Country Comparison Chart

All such charts are to be removed as a general rule. Nford24, please explain why the chart on this page is an exception to this policy. 021120x (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There are a few rows that are not very useful and that could easily be trimmed (flags and coats of arms, for example), and some redundancy with the economic comparison table, but I still find the table itself is useful. This is an article about a proposed alliance of four specific countries. It makes sense to provide some comparison data (beyond the economic data) to highlight the similarities and differences. Meters (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

021120x I was the second of two editors to revert you but you chose to only tag me, curious. The "general rule" also states "Comparison charts may be included on a case-by-case basis". I agree with Meters, the table can be trimmed but otherwise is quite important to the article subject matter. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)