Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Rhodesia and Newfoundland

Regarding the repeated insertion of Newfoundland and Rhodesia into the list of former Commonwealth realms:

Rhodesia made a unilateral declaration of independence that the governments of the UK and other countries did not recognise and Elizabeth II did not accept the title of Queen of Rhodesia. Rhodesia was thus never a former Commonwealth realm.

Newfoundland was briefly a Dominion. It was never a sovereign country. As Commonwealth realms are all sovereign countries, Newfoundland was never a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But weren't all dominions ipso facto Commonwealth realms. And couldn't you say the same thing about the Irish Free State which, like the Dominion of Newfoundland, never formally adopted the Statute of Westminster? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dominions were sovereign countries (that is exactly what distinguished them from British colonies) and thus also realms. Rhodesia was a realm before UDI. If a place had/has a prime minister and recognised the same monarch as the UK it was/is by definition a realm. Roger (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. As the article states: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state." Newfoundland was never sovereign (as Dominion states: "A dominion, often Dominion, refers to one of a group of autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty"). Elizabeth II was only ever monarch of Rhodesia as Queen of the United Kingdom, Ian Smith's declaration of independence being regarded as illegitimate, since it was never signed by either the Queen or the Governor. Neither Rhodesia nor Newfoundland meets the definition of a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly what Rhodesia's status was before UDI. It had a Prime Minister and a Governor-General - the same as Canada, Australia, etc have to this day. It was obviously not a British colony as colonies don't have Prime Ministers. Roger (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a self-governing colony. It had a governor, not a governor-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That does make a difference, thanks for clarifying and correcing my mistaken belief. Roger (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User: Miesianiacal the Official Website of the British Monarchy states: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch."[1] Where do you get sovereign from? You also neglected to reply to my point about the Irish Free State which, like Newfoundland, never formally accepted the Statute of Westminster therefore if Newfoundland wasn't a Commonwealth realm, neither was Ireland. In fact "Commonwealth realm" is really just a modern term for dominion. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I told you where I got "sovereign" from.

The Statute of Westminster itself required (S.10) that Newfoundland's parliament pass the law before it applied to Newfoundland. The statute did not make the same requirement of the Irish Free State. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

To state the obvious, as I am the one who reverted the original inclusion of Newfoundland and Rhodesia in the table, I would have to agree with User: Miesianiacal's evaluation of the matter.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember also that the term "Commonwealth realm" started to be used AFTER 1949, thus precluding the changed situations for both Newfoundland & Ireland. As far as Rhodesia was concerned, it legally never changed it's status of being a colony of Southern Rhodesia until it became an independent and fully recognized republic in 1980.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, supposedly, the term "commonwealth realm" was used after Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne. So, why is there the Dominion of India? If dominion are included in this, then Newfoundland and Rhodesia rightfully deserve to be on this page. And if dominions are not "commonwelath realms", than India should be removed as well.Viller the Great (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Viller the Great

Perhaps you (Viller the Great) have missed the entire conversation here. Read from the beginning of this conversation, it is clear that you are not listening. What you are arguing in your last statement would also mean that Canada (The Dominion of Canada) should not be included as a Commonwealth Realm.--UnQuébécois (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Different titles across the realms (Canada and Grenada)

Is there a reason why, while in most realms the Queen is titled without mentioning the United Kingdom, in Canada and Grenada it is included before mentioning the country's name? -- megA (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See Title and style of the Canadian monarch, and Monarchy_of_Grenada#Title. That's all I know.--UnQuébécois (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• It stands to reason that each of the 15 separate Kingdoms may have some small variation in their wording. Also bear in mind the Constitutional conventions in force at the time each of the Constitutions were drafted or which UK party formed the government. CaribDigita (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"When composed in 1953, this format was consistent with the monarch's titles in all her other realms; after 40 years of Elizabeth's reign, however, only Canada and Grenada retained this title, all others, aside from the UK, having dropped the reference to the United Kingdom." Thank you, UnQuébécois, it is mentioned in the Canada article you linked. -- megA (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

NZ vs Realm of NZ in summary table

The table of current realms is just a summary. Calling the country "Realm of New Zealand" will be confusing to most readers, and most will not care about the distinction. For that reason "New Zealand" is the more appropriate visual reference for the table. But New Zealand is indeed only one element of the Realm of New Zealand, so I piped the reader through to the article on Realm of New Zealand, not the article on New Zealand, on the theory that a reader who clicks on the link actually wants to know more. --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's more confusing to the uninitiated reader to use what is the name of part of the entity as a pipe to the article on that entity. You wouldn't approve of using "England" as a pipe to the article "United Kingdom", would you?

If you think further clarity is needed, the best I can think of now is to list in small font in brackets beneath "Realm of New Zealand" the three constituent parts of that body. But, then, to be consistent, would the four countries of the United Kingdom then have to be shown as well? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether people care about the distinction is surely irrelevant - I think it's better to link to the Realm article. --LJ Holden 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any dispute over whether or not to link to the article Realm of New Zealand, but rather whether that link should be piped or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "United Kingdom" is very well known and is the usual way the country is referred to (except in the US perhaps). The term "Realm of New Zealand" is very formal and is not at all well known. Using it in this summary table causes the casual reader to do an unnecessary double-take -- it certainly did to me, and I know what the distinction is. The term "New Zealand" is well known and is the term that any reader will be familiar with when browsing through the table.

I agree with both of you that the link should be to the Realm article. All we are discussing here is the text for the link. In fact the current text is very recent. Before Miesianiacal changed it in January of this year it read "New Zealand", as it had since the table was first created over five years ago. See [2].

The edit summary he gave says "in light of recent edits". It's unclear what this means, but it appears to be connected to the immediately preceding edits by Vale of Glamorgan, which removed previous text at the end of this section that had noted that the Cook Islands was functionally a separate realm. I fail to see why those edits justify the textual change from "New Zealand" to "Realm of New Zealand"; the only connection is that the Cook Islands is also a component of the Realm of New Zealand.

In short: "New Zealand" with piping to the Realm article is preferable because it is less confusing to the reader. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

PS to this: The underlying problem here is that the Realm of New Zealand is a federated realm, but, unlike Canada or Australia, there is no federal state. Rather, it is an association of three sovereign states under a common monarch, where New Zealand itself is primus inter pares -- rather like the inter-war Commonwealth, where the UK was widely thought of as primus inter pares. This is a concept which needs to be introduced and explained. As I said in my more general comments above (which no-one seems to want to respond to), this article needs a discussion of the relationship of the crown to the constituent parts of federated realms.

As to the immediate problem, Miesianiacal's suggestion of listing the component parts might be a path to resolution. For the reasons given I still think the text in the table should read "New Zealand", with piping to the Realm article, but I would not object to a footnote reading something like "The realm of New Zealand consists of the associated states of New Zealand, the Cook Islands and Niue. See Realm of New Zealand." --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how any of that addresses my point. I'd be quite taken aback if I clicked on a link that read "New Zealand" and ended up at a page called "Realm of New Zealand" on which I found that New Zealand is only but a part. I get that "Realm of New Zealand" is not a commonly used term. But, it still contains the words "new" and "zealand" in that order, and thus I don't think readers will be all that confused when seeing it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I think we can agree that this ought to be a non-issue.

What is confusing is seeing the words "Realm of" attached to New Zealand when you don't see "Commonwealth of" attached to Australia or "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" attached to "United Kingdom" -- you just see the normal ordinary name of these countries. There is no indication of why New Zealand should be singled out for this very formal treatment, and I've yet to see your reason for doing so. Why did you feel it necessary to make the change last January, after living with a common-or-garden "New Zealand" for several years?

As for the "confusion" about ending up at the "Realm" page, well that's the point of ending up there: read and learn. I don't see why ending up at "Realm of New Zealand" from "New Zealand" is any more confusing than ending up at Ghana (Commonwealth realm) when you click on "Ghana" in the Former Realms table, rather less so in fact since there is a real reason for the Realm of New Zealand page to exist. --Chris Bennett (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The article linked to was changed from New Zealand to Realm of New Zealand. I don't see why there's any question about that move; three of us now appear to agree that's the right article to link to. I didn't pipe the link then and I don't believe it should be piped now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not an explanation for why you changed the text from "New Zealand" to "Realm of New Zealand" in January, when it had quite happily been "New Zealand" for many years, with no complaints or any other sign of reader confusion. That is the issue, not the change you made to the link, which has never been at issue. Could you please explain why you changed the text in January?

As far as I can tell, you are looking at this from a point of view of technical correctness, and you think that the text should be strictly technically correct at all times, respecting and reflecting all nuances. But the point of this article -- any WP article -- is to explain and educate. You don't do that by dropping the readers in at the deep end, you do it by leading them in from the shallows. Put your expert knowledge to one side, and try reading this article from the point of view of a reader who has basic geographic knowledge and some awareness that the Queen is monarch of more countries than just the United Kingdom, and wants to know more -- in other words an average WP reader (hopefully). From that basic perspective, the table is useful in giving a list of realms, when they became realms etc. But that is all it needs to do. It is not its function to draw fine constitutional distinctions (e.g. by distinguishing the "Realm of New Zealand" from "New Zealand"), because the reader is not ready for them, though it is perfectly fine for it to link to places where such detail can be found (e.g. by having a link to the article "Realm of New Zealand").

As for strict technical correctness, that will become a can of worms if it is insisted on. The flag icon is for the flag of New Zealand, not the flag of the Realm of New Zealand, which does not exist AFAIK, and links to New Zealand, not Realm of New Zealand. While New Zealand became a realm in 1947, the Realm of New Zealand, as an entity, did not become distinct from New Zealand until one of 1974/1981/1983. Worse, when that happened the Realm of New Zealand no longer met the article's definition of a Commonwealth realm ("a sovereign state..."), because it ceased to be a state, having become only an association of states, yet it is undoubtedly a Commonwealth realm. Better to quit while we're ahead and let the readers find their way to a more detailed discussion if they want to. --Chris Bennett (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to explain why the link was changed in January because that's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I'll henceforth speak no more about that particular matter.

It seems we both have the reader's best interests in mind. However, I simply cannot accept that a reader is going to be anything but confused after following a link named "New Zealand" only to end up at a page called "Realm of New Zealand" on which it's found that New Zealand is only but a part of the bigger entity. Let them click on "Realm of New Zealand" and find out what that actually is, rather than "educating" them by deceit and surprise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal on the table is to restore the text to what it had been for at least 5 years. You changed it to the current text, and you did it only a few weeks ago, yet you refuse to explain why you made that change on the grounds that it is "irrelevant"?? Of course it's relevant!

You are the principal contributor to this article, and the history and talk page record shows that you keep a very close eye on it. I don't doubt your good intentions, but it is also very clear that nothing happens here without your agreement. If you refuse to engage properly on a trivial issue like this one, and you completely ignore comments pointing out (correctly or not) that the article needs some serious work, what hope is there of getting any issue addressed that you happen to dislike or disagree with?

Please read WP:Ownership. -- Chris Bennett (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Spare us the ownership accusations; this is the only edit of yours so far that I've contested. And the proposal is to restore the visible text to what was there pre-January, but with a piped link that wasn't there before.

Ultimately, the community decides. If you don't want to wait for others to weigh in here, why not go ask for some more input; there's a dispute resolution process in place for you to follow, if you wish. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Miesianiacal (talk · contribs).--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I do not, I also don't want to discuss it any further, it's not worth the effort. But I must point out that, if that's really the way you want to play it, then you should also change the text of all the entries in the "Former realms" table to match the titles of the articles that they actually point to. Otherwise it looks like you want to have it both ways. -- Chris Bennett (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Those articles are another matter altogether. It's my opinion the names in the "Former realms" table should link to the article on the modern country and those "[Country] (Commonwealth realm)" articles (besides all their internal issues) become just sister articles to those main country articles or their respective history pages. But, as you can see from the edit history of this page plus the the conversation that took place above on this particular subject, there are others (one being UnQuébécois, ironically!) who disagree with me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to agree on everything! In the case here, it makes sense.--UnQuébécois (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that is was necessary to point out that the only Commonwealth State in South America, since May, 1966 has been left out. Guyana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.97.5 (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Guyana is a republic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any good reason to single out New Zealand in the table, which doesn't otherwise use ridiculously formal and uncommon names. So far as I can see only one person has ever used this term in any serious sense. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand isn't the same thing as the Realm of New Zealand. Calling here the Realm of New Zealand "New Zealand" leads one to be unsure of whether New Zealand (the component of the Realm of New Zealand) is the realm (while the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau somehow are not) or the Realm of New Zealand in its entirety is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the distinction. However, in a table headed "List of Realms", our readers will assume that every member of that list is also a realm. Why do you want to confuse readers by singling out one entry? --Pete (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So, by your edit, you're communicating that only one part of the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. Do you have a source to back that up? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am communicating no such thing. Kindly refrain from talking rubbish. I note that the inclusion of "New Zealand" in the lead is likewise unqualified and links to New Zealand. We explain the situation further into the article - we don't need to cram the whole article into a summary. Please explain why you want to make a change that confuse readers. I see no reason to change the longstanding practice here, which I note was your original edit, without any useful reason to do so. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

When you list New Zealand - a constituent part of the Realm of New Zealand - as a Commonwealth realm, you are indeed communicating that only one part of the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. You're correct about the contradiction in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have mentioned the user experience. Now, we want to communicate the fact that The Realm of New Zealand is not exactly the same as New Zealand but I suggest that dropping readers in at the deep end in an indirect fashion is not the way to do this. "Hah, surprise!" Other alternatives have been suggested above, and my preference is to list in the minor islands within the same cell, along with a note explaining the situation, which is an odd one. It is not something that we should really be trying to explain in a summary table, nor should we ambush our users. We should make it plain and we should do so in the correct place. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm one of those editors who've mentioned the user experience, and naming the Realm of New Zealand as just "New Zealand" and linking to the article New Zealand (as you've done) will lead the unfamiliar reader to think New Zealand - one of the component parts of the Realm of New Zealand - is a Commonwealth realm, while the other parts are not.

I agree that an unfamilar reader won't know immediately what the Realm of New Zealand is. But, out of the previously explored options, it seems like showing that name and linking it to that article is the most honest (and thus clear) one, helping users understand.

Listing the other parts of the Realm of New Zeanand under the name New Zealand in the table will just, I think, convolute matters even more (are the smaller islands subordinate to, governed by New Zealand?). Best, in my opinion, would be to use either of the following:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
New Zealand (formally Realm of New Zealand)	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Or:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
Realm of New Zealand (informally New Zealand)	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but do you appreciate how stupid that makes us look? --Pete (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No.

Do you appreciate how uncooperative it is to imply someone's proposal to solve your problem is stupid? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the link to Realm of New Zealand should suffice. By clicking on the link it brings you to the page in question, and everything is explained. That is one purpose of having interwiki article links, to get more information on the specific subject that is mentioned, but not the main focus of the current article.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My "problem" is that we have a list of nations, each with their flag, except for New Zealand which is given a name nobody uses and is "Informally known as New Zealand". I think anybody coming to this article looking for information is going to think that this is ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "problem" is that it is not a list of nations, but realms.--UnQuébécois (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's a list of realms, why is only one labelled as such? All or none, surely? Furthermore, the flag shown is for New Zealand the nation, not any other entity. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no distinction between the realm and the country/nation/state in the other instances, and no separate distinct realm exists for them. It reminds me of the situation in Denmark/Kingdom of Denmark, not saying that it is the same, but reminds me of. Denmark is one constituent component of the Kingdom of Denmark, just as NZ is one constituent component of the Realm of NZ. --UnQuébécois (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. But do you have an answer to the questions asked? Something that a reader will find illuminating when they come here looking for information? --Pete (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already made my opinion on the table entry known. I do not understand what additional question you are looking to have answered. Readers come to this article for information about "Commonwealth Realm", not any specific realm within the commonwealth, if they want information about a specific realm within the commonwealth they will link to the article in question. Readers are not as ignorant as you seem to think they are, each article covers one subject in depth, but cannot cover all possible related subjects, that is why we have links.--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's start with the first question. If it is a list of realms, then why is only one marked as a realm? Wouldn't a reader seeking the answer be rather left in the dark by your non-answer above? How can we present the actual situation without making it confusing? --Pete (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at some of the information again, a better question is: is the jurisdiction that consists of New Zealand, Tokelau, the Ross Dependency, Cook Islands, and Niue named "New Zealand" or "Realm of New Zealand"?

This source cites the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand:

• "We do hereby constitute, order, and declare that there shall be, in and over Our Realm of New Zealand, which comprises —(a) New Zealand; and (b) The self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) The self-governing state of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) The Ross Dependency — a Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief who shall be Our representative in Our Realm of New Zealand"

and goes on to say

• "There is now a Realm of New Zealand, of which New Zealand itself is only one element."

It also cites the Interpretation Act 1999 as stating

• "'New Zealand' or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency."

The answer therefore seems to be: the jurisdiction that consists of New Zealand, Tokelau, the Ross Dependency, Cook Islands, and Niue is named "Realm of New Zealand". Simply "New Zealand" isn't sufficient, since that is only (according to the Interpretation Act 1999) the name of one part of the Realm of New Zealand.

Linking to the article New Zealand in the table is therefore inaccurate; New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm. The Realm of New Zealand is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC):

Well, how about you address yourself to the question posed? We want to give the information to the reader who doesn't know it, and it would be preferable to do it by actually, you know, telling them, cos that's what we do, rather than making them guess about headings in a summary table. Or reading the talk page.

And is the "Realm of New Zealand" actually the sovereign state that the lede defines? C'mon, Mies, if you want to control every little word in this article, make them count! --Pete (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal insult towards me, what exactly is your objection now? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Howe many times do I have to ask the same questions? Mies, your nose is too close to the grindstone. The "Realm of New Zealand" differs from others in that it isn't a sovereign state, as defined in the lede, it encompasses several others. I think that this is significant and should be given more prominence - like actually telling the readers - without them having to guess why one item in the list is treated differently to all the rest. Granted, there is a footnote containing the information, but I think that we should say what the situation is in the text. I'd like you to fix the thing up, because frankly I don't want to have to battle with you over endless talk pages about something so trivial that you feel is part of your inner soul or something. The summary table is out of step with the lede, it contains the flag of New Zealand and the title of the Queen of New Zealand (but not the Realm of New Zealand) and it's just a tangle all round. I don't want you to take it personally, but if you could put your formidable talents to finding a way to explain the situation clearly to readers who don't have your knowledge of the situation, it would improve the Wikipaedia. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The bigger question is, why do you keep asking the same questions, while not wanting to "listen to" or "hear" the answers given? It looks to me that no matter what you will not be happy. A single Wikipedia article cannot always cover every single permutation, a reader who wants to know more about the specific situation with the Realm of New Zealand or any other realm, is smart enough to follow the link. --UnQuébécois (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not state the situation explicitly? This is an article about Commonwealth Realms after all. My problem is that the article is inconsistent and confusing. We should fix it up so it's not. Nobody here has yet addressed my points about the definition in the lede being incorrect, the flag being wrong, the Queen's title being wrong... You want to have a go at these pertinent points? --Pete (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've presented you with a source that shows Elizabeth II is queen of the Realm of New Zealand. It's up to you now to provide one that shows New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, while the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency are outside the group of realms, despite being under the Queen's sovereignty. Please keep your responses consise and clear, and skip the personal commentary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but could you outline what you think should be done about the problems indicated? --Pete (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Realm of New Zealand

I agree that the current setup is wrong and should be corrected. There are few points, which should be taken into account:

1. The difference between New Zealand (the sovereign state) and New Zealand (the commonwealth realm) should be clearly shown - the three sovereign states (NZ, CI, Niue) are equal parts of the NZ realm despite the shared name between the realm and one of the states - just as Australia and Canada aren't subordinated in any way to the UK - despite their head of state titles being held by the same person.
2. Tokealu and the Ross dependency are subordinated territories of the state NZ - unlike CI and Niue.
3. The Realm of New Zealand homonymous naming with one of its parts is similar to the cases of Danish Realm and Kingdom of the Netherlands, but at the same time it's different, because neither the Denmark nor the Netherlands cases include more than one sovereign state.

That's why I suggest the following:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
Realm of New Zealand New Zealand Cook Islands Niue	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand Monarchy of the Cook Islands Monarchy of Niue	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

I implemented the above, but it was reverted. What do you think? Japinderum (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Realm of New Zeland isn't a sovereign state; it's a collection of geopolitical entities made up of New Zealand (the sovereign state), its territories (Ross Dependency, Tokelau), and two states in association with New Zealand (the Cook Islands and Niue). See the discussion below. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the table is a good idea though. Can we have a similar, though rather longer, table for the UK? Do any other Commonwealth realms have dependencies? ðarkuncoll 16:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How is the table a good idea? It lists the Realm of New Zealand as a Commownealth realm when it apparently is not a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't, I agree with you that the thing that is the Commonwealth realm is New Zealand. But listing the dependencies of the realms seems like a good idea, to show where else the monarch reigns over. ðarkuncoll 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That information seems rather tangential to the main focus of this page. Perhaps a footnote? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, of course the Realm of NZ isn't a sovereign state. But also the sovereign state NZ isn't itself a realm. There are three sovereign states - equals - in the Realm of NZ: NZ, CI, Niue. Relationships between those three (association, etc.) are irrelevant for the fact that NZ-the-state is not the same with (or a superset of) NZ-the-realm. That's why the proposal has the three countries with flags in the "country" cell, but also it has their encompassing realm in bold above their names in the same cell. And what do you mean by "the Realm of New Zealand as a Commownealth realm when it apparently is not a Commonwealth realm"? "Queen in the right of New Zealand" refers to the realm. What do you think the Realm of NZ is if not one of the commonwealth realms?

In any case the current arrangement should be somehow changed, because it mentions neither the Realm of NZ nor the sovereign states of CI and Niue. Do have a different idea how to show those? Japinderum (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are no other ideas, I assume nobody objects implementing the change as described here. Japinderum (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I added it, with a footnote "The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises of three sovereign states: the Cook Islands, the homonymous New Zealand (with its dependent territories), and Niue." so that concerns expressed above are taken into account. Nevertheless a user, who hasn't commented in this subsection deleted it saying "not again" and without answering questions from the 14:09, 23 May 2012 comment above. Japinderum (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to chime in and say that your 'modifications' to the table in regards to NZ, have been reverted more than once by more than one user. The edit summary left by UnQuebecois, in my opinion, does not require any further explanation, obviously there is objection to you making this change. It does not appear that you have convinced anyone that the change is appropriate, and are trying to push through the edit and hoping no one will notice.--MrBoire (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit wasn't removed by "more than one" editor. My initial edit was removed, then we discussed above and then my next edit included an additional note to address the concerns expressed here. Then UnQuebecois deleted it, without any explanation even after I requested such on his talk page twice. He still hasn't explained what and why he disagrees with.

The current status quo is wrong and has to be corrected somehow. The issues (see 14:09, 23 May 2012 comment above) are the following:

1. it shows the state NZ as a commonwealth realm, but actually it isn't a realm. The Realm of NZ is a commonwealth realm. Unlike the other realms it's different from the state NZ as it includes three states.
2. it doesn't mention the Realm of NZ at all.
3. it doesn't mention the CI and Niue - the other two equal parts of the Realm of NZ.

My proposal to correct this is here. Any other opinions and ideas? Japinderum (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how your edits (all virtually the same) to the table solve anything. I am not convinced that this is the solution. CI and Niue are "in free association", all Niueans and Cook Islanders are also New Zealand Citizens. They have a similar situation to NZ as Puerto Rico has to the US. NZ handles almost all their international interactions and defence. One could also compare the relationships with NZ to the relationships that the First Nations have with Canada. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 06:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can go back to the deinition of CR in the article: 'A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms'. Now if the Cook Islands, Niue, etc, are truly sovereign (and by sovereign, I would suggest any nation which is free to direct its internal and external affairs without legal hindrance by a forreign power) then, by that definition, they merit to be listed separately and distinctly from the Monarchy of New Zealand. If, on the other hand, they are dependent, for example, for their defence and foreign relations on New Zealand, then they are not sovereign and a note to Monarchy of New Zealand on their behalf would suffice.Gazzster (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@UnQuébécois. CI and Niue are totally unlike Puerto Rico or first nations. They are more like Marshal Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Liechtenstein, Monaco (see Associated state) - e.g. fully independent sovereign states, but utilizing deep assistance from the big neighbor or former sovereign owner. International interactions (this isn't handled by NZ at all) and defence (here NZ assists them just like Australia assists Nauru or France - Monaco, e.g. only as far as the CI or Niue government requests) - "Cook Islands Government Control over both external affairs and defence rests entirely with the Cook Islands government. It has full legal and executive competence in respect of its own defence and security " (see 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration) - and - Niue Abstracts Part 1 A (General Information); page 11 - the responsibilities of New Zealand for external affairs and defence do not confer on the New Zealand Government any rights of control. Full legislative and executive power, whether in these fields or in others, are vested in the legislature and Government of Niue. Where the New Zealand Government exercises its responsibilities in respect of external affairs and defence, it does so in effect on the delegated authority of the Niue Government..

@Gazzster. For "free to direct its internal and external affairs without legal hindrance by a forreign power" see above. And yes, of course CI and Niue should be listed only if they are fully independent sovereign states, which is confirmed by many sources such as Court ruling, page 262: "... the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state ...", UN Office of Legal Affairs Page 23, number 86: "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative...", Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs Supplement No. 8; page 10, UN map of the World and of course the JCD of 2001. Japinderum (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Japinderum: In none of the states you mention are the people citizens of the associated state, and citizens of their own "independent state", they do not recognize the same person/or representative as their head of state. In the case of Puerto-Rico, the people are also US Citizens, and the US President is the head of state of PR. The relationship in the Realm of NZ is this type, CI and Niue citizens are also NZ citizens, and recognize the Queen of NZ as their head of state. I am not comparing anything other than that.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That being the case Japinderum, it would seem that the 'Realm of New Zealand', whatever it may be, is not a sovereign state and so should not be listed as a CR. The states associated with New Zealand ought to be listed separately ande distinctly with perhaps a note referrin g to their status as associated states.Gazzster (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@UnQuébécois, CI and Niue citizens enjoy the priviledges of NZ citizens when they are in NZ or abroad and that's it. NZ citizens don't have the rights of Cook Islanders or Niueans when in the CI or Niue. CI and Niue have separate nationality and immigration regimes from those of NZ (see Cook Islands nationality and Pacific Constitutions Overview, p.7 - Niue Entry, Residence and Departure Act 1985). You may put quotes on "independent state", but as shown in the sources CI and Niue are considered sovereign and independent states by relevant parties such as the UN, NZ and other sovereign states. Totally unlike Puerto Rico (which itself doesn't claim to be a sovereign state). Queen of NZ (the realm) is head of state of the sovereign independent states CI, NZ-the-state, Niue. The realm and the state are homonymous and that obviously confuses you, but nevertheless they are not the same. You can say that CI recognizes NZ-the-state head of state as theirs, but you can also say that NZ-the-state recognizes CI head of state as theirs. Contrast that to Tokelau, which is subordinated to NZ-the-state.

@UnQuébécois, an additional note about the citizenship - Japan had similar concerns to yours - e.g. "same citizenship as NZ, so they aren't a separate state" and refused to establish diplomatic relations with CI. Last year, they established. I would rather follow Japan MFA on that - than some common misconception.

@Gazzster, of course the realm of NZ is not a state, but it's one of the Commonwealth realm. Currently the table wrongly lists NZ-the-state as Commonwealth realm, when it isn't - it's only part of the realm of NZ - along with CI and Niue. All three sovereign states are equals inside the realm of NZ. Maybe the table heading should be changed from "Country" to "Realm" and then the NZ box to list the Realm of New Zealand (with the three states - CI, NZ, Niue - listed below with smaller font and a note explaining the special case of realm of NZ). Japinderum (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I must admit this 'Realm of New Zealand vs realm of New Zealand is a new thing to me, but I'm going from what other editors are saying on the subject. If this association is a collection a sovereign states then they are all CRs, according to our own definition, which names CRs as 'sovereign' states. If, however, if the Queen of New Zealand (as opposed to the Queen of the UK, or the Cook Islands, or Niue) acts as the head of state of these states, then they can't be sovereign. This is because the Queen of New Zealand (ie., the Governor of New Zealand) would be advised in their affairs by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Gazzster (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Realm of New Zealand" is different from the "Sovereign state New Zealand", because in the realm there are three equally independent sovereign states: Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue. None of them is a Commonwealth realm itself - the CR is the Realm of NZ as a whole, but it's a special case being shared by three sovereign states. Queen of New Zealand (the realm) is head of state of all three sovereign states in the realm. You can see in the sources above that for matters concerning CI or Niue the PM of the state NZ (or any other official of its government) does not "advise" or in any other way influence the queen, the governor-general or the queen representative (CI have a separate QR from the governor-general). The PM of NZ deals only with matters concerning the state NZ. For matters concerning CI the PM of CI "advises" and for matters concerning Niue - the Premier of Niue. Both of these are appointed independently from the NZ government, NZ prime minister or any other NZ-the-state entities or processes. Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This matter of New Zealand vs. Realm of New Zealand has gone on for some time and unfortunately got split into two sections, one of which has been archived while this one has continued. I repeat here what I said in the other, now archived thread:

I think the point is, though, that the Realm of New Zealand is not one of the sixteen Commonwealth realms. "Unlike Her Majesty's other realms... the Realm of New Zealand has no international legal personality and is not itself a State."[3] It seems New Zealand is the Commonwealth realm; it is with New Zealand that Cook Islands and Niue are in free association; they are, per the 1983 Letters Patent, clearly under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand. "[The Cook Islands] did not become fully independent, but instead moved to a status of self-government in free association with New Zealand, signified by its continued recognition of the Queen in right of New Zealand as Head of State. Niue followed suit... emerging as a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. Just like the Cook Islands had done, it retained the Queen in right of New Zealand as its Head of State."[4] Here, it is New Zealand that is listed as a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MIes for providing those references (long time, how you doin'?). Yes, it seems clear, particularly from the 1983 Letters Patent where the Governor-general is named as being the Queen of New Zealand's representative over the associated states, that they are not CRs in their own right. Neither are they sovereign states.Gazzster (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, the 'special relationship' of the Cook Islands with New Zealand was described to the UN in 1965: "The Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State (italics mine).

"They have worked out a form of full self-government in free association with New Zealand, but -- and here is the special feature -- they may at any time in future, if they so desire, move into full independence, or any other status that may become practicable, by a unilateral act, that is, one which New Zealand has denied itself power to countermand. The right is spelled out in the provisions of article 41 of the Constitution...This new status is not sovereign independence in the juridical sense, for the Cook Islanders wish to remain New Zealand citizens and in the meantime they wish New Zealand to discharge the responsibilities in the field of external affairs and defence in consultation with them; but it means that the Cook Islanders have a continuing right to self-determination. Henceforth the legal links between the Cook Islands and New Zealand rests on consent; this is what we understand by 'free association' ". http://www.ck/govt.htm Gazzster (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, Gazzster, the links you provide describe an old situation, that is not current anymore. Please check the sources I provide above (12:12, 23 September 2012) - court ruling, official NZ and CI government declaration signed in 2001, official UN documents, etc. "Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands.", "In the conduct of its foreign affairs, the Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state. Responsibility at international law rests with the Cook Islands in terms of its actions and the exercise of its international rights and fulfilment of its international obligations.", "The Government of the Cook Islands has full legal and executive competence in respect of its own defence and security.", "... the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state ...", "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative...", etc., etc.

Cook Islands and Niue gradually and step-wise reached independence from NZ - without a big bang declaration - just like New Zealand itself, Australia and Canada reached independence from the UK. It both cases there are still some residual links - association and/or head of state, but in 2012 all of those are fully independent sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and say New Zealand is the Commonwealth realm. They say the Realm of New Zealand is not a country. Your source does not dispute what the other sources say. No sources say the Cook Islands are a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, it's an unusual situation. But I suggest the crux of the problem revolves around the status of the head of state. The Cook Island's Constitution names the Queen 'in Right of New Zealand' as head of state of the Cook Islands, and the governor-general of New Zealand is appointed by Letters Patent over the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands have their own 'Queen's Representative' (not a Governor-general). Bizarre, but it seems to work quite happily for the Cook Islanders. But it does suggest that New Zealand is the realm. Otherwise why not have a Queen and Governor-general 'of the Cook mIslands'.Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal, of course the Realm of NZ is not a country. But what you got wrong is that the country NZ is a realm. No it isn't. The country and realm are homonymous, but different and separate. And of course CI are not a Commonwealth realm - they are part of one of those realms. The country NZ is part of the same realm.

@Gazzster, for the item3 in the JCD: "3 Head of State: 1. Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands. 2. In all matters affecting the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part, there will be close consultation between the Signatories."

There is no CI Governor-general because the CI is not a realm. There is only one GG - of NZ the realm. When you say "New Zealand is the realm" this is reference to the Realm of New Zealand and not to the Sovereign state New Zealand. Currently the table links to the "Sovereign state New Zealand" instead of the "Realm of New Zealand" and that's what should be corrected.

The problem here is the wrong assumption in the table heading implying that "each realm is a state and each state is a realm". This is correct for all realms without NZ and for all states without CI, NZ, Niue. The homonymous situation of NZ-realm and NZ-state don't help either, because that brings confusion and ambiguity for many people and sources.

My proposal tries to solve that by keeping the table heading, listing the three Realm of NZ states/flags in a single "NZ-realm-row" and adding a note describing special situation "The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises of three sovereign states: the Cook Islands, the homonymous New Zealand (with its dependent territories), and Niue.". Is this OK? Japinderum (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I quote from the number one Google hit on "Commonwealth Realm"? It contains a handy definition, which we should either follow scrupulously, or modify to reflect the actual it situation: A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch... The "Realm of New Zealand" doesn't fit that definition, not being a sovereign state, but some sort of collection.

I've raised this question earlier, but nobody seemed to care that we were screwing around with our readers. Could we, as a matter of urgency, work out something that doesn't confuse people by contradicting itself? Please? --Pete (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My proposal solves the problem inside the table. If you want the text can also be modified accordingly (clarifying the case of NZ realm/state exception).

So, any objections to my proposal for the table? Japinderum (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. Although you describe the three associated states as monarchies. But in light of the discussion, that would not appear to be the case. Their monarch seems to be the 'monarch in right of New Zealand'. If, as you have said (and it appears to be correct) New Zealand is the realm (realm = monarchy) then they can't be monarchies in their own right. Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The table looks good. My problem is the wording we use to define Commonwealth Realm in the lede. Is the Realm of New Zealand a sovereign state in its own right? A reader coming here for information is going to look at this and wonder why we cannot get our story straight. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That proposal is unacceptable as it lists the Realm of New Zealand as a Commonwealth realm when it patently is not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What we have as sources shows that "...the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part...", so clearly the current table is wrong in listing the state of New Zealand as a Commonwealth realm. That's what the proposal corrects. What do you think is the Realm of New Zealand? Do you have a source stating that the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm and the states of New Zealand, Cook Islands, Niue are three separate Commonwealth realms? I haven't seen such source. Japinderum (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The current table is not wrong. That New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm and that the Realm of New Zealand is not a country are both reliably sourced statements. There is no source that says the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. There is no source that says or even hints at the claim the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm because New Zealand is a part of the Realm of New Zealand. What you're presenting is original research. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"New Zealand [not the realm, but the state] is a Commonwealth realm" - please provide the source for that.

So, according to you - if the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm, then what is it?

"Realm of New Zealand is not a country" - that's what I said, so we both agree here. Japinderum (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

proposal

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
Realm of New Zealand New Zealand Cook Islands Niue	4.39	Monarchy of the realm of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

No further comments, so I assume the above should be implemented? Japinderum (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is counterfactual. The Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm. The constitutent parts of the Realm of New Zealand are under the sovereignty of the Queen of New Zealand; there is no Queen of the Realm of New Zealand.

If the Realm of New Zealand must be mentioned, it should be something like the following:

Country	Pop.	Monarchy	Date	Queen's Title	Sovereign's Royal Standard
New Zealand	4.39	Monarchy of New Zealand	1947	Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, for that you need a source stating that "The Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm. The state of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm".

Regarding "the Cook Islands and Niue as self-governing jurisdictions" - the sources (see above section) say those are independent sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to find a source to prove a negative. A source has already been provided affirming that New Zealand is the Commonwealth realm. Additionally, given the definition of a Commonwealth realm, the Realm of New Zealand cannot be one.

If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you proceed to the next step in the dispute resolution process. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you have to provide source for the positive "the state of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm". Above you say "A source ... affirming that New Zealand is the Commonwealth realm." - do you refer to the state NZ or to the realm NZ here? Where's that source?

"given the definition ... cannot be one" - that's no less WP:OR that the one you complain about at 15:52, 9 October 2012 above. Reaching conclusions for such sui generis, commonly overlooked case by combining two sentences of a website (albeit official one) that don't use exactly the same terms, etc. Opposing this interpretation (that leaves unanswered questions that you are kind to avoid) are other official sources, not websites, but signed diplomatic treaties - and they are not introducing contradicting discrepancies.

Also, the text in your proposal uses weaselish and ambiguous "jurisdictions" instead of "sovereign states" (per the sources given above).

Miesianiacal, you are the only one opposing the 13:46, 9 October 2012 proposal that Pete, Gazzster and me agreed on. Japinderum (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I see they agreed to your proposal. However, I was immediately confused by that, since they elsewhere express opposition to your justifications for your proposal. I'd prefer they clarify their positions.

Regardless, there's still no consenus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad to clarify. THought about this interesting topic for a while. Our deefinitionb states a CR is a sovereign state. The associated states don't fit that definition. I take the point that the states voluntarily give part of their sovereignty to NZ. A temporary and conditional surrender of sovereignty is however a surrender of sovereignty nevertheless. The clincher is the fact that the sovereign of these states is the Queen 'in right of New Zealand'. This is the declaration that the fount of sovereignty resides in the realm of New Zealand. If it were otherwise, the monarch of CI would be 'the Queen of thew Cook Islands' and so on. And I suppose, if they were to take back their sovereignty, as they could, separate monarchies would be proclaimed. So on reflection, I believe Mies's solution is the better one.Gazzster (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this from a distance for a little bit, and would have to agree with Gazz's rather succinctly put opinion. The other option seems to be a bit cumbersome at the least. Trackratte (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The "definition" source doesn't state anything about sovereign states (it uses the word "countries") and it doesn't give a definition either - Wikipedia editors pick two separate sentences from that source, introduce some changes to the terms utilized and compose the resulting definition. As I said at 07:11, 11 October 2012 - it can't be expected the result to be 100% accurate (e.g. doesn't cover the sui generis fringe case we discuss).

CI and Niue haven't surrendered any part of their sovereignty to NZ-the-state, but to NZ-the-realm. "Queen in the right of New Zealand" is about NZ-the-realm (Queen of the Realm), not NZ-the-state. See JCD item3. NZ-the-state, CI and Niue are "equals" inside the NZ-the-realm. Homonymity in the names doesn't confer any "superiority" rights to NZ-the-state in relation to the other sovereign states in the same realm - CI and Niue. Just as UK isn't superior to Canada and Australia - all three are "equals" inside the Commonwealth. You may also find interesting the Future of the Realm - it mentions options both-ways, e.g. including simultaneous existence of NZ republic (state) and NZ queen (of the realm, that NZ-the-state isn't part of anymore).

Here it's important to note that the CI-RNZ/Commonwealth arrangement (for head of state) is not related to the CI-NZ(the state) arrangement for "association". Either one of these can be changed without affecting the other.

CI and Niue are sovereign states - that's what the official sources given above show. What we have difficulty with are the realm questions:

1. Is New Zealand (the sovereign state) a Commonwealth realm?
2. Is Cook Islands (the sovereign state) a Commonwealth realm?
3. Is Niue (the sovereign state) a Commonwealth realm?
4. Is the Realm of New Zealand a Commonwealth realm?

I think the realm is a realm and the three states are the parts of that realm. JCD says "3 Head of State: 1. Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands. 2. In all matters affecting the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part, there will be close consultation between the Signatories." The realm NZ and the state NZ are clearly differentiated. NZ-the-state is part of the NZ-the-realm just as the Cook Islands-the-state is part of NZ-the-realm. I haven't seen any source stating that NZ-the-state itself is a Commonwealth realm and simultaneously stating what its relationship with the NZ-the-realm is. Most sources either use ambiguous terminology (thus it's unclear whether they refer to NZ-the-state or NZ-the-realm) or use it in a tongue in cheek manner ("NZ" in a list of other states after Australia, Tuvalu, Papua, UK, Canada, etc.) that isn't convincing and at the same time skips the issue of NZ-the-realm to NZ-the-state relationship (Is NZ-the-state "master of the realm" or "part of the realm"?). For Norfolk, dependency of Australia and Tokelau, dependency of NZ-the-state it's not a problem since there is a clear line of:

• Norfolk-Australia-Commonwealth and it doesn't change between:
• Tokelau-NZ(the state)-Commonwealth and
• Tokelau-NZ(the state)-NZ(the realm)-Commonwealth. But for:
• NZ(the state)-NZ(the realm)-Commonwealth and
• CI-NZ(the realm)-Commonwealth the distinction is important so that it's not wrongly portrayed as:
• CI-NZ(the state)-Commonwealth. Japinderum (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can we put this into the 'too hard' basket, and simply acknowledge we don't know how to categorise this relationship? WE could refer it to arbitration, or simply note the Realm ourselves as being outside the norm. No shame in that. Just because we have a box doesn't mean we have to stuff everything in that box!Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to just stick with sources. There's no source that's so far been presented that states the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, whereas the British monarchy website lists New Zealand as a Commonwealth realm. If there's to be mention of the Realm of New Zealand, it should only be in a footnote. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gazzster, that we lack a definitive outcome. My personal opinion is the the UK website is simplifying the issue without going in details. Also, the contradiction that it brings is "visible" only if you combine two separate parts of that source - the sentences "realms are countries" and "New Zealand" in the list (e.g. "New Zealand = the country, not the realm"). I assume the sentence "realms are countries" is a simplification and the "New Zealand" in the list really means "The Realm of New Zealand" and not "The country New Zealand". But OK, if we're going to stick to that simplification, then I suggest adding a note below the table. Not a footnote - it would be wrong if it's a footnote linked to the NZ-the-state row in the table, because that implies superior rank of NZ-the-state in relation to the other two sovereign states in the realm - and this contradicts the JCD and other sources provided above.

This discussion isn't about rank or precedence. It's about whether New Zealand or the Realm of New Zealand is one of the Commonwealth realms. There's no assuming the British monarchy's website lists New Zealand - not the Realm of New Zealand - as a Commonwealth realm; stating the website uses "New Zealand" as a contraction for "Realm of New Zealand" is the expression of an assumption. The assertion the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm is also an assumption.

Here, too, New Zealand is listed as a Commonwealth realm. Ditto for the CIA World Factbook. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ranking is implied if you place RNZ, CI and Niue as footnote to NZ. I don't think the realm of New Zealand is not a realm in the Commonwealth. I think this discrepancy comes out of simplification performed by the various source authors. Especially since we have the official JCD where it's stated that NZ is part of the RNZ. So, if your sources are 100% correct (instead of simplified), then a Commonwealth realm is part of another realm, whose other parts are not-a-Commonwealth-realms (CI and Niue). That's certainly highly improbable. Also, the footnote you proposes fails to mention the sovereign state status of CI and Niue. Japinderum (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Then don't include the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency at all. After all, this is an article about the Commonwealth realms, and they are not among them; they are merely either a terrtory of or in free association with the Commonwealth realm New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

So, you suggest that on the Commonwealth realm article we don't mention the Realm of New Zealand at all? Japinderum (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

proposal note

Realm of New Zealand

The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises of three sovereign states:

• Cook Islands
• New Zealand, homonymous with the realm, along with its dependent territories:
  • Tokelau
  • Ross Dependency
• Niue

OR

Realm of New Zealand

The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state. The Realm comprises of three sovereign states:

• Cook Islands
• New Zealand (with its dependent territories), homonymous with the realm
• Niue

Or something similar. In that way we avoid the issue of stating whether the Realm of NZ is a Commonwealth realm or not. Japinderum (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest using the second one. Anybody against? Japinderum (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still dubious Japinderum. I understand the concept of the self-limited and conditional sovereignty of the associated states. But if they are all absolutely sovereign states then they are separate monarchies, correct? But they are not. Their head of state is 'the Queen in right of New Zealand '. And they don't have a Governor-general, but a Queen's REpresentative. And what can the title 'Monarch of New Zealand' mean but the Queen is head of New Zealand first, and over the associated states insofar as they remain in association with New Zealand? And in that context, New Zealand is clearly the realm?Gazzster (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Their sovereignty isn't conditional or self-limited. They are internationally recognized fully independent sovereign states - for relations with everybody in the world (see plenty of sources above), but they decided to have a different special status in their bilateral relations with NZ-the-state so that they retain the common citizenship. The title 'Monarch of New Zealand' is about the NZ-the-realm, not NZ-the-state. See Clause 3 of JCD, where the head of state is described. Also, see "Future of the realm" at Realm of New Zealand - association and head of state are not coupled. Also, Palau is associated with the USA, but has different head of state.

The proposal here is to simultaneously keep the current table without any change and avoid stating what the Realm of New Zealand is. Japinderum (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So, is there any other proposal how to present the "Realm of New Zealand" or should we implement the one right above? Japinderum (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The second of the above seems fine. I must admit, I'm still unsure. Do we need to mention the associated states at all? Why would not 'Realm of New Zealand' suffice? Answering my own question, 'because the AS are sovereign states'. But to counter that, I might ask, isn't a realm a sovereign state? How can there be one juridical and legal independent monarchy composed of three independent states? 'A fine dilemma we have here, that calls for all our wit'. Gazzster (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that when one examines the fringes of the remnants of the British Empire, one encounters loose threads that can never be tied up neatly. It may be necessary to broaden the definition from "sovereign state" to "polity", which I suggest would encompass the Realm of New Zealand however it is viewed. --Pete (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Gazzster, the RNZ is not a sovereign state - that's clearly shown in the sources. About the 'how can there be one monarchy/realm composed of three independent states?' - I don't know, but that's what the sources show. I assume that in the late 19th and early 20th century there had been the same question 'could we implement a structure where there will be multiple sovereign states with the same head of state/monarch?' (UK+colonies, Australia, Canada, SA, NZ, etc.)

Pete, I agree.

OK, so I'll place the second variant from above. Japinderum (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I placed it, but Miesianiacal reverted with explanation "material not directly relevant to this article". I think the consensus here is that both a) it's relevant and b) second variant from above is the compromise agreed to be implemented.

If so, then somebody else can revert back to [5]. Japinderum (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your most recent edit. In fact, your proposal above makes no mention of the addition of a whole new section to this article dedicated to the Realm of New Zealand. The Realm of New Zealand is a topic that is, at best, tangential to that of the Commonwealth realms. Most of it is either in free association with or the territory of a Commonwealth realm. That's it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mies, I'm seeing a community of thought with one holdout. Does this extend to the acceptance of consensus? --Pete (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What you say you see doesn't align with reality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, my proposal is clearly titled "note", not "footnote" and in my comment in the above section published before the proposal I explain why footnote is not suitable. And it includes "Realm of New Zealand" with an ";" in front - just like it'll go in the article. Sorry, if I utilized equal signs instead of ";" - feel free to replace those.

Pete, you are correct. Please revert back to [6]. Japinderum (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A note isn't a section; notes go at the foot of pages in Wikipedia. And that matter is tangential to the main one in this discussion: This is not the article in which to go into any depth about the Realm of New Zealand. The Realm of New Zealand is a subject that is itself, at best, tangential to that of the article.

Threatening to revert war, even via a proxy, is not going to serve you well in the long run. You have no consensus to make the change you want to. I've already suggested you pursue the next step in the dispute resolution process. Why are you hesitating to do so? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You've had a good run on this, Mies, but as I say, you are the only holdout. You are outnumbered by n-1 to 1 where n is the number of editors in this discussion. Feel free to move on to dispute resolution. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For: 2. Against: 2. Unsure: 1. No consensus. Even 2 to 1 is not a consensus.

The onus is on the editor trying to change the status quo to get consensus to make the change, not the other way around. I believe you're aware of that; you should be by now, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WP:DEMOCRACY, so I don't see what your counting shows. As Pete already said - you are the sole dissenter. Footnotes go below, notes are textual. And that was explicitly explained in my comment preceding the proposal. Not going in depth - that's exactly what the compromise consensus proposal does. Before that there were multiple proposals (including your own) that did go in depth. Nobody is threatening a revert war - I did the edit, you reverted and then I asked - if I had got the consensus correctly somebody else (WP:THIRD) to put it back. There is no need for any further dispute resolution steps or processes in this case. We had a long discussion and reached a compromise consensus solution already. Of course, if you want - you can engage in other dispute resolution steps.

The compromise text [7] is the consensus one - please, somebody of those supporting the consensus to put it back. Japinderum (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody insinuated Wikipedia is a democracy. I said you have no consensus for the change you made; 1) a new section in the article was not what you actually proposed above and 2) I am not the only dissenter (in fact, the number of dissenters equaled (until Trackratte's comments below) the number of supporters, plus one unsure; even if this were a democracy, you don't "win"). The onus is on you - the one who wishes to make a new change to the status quo - to seek the consensus; i.e. taking the next step in the dispute resolution process is your responsibility, not mine. I'll ask for this page to be protected if you continue to encourage others to edit war on your behalf. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The aforementioned text (6) puts the Realm of New Zealand as a sub-title (1.1), which in my opinion is giving the subject far too much attention (which I imagine the 'average' reader would consider simple semantics anyways). Second, the assertion that "the realm comprises of three soverign states" is debatable, as even the wikipedia article for Niue states "Niue is in free association with New Zealand and thereby lacks full sovereignty". Granted, I may not have given the issue my fullest attention, however from an 'outsider' perspective, I fail to see why a note (add a sixth to the five already present) stating something to the effect of "The Realm of New Zealand is the entire area in which the Queen in right of New Zealand is head of state, and includes the Cook Islands, New Zealand and Niue.", without getting into issues of sovereignty. Getting deep into the weeds on a general article such as this is needless, especially when one could simply click on the 'Realm of New Zealand' wiki-link if they are interested in exploring the subject in greater depth. Trackratte (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If I can speculate for a moment (and, anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but), I think Japinderum's desire to add a new section focusing on the Realm of New Zealand is an attempt to make it appear to readers that the Realm of New Zealand is at least possibly a Commonwealth realm. This is regarded by Japinderum as a "compromise" because it takes a step back from the full, unambiguous assertion he started out with, namely that the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. It isn't of service to readers to introduce such uncertainty, especially since it's based on original research. As I've said a number of times, the Realm of New Zealand is a tangential subject to the subject of this article and therefore a note is all it deserves, at most. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I already said it doesn't need to be "section" (equal signs) - it can be a simple note (with ";") as in the proposal above - it seems this explanation isn't enough, I'll do such edit so you can see.

I don't encourage edit war - I encourage other editors (WP:THIRD) to implement the consensus compromise reached for you to see it's reached. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. You're free to propose a change to that consensus at whatever venues you choose and with whatever means you choose.

As I said above placing Realm of New Zealand as footnote to the NZ-state entry in the list improperly implies that the realm is subordinate to the state (which isn't the case, as shown in the sources). Sovereignty for the states in the realm is confirmed by multiple sources - see above.

Realm of New Zealand is not a tangential subject to the subject of this article, but it's an uncertainty in the sense that we have one source, albeit official, which in tangential manner addresses the matter. I'm kind to avoid any uncertainty, but since you insist on utilizing this confused source we reached this compromise. Eventually we'll find a source that properly addresses the matter in detail and then the uncertainty will be resolved one way or another. Japinderum (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Having a note linking to the sub-title within the same article (even if it's not marked up as a sub-title this time) is still giving the issue far too much importance. Let the reader know that the Cook Islands and Nieu exist with a wiki-link to Realm of New Zealand and that is more than sufficient for the purpose of this article. This long, protracted debate on this talk page should be happening on that (Realm of...) page and not this one. For a test of that principle, think of how this debate affects ALL of the Commonwealth realms. If it is only centred on an individual 'realm', then perhaps it should be discussed on that realm's page. Trackratte (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What's there now and how it's presented seems fine. I wonder, though, why the note is in the group at the bottom of the page, rather than at the bottom of the table, as other table notes are. Not a big deal; I just don't see the rationale. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Having it at the bottom of the table would make more sense. Trackratte (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The text as it stands is not misleading one way or the either. There seems no compelling reason to edit.Gazzster (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted a footnote lumping together sovereign states and dependencies in a single list that's also not ordered alphabetically but by some ORish "seniority" perception; placing Realm of NZ as footnote to NZ-the-state wrongly implies the realm to be its subordinate.

The discussion is here, because the Realm of New Zealand should be mentioned in this article (or shouldn't - that's why we have a discussion). Cook Islands and Niue are equally part of the realm as NZ-the-state (source provided above). That's why the realm can't be placed as a footnote to NZ-the-state. The other way around is possible (listing the realm in the table) [8], but wasn't accepted by some editors. That's why the compromise [9] was proposed where the table remains per the status quo and a minimum content note (not footnote) about RNZ is added to the article. I think the Realm of New Zealand, as an unique case among the Commonwealth realms, is important enough to be mentioned - at least in this way with minimum content and explanation (since we don't agree on what the explanation is). Readers should be aware of the existence of this unique arrangement. Japinderum (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is already agreement here that it is important enough, as you keep on saying, to mention. It was mentioned in fact, until it was just removed by you. The list itself is called 'Current Commonwealth Realms', which is clearly used within an international context. These other nations which you would like referenced within the article are represented, internationally, by NZ the state (if I have misunderstood what has been previously written here in regards to such, please let me know). Subsequently, I do not see anything glaringly incorrect with having the Realm of New Zealand represented within this list by the New Zealand (state) flag and wiki-link. The other columns (Monarchy, Date, Queen's Title, Queen's Royal Standard), are all completely correct as all of the nations use the same monarch. Therefore, having an attached note letting the reader know that such a subtlety exists within the context of NZ the realm, while providing a wiki-link to the more in-depth article on the subject, is more than enough for a general article such as this. If you really dislike the idea of the explanatory note, perhaps consensus could be gained to change the wikilink in the list to New Zealand the Realm, as opposed to the state. Trackratte (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion on whether the Realm of New Zealand should be mentioned or not. It is mentioned, and everyone seems fine with that.

The Realm of New Zealand is mentioned in a footnote to New Zealand's entry in the table because the table lists the current Commonwealth realms, New Zealand is currently a Commonwealth realm, and the Realm of New Zealand is not. Simple.

The order in which the constituent parts of the Realm of New Zealand are shown in the note also makes sense: New Zealand is mentioned first because it was a country first and is the country of which the Cook Islands and Niue used to be annexes and protectorates and which granted the Cook Islands and Niue their self-government, initiating the free association relationship. New Zealand is further the country of which the Tokelau and the Ross Dependency are territories. The Cook Islands and Niue (in that alphabetical (and chronologically aligned with their attainment of self-government) order) preceed Tokelau and the Ross Dependency because the Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing terrotories with a certain degree of autonomy, whereas Tokelau and the Ross Dependency (though, their order of mention in the note could be reversed to make it alphabetical) are simply territories with no self-government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any distinction between New Zealand as a state and as an association of states as far as the monarchy is concerned. There is no monarchy of New Zealand the state, as distinct from a monarchy of Niue or the Cook Islands. AS Trackette has stated, the Governor-general of New Zealand represents the monarchy in all the states.So the text and flag as it stands would seem to be adequate.Gazzster (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, it can't be mentioned just in any way you wish, so I'll again revert to the status quo version before the start of this discussion - until we reach consensus how to mention it. "the Realm of New Zealand is not a Commonwealth realm" - you don't have a direct source for that. The order is also purely interpretative and POV/ORish and it lumps totally different type of entities together (three sovereign states and two dependencies). Japinderum (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a reliable source that says the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. It's up to you to prove, using a reliable source or a few reliable sources, without engaging in original research, that the Realm of New Zelaand is a Commonwealth realm.

The Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand list the constituent parts of the Realm of New Zealand in the same order as I (and the authors of the article Realm of New Zealand) did. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Trackratte, CI and Niue are not "represented internationally by NZ the state" - see sources provided above (12:12, 23 September 2012, 07:44, 29 September 2012 and others). Representing the Realm as a footnote to the state is incorrect, because in the real world it's the other way around - the state is part of the realm (see above source for "Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands and New Zealand are part"). Changing the wikilink to link to the Realm was rejected by some editors. I disagree with them, so you have my support to try to convince them to accept it. Japinderum (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Realm" wiki-page in reference to Cook Islands and Niue lead me to believe that NZ represents them in foreign affairs ("In foreign affairs and defence issues New Zealand acts on behalf of these countries but only with their advice and consent."), and that they have no embassies overseas except for High Commisions in the capital of NZ, which cannot be said to be international per se. This same page portrays Tokelau as less independant than the Cook Islands and Niue, with the Ross Dependancy being "constitutionally part of New Zealand". I'm not saying that the Realm of New Zealand page is accurate, I'm saying that this debate should be happening there. Once concensus is gained within the community as to what exactly is the status of the Realm of New Zealand and its constituent parts, then discussion can ensue here about how to best reflect that within the list of Commonwealth Realms.

Additionally, the argument in regards to this specific table is not about whether these nations are 'sovereign' or not. Whatever sources say they are, have no influence on their inclusion on this list. The reference required is a list of Commonwealth Realms which include these countries (Niue, Cook Islands, etc), thereby credibly proving that these nations are Commonwealth Realms in and of themselves. The table isn't entitled 'Independant Nations within the Commonwealth', but "Current Commonwealth Realms". The sources that portray an official list of Commonwealth Realms are all lacking these nations which you wish to include. Trackratte (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The foreign relations (they establish their own diplomatic relations - unrelated to NZ), embassies (they post ambassadors abroad and accept foreign ambassadors accreditations) of CI and Niue are not discussed here, but at the respective foreign relations and list of diplomatic missions pages. For the sovereignty you can see the sources above and also a long discussion preceding their current inclusion in the List of sovereign states.

The dispute here is not about CI and Niue inclusion in the list of Commonwealth realms, but about NZ-the-state inclusion. The status quo list includes NZ-the-state, but some editors (including myself) position is that the Realm of NZ is the Commonwealth realm - and thus the suggestion to replace NZ-the-state in the list with NZ-the-realm. That wasn't accepted by other editors and then we began arguing over whether the Realm of NZ is a Commonwealth realm and whether NZ-the-state is a Commonwealth realm. There is agreement that RNZ should be mentioned in the article, but it was disputed how to do it. That's why a compromise [10] was proposed that stays clear of making changes to the table or making statements about what the RNZ is. Japinderum (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This really is rather simple: Do you or do you not have a reliable source that says the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm? Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources stating that NZ is Commonwealth realm - without specifying whether they refer to NZ-the-state or NZ-the-realm. Also, the compromise proposal above doesn't specify whether it's a Commonwealth realm or not - it simply mentions the Realm of New Zealand below the table with the Commonwealth realms. Japinderum (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So, the answer to my question is: no; no sources say the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, they all say New Zealand is. It's just that you choose to interpret any use of the term "New Zealand" as a possible synonym for "Realm of New Zealand", when there's no indication that "New Zealand" has ever been used in a source in such a way. That's therefore not a reliable way of sourcing.

If the "compromise" doesn't know whether the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm or not, nor does it outline any question in academia over whether or not the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm, why use it? Other than to insinuate the Realm of New Zealand is some quasi-Commonwealth realm, that is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the entire argument for inclusion of these other nations in the list is based on synthesis. My two cents behind the reasoning of the official references (the ones that clearly and explicitly list the Commonwealth Realms): New Zealand (the state) is a Commonwealth Realm. The only reason these other 'nations' are part of this Realm, and by extension the Commonwealth Realms in general, are due to their voluntarily having the same head of state, the Queen of New Zealand. If they ever adopt their own head of state and become a fully independent republic, or have Queen Elisabeth II as Queen in right of (insert nation here), then they would no longer be part of the Realm of New Zealand, and would be the Republic of Cook Islands or the Realm of Cook Islands for example. As it stands now, they are not, by definition, fully independent states. If the Cook Islands became a fully independent monarchy, then I would imagine they would have a place in this list. Until then, they are represented within the Commonwealth by New Zealand (state), and therefore I see no problem with the current status quo. Trackratte (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, whether the sources refer to the state (as you imply) or the realm - is equally unknown. I don't interpret anything - I just answered your question about sources. Your source about NZ-the-state being a Commonwealth realm is quite indirect and shaky as explained above. The compromise note is not to insinuate anything, but just a way to mention the Realm of NZ in the minimal NPOV way possible - without giving any Wikipedia editors interpretations about its nature. I assume you don't argue that the Commonwealth realm article should not mention the Realm of New Zealand at all.

Trackratte, nobody is proposing to include Cook Islands and Niue in the list of Commonwealth realms. They are not Commonwealth realms. They are parts of one such realm. The third part of that realm is the state New Zealand. NZ-CI JCD of 2001: "the Realm of New Zealand, of which the Cook Islands

and New Zealand are part". And they are fully independent right now, not in the future. Their head of state is the queen of the common realm - shared by the three independent states, not the head of state of NZ-the-state. That's clearly stated in the sources. The problem with the status quo is that it doesn't mention the Realm of NZ. The problem with the footnote Miesianiacal proposed is that it's kind of biased (I explained why when he added it). Do you see any problem in [11]? Japinderum (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do see a problem with [12]. We've been over this before, and are just turning in circles. [13] was a compromise that I think three people expressed support for, until you restored the status quo. What source explicitly states that they are fully independant, and that the Queen of NZ is in reference to a wider realm, and not to the state (realm). Trackratte (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity about what the sources are referring to, because the name of New Zealand is "New Zealand" and the name of the Realm of New Zealand is "Realm of New Zealand". You act as though the two can be used interchangably; yet, there's no basis on which to build that belief; where has "New Zealand" ever been used to refer to the Realm of New Zealand?

I too find it odd that there was general agreement to include a note about the Realm of New Zealand, yet you deleted it and are continuing to argue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Trackratte, you don't explain what problem do you see with the note-proposal. Miesianiacal&Trackratte, the other, footnote-proposal is inappropriate for reasons I already explained above multiple times. What source explicitly states that they are fully independent - many sources, including official NZ and UN ones - see above. About the queen I just quoted part of the source in my previous post - see section "Head of State" in the 2001 NZ-CI JCD. Japinderum (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not proposing a note, so stop calling it that. You're proposing a sub-section in the "Current Commonwealth realms" section. It's already been said more than once by more than one editor that to do what you propose would be to give the subject matter undue weight.

If you want to keep pursuing the goal of having that sub-section added, please follow the dispute resolution process. I don't think there's any more any of us can say from now on without repeating ourselves. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a subsection - it utilizes ";" title. It's a ";" note below the table. Japinderum (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The bolded heading (resuting from a ";" in the code) does not connote a note in the article. But, fine; nor does it technically make a new sub-section. So, what you're proposing a addition to the "Current Commonwealth realms" section proper, which even more affirms that this is some attempt to at least suggest the Realm of New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm; because that's certainly how it came across when the material was presented your way. No such suggestion is warranted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you think the section where I placed it is problematic, let's put it in "Relationship of the realms" (on the bottom with ";") or "The Crown in the Commonwealth realms" (various formatting/placing options here)? Japinderum (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's "no"? The problem is not the place or you don't like the new places I propose? And why. Japinderum (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to end all this, why not only add the footnote saying "New Zealand comprises as part of the Realm of New Zealand." and be done with it. Anyone wanting to know more about it can click the wikilink to that article. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We had something close to that until Japinderum deleted it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

All three parts of the realm should be represented in an equal way Section 3, which wasn't the case with the Miesianiacal text (see explanation in thread above). Japinderum (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I ordered them exactly as they are in the Letters Patent, as explained above.

This is becoming ridiculously repetitive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the year of the letters patent? Also, as I explained above there are other issues such as implying that NZ-Realm is subordinate to the NZ-state, which is not true. Japinderum (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

General definition

Elizabeth II, only, shouldn't be in the definition; realms will in principle continue under her successors. I tried "UK monarch", rejected as pov (is it?). Have now tried "Elizabeth II or successor". If anybody has a better, not time-limited, definition, it's needed. Pol098 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying "UK monarch" is pov, since it names one of the 16 realms only, which would lead the reader to believe either that a) the UK has a superior statuts among the realms, b) the realms are under the sovereignty of the UK, or c) both, when neither is correct.

As I explained in my edit summary, "[the realms] have as head of state Elizabeth II or a successor" reads as though some realms have Elizabeth II as head of state, while some have her successor.

I wonder if changing "head of state" to "reigning constitutional monarch" will suffice, since constitutional monarchs implicitly have successors. The only other alternatives I can think of are very wordy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Historically it all derives from the English monarchy, but it's probably a sensitive issue best avoided. I'm looking for an otherwise acceptable form of words which will leave, say, a hard copy or stored copy of the article still making sense after a change of monarch (wp:dated). It's hard to find a generic, independent of incumbent, definition. "... recognise Elizabeth II, or after the end of her reign, a successor, as their monarch" (or head of state)? Avoiding wordiness isn't a reason to use an inaccurate defintion.

As a separate issue, it is relevant enough for the first paragraph to point out that "Commonwealth realm" is not a formal or official concept; if it is objected to on the grounds of being unsourced (which it is), then the following must equally be excised: "The qualified term of Commonwealth Realm is not official, and has not been used in law; rather, it is a term of convenience for distinguishing this group of realms from other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that do not share the same monarch in a degree of personal union." In fact, I'd suggest a brief clause about this in the first sentence, with the detail in the body, and will start trying to sort this out. Pol098 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I insinuated that accuracy should be sacrificed for brevity; it's possible to be accurate and succinct. A possible addition to the present wording might be: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms." (?)

The fact that "Commonwealth realm" isn't an official term doesn't require sourcing; it's the extended explanation of what the term is (the "term of convenience" part you mention above) that seems a bit WP:OR. I don't completely object to the inclusion of that extra explanation, but I don't think the lead is the place for it. Nor do I think the "Current Commonwealth realms" (as the header should remain) section is, either. Perhaps a history and explanation of the term itself might be a useful addition to the article as a stand-alone section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

-It might not be an official term, but I've found the following sources supporting the use of the term 'commonwealth realm':

-"University of British Colombia legal notes, volume 2", page 172 (year:1962):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=27FEAQAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realm&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o1tiT4DwJea00QW725iKCA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA

'Each of the commonwealth realms has superimposed on it a national citizenship'

-The CIA World Factbook 2012 describes each of the countries described on the British Monarchy website as 'Commonwealth realms'; for example, the Bahamas:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=o4lyrrsX0-wC&pg=PT302&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OlxiT-q0HaK20QWtn_GGCA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false

"Government type: constitutional parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm"

-The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts, page 171 (2010):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=U05OvsOPeKMC&pg=PA171&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mFiT6aIHsnC0QWvufm6CA&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCDgK#

"Although it remains a commonwealth realm with strong ties to Great Britain"

The World Factbook: (regarding New Zealand):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=w6UgzYKpcZIC&pg=PT3343&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BF1iT4--BqWe0QX09uyOCA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBjgK

"Government type: parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm"

Encyclopedia of world constitutions: (Gabon to Norway): Volume 2 - Page 769:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PA769&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=I15iT4TwFoSu8QPttLivCA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false

"The Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis is an independent Commonwealth realm"

"Commonwealth Realm" by Frederic P Miller, Agnes F Vandome, John McBrewster:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JFbaQgAACAAJ&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nl5iT_KbN-Oj0QWdr8SQCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

"A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch"

-Commonwealth and Colonial Law, by Sir Kenneth Roberts-Wray, 1966 (page 16):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2WOuAAAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realms&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nl5iT_KbN-Oj0QWdr8SQCA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA

"Commonwealth State," even with a definition, is unsuitable, since there are States in the Commonwealth of Australia and in Malaysia, and the State of Brunei is not a Member of the Commonwealth. "Commonwealth Realms" would not be ..."

The New Zealand law journal: NZLJ.: Volume 51; Volume 51 (1976), page 31:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=CtYxAQAAIAAJ&q=commonwealth+realms&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yl9iT-XlCuLB0QW7v42XCw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAjgK

"The view that the Commonwealth Realms are "kingdoms in their own right" is..."

Prince William and Kate, a Royal Romance, 2011: (page 12):

http://books.google.ca/books?id=u7hQAAZqQYYC&pg=PA12&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yl9iT-XlCuLB0QW7v42XCw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false

"The ruling monarch (king or queen) is the formal head of state for sixteen nations known as the Commonwealth Realms. These include the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and others"

Kings and Queens of England, 2007:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=uJ-lNQG45IAC&pg=PT187&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nWBiT9bQNMGn0QW41OS6CA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false"The year saw a large tour of the Commonwealth Realms"

Chases Calendar of Events, 2012 Edition - Page 60:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=MPIyHo-BWPkC&pg=PA60&dq=commonwealth+realms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D2FiT7qSD4mx0QWeicW4CA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realms&f=false

"2012: The United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms celebrate 60 years of Queen Elizabeth II's reign with a four-day holiday weekend"

Solomon Islands Business and Investment Opportunities Yearbook - Page 8:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=biCkUeIoKjsC&pg=PA8&dq=commonwealth+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dGJiT4THI4Km0QXRwYnACA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20realm&f=false "The country remains a Commonwealth Realm"JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How about: "A Commonwealth realm is one of the sixteen (16) separate kingdoms within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and shares a common royal line of succession with the other realms." The Monarch is the same in all, the bottom-line is they're sparate Kingdoms with a shared HoS. I think we confuse people unfamiliar with the structure when we say 16 separate monarchies. CaribDigita (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any realm bar the United Kingdom is comfortable at being called "a kingdom". Australia calls itself a commonwealth - a term that apparently caused some Victorian unease -Saint Kitts and Nevis calls itself a federation and so on. I don't think any of them puts (say) "Kingdom of Belize" on their banknotes. Check our articles for each realm and the only hits on the word "kingdom" occur as part of "United Kingdom". --Pete (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between official name and the actual form of Government practiced. Mainland China is the People's Republic of China which has a democratic ring, (even while it was "socialist" and therefore controlled by an elite group.), North Korea is also known as the "People's Democratic Republic of Korea", and yet by most western standards I don't believe many in the west would consider it "democratic". Whether a realm is a "Commonwealth of", "Federation of", or "Confederation of", do these realms cease to be separate kingdoms with a monarch as their Head of State? Kinda hard to deny when term's like "Crown copyright", "Crown corporation", there's oaths which are taken in the Monarch's name, and the various Parliaments of the realms acknowledge royalty in their separate Constitution. CaribDigita (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think geopolitical entities have any kind of feeling, discomfort or otherwise. A country with a king or queen as its head of state is, by definition, a kingdom, regardless of its official name. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "Geopolitical entity"! Problem solved! --21:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous. There are many types of geopolitical entity. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to "sovereign state", a definition which apparently excludes one of the realms? --Pete (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, on both counts. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear, by your proposal, to define the "Realm of New Zealand" as a "kingdom". How does that work, then? --Pete (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I said "no". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a night of passion, just an explanation. If you can't do that, chill. Please. --Pete (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I mentioned the kingdom part. That's what they are in simplistic terms. Separate kingdoms with a shared individual / Monarch & Royal family. That wouldn't mean the country's official name is "kingdom of", but by virtue of having that system of government that's what they are. The name of the U.S.A's article isn't the "Federal presidential constitutional republic of the United States of America" even though that's the system of government that it is. Barbados isn't the "Parliamentary democracy under constitutional monarchy of Barbados" even though that's what it is.

By MoS convention of Wikipedia, if something isn't part of the actual noun I believe it is supposed to be placed in parenthesis (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)). So the article about the kingdom of New Zealand could be New Zealand (Commonwealth realm) , while the country *could* remain as "New Zealand" (per WP:Most common name and in line with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)) or, if *neither* should take dominance. A disambiguation at "New Zealand" with a link to one as something like "New Zealand (country)" and the other "New Zealand (Commonwealth realm)" or "New Zealand (Kingdom)" etc. There's no perfect way about this. There's two subject areas, both with the same name, so they might have to disambiguate like Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). If everyone is holding out for a noun that sums all this up in one word that will be a long wait. It may be best to just disambiguate this. -- CaribDigita (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the name of the Australian nation is "Commonwealth of Australia". It is commonplace to call Australia a constitutional monarchy, but it would be very unusual to find a RS calling Australia a kingdom. I believe that this would be the case for the other realms. Except for the United Kingdom, of course. --Pete (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, by definition; Australia is not a kingdom. The official descriptive adjective for the state is 'Commonwealth'so that's what it is. Just because a state is headed by a king or queen doesn't neccesarily make it a 'kingdom', but obviously, it is a monarchy, as it has the queen as its head of state. But then; look at the nomenclature employed by all the other commonwealth realms: Papua New Guinea is an 'Independent state',Saint Kitts and Nevis is a 'Federation' Australia and the Bahamas are 'commonwealths', Canada (although questionably still legally called a 'Dominion'), Barbados, Grenada, New Zealand, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Belize, Jamaica, (but New Zealand was officially called 'Dominion' until 1946.) have no adjective describing them; and of the former commonwealth realms, Nigeria was a 'Federation', South Africa was a 'Union', Pakistan, India, Newfoundland and Fiji were 'Dominions', Ireland was a 'Free State', Malta was a 'State', and Sierra Leone, Ceylon, Mauritius, the Gambia, Uganda, Kenya, Guyana, Malawi, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and Tanganyika had no adjective describing them. But nonetheless, all the above were monarchies, but not kingdoms, even if headed by a king or queen. Having a King or Queen as Head of State does not mean your state is a 'Kingdom'. Spain is officially called simply 'Spain'; but its Head of State is a King. Japan has an Emperor; but the state is officially called simply 'Japan'. Hell; Poland until 1795 was headed by a King; but was officially a 'Republic'. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The very definition of a kingdom is "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen",[14] and Australia is just that. There are sources defining Canada (a federated constitutional monarchy just like Australia) as a kingdom. The presence of "Commonwealth" or "Dominion" or whatever in the country's name is irrelevant.

Regardless, this is an academic debate, since I don't think there's any serious proposal to change the article to say "kingdom" at this point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lost links

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

Referendum of the Falkland Islands

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

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

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

They, it, and the

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could be. Qexigator (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content of Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So: two revised proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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