Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

We need a source

We need a reliable source. All the synthesis in the world cannot make a reliable source say something they did not. If we do not have a reliable source saying that the Irish Free State is a Commonwealth Realm during the period when it existed, then we cannot call it a "former Realm". It was never one in the first place. We can call it a "former Dominion", and that solution was proposed earlier.

Apparently the notion of having a nice tidy table supersedes the need for reliable sources. I say bullshit. I say find the source. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:RSN here. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

At WP:RSN, they want a source to evaluate its reliability. Fair enough. But when I go looking for a source to justify Ireland's inclusion, whether as a Realm or a Dominion, current or former, I don't find the multiple sources promised. I don't find any sources at all! Could someone put up a source, please? You know, in the article. Everything in the article needs a source. That's pretty basic stuff, people. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Await clarification

On the question of the status of Ireland as a "Commonwealth realm", for the time being it would be more practical to await clarification about some of the points at issue resulting from the projected proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional position of former dominions in connection with the Perth Agreement. Meantime, there is no need for editors to exaggerate, distort or invent a terminological problem. Everyone here will know that realm and dominion are already referenced in the lead by links which link to Wiktionary, and Commonwealth has a Wiktionary link. Online dictionaries are also available. Qexigator (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In line with Qex's comment above, and my own above that, I suggest we put in a note for now as a temporary solution, pending potential new information which may settle the matter. This way, we will not have to launch into another long debate on whether we should create a new table, what to call it, and subsquently how we will change all of the 'start' dates for the rest of the contries, as if we accept that the title of the article doesn't apply as of 1931, this opens an entirely new can of worms (or else we delete the start dates altogether). In any event, there would be a lot of various changes and options to discuss/argue over as a result. All of which would be started by something rather ambiguous and refutable to begin with.
My suggested temporary clarifying note would be something along the lines of this:
"Although the Irish Free State is listed as a former Commonwealth realm here, this classification remains contentious. The term “Commonwealth realm” was not used to refer to this grouping of countries until after the Irish Free State had already left the Commonwealth. During its time within the Commonwealth, the Irish Free State was classified simply as a “Dominion”, and not a “Realm”. For further information, please see Irish Free State." trackratte (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
List it as a former Dominion. That's the solution proposed first up and it works. All the footnotes in the world don't make up for the lack of a source. We put up something unsourced in large print and tell the truth in small print? That's not right. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It is because there are various awkward complexities and ramifications, some of which have been mentioned, that the article should be as non-committal and unobtrusive as can be about the status of the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland. We are not, I think, purporting to create a "classificaion", merely to present given information as succinctly as words allow, with the aid of a tabular format. But whatever is presented in the article, it should not be as if editors were unaware that, unlike the other countries designated as "dominions" (as in: "In a plural form, Old Dominions, this term is used as a reference to historical parts of the British Empire, most often Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa),[1] Ireland had not been a British colony (we cannot rely on readers themselves being clear about this); and that, centuries before the formation of the Irish Free State, and before the founding of colonies in what came to be known as north America, and other colonies in the southern hemisphere, which later became "dominions", Ireland had been formally named as a Dominion under the kings of the realm of England;[2] until, in the reign of Henry VIII the parliament of Ireland passed "An Act that the King of England, his Heirs and Successors, be Kings of Ireland" (Crown of Ireland Act 1542) and its feudal status of Dominion lapsed. This was part of the background to the revival of the term by statesmen in the 20c. in connection with the advancement of constitutional independance for some of the colonies of the later era, extending from the time of the founding of the Colony of Virginia (later, Commonwealth of Virginia, one of the federated states of USA, nickname "Old Dominion"), and on from there to the time of the "Imperial Parliament" (19-20cc.). Note that Irish general election, 1918 mentions: "In the aftermath of the elections, Sinn Féin's elected members refused to attend the Imperial Parliament in Westminster (London), and instead formed a parliament in Dublin, the First Dáil (Irish for "Assembly"), which declared Irish independence as a republic. The Irish War of Independence was conducted under this revolutionary government who sought international recognition, and set about the process of state-building."
--With that in mind, the section Dominions emerge could be improved by some copyediting: the Irish Free State was factually not party to the 1907 Imperial Conference, nor had the IFS been one of the "former colonies" to which "the term Dominion was extended", but seems to have been indiscriminately bundled up with them here. Qexigator (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Er, the legal challenge of the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 is meaningless to this debate. It won't tell us whether or not the Irish Free State was as independent post-1931 as was Canada, Australia, Ceylon, South Africa, etc., nor whether or not countries that had all the qualities of what we today call a Commonwealth realm but were known as Dominions and ceased to have the qualities of what we today call a Commonwealth realm before the term "Commonwealth realms" replaced "the UK, Ireland, and the Dominions" should be mentioned in this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
ummmm... not meaningless if the proceedings in the Supreme Court are taken into consideration, and these issues are not being looked at without the width and depth required for any of it to be meaningful. Is any more known about those proceedings? Not until judgment is delivered will it be known whether anything in it gives any sidewind for the issues sailing here. An aversion to mention of the Perth Agreement may be a disadvantage. Qexigator (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see opening para. of this section. Judicial reasoning on constitutional points sometimes covers aspects not anticipated by the parties or bystanders. Of course, it may be that the proceedings never get that far or are overtaken by events, but it could be more practical to wait awhile than prolong a discussion which seems to be expressing too much untutored private opinion about certain aspects of the topic with too little regard for editorial presentation. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I obviously did read the first post in this section. This article has plenty of sources on which its content is built. To determine what to do with the Irish Free State/Ireland and India here, we needn't wait for a ruling from the Quebec Superior Court (assuming the court will even hear the case) on whether or not S.41 of the Canadian Constituton Act 1982 must be followed in order to amend the line of succession to the Canadian throne. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, obviously I have not doubted that the article "has plenty of sources on which its content is built", but not forgetting above, 20:32, 20 June: "The best confirmatory sources would be parliamentary and government records such as the one you have linked...". Subject to there being more and better of that kind, I am proposing waiting for a ruling from the Federal Supreme Court, for the reason given above, and per Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013.- Other provinces?: noting that "...Nicholson may opt to refer arguments straight to the Supreme Court for one definitive ruling". (Had supposed it obvious you were aware of that.) Qexigator (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, let me put it this way: If any court decides to hear the case and if the ruling it makes contains anything pertinent to this article or that would make it a good reference for something already in this article (though, I doubt that it would be, given the parameters of the challenge), then great, use it. But, there's no reason we have to stop with what we have been dealing with and wait.
Trackratte proposed a note. I see some minor problems with it; but, it's a start towards an end to all this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I propose a source. Footnotes and synthesis just don't cut it. If we are going to describe something as a former realm, then we must have a contemporary source saying it was a realm. Otherwise it's a former dominion, and we can source that just fine. --Pete (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, more people here are amenable to a note explaining the details around the Irish Free State/Ireland's (and, by extension, India's) place in the table. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Mies. 20:43 and 20:19, 25 June, and in particular no switch per Pete/Sky. unless can be supported by Court judgment when/if delivered, but meantime, further confirmatory parliamentary or government records should be added if can be found. The weakness of Pete's position is shown by 20:35 and 20:52, 25 June below. Qexigator (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think consensus over-rides the need for a source, Mies. And I've noticed that when it's something you want to keep, you say seek consensus before changing, but when it's something new that you introduce, you say seek consensus before reverting! I think that the bottom line is that a reliable source trumps synthesis, and we don't need consensus to go against the need for a source. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please keep the personal commentary to yourself, especially when it's erroneous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I call 'em as I see 'em, brother. We've been knocking heads for many years and we know each other's little ways. Just sayin'! --Pete (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear here, we are all here for the same reason: to provide the most accurate information we can, in a readily available and digestible format to the average reader.

With that in mind, I think we can work together to arrive at a reasonable compromise, if only until new information becomes known. And remember, we are here to improve the article “using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense”.

  1. I think we can all agree that we all want to improve this article, regardless of whatever emotional attachments some may have.
  2. I think we can agree that providing the reader with all of the relevant information is more important than exactly how this information is presented.
  3. We have a referenced, official definition and set of criteria that we can follow.
  4. This criteria applies equally to all of the countries presently on this list, and has concrete and thoroughly referenced dates from which point this criteria applies.
  5. The proposed compromise of providing an explanatory note offers the reader all of the information within its context as it applies to the Irish Free State. Even though some may disagree with the exact method used in its presentation, the information that both sides want portrayed is still portrayed, which is our primary goal here.
  6. The simple removal of the Irish Free State from the article completely, as Pete has just done, does not address any of the fundamental issues that have been brought up here, and creates several new ones.
  7. All of the new issues that would result from the removal of the Irish Free State will take a lot of time and discussion to resolve, and it is not at all clear if these issues are even resolvable in a way that would be satisfactory to all parties.
  8. The currently suggested way forward allows us to come to a reasonable consensus and push out the information that both sides want to right now, instead of getting bogged down in potentially months more discussion on ever widening issues.

As for references, here's a couple:

Dominion and realm are interchangeable terms, but with historical and contemporary preferences for either term:

  • Commonwealth Nations Research Society “members of the Commonwealth which are the Queen's realms, along with their dependencies, are officially known in legislation as Her Majesty’s Dominions.”
  • Atlas of Empire : “Many British colonies that were granted independence from the United Kingdom became Commonwealth Realms, formerly known as Dominions”, and “Ireland … Time as Dominion or Commonwealth Realm … 15 years, 3 days”

Irish Free State as a former “Commonwealth realm”:

  • Political Geography Now: “Map of the Commonwealth realms… former realms in light blue” (Ireland is shaded in light blue on the map).
  • Atlas of Empire: “Monarchies in Commonwealth Realms … There are a total of 18 former realms which are now republics … Ireland … Became Dominion or Realm … 1922” (Ireland is included in the table of ‘former realms’).trackratte (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
These are the references you are relying on? Seriously? That's it?
  1. None of them are contemporary. For the Irish Free State to be a "Former Commonwealth Realm", it has to have been a Commonwealth Realm to begin with. If we don't have a source saying something like "The Irish Free State is a Commonwealth Realm" that dates from the time the Irish Free State existed (1922-1937) then it cannot have been a Commonwealth Realm. Anything else is applying today's labels to yesterday's objects. It would be like including the 1935-1950 Douglas DC-3 in a list of Boeing aircraft because the Douglas Aircraft Company merged in 1967 with McDonnell Aircraft to form McDonnell Douglas which was in turn merged with Boeing in 1997. The DC-3 was never a Boeing and the Irish Free State was never a Commonwealth Realm.
  2. These are very low-level tertiary sources. None of them in any way official or authoritative. They are special-interest pages generated by amateur enthusiasts. Akin to a blogsite. Not scholarly publications. Not government publications. Not mainstream publications. These are fringe views.
  3. The references are tangential. At best, they are akin to the sort of presentation I find objectionable in this article: the Irish Free State is not actually described as a Realm, merely lumped in under a table or map label. Stick an orange in a bucket labelled "Apples" doesn't make it an apple. Looking at the grandly-named "Historical Atlas of the British Empire", it is clear that the author regarded the Irish Free State as a Dominion: "A Dominion refers to one of a group of autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, within the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from 1907. They have included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Union of South Africa, and the Irish Free State." "On 6 December 1922, in accordance with the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, the entire island of Ireland became the Irish Free State, a dominion in the British Empire." The author makes clear the dates of transition: "Dominion Status was ended in 1949 and Dominions had now become completely independent nations and were restyled as Commonwealth Realms after 1953." "In 1953, when Queen Elizabeth II adopted distinctive titles for each of the Dominions, the term 'Dominion' was changed to 'Commonwealth Realm' to note their independence." The Irish Free State (which ceased to exist in 1937) is never described in the text as a Commonwealth Realm. And yes, while there is a list of "a total of 18 former realms which are now republics", each entry is labelled as "Dominion or Commonwealth Realm" (my emphasis). Clearly the title of the list is a convenience. It is contradicted by the text itself.
  4. None of the references describes the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm in an explicit statement. To avoid WP:SYNTHESIS that is what is required. No combination of logic or aftermarket argumentation or suggestion can replace the need for an explicit statement.
We can take these sources to WP:RSN and see how they stand up. I'm happy to do that. --Pete (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I never stated that these references are official, merely that it points to wider use within the public domain beyond this Wikipedia article. As you can plainly see, these references are not used within the article, but as part of an ongoing talk page discussion. WP:RSN does not apply to this case, but you of course are free to, once again, post to that board.
Second, "applying today's labels to yesterday's objects" is precisely the point. Labels change over time. There is nothing in Wikipedia holding us to apply only sources, labels, language styles, turns of phrase, etc, from the contemporary usages of the time. This list does not pretend to do otherwise, but merely places a set of countries together within a common set of criteria under a common, presently used, and informal label. If the article's title were changed to "Commonwealth realms and former dominions", precisely nothing will have changed in concept or in definition. The term 'realm' merely superseded the use of the term 'dominion', both of which were used to delineate the same concept in their time (1926-1936 v 2003-2013, for example). trackratte (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
What "wider use"? Where, precisely, is the Irish Free State defined as a Commonwealth Realm? And yes, labels change over time. The nation once known as the Irish Free State is no longer so labelled. But we still have a distinct and separate article for it, don't we? Should we perhaps merge it into Eire? You may argue your synthesis as much as ever you wish - the fact remains that we don't have a source saying the Irish Free State is a Commonwealth Realm. Saying that it is or was one is incorrect and unsourced. And don't tell me that "Dominion" and "Realm" are exactly equivalent terms. Do you seriously believe this? --Pete (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, the portion of Ireland's history where it was called the Irish Free State could easily fall under the article, "Ireland". Why not? You could also name the article 'Eire' and have Irish Free State or Ireland described therein. Or Ireland could be used throughout, it's really the editorial preference of those involved really. Much like the Canada article is called Canada, but encompasses information from New France, British North America, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Rupert's Land, Acadia, the Province of Canada, the separate colonies of British Columbia, Vancouver Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and various aboriginal names and titles as well. I'm sure you get the point. The fact is, that would make for a very long title, Canada is much more practical.
To address your second point, yes, I do seriously believe that based on the sources that I've seen. Alternatively, you could add to this discussion by telling us what you think the factual differences are between 'realm' and 'dominion' within the rough time frames I've mentioned above. From what I see, the creation of a "separate and direct relationship with the monarch", becoming "equal in status to the United Kingdom", and "having full, or nearly full, legislative independence" is what defines both labels. trackratte (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If we tried merging Irish Free State and Eire and Republic of Ireland and Ireland, just how far would we get? Sure, and it might be just the "editorial preference" of those involved, but I suggest that editorial preferences of those editors who display strong emotional attachments are not to be lightly set aside. Likewise, I don't think we'd get too far if we merged Dominion and Commonwealth realm.
We'd have to think of a new definition, for a start. Here are the two we give, which are clearly not exactly equivalent:
  • Dominions were autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, beginning in the later part of the 19th century.
  • A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms.
I see areas of commonality, but I also see areas of difference. Merging the two concepts would be a minefield of contradictions and explanations. It could be done, but it would be ugly and confusing. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are misrepresenting the argument. The term 'dominion' referred to a very different concept when first introduced by Canada in 1867 than it did in 1927. This is why, if you see my comment, I used the qualifier of "rough time frames", which is further detailed in the comment above that as being "1926-1936 v 2003-2013" otherwise known as the rough time periods that pertain to this discussion.

So, as per the 1926 Balfour Declaration, the dominions (which are now referred to as Commonwealth realms) "are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". Then, the 1931 SoW officialised the 1926 declaration, and resulted in the end of the named countries membership within the British Empire ("The Statute of Westminster...As far as the Dominions were concerned, the British empire ended by a peaceful process of legal independence", from British National Archives). Thus, the same criteria from the 1926 declaration for dominion (minus British Empire as of 1931 SOW) is paraphrased here in our own words as "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms", as per the referenced official definition of Commonwealth realm found here. As you can clearly see, the difference in concept between a 1931 dominion, and a 2001 realm, is precisely nil. trackratte (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and before you jump on the "The major exception to this was in Ireland" included in the reference, it leads to this: The exception was that "From 1919-21 a brutal undercover war developed in Ireland", although "By late 1921 both sides had had enough. They called a truce and reached a Treaty. Most of Ireland (26 counties) was to become the Irish Free State. This was to be a Dominion like Canada" which can be found at the British National Archives. So, Ireland was different in one way, it wasn't peaceful, but the end result was the same, the IFS had the same status as Canada did in 1931, which is what's know in modern day plain language as a Commonwealth realm. trackratte (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I see a lot of handwaving and WP:SYNTHESIS there. I don't see a source saying the Irish Free State is (or was) a Commonwealth Realm. Why don't we have a clear unambiguous source? Because there isn't one, as we find after long inquiry here. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Very well, but also keep in mind:
  • SYNNOT "If your understanding of SYNTH includes all instances of reading a table, because reading a table requires 'synthesizing' the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective straightforward basic descriptions of an illustration is not SYNTH.",
  • SYNNOT "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] "It seems clear to me that 'synthesis of published work' was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.", and
  • SYNNOT "To be able to say that something is SYNTH, you have to be able to understand what it says, what the sources say, and whether the sources suffice to verify the assertion." trackratte (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.
  • The first instance could be helpful. Do we have any examples, perhaps on the discussion page?
  • For the second, my feeling is that it is original research to declare that the Irish Free State was a Commonwealth Realm by arguing that Realm is exactly equivalent to Dominion when we have sources for neither precise statement. That's synthesis. We have any number of sources saying the IFS was a Dominion. Hundreds, possibly thousands. How come we don't have even one saying the IFS was a Realm? Even sources that look back seventy years don't say it. If we have to stich together various arguments to make a simple statement that isn't actually stated anywhere, we're synthesising. It shouldn't need complexity.
  • Third instance. Including the Irish Free State in a list of Former Commonwealth Realms is stating that the Irish Free State is a former Commonwealth Realm. What the source(s) says is that the Irish Free State was a Dominion. I don't think we have any sources stating that a Dominion is exactly equivalent to a Commonwealth Realm. Wikipedia doesn't see the two as equivalent. Apples and oranges. I don't think the sources suffice.
I'm not trying to be difficult here - it seems to me that we are stating something in a misleading fashion when we could do it better and more openly. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Putting aside your continued insistance that something that's not being said is being said, as well as the fact Wikipedia is not a source for itself, could you please explain how, exactly, a Dominion post-1931 is different to a Commonwealth realm today? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Can the abuse, please. I'm doing my best. I see a problem in the article, I'd like it fixed so we don't mislead our readers. Looks like we cannot find a source for the notion that the Irish Free State is or was a Commonwealth Realm, and we are now looking to synthesise an argument that Dominions and Commonwealth Realms are equivalent enough that we can say A = C because A = B and B = C. I just don't buy it. However we cut it, that argument is WP:SYNTHESIS. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ironic that in a response that claims pointing out your tendency to not hear things is "abuse", you completely ignore the question posed to you. I'm not being insulting, merely trying to get an answer out of you. Could you please explain how, exactly, a Dominion post-1931 is different to a Commonwealth realm today? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, cut the abuse. I heard you, I addressed the point. I see it as synthesis. I'm not following you down a very familiar path of obfuscation, thank you kindly. Now, can you work on the dominion-sized backlog of points I've raised, please? --Pete (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I see: You cannot identify any difference between a Dominion post-1931 and a Commonwealth realm. That is noted by all here, I'm sure. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In any event, its inclusion within a table is not a statement in the same vein as a written sentence saying "the Irish Free State was known as a Commonwealth realm" (the proposal is actually to do the exact opposite). Its inclusion in the table means that it meets all of the criteria and requirements to be included in that same grouping of items, as that's what it is, a grouping of like items. The criteria has been shown using official sources, and how it meets that criteria for inclusion has been shown using official sources. In addition, the proposal is to write a sentence explicitly stating that the Irish Free State was not called a Commonwealth realm during its time within the Commonwealth. At no point has anyone stated that it was known as a CR. trackratte (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I am saying - have said it repeatedly - that the inclusion of the Irish Free State in a table titled "Former Commonwealth Realms" is misleading, as the Irish Free State was not a Commonwealth Realm. I say that we need a source to justify that inclusion. Now, I don't think that I should have to attempt to prove a negative of any kind. I don't have to find a source saying that Bugs Bunny is not a Queen to justify his exclusion from a list of former Queens. Nor do I have to find a source saying that the Irish Free State is not a Commonwealth Realm. In both cases it is up to those pressing for inclusion to find a source supporting their desire. Likewise, if we wish to follow the synthesised argument, that a Dominion is exactly equivalent to a Commonwealth Realm, then again, I do not have to prove the negative case. It is up to those wishing to follow that argument to prove the equivalence, and not by casually saying so on a talk page, but to find a reliable source explicitly stating the equivalence. Even then, we have no more than synthesis. We can find no sources.
Mies, I love you for your excellent research skills and depth of knowledge in this area. You know the subject. You have made the relevant articles your own. I understand your attachment. But this isn't about the British Empire. It is about Wikipedia and wikiprocess. We cannot place any one topic - beloved though it may be to its regular editors - above the rules we have carefully and painfully built up along with our marvellous encyclopaedia. We source our statements. End of story.
I think the "grouping of like items" line has more merit, but the "apples and oranges described as apples" problem arises. The title is inaccurate. If we can find a term that encompasses both - such as "fruit" - then we have no problem. The former Dominion and the former Realm may be listed together. But we cannot call the table "Former Dominions", because some of the members of the list were not former Dominions. Nor can we call it former Commonwealth Realms, because some of the members of the list were not Commonwealth Realms. It cuts both ways.
To my mind, it is simple wikiness. It is not complicated. When I see editors adding complexity, I wonder why they simply cannot provide a source. Or point to a piece of wikilaw. We don't need to reconstruct wikiprocess from first principles each time there is an argument over some detail, surely? --Pete (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From the above discussion it has become apparent that the point at the top of this section, about awaiting clarification from the Canadian Federal Supreme Court, which had been intended to give some respite, has become a forlorn hope. Shall we let discussion of any outstanding points about clarification be carried on in present or new sections below? Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that Ireland/India should continue to be listed as realms in the absence of a source seems "anti-Wiki" principles to me. That is what is being proposed here. Those Editors who are so attached to listing these former dominions as "realms" can't come up with any source. So they are suggesting one might emerge so let's leave it in. Come on guys. You don't have a source. Move on. Drop the two countries from the Table. You can have a whole section explaining how they might have become realms had they decided to do so....Or might have become Communist countries had they decided to do so for that matter too! Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

IRF/Ireland & India note

Trackratte proposed above the following to be added as a note for Ireland in the table of former Commonwealth realms:

"Although the Irish Free State is listed as a former Commonwealth realm here, this classification remains contentious. The term “Commonwealth realm” was not used to refer to this grouping of countries until after the Irish Free State had already left the Commonwealth. During its time within the Commonwealth, the Irish Free State was classified simply as a “Dominion”, and not a “Realm”. For further information, please see Irish Free State."

I would modify that slightly to read:

"Though the Irish Free State/Ireland and India were, after 1931 and 1947, respectively, part of the group of independent countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations that shared the same person as their reigning monarch, they were both only ever designated as Dominions, each becoming a republic before the term Commonwealth realms began to be used to describe the aforementioned group."

More editing of that may be necessary, but, once final wording is decided, the note should suffice to clear up any ambiguity until other editing decisions about this matter, if any, are made. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Support modification. trackratte (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys - You are still intending to list Ireland and India as realms and they never were. You need a source to back up that they were realms. This is just "OR" and "making it up as you go along"...Usual WP standards should apply. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The "note" is also dishonest. The issue with Ireland and India is that they were never realms and you can't provide a source to show they were....But the "note" intentionally avoids these admissions. Why not be honest with readers? Take the countries out of the list and have a whole section about it if you like. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Concur. I'm also very dubious about this matter of "realm" being an informal term. The best official source we have is from the Queen: A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch.[3] Note the use of the capitalised "Realm". Ireland and India never had the Queen as their monarch, and it would be synthesis to extend the official definition beyond what is stated. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The term “Queen” reads as ‘monarch’, ref: Constitutional Act, 1867 and hundreds of others. Queen in that case clearly means more than specifically and only just Queen Victoria. And as we’ve seen from the WP:RSN discussion, the ‘reasonable person’ requirement clearly shows that this is the way that most readers would understand the term. This is also the accepted way that the courts and academics use the term. There are numerous court cases which could be used as reference for such practice.

Second, did you not read any of the references provided? “There are a total of 18 former realms which are now republics … Ireland … Became Dominion or Realm … 1922” (Ireland is listed specifically as a former realm), “members of the Commonwealth which are the Queen's realms, along with their dependencies, are officially known in legislation as Her Majesty’s Dominions.” (Dominion and realm are used interchangeably in the context of the Commonwealth, but different terms are used in different periods, or to illustrate present or former nations, for a variety of reasons).

Third, you have done an excellent job proving that Ireland was a dominion (which is obvious and was never in dispute), but have so far offered nothing stating that Ireland was not a realm, where sources have been provided stating that it was. And Pete’s argument that “We don't need to find sources to say things are not. We need to find sources to say things are” is simply not true. If you said that Elizabeth II is not a queen, then you would have to provide some solid sources in order to say “things are not”. Sources need to be provided to change stable pages. If consensus cannot be found, then it’s the general rule that it’s the stable version that remains until new information is brought forth, and consensus is gained. trackratte (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference we have is A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. That statement applies to no other British monarch but Queen Elizabeth II. It is nonsensical to imagine that Queen Victoria or King George V would have said such a thing. They would have used the phrase "Imperial Dominion". Our source is not a legal document, it is not an Act of Parliament, it is a statement on the Queen's website. I think a reasonable person would expect a reference to the Queen on the Queen's website to refer to the Queen rather than anyone else.
Again, I ask for a specific source justifying the inclusion of the Irish Free State as a Commonwealth Realm. Instead of making oblique references it would be helpful if you could just provide the link. Thanks.
I don't have to prove that the Irish Free State was not a Realm. To include it in this article we need a source stating that it was. That's basic. To follow your example, if I say that Natalie Portman is not a Queen, what source would you imagine that I would have to find to prove this? The onus is on anyone compiling a list of Queens to justify the inclusion of Natalie Portman. Or Julia Roberts. Or Mrs Brown down the street. I say the same thing applies to this list. Where is the reliable source stating that the Irish Free State is (or was) a Commonwealth Realm?
I say that the inclusion of the Irish Free State in this list of Commonwealth Realms is unsourced, because there is no source. --Pete (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've written this same sourced quote three times now in this discussion: “There are a total of 18 former realms which are now republics … Ireland". And another source from the same posting twice. I don't know why I bother continuing to bring any quoted material into this discussion, as you continue to pretend it doesn't exist anyways. I'm actually not sure if you're purposefully ignoring everything that's being said, or if you just aren't bothering to read it. In either case, both options make me question whether you are actively engaged in considering everything being presented here in order to improve an encyclopedic article, or just don’t like the term “realm” in relation to Ireland and are blindly sticking to your personal point of view regardless.
In fact, throughout this discussion you’ve been very adamant that Ireland not be referred to as a realm, yet have not offered any thought to the other countries, nor have you offered any solutions on how to deal with the inconsistencies that would result within the rest of the countries on the list if Ireland were to suddenly not be considered a realm. While it is perfectly alright to have emotional attachments to given terms, especially when it comes to national sentiment (I get it), such emotion has no place within an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem neither Pete/Skyring nor Frenchmalawi have read the note. They should do so and regard that it explicitly says "...they were both only ever designated as Dominions, each becoming a republic before the term Commonwealth realms began to be used to describe the aforementioned group". These claims of dishonesty and false presentation of the Irish Free State/Ireland and India as having been called Commonwealth realms are total, utter nonsense. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting all the above, it seems clear that the proposed footnote should be added. Qexigator (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Mies, may I direct you to the table headed "Former Commonwealth realms"? In it you will find list entries for both India and Ireland. Neither are actually "Former Commonwealth realms". That's the problem. Putting in a footnote is like having a box labelled "Apples" and containing a dozen apples and two oranges. Each orange has a sticker on it saying "Not actually an apple". The sticker does not make up for the fact that the box is inaccurately labelled. I have read the note. It doesn't contain a source saying the Irish Free State was a Commonwealth Realm, nor does it make up for the fact that the list title is inaccurate. We are not in the business of misleading our readers in large print and giving them the truth in footnotes. We should aim to present the truth upfront without confusion.
And no, I can't see any source saying that the Irish Free State is a Commonwealth Realm. Don't quote from it. Provide a link. Please. --Pete (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There are links provided at the comments I made this morning at 02h50 +4.5, under the Await clarification heading, if you care to read them. The point is not what label was appended to the concept at the time, but what that same concept is commonly called today. Much as a Canadian in 1938 would most likely not have called his or her sovereign the King of Canada, no one then would have called Ireland a Commonwealth realm. But today, the Kings and Queens of Canada are called as such, whether they were from the 1500s or the present day. By the same token, this same concept, which you choose to continue to label as dominion, is now in the present, commonly known as Commonwealth realm. This usage is referenced, it's criteria is referenced, and Ireland's referral in the public domain as former realm, is also referenced. The criteria and the concept on which this article is based remain the same no matter the label applied.
And your analogy is flawed. The countries listed therein are not all indistinguishable apples. Some are republics, some are monarchies. Some are large, and others small. There are different languages, cultures, traditions, histories and values represented amongst them all. If you were to open a box of fruit, I wouldn't be so surprised to find an orange or two. But just for you, we'll make sure they're properly labelled, under both terms, the current and the former. trackratte (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Pete's is truly a non-point, perhaps due to not keeping up with the discussion as it moves on. Editors will have seen that, in fact, "Comnonwealth Realm" appears in the "Queen's Title" column of the table of "Current Commonwealth realms" and once in the Bibliography, and that it is not otherwise used or applied to any of the countries named. Qexigator (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I've addressed the supposed sources above. If someone would care to insert them into the article, I'll take the discussion to WP:RSN. And I'm sorry, Qex, but I can't follow your logic above. There is a table labelled "Former Commonwealth realms" and Ireland (linking to Irish Free State is included in that table. The apple/orange analogy is apt. Let us call Dominions oranges and Realms apples. Most of the orange Dominions became apple Realms. The Irish Free Orange (so to speak) did not. The table is not labelled "Fruit". It is labelled "Apples".
Here's a suggestion. How about we change the title of the table? "List of Former Commonwealth Dominions and Realms". That would solve the mislabelling problem. --Pete (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Sky.'s edit of 20:03, 26 June 2013[4] appears to me constructive, acceptable and in line with others' comments in the discussion to date. Qexigator (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Pete, excellent suggestion. I also responded to your comment in the above section in case you missed it. Also in line with Qex, constructive and bold edit.
However, I think it's needlessly complicated to have both realm and dominion in the title, as it leads to the impression that these are two separate concepts. Dominion in the early forties was the label for the same concept as realm in the late forties, being that the respective government gained a "separate and direct relationship with the monarch", became "equal in status to the United Kingdom", and was granted "full, or nearly full, legislative independence". trackratte (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring is shifting the goalposts. First he defended the deletion of Ireland from the list and then did it himself, claiming it didn't belong there. As a consequence of that (plus Frenchmalawi's objections), a note was composed that makes clear that India and the Irish Free State/Ireland were never actually called Commonwealth realms while also explaining why they're included in the list. Now that Pete/Skyring is losing his battle against the note, he's moved focus to the section header, when there's no need to change it, given the intended presence and composition of the note about the Irish Free State/Ireland and India. (There was never any such thing as a "Commonwealth dominion", either. If anything, if even necessary, it would be "Former Dominions and Commonwealth realms".)
Hell, the note doesn't even have to be a note. The section "Former Commonwealth realms" could have an introductory paragraph with the proposed note as a part, instead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Although "Former Dominions and Commonwealth realms" could be confusing as it seems that 'Commonwealth realms' is a former title based on that usage. In any event, I don't see the point at this time in adding two labels to mean the same thing. It seems to me that an explanatory note would address French's and Pete's concerns of having the proper contextual information provided, and is a good compromise in order to incorporate their views and improve the article. trackratte (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
My position has not changed. Calling the Irish Free State a Commonwealth Realm - by including it in a list of Former Commonwealth Realms - is just wrong. And unsourced. Trying to correct the large untruth with a small footnote is misleading our readers. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course your (myopically focused on the Irish Free State) position has not changed. What has also not changed is your inability to defend that position: "I believe the Irish Free State is being called a Commonwealth realm in the presence of a succinct explanation of how the Irish Free State was never called a Commonwealth realm." That is a toughie. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Pete may still be unaware that the Irish Free State is not being called a Commonwealth Realm (sic), nor, apart from the first table, is any other country. There is a difference. Qexigator (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
--The proposed explanatory note would be better placed, not as a footnote, but above the (second) table, immediately under its heading (per Mies. above). Qexigator (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you can't see my point, Mies. Misrepresenting my case is not helpful. It is the title of the table "Former Commonwealth Realms" I object to. The Irish Free State was never a Commonwealth Realm. Change the title of the table to reflect the reality and the problem disappears. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For the avoidance of heat under the collar: please let me know if I have missed Pete's answer to Track.'s point about using two names for one concept in a heading? Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Previously addressed elsewhere. Cheers. Could we keep the waffle to a minimum? --Pete (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry (but not surprised) you completely avoided my point, Pete. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mies - I don't want to get into tit for tat stuff myself. Mies; if there is a point you think is not being addressed, put it to me and I will address it. Sorry, not sure what point you are talking about. Your posts are sometimes very long and, to me, often go into things far off the very limited, narrow and technical topic in hand - whether or not Ireland was a realm. But I don't want you to feel any point you have made is not being addressed. Do let me know. Thanks. I will be respectful of you, please be of me too by the way (if that needs to be said). Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Former Commonwealth realms

This is a matter for clarifying tweak, not for crying SYN and OR. Two Ifs: 1_ If, per lead, "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that currently has Elizabeth II as its reigning constitutional monarch and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms", then admittedly it is questionable to include in the list of "Former Commonwealth realms" any country which had ceased to be a realm before her accession; and, while it may otherwise be agreeable with the actual facts to include the Irish Free State and India in such a list, it would be unhelpful to imply that they had been "British colonies", per lead "Except for the United Kingdom itself and Papua New Guinea ...the Commonwealth realms are former British colonies". 2_If those two countries are to be included in the list, it would be well to make an adjustment to the lead, such as by adding "Ireland and India had ceased to be British Dominions or Commonwealth realms before the accession." Yes? No? Qexigator (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Qex,
  1. I've edited the lead to reflect both of the references (both use the word Queen instead of Elizebeth II specifically). I also removed the term 'current' as its redundant as the sentence is written in the present tense, and secondly, the next phrase is "Since 1992...".
  2. I made this edit: "Except for the United Kingdom itself and Papua New Guinea (which, before independence, had been administered as two separate territories by Australia), all of the current Commonwealth realms are former British colonies" which I think addresses the problem. Besides, the former realms portion, I think, is mostly for 'added info' as the focus is really on the contemporary realms. Let me know if this is to your satisfaction. trackratte (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Well tweaked, and good rationale, except that to me (as a reader) it jars simply to start off with visible text which reads "the Queen" without identifying her by name. Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point Qex. I thought about it, and it's a bit tricky. What do you think about "...is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that shares the person of the Queen as its reigning constitutional monarch"? Or perhaps "shares the sovereign, presently Elizabeth II, as its reigning constitutional monarch"? I would like to keep the term 'Queen' if possible, since that's what's actually stated in the two references. trackratte (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
May be this: "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state which is a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth of Nations, having Elizabeth II as its reigning Queen, and a royal line of succession in common with the other realms". Qexigator (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to copy sources verbatim. "The Queen" does not suffice, since it doesn't let anyone know which queen. There is also the matter of avoiding the false impression that having Elizabeth II as sovereign is a requirement to be considered a Commonwealth realm and, thus, as soon as she passes, the term Commonwealth realm will end with her. I think the way the lead is worded now is fine; the "currently" in "currently has Elizabeth II" makes clear that the Commonwealth realms can have a differnt monarch in future and "Elizabeth II" is a sound synonym for the term "the Queen" used in the sources, indicating to readers of Wikipedia which queen the Commonwealth realms currently have without having to go look at the sources to find out from the context within each of them which queen is meant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Track.'s + Mies's.edit[5] settles the point raised at top of this section. Qexigator (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is original research to apply current terminology to states that became republics before the terminology was created. TFD (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Spot on, I agree with that TFD. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The Irish Free State left the Commonwealth when it declared itself a republic, on 18 April 1949, after passing the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 - John Loughlin (2001). Subnational Democracy in the European Union : Challenges and Opportunities: Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford University Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-19-154470-5. -- Moxy (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Generally spot on....But Moxy, I am not sure I understand the relevance. No one is disputing that Ireland was a Commonwealth member. Some editors are arguing it was a Commonwealth realm...But there are no sources to say it was, only sources to say it was a dominion...P.S. technically the Author made a mistake. Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949, not the Irish Free State. It hadn't existed since 1937 Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"non-British Commonwealth realms"

The section on "Post-war evolution" includes: "at the 1948 Prime Ministers' Conference the term Dominion was avoided in favour of Commonwealth country", but is it clear what is meant, in the third paragraph of the lead, by "the term Dominion was retained to refer to non-British Commonwealth realms...". I do not see that explained in the article. What were/are "non-British Commonwealth realms"? Is another clarifying tweak needed? Editors will have noticed "realm" not "Realm". Qexigator (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-British means not the United Kingdom, I believe.
The word "realm" is never capitlaised in this article (and hence on Wikipedia). That was the result of a huge row here a few years ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If "non-British" means not UK, it would be clearer to put "other Commonwealth realms than the United Kingdom". Subject to that (and introduction of the proposed note for the second table), the article makes abundantly clear why the facts are such that "Commonwealth realm" is being correctly used in the article.
--Yes, of course, but an editor persists in using "Realm" so as to misdirect the argument as if "Commonwealth realm" were being used as a proper noun would be. Qexigator (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Non-British Commonwealth realms" is a confusing term. First, the commonwealth was called the "British Commonwealth" and people living in the British Commonwealth had the same nationality - they were British subjects. Even after separate citizenships were established in 1947, they continued to be British subjects until the term was changed to Commonwealth citizen in 1981. TFD (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting 'British subjects' bit, thanks for bringing it up, I've never heard of that tidbit of information before. Although, I have a question. The 1949 Act of the British Parliament refers to only those "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". Although Canada is specifically mentioned in 1.(3), Canada was not a colony at the time, and the British Parliament could not legislate for these other countries, so I am slightly confused as to this law's actual applicability. I cannot find an original copy of the 1946 Canadian act, but the Wiki page does say "The Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is an Act of the Parliament of Canada which separated Canadian citizenship from British nationality". From the surface of it, I would say that no, Commonwealth citizens were not British nationals. trackratte (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It says "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or [a citizen of Canada, etc.]" The Canadian citizenship act had come into effect 1 January 1947, while the UK nationality law came into effect 1 January 1949. Nationality and citizenship btw are two distinct things. For example, American Samoans are American nationals but not citizens. Nationality derives from common law, especially Calvin's Case 1608, while citizenship derives from statute. But only nationality is recognized under international law. Common law draws no distinction between people born in England and people born in territories that held allegience to the sovereign. The UK parliament btw could legislate for Canada with the permission of Canada until 1982, when they obtained Canada's permission to change that. Canadian citizens are seen as Canadian nationals today, but Canadians would have been seen as British nationals at one time, and Commonwealth citizens today hold a different status from aliens under UK nationality law. TFD (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Her Majesty’s dominions", "Commonwealth realms"

"Commonwealth realm" is used in the article in the normal way. While, in the case of Commonwealth realms, the term "dominion" was going out of favour, it was retained for certain legislative purposes such as Nigeria Independence Act 1960, s.1(1) "...the Protectorate as respectively defined by the Nigeria (Constitution) Orders in Council, 1954 to 1960, shall together constitute part of Her Majesty’s dominions under the name of Nigeria." At that time, the realms would also be deemed to be included among "Her Majesty’s dominions". Nevertheless, each of them is also within the descriptive term "Commonwealth realm", as in UK HC, 22 Jan 2013: "It is a very short Bill... tightly drafted to give effect to the agreement by Commonwealth realm Heads of Government..." (Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time))[6], - "In making their decisions on the Bill, Members can be reassured that the changes under discussion will have the support of other Commonwealth realms, and that they will strengthen and not endanger the bonds that Queen Elizabeth II has so painstakingly built with the nations of the Commonwealth." [7] --Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

--That shows that the note proposed above for the second table is in line with normal usage, and has nothing to do with SYN. The history of the usage is well and truly explained in previous sections of the article and summarily mentioned in the lead, with further detail at Dominion linked in the lead. It would be better placed, not as a footnote, but above the (second) table, immediately under its heading. This is a tweaked version of the one above:

  • The Irish Free State/Ireland and India had each become a republic before the term Commonwealth realms was being normally used, as it is now, to describe the dominions forming the group of independent countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations sharing the same person as their reigning monarch, and they had both only ever been designated as one of the dominions. Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Were Ireland/India realms?

A source is needed for the above assertion that Ireland/India were "realms". Plain and simple. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think if you'll look back you'll realise that the fact that Ireland and India "were realms" is a non-issue. In plain English, it's not really disputable, in the same way that it was a community, nation, country, territory, kingdom, etc. What seems to be at issue here is, was Ireland 1922-1949 an 'autonomous community within the Commonwealth sharing a common allegiance to the Crown/monarch/king/queen/sovereign'? Keep in mind, as has been stated numerous times, no one is advocating that the IFS was called a Commonwealth realm, in fact the exact opposite, we are advocating that it be written that it was not called that. So your demand for what I take as meaning 'the need for a reference for the assertion that Ireland/India were called Commonwealth realms' is not necessary as no one is saying that. What is being said is as follows:
Pete and French's argument: Just like to say, no, this is not my argument. I'm looking for sources, not arguments. Thanks. --Pete
  1. The Irish Free State was never referred to as a “Commonwealth realm” between 1922 and 1949.
  2. The Irish Free State was an ‘autonomous community within the Commonwealth sharing a common allegiance to the Crown’.
  3. The inclusion of the Irish Free State within the table of former realms may have the potential to confuse a reader into thinking that the Irish Free State had been titled as a Commonwealth realm from 1922-1949.
Mies, Qex, and trackratte’s argument:
  1. The Irish Free State was never referred to as a “Commonwealth realm” between 1922 and 1949.
  2. The Irish Free State was an ‘autonomous community within the Commonwealth sharing a common allegiance to the Crown’.
  3. The inclusion of the Irish Free State within the table of former realms may have the potential to confuse a reader into thinking that the Irish Free State had been titled as a Commonwealth realm from 1922-1949, which is why an explanatory phrase should be added to prevent this.
So far, primary and secondary sources have been provided proving point 2, and has been agreed upon at some point throughout the discusion by all five of us. Primary and secondary sources have been provided providing that the phrase in part 2 is encapsulated in present day common usage by the informal term, 'Commonwealth realm'. The inclusion of Ireland/India in the table for former Commonwealth realms is not stating that they were both titled as Commonwealth realms at any point in their hisory. It is saying that the countries provided for in the list all share a common criteria, they functioned autonomously, were equal to the UK, were part of the Commonwealth, and all had shared the same King. The former term which encapsulated this concept, 'Dominion', is not only confusing because it refers to completely different concepts in 1867 than it did in 1926, but is also now considerd archaic, may have negative historical connotations due to its pre-1926 meaning, and is no longer in common use. The term Commonwealth realm is clear and unambiguous as it has only ever had one meaning, lacks any colonial connotations, and is the presently acceptable and commonly used term to delineanate this concept.
If you feel that the concept described by the 1926 term 'dominion' is any different to that of the modern term 'realm', please feel free to enlighten me, preferably with references, as I am always anxious to learn new things, and improve Wikipedia. trackratte (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Broadly agree with Track.'s summation, but in my view, given the lead and other information, the risk of actual confusion is small to zero, and the note above is proposed out of an adundance of caution, more to alert insufficiently perspicacious novice or newcoming editors than for readers who may be expected to be looking for the information which the article offers, who, with no more than the ordinary intelligence needed to read such an article at all, will be able to grasp for themselves what Track. spells out in the passage "The inclusion of Ireland/India in the table ...all had shared the same King" (and, of course Queen-Empress Victoria). Also agree with Track. "Commonwealth realm is clear... acceptable and commonly used term to delineate this concept." Qexigator (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we please stop this "where's the source??" nonsesne? It's an inane red herring asking people to supply a souce for something they never said.
The real matter to be decided is this: Is the article purely about a term--Commonwealth realm? Or, is this article about a thing--a country that is part of a group of other independent countries in the Commonwealth that all share one person as their respective sovereign, something formerly called a Dominion (if it was not the UK) and presently called a Commonwealth realm (including the UK)?
It's quite obviously currently the latter: it goes into great detail about how these countries came to be the thing described above, even before they were called Commonwealth realms. Removing Ireland from the list under the header "Former Commonwealth realms" thus means shifting the entire purpose of the article to the former option above, requiring far more changes to the content than simply the deletion of a row in a table; once the exact date on which Commownealth realm came into use has been found, then almost every bit of information about something preceeding that date has to be removed from here and put... Well, somewhere else. I therefore think those who're pushing for Ireland to be removed from that table should commit to what they're actually starting and present right now a far more detailed proposal for what they think this page should become, where the removed information should go, and more. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Concur with all of that except opening up a wrecking option. It is clear that enough has been discussed at some length for the note to go in as proposed (or some version of it) or to accept that no such note is needed, and leave it at that. Who is for IN and who for OUT? Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It is about the term as it is used. We separate British colonies and overseas territories, British subjects and Commonwealth citizens, and there is no reason not to separate dominions and realms, especially when sources make the distinction. Even if it were a change of name, historically they cover different periods. But I question whether it is a change of name. Dominions were self-governing countries within the Empire while realms are territories where the Queen is represented by a governor-general. So one could see British North America, which had an individual governor general, as a realm, so when three provinces were confederated as the Dominion of Canada, the fourth province (PEI) was part of the same realm but not part of the Dominion of Canada. On the other hand, because Canada did not control its foreign policy and was not recognized as an independent country, it might have been considered a British Overseas Territory, and hence a dominion but not a realm. TFD (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The article now is definitely now not just about a term. It is about a thing--a country that is part of a group of other independent countries in the Commonwealth that all share one person as their respective sovereign--that was once, post-1931, called a Dominion (other than the UK) and is now called a Commonwealth realm. (Before 1931, a Dominion was something quite different: a part of the British Empire with more self-governance than a colony, but not as much as later came with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster.)
Making this article about just the term Commonwealth realm (which is what removing Ireland from the table under "Former Commonwealth realms" will trigger) will require a great overhaul of the content; I can't even imagine right now how that would proceed or what would be the end result. And I don't at all see what the benefit would be. Information about the things that emerged from the Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminter would be split into who knows how many fragments; it's truly the "wrecking option", as Qexigator put it, and I agree with him that it's not preferable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding TFD's interesting remarks, let me add to my above comment that, while it is apparent that specialists in the topic (such as constitutional historians) could, in their own right, express firm opinions on the basis of a thorough knowledge of the theories and practices operating in the period, certain points can only be determined by legislative act or judicial ruling if events occur which cause them to happen. And we know that an encyclopedic article should not attempt to determine what has not yet been finally determined in that way, and perhaps never will be; nor should such an article knowingly go beyond or fall behind common knowledge and accessible information. Is there anything that can be usefully added to the present article? If so, let it go in. Qexigator (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Conceivably, two dominions or a dominion and a protectorate can share the same viceroy, which would make them the same realm. I imagine that if we had kept the old terms, the Cook Islands, which are part of the realm of NZ, but not part of NZ, would be considered to be not part of the Dominion of NZ. But applying "Commonwealth realm" to the past and "dominion" to the present is original research. If we have no reliable sources that make claims about how specific cases should be treated, then neither should we. TFD (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"Conceivably.."? Such inconclusive speculative reasoning strays into OR. Let us leave it alone and stay with presenting factual content for ordinarily intelligent readers. Qexigator (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That is my point. We cannot say that Ireland etc. would have been considered Commonwealth realms before the term was coined, because it requires us to conduct original research. TFD (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that "Commonwealth realm" is used in the article in the normal way as mentioned at the top of this section, it is not saying "that Ireland etc. would have been considered Commonwealth realms before the term was coined", and there is no reason for anyone to read it so. Qexigator (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Qexigator....If I call something a "red apple", how am I describing it? I am describing whatever it as as an apple and specifying its colour. If I call Ireland a "Commonwealth realm", I am calling it a realm and specifying that it was connected with the Commonwealth. It's as simple as that. Calling an orange an apple would be an "abuse of the Queen's English". Calling Ireland a realm is likewise. None of you guys can come up with a single source for this assertion that it was a realm. Trackette cannot understand the difference between a realm and a dominion. Most others, I think, understand there is a difference. But stuck for a source, they are just huffing and puffing. In the latest, it's even been suggested that requesting a source is like raising a "red herring". Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I just thought a poll might help clarify if people are actually confused here about whether there is a difference. I invite others to participate, as I have. It might help identify an issue. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A poll is redundant. We already know everyone's opinions, but opinion is not what we are concerned with. What would be helpful is if you explained exactly how the 1931 concept underlying dominion is different than that of the currently used and accepted Commonwealth realm. This marks the fourth time that this question has been directly proposed. trackratte (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
While any such explanation is awaited, the reasoned responses below (Gazzster 08:26, 28 June and TharkunColl 09:08, 28 June) match the given facts. As a reminder (per online Canadian Encyclopedia [8]): ...'the Dominions' was a term applied to Canada in 1867 and used from 1907 to 1948 to describe the empire's other self-governing members. "The Commonwealth of the 1930s was a study in contradiction, a mixture of the national and the imperial, and confusing to outsiders. To some extent Commonwealth countries conducted their own external affairs and managed their own defences. Yet a common head of state, common citizenship" ((?)) "and substantial common legislation remained. Association with a vast and apparently powerful empire - then at its greatest extent, covering over 31 million km2 - brought the Dominions prestige, prosperity and protection." ..."The 'old' Commonwealth, made up of Australia, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, was often likened to a club. By 1949, a 'new' Commonwealth had emerged which was quite different. Eire left in 1949. India, which had been lurching towards responsible government and Dominion status for decades, achieved independence in 1947..."... "Britain began the long road to eventual membership (1973) in the European Economic Community, to the consternation of much of the older Commonwealth." Qexigator (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mini Poll: Realm v Dominion

Is there a difference between a realm and a dominion?

lol Guys & Dolls! False antithesis, false dichotomy, false dilemma: that's no way to improve the article, avoiding plain meaning and reasoning as discussed in the Queen's English. Cheers, all! Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No and Yes. A dominion was understood to be a self-governing member state of the Empire (later, Commonwealth). A realm is understood to be a self-governing member state of the Commonwealth(though it doesn't have to be) whose head of state is also the head of the state of the United Kingdom and fourteen other states. The subtlety is concerned with history. It is difficult to say precisely when a dominion changed to a 'realm', but in substance they are the same.Gazzster (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No (except in the case of the UK). The term "realm" includes the United Kingdom as well as the dominions. That's the only difference though, and was invented for that very purpose. Realm is not a term defined in law, whereas dominion is. The degree of sovereignty accorded to dominions has changed - gradually and at different rates for different dominions - over the years, but the legal status of these entities as dominions has never been repealed (whether or not they use the term "dominion" as part of their official name - Australia never has, for example). ðarkuncoll 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is a false dilemma; the generic terms realm and dominion are not relevant to this article. However, assuming the question asked: "Is there a difference between a Commonwealth realm (or Realm) and a Dominion?", then I'd answer: Not after 1931. They both denoted a country within a group of independent countries in the Commonwealth that shared one person as their respective sovereign. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you explain the "realm of New Zealand" which includes one independent state and two associated states, or to use the older language, one dominion and two colonies? TFD (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Realm of New Zealand doesn't factor into this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD (and Mies), please stick to the poll, as that argument has the potential to drag on for many, many pages (as it has elsewhere already). I would appreciate it if this digression be moved to another section if we must go down this road again. Or even better, just a link to the other discussion. In any event, it distracts from the purpose of this section. Let's try to stay on topic. trackratte (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No. As has been shown with primary sources, the post 1926 concept of dominion is the same as the present concept denoted under realm, except for the fact that today, realm provides a much clearer term bereft of any pre-1931 connotations, and is used in official sources today to replace dominion in outlining the described concept. trackratte (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. The difference is plain. We're not just saying "dominion" when we talk about Canada, India, Pakistan and so on. We're talking about a very specific concept, as may be seen from the sources we use to define the word. We are talking "Dominion" with a capital D, and that rhymes with P and that stands for "Prove it!". Find a source saying that a Dominion is exactly equivalent to a Commonwealth Realm and the problem disappears. No amount of argument and discussion and handwaving and synthesis can cover the lack of a source saying that the Irish Free State was ever a Commonwealth Realm. Find a source. Don't make stuff up. Isn't that how we produce our Wikipedia? --Pete (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL* It's not up to us. We need a source saying that a Commonwealth realm is exactly equivalent to a dominion. Taking a vote is no substitute for the lack of a source. We're talking whole nations here, not some minor aspect of internal wikiness. Find a source and we're sweet. --Pete (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ross Dependency

In 1923, the Ross Dependency was placed under the administration of the Governor-General of New Zealand and hence became part of the realm of New Zealand, and is considered part today. But as the Attorney General for NZ, Francis Bell, explained, the boundaries of NZ had not been extended and it was not part of the Dominion. In fact, even though they shared the same GG, the GG acted only under direction of London regarding the territory. Following the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the GG acted under direction of the NZ government, but no act of incorporation was ever enacted.

In this case the Dominion of New Zealand and the Realm of New Zealand are two distinct things.

TFD (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop this "where's the source??" nonsense?

Um, isn't this very basic Wikiprocedure? We don't just make stuff up. --Pete (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You have once again failed to engage in the conversation and explain how they are different. This is the fifth time this question has been directly posed, and so far, has yet to recieve a response. trackratte (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to argue about material that isn't sourced. I just have to ask "Where is the source, please?".
You do have to be genuine in your arguments. Saying the request to stop asking for a source was related to the matter of a post-1931 Dominion and a Commonwealth realm being the same thing is disingenuous. That request was to stop asking for a source that says India and the Irish Free State/Ireland were called Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks. I care to get the details right. I am genuine in my statements. Thank you, Mies. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see it that way. You did not intend it to be offensive, so it might help to please be more thoughtful when discussing the behaviour of other editors, please? --Pete (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I will if you will. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have divided the table into Former Commonwealth realms and Former Dominions. Please don't revert without supplying a source stating that the Irish Free State and India were Commonwealth Realms. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you try pursuing the next step in the dispute resolution process instead of dictating to everyone what they should and shouldn't do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not me "dictating" the need for sources. It's all of us. --Pete (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Another red herring. The diktat from you was that nobody touch your new edit. Not how it works. Sorry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Pete, I saw that. Please don't continuously make the same edits without consensus. You say you 'removed the unsourced', but in fact you created a new table and moved two countries into it. Again, WP states that the status quo will remain until consensus can be found. trackratte (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. The new table is listed Former Dominions. We can reliable source the inclusion of the Irish Free State and India in that table. No worries. we can discuss the matter here, but my solution doesn't leave unsourced material in the article, so it's good as a temporary fix. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
trackratte, I explained how they differ. A Dominion was "One of the self-governing nations within the British Commonwealth." ( American Heritage® Dictionary)[9] A commonwealth realm is an independent territory where the Queen is head of state. So the Realm of New Zealand meets the definition of a Commonwealth realm, but not the definition of a dominion. There was no requirement that a Dominion government be a monarchy. And if we believe that the the crown for the dominions became separated in 1931, they could not have been Commonwealth realms before that date.
Before saying this is all speculation, those claiming they are the same thing are using OR, and are not providing sources.
TFD (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD, thanks for at least discussing the issue.
  1. So you are using the "American Heritage Dictionary" as an official source to find a definition, yet the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster are somehow insufficient?
  2. The Realm of New Zealand debate is a whole other can of worms, and I don't remember that debate ever having a decisive conclusion, so I fail to see how that applies here.
  3. "no requirement that a Dominion government be a monarchy". What Dominion was not a monarchy in 1931? There were none, because it was a fundamental requirement.
  4. We do not believe that the Crown was separated before 1931. So your statement that "they could not have been Commonwealth realms before this date" is true. That's why the earliest start date for any of the countries in the article is 1931. trackratte (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
…the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster are somehow insufficient…? They are both primary sources. Finding a secondary source would be better than relying on our own inexpert interpretations of legislation. --Pete (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC) As we see in the discussion below, for instance. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. "They are autonomous Communities (countries)...united by a common allegiance to the Crown (Queen as monarch), and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. (Commonwealth)" vs "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch." I'm just trying to use my common sense here, which admittedly can be fallible. In any event, I think that the 1926 BD and the 1931 SoW trump an American dictionary in defining a 1931 Commonwealth dominion. And to quote Wikipedia's founder once again, "It seems clear to me that 'synthesis of published work' was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia." One would assume that this would be especially true in instances as simple as this.
  2. In any event, we are applying today's criteria to a set of countries, not stating that Ireland was titled a Commonwealth realm in 1931, but merely that it meets the modern criteria for one and thus for inclusion on this modern list. The criteria of which has been readily sourced. trackratte (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. Also, from New Zealand history "Although the term is no longer used to describe New Zealand, the 1907 royal proclamation of dominion status has never been revoked and remains in force today. New Zealand’s formal title may therefore still include the term 'dominion'. Generally, however, the country is today known as the Realm of New Zealand." How is that saying that dominion and realm are two different, mutually incompatible concepts, as you've been saying all along? To me that pretty plainly states that NZ is today still a dominion (and so is Canada by the way), yet today are 'generally known as realms'.
  4. Once again, primary and secondary sources have been provided, and continue to be provided, showing that realm is merely a term which superceded dominion in common use to deliniate the same concept. This article, being written in the present day, uses the present terminology to describe and group together the countries on which it applies. trackratte (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
…realm is merely a term which superceded dominion in common use to deliniate the same concept… You say sources have been provided. Could you please provide the precise quote? Rummaging through the Statute of Westminster to try to guess at what you mean isn't helping me. But this evades the point. Some of the old Dominions became Commonwealth Realms. Two did not. And many of the Commonwealth Realms were never Dominions. Jamaica for example. We have many Former Realms which are not Former Dominions Nigeria, for one example. Obviously the two terms are not equivalent. We really need a source saying that the Irish Free State was a Commonwealth Realm. Trying to use aftermarket opinions to say it was something it never was is a right can of worms. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Balfour Declaration does not define the dominions - it names and describes them as they were in 1926. Clearly the Dominion of Canada was established in 1867 but was not "autonomous" then. No source says that a dominion must be a monarchy. The fact that they all were is irrelevant. They were also all run by white people. It could be that Southern Ireland would have continued to be considered a dominion after it became a republic provided it had remained in the Commonwealth.
The Realm of New Zealand is relevant because two territories were severed from New Zealand and are "associated states", yet remain part of the realm. If we accept that New Zealand is still a dominion, then the dominion is only part of the realm.
MIESIANIACAL claims that the Crown was divided in 1931.
TFD (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
How can you say the Balfour Declaration does not define the Dominions and, simultaneously, that it describes them as they were in 1926? The Balfour Declaration clearly states that at the time of its issuance, the Dominions were to be considered "autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations", which is analogous to "a country [within the Commonwealth of Nations] which has The Queen as its Monarch," the definition of a Commonwealth realm. The Statute of Westminster 1931 put the principles of the Balfour Declaration into law. If something changed with the criteria that defined a Dominion in 1931 and what defines a Commonwealth realm today, could someone please point it out and when it occurred? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between a definition and a description. I could have said for example in 1926 that all dominion premiers were men - that does not mean that it is part of the definition of premier that one be male. The Declaration does not by the way say they "were to be considered" but that they in fact were autonomous which they of course were but had not always been. In other words, it is describing what was empirically known about them, not what made them "considered" dominions. TFD (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD,
  1. "The Balfour Declaration does not define the dominions - it names and describes them as they were in 1926." Is that not defining?
  2. "Clearly the Dominion of Canada was established in 1867 but was not 'autonomous' then." Clearly the concept delineated by the term 'dominion' is not at all the same thing in 1867 as it was in 1931, which is what I've been saying this entire time as one of the reasons why dominion is not a desirable term. It's had multiple meanings throughout its evolution, causes confusion, and carries historical connotations.
  3. "No source says that a dominion must be a monarchy." No, and no source says that it must not be. The point is, they all were, so the concept that the term dominion described was one of monarchies. Anything else is speculation.
  4. "They were also all run by white people." Sounds scary...and?
  5. "It could be that Southern Ireland would have continued to be considered a dominion after it became a republic provided it had remained in the Commonwealth." Blind and unsubstantiated conjecture, because it didn't did it.
  6. "two territories were severed from New Zealand and are 'associated states', yet remain part of the realm. If we accept that New Zealand is still a dominion, then the dominion is only part of the realm." Can't argue with that logic. Although isn't that why the term "Her Realms and territories" exists? Associated states aren't realms, and they aren't dominions. So 'if we accept that NZ is still a dominion', then we accept that it has associated states in a dominion...or a realm. Countries can have associated states, dependencies, protectorates, states, provinces, state vacation islands, etc, and continue to be a realm/dominion just fine without going into an identity crisis.
  7. "MIESIANIACAL claims that the Crown was divided in 1931" And your counter was that "they could not have been Commonwealth realms before that date" to which my reply is: right. trackratte (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Pete,
"Some of the old Dominions became Commonwealth Realms. Two did not. And many of the Commonwealth Realms were never Dominions. Jamaica for example. We have many Former Realms which are not Former Dominions Nigeria, for one example." That sounds confusing if true. So we would need four different tables, each with their own referenced definition then. If only we had some way of getting officially referenced sources to provide us with a modern set of criteria that would encompass all of these disparate countries into one umbrella concept, and define them under a single, easy to understand, modern, and commonly accepted, term. trackratte (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is true. What's the problem with listing the nations that were former Realms as former Realms, and the former Dominions as former Dominions? We can source this with no argument. It is crystal clear. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You didn't respond with "show me the source, there is no source"! This is exciting.
  1. "It is crystal clear". Show me that there are four distinct categories outlined in modern day, common usage using reputable sources, and I will show you due consideration.
  2. Show me how each country meets each individual criteria for their prescribed set.
  3. Show me how this new setup will improve the article.
And by show I mean describe/reference and by me I mean us. Naturally. trackratte (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could answer my question before making your own demands. What's the problem with listing the nations that were former Realms as former Realms, and the former Dominions as former Dominions? Please? --Pete (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well by your own admission you think there are four different categories not two. My problem with listing 'former dominions as former dominions' and 'former realms as former realms' is that one, there is nothing different between the two groups in concept, and two, the term dominion is confusing as it has had a variety of meanings throughout its evolution where there are no hard, fast, and clear lines of demarcation on when these meanings shifted so is imprecise, confusing, and carries over a variety of historical connotations of subservience and colonialism. How's that for a run-on sentence? trackratte (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It would also be odd to have a section called "Former Dominions" in an article titled "Commownealth realm". There's no substantial difference between a post-1931 Dominion and a Commonwealth realm; no separate table is therefore needed. The proposed paragraph to predeed the table will explain the facts around the designation of India and the Irish Free State/Ireland before they ceased to have the right criteria to belong to the group of countries this article is about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
'…'the term dominion is confusing… I count fifty-seven uses of the word "Dominion" in the article, Trackratte. That's a lot of confusion if we accept your premise! And Mies, writing a paragraph of unsourced speculation doesn't really help us, does it? --Pete (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Dominion of New Zealand came to call itself simply New Zealand after 1945. I think we agree that "New Zealand" is the same state as the "Dominion of New Zealand." However in 1968, two territories were severed from New Zealand and established as states in "free association" with New Zealand. New Zealand has ceded its right to change their constitutions, appoint their governments, change their legislation, appoint their judges, etc. Yet despite no longer being part of the dominion, they are part of the realm, which would not be possible if the two terms had the same meaning.
Race was of course an important consideration in whether countries could hold dominion status. You may not be aware, but aboriginal and other non-white subjects were typically not allowed to vote and the dominions passed restrictions against non-white immigration, which lasted in Australia until the 1970s. White people were considered to be capable of self-government, while non-white people were not. There was no intention that any other countries would advance to Dominion status.
TFD (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Dominion of Canada (simply calls itself Canada) has provinces which joined in 'free association'. The Government of Canada has no right to change their constitutions, appoint their governments, change their legislation, appoint their judges (except highest court through advice to GG), etc. I'm not saying they're perfect parallels, I'm just saying that that, in and of itself, is insufficient to no longer be part of a dominion/realm. Could you help me out and show me the legislation stating that in the case of NZ they are no longer part of the dominion? And if they were no longer part of the dominion, but part of the realm, would that not be an argument to use realm here, as it's all encompassing?
Oh, and yes, I am aware. First nations could not vote until the late 60's in Canada. Although why not I won't speculate, I haven't done any research into it. Although if certain countries were never granted 'dominion status' before 1952 due to their skin colour, as you say, would that not be another argument to use realm and not dominion, as realm covers all the bases here? trackratte (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Free association is a political status set out in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) as part of decolonization, in which smaller states may exercise their right to self-determination by freely entering into an arrangement with another country, typically a former colonial power. There are currently five states recognized by the UN as associated states: the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, which are in association with the U.S., and the Cook Islands and Niue, which are in association with NZ. The larger state cannot legislate for its associated states and the associated states may end their relationship. The associated states are considered to be distinct and may exchange ambassadors with other countries or become members of the U.N. While the US associated states exercise that right, famously joining the Coaltion of the Willing in 2003, NZ's associated states do not.
New Zealand had listed these two territories as Non-Self-Governing Territories (i.e., overseas colonies) in 1946 under terms of Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter. Tokelau remains on the list. At the same time, the UK listed all Commonwealth nations that did not have Dominion status.
In 1948, the UK transferred Tokelau, which it had listed as a non-self-governing territory, to NZ. Hence it never was part of NZ, but it has a viceroy appointed by the GG of NZ and hence is part of the same realm. Similarly, the Ross Dependency in Antartica is part of the realm but has never been part of NZ. In fact in 1923 the AG explained that it was not part of the Dominion.
TFD (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, in Canada, while the federal government cannot legislate for areas under provincial jurisdiction, it can and does legislate for areas under federal jurisdiction, such as the criminal code and income tax. TFD (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Threshold test for inclusion as a Commonwealth realm, consisting of yes or no answers. If at any point, the answer is no, stop the test, and the result is no.

  1. Is X part of the Commonwealth? Yes/No
  2. Is X a country? Yes/No
  3. Does X share the same monarch? Yes/No

If yes was answered to all three, then it is, by the present day sourced and accepted definition, a Commonwealth realm, but not a Commonwealth Realm nor necessarily ever called as such. trackratte (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case we cannot take one source that defines a realm, and another source that explains the Irish Free State's constitution, and conclude that Ireland was a realm. Incidentally, by your checklist, Bermuda would be a realm. So btw would be each of the countries that are part of the realm of NZ. TFD (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD, almost didn't see your reply, must have gotten lost in the edit wash on the watchlist. In any event...
Actually, that is from just one source, the Commonwealth realm definition. I'm ignoring dominion entirely for this one. So it's not at all A and B is C, but A is A is A. In any event, good point about Bermuda and NZ, although now we're in the tricky bit of classifying what, exactly, is a country.
The trusty dictionary states: "1.A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. 2.The people of a nation.", and the Wiki entry seems to be rather ambiguous about soveriegnty and country. So, by that conception of country then yes, Bermuda is a realm, and the NZ 'countries' (Scare quotes!) are realms. But then again, that also means that Scotland is a realm, every Canadian province and in particular Quebec, England, I imagine each Australian state, etc, are also all countries and therefore realms. It's subject to interpretation I suppose, which is a far too ambiguous statement for an encyclopedia. We must have some sort of guidance though, as after all, you ask anyone 'on the street' and their common sense will tell them what are countries and what are not, no? But what is an authoritive source for which 'nations' are countries?
UN/League of Nations membership? That's the best I can think of at the moment, as these two organisations do represent international consensus do they not? By that criteria then, Bermuda, Nieu, and the Cook Islands are not recognised countries by international consensus. However, the Irish Free State became a full member of the League of Nations in 1923, showing that the international community recognised it as a country, and as a country separate from the British Empire. So, going through that checklist, it once again becomes clear which are realms, and which are not. trackratte (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There are of course different definitions of what constitutes a country. It shows that when we apply a formula to determine which countries would have been considered "Commonwealth Realms", we venture into original research. UN membership is little better than any other test. Switzerland was not a member until 2002, while two Soviet republics were original members. Indian became a member when it was a colony, while other colonies did not. We should just use the lists that secondary sources provide. TFD (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Separate tables

While not able to concur with line's of reasoning such as Sky.'s or TFD's, so far as I can understand them, I find the separate table proposed by Sky. for Ireland and India acceptable due to the following questions and answers: 1_Were/are they former dominions, factually and properly so called? Yes. 2_Was either of them, immediately before becoming a republic, generally known as a Dominion, in the same way as Canada was but Australia was not, and/or as a Commonwealth realm (in the same way that it is now normal to use that expression)? No. 3_Has either at any time thereafter been known as one of the Commonwealth realms? No. It follows that, in my view, the separate table should form part of the article, regardless of any other differences of opinion or argumentation about terminology or initial caps, dictionary definitions or theory of divisibility of the crown or of the office of the reigning monarch. Further, in my view as a reader, it would be my preferred way for the information to be presented. The fact that the title of the article is "Commonwealth realm" is relevant but not decisive on this point, but it may be that the present text would need a clarifying tweak or two. Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Per your question 2, after 1931, India and the Irish Free State/Ireland were Dominions in the same way as Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. were at the same time (see the Statute of Westminster). As there's no substantial difference between a post-1931 Dominion and a Commonwealth realm; no separate table is therefore needed. The proposed paragraph to preceed the table will explain the facts around the designation of India and the Irish Free State/Ireland before they ceased to have the right criteria to belong to the group of countries this article is about. Plus, it would be odd to have a section called "Former Dominions" in an article titled "Commownealth realm". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. "Were/are they former dominions, factually and properly so called?" Who's saying otherwise. This same statement applies to some/most/all of the countries within the article.
  2. "Was either of them, immediately before becoming a republic, generally known as a Dominion, in the same way as Canada was...No". Doesn't this source say otherwise ("Most of Ireland (26 counties) was to become the Irish Free State. This was to be a Dominion like Canada")?
  3. "Has either at any time thereafter been known as one of the Commonwealth realms? No." I don't think that's the point. In the way you mean that sentence, it should read Realms. Commonwealth realms is an informal and non-official designation having supplanted 'dominion' in present use for a grouping of 'realms' meeting a like criteria: being countries, sharing the crown, and part of the commonwealth.
  4. How is the concept of a 1931 dominion incompatible with a 1952 realm?
  5. If they are two completely different concepts, and Ireland and India cannot be grouped within the same set as Commonwealth realms, how do you justify their inclusion within this article? trackratte (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
--Mies. and Track. Thank you for the promptness of your replies. Unfortunately, they seem to have been too prompt to have allowed for consideration of the way the Q & A was put. I am not re-opening or re-running the lines of reasoning or arguments to date. My answer to Q2 agrees (SoW notwithstanding) with Canada: "Upon Confederation in 1867, Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country, and the word Dominion was conferred as the country's title. However, as Canada asserted its political autonomy from the United Kingdom, the federal government increasingly used simply Canada on state documents and treaties, a change that was reflected in the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982.", and with Australia: "The Commonwealth of Australia was established and it became a dominion of the British Empire in 1907." The point can be, and has been, argued back and forth, round and round, interminably, much of the time at cross-purposes. I do not propose to participate in that, only to let the case rest on the credibility of the information as presented in the two passages quoted. Please note the actual wording of my Q2. On the point about using "Former Dominions" as the title for the proposed third table, it would not be too odd (if at all) for presenting the information for the reader. While in earlier discussion I had thought it better to leave the second table as it is (with India and Ireland), on reconsideration and now, belatedly, focussing on those three "simple" questions, it becomes, in my view, quite obvious that the third table would be a better way for the information to be presented - if the quoted passages (and what they are based on) are to be believed. It is the only way I can see at present to "stop the nonsense".Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't quite understand the relevance of Canada and Australia's status prior to 1931. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
By "status" what is meant? Qexigator (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This article pertains only from 1931 to the present, so the relevance of Canada and Australia's status (names, titles, degrees of autonomy, etc) in 1867 and 1907 is irrelevant to the topic at hand. And my apologies if you feel that my promptness has not allowed for consideration. If you could respond to the points by number (ie your reply to my point 1, is listed as 1, etc) your reasoning, and your problems with mine, would be much easier to follow. trackratte (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Track. for clarification about what "status" was intended to mean there. I have decided not to engage in further argumentation to advance or resist the various points arising in the discussion. What I have to say has been said, and can be found by searching the page with "qex". I will not weary you with repeating it. You can marshal that against your numbered items as you wish. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but think of my favourite film of all time. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
And what did you think of this questionable flick? trackratte (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
DORA - lol! TTFN. Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Realm of India or Empire of India

The use of the term realm may be inappropriate for India. The British monarch was only ever the Emperor/Empress of India, not the King or Queen. Perhaps India is a special case which should not be included in this article on realms. Malchemist (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

India was a Commonwealth realm (or as it was then called a dominion) between 1947 and 1950. It was then called the Union of India. India became a Republic in 1950, so George VI was king in right of India from 1947 to 1950. This is not related to his former title of Emperor of India. Although the term wasn't used at the time, India was once a Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

-All true; although it was never officially called the 'Union of India' (its only official name 1947-1950 being 'Dominion of India'); but it was often referred to as such.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Union of India and Dominion of Pakistan were never official names. This is something I have raised on the India Independence Act 1947 talk page if any one wishes to participate in that discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dominion of India was certainly used as that countrys' official name 1947-1950, Dominion of Pakistan was not, although that name was used sporadically on an official basis with no legal warrant.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is a Country for the purposes of this article?

The below text was taken from a different section to start this one.

Threshold test for inclusion as a Commonwealth realm, consisting of yes or no answers (taken from "What is a Commonwealth realm" website: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch."). If at any point, the answer is no, stop the test, and the result is no.

  1. Is X part of the Commonwealth? Yes/No
  2. Is X a country? Yes/No
  3. Does X share the same monarch? Yes/No

If yes was answered to all three, then it is, by the present day sourced and accepted definition, a Commonwealth realm for classification purposes, but not a Commonwealth Realm nor necessarily ever titles as such. trackratte (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." In this case we cannot take one source that defines a realm, and another source that explains the Irish Free State's constitution, and conclude that Ireland was a realm. Incidentally, by your checklist, Bermuda would be a realm. So btw would be each of the countries that are part of the realm of NZ. TFD (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD, almost didn't see your reply, must have gotten lost in the edit wash on the watchlist. In any event...
Actually, that is from just one source, the Commonwealth realm definition. I'm ignoring dominion entirely for this one. So it's not at all A and B is C, but A is A is A. In any event, good point about Bermuda and NZ, although now we're in the tricky bit of classifying what, exactly, is a country.
The trusty dictionary states: "1.A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. 2.The people of a nation.", and the Wiki entry seems to be rather ambiguous about soveriegnty and country. So, by that conception of country then yes, Bermuda is a realm, and the NZ 'countries' (Scare quotes!) are realms. But then again, that also means that Scotland is a realm, every Canadian province and in particular Quebec, England, I imagine each Australian state, etc, are also all countries and therefore realms. It's subject to interpretation I suppose, which is a far too ambiguous statement for an encyclopedia. We must have some sort of guidance though, as after all, you ask anyone 'on the street' and their common sense will tell them what are countries and what are not, no? But what is an authoritive source for which 'nations' are countries?
UN/League of Nations membership? That's the best I can think of at the moment, as these two organisations do represent international consensus do they not? By that criteria then, Bermuda, Nieu, and the Cook Islands are not recognised countries by international consensus. However, the Irish Free State became a full member of the League of Nations in 1923, showing that the international community recognised it as a country, and as a country separate from the British Empire. So, going through that checklist, it once again becomes clear which are realms, and which are not. trackratte (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There are of course different definitions of what constitutes a country. It shows that when we apply a formula to determine which countries would have been considered "Commonwealth Realms", we venture into original research. UN membership is little better than any other test. Switzerland was not a member until 2002, while two Soviet republics were original members. Indian became a member when it was a colony, while other colonies did not. We should just use the lists that secondary sources provide. TFD (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The above text was taken from a different section to start this one.

Are lists of countries maintained by the UN/LoN not secondary sources? The primary sources would be the laws, statutes, speeches, and stances of any given country. And yes, acknowledged about Switzerland. But Switzerland was a recognised state as one of the United Nations General Assembly observers, and thus as a country. In this same way, the Holy See and Palestine are non-members but offically recognised as states. Using the UN/LoN benchmark, the Cook Islands and Nieu, while being "states in free association of New Zealand" with treaty rights, they have not been recognised as states (as far as I'm aware), since "free association is not a qualification of an entity's statehood or status as a subject of international law" (Associated state). Since UN/LoN recognition represents the global consensus, I see no reason why it could not be used as a benchmark, since any country who is not recognised by this organisation as such, means that their status is disputed or not recognised on the international stage. If 'country status' for any given 'country' does not have global consensus for recognition, then I do not see how they would be eligible as countries within an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not use Wikipedia to determine what are acceptable countries within it? We have List of states with limited recognition and List of sovereign states (although even these two seem to use the UN as a benchmark) which are representative of the encyclopedia's consensus, and also coveres non-sovereign states. However, this means that Cook Islands would be classified as a Commonwealth realm, which could be problematic, as this does not have global consensus. Although, if we ignore international consensus, and stick with only Wikipedia consenus, we could place this within the table indented under NZ, or simply place it as a standalone with an explanation in the same way as in List of states with limited recognition outlining its ambiguous status or whatever, I have no problem with either, if this is the option everyone wants to go with, as long as it is properly explained and executed. If any other country is added to these articles through consensus, then I see no problem with adding them here, as they would fit the criteria. Alternatively we could have two tables, one with officially recognised commonwealth realms, and the other with non-officially recognised realms, irrespective of date, although this would not be my preferred option. If any reader is ambiguous about a particular country, they would naturally click on the applicable wiki-link to look at more in-depth information. This is merely an informative classification list, much in the same way as Monarchs of Canada, and List of former first ministers. These lists do not say that these people were ever known as "first minister" or "King or Queen of Canada", merely that they meet the criteria for inclusion under that particular category. This is accepted practice on the En Wiki.

All I am saying is this article is about classification, not about what countries are known as, or titled as, or have ever called themseles. If we think that this classification would be better known under a different name, let's change it. But I'm saying that the current name that this classification is going by has an official secondary source, which clearly outlines the criteria where we can easily apply a threshold test. The only sticking point I see at the moment is what constitutes a country within the definition. trackratte (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks like an own goal. It may have been said before, but this article is not about classification. It is to present available information in prose aided by tables and inset images such as the world map, not to invent a novel classification for this topic. That could be a major source of Track.'s difficulties here. As above mentioned (18:01, 29 June 2013), "country" is not a term of art, unless made so in a specific context, such as a piece of legislation, treaty or the like, when it must be applied accordingly; so also, "nation" takes its specific meaning from the specific context. If the written and customary law or practise has been absent or uncertain, there may be dicta in the judgments delivered in a court after hearing argument in contested proceedings, or upon reference, which can be taken as guidance, but questions may be dormant or conjectural for many years until a point is heard and finally determined in a court of law. The second table is a novel classification at least in respect of Ireland and India, which as others have pointed out, were never referred to as among what later were called "Commonwealth realms". Qexigator (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Was the Irish Free State (1931) a "country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen"? Yes or no.
Was the Irish Free State (1931) part of the Commonwealth? Yes or no.
trackratte (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Was it called a "Commonwealth realm?" Yes or no. TFD (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
No. I've repeated this stance over and over, it was never called or known as a Commonwealth Realm. Now your turn to answer my two questions with a yes or no answer. trackratte (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


In the Commonwealth context I would believe it would be: A place that has its own immigration policy, is responsible for its own foreign affairs + national defense, and ability to tax its own citizens.

  • UKOTs have all *but* ability to set own foreign affairs or responsibility for national defence.
  • The constituent countries of the UK (and The City of London even) almost look like a country within a country but they have a shared immigration policy with the wider UK. In the case of the City of London having its own police force for defence again it has shared immigration and doesn't set own foreign affairs. When Ireland became Free State did it assume own control of foreign affairs and national defence at that time? CaribDigita (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
De facto control I believe. And as I stated above "the Irish Free State became a full member of the League of Nations in 1923, showing that the international community recognised it as a country". trackratte (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Belarus, Ukraine, India, and the Philippines all entered the UN before they were independent. Ireland and the British dominions entered the League of Nations before the Balfour Declaration 1926, and NZ joined the UN before the Statute of Westminster extended to them. The US in fact did not recognize Canada as an independent country until 1926. The Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau are all members although they have the same status of associated states as the Cook Islands and Nieu, which are not. TFD (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And? The lists of states on Wikipedia will tell you how many countries recognise the country in question. Since there is no set definition, the only acceptable and encyclopedic standard I can think of is international and Wikipedia consensus (and they both seem to use the UN as that benchmark). If nearly all of the world's countries recognise state A as a country then it is one according to...nearly or absolutely everyone, and the reverse is also true. When a specific country received recognition on the international stage doesn't precisely matter for the purposes of this article's criteria, so long as it was existent from or after 1931. trackratte (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
So India was a founding member of the UN joining 30 October 1945, which in your opinion means it was a Commonwealth realm, yet did not achieve Dominion status until 15 August, 1947. Evidently, by your definition, dominions and Commonwealth realms are two separate things. TFD (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
And Ireland in 1923 and didn't become part of the Commonwealth until 1931. India was a subordinate territory of the UK until 1947 (although I don't know the history of India in any detail), I would assume it would be the same case as in Ireland where it was operating as a de facto country previous to its official departure from the Empire, and was thus recognised as such on the international stage. When a country was titled Dominion is not necessarily the same thing as being a dominion. And there is no precise listing of what exactly being a dominion meant at any given time, as the term was in flux depending on the time and place ie. The term dominion as it applied to Canada in 1867 and 1926 are two completely different things. It's precisely because of such imprecision that I continue to advocate for the term 'realm', as its timelines and criteria are starkly defined, readily sourceable and available. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the questions by the way. I was gracious enough to promptly answer yours with a direct yes or no answer. trackratte (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Editors can see that in the article "C/country" appears in 16 places in the text and at the top of the first column of the first and second tables. In all places the word is being used in the ordinary way with no specific definition or peculiarity of application, except in one passage in the part headed "Post-war evolution" to explain a specific usage: "... at the 1948 Prime Ministers' Conference the term Dominion was avoided in favour of Commonwealth country, in order to avoid the subordination implied by the older designation." There appears to be no ambiguity or other problem about presenting the information in this way. It is not self-evident that the question has a bearing on improving the article, nor is it apparent that the above discussion discloses any bearing. It may be noted that the word was used in the Royal Titles Act 1953 in a similar way.[10] "...permitting of the use in relation to each of those countries of a form suiting its particular circumstances, would retain a substantial element common to all". Qexigator (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


It's only pertinent because it is part of the criteria for a Commonwealth realm, and TFD was questioning whether Bermuda, Cook Islands, etc, etc meets the criteria based on 'country'. If you're satisfied that you and the reader can tell what a country is, then it is no longer relevant.
In any event, we've gone into great depth and into the the conceptual and slightly esoteric, and we are still right where we were in the very beginning. Although, from the outset I seem to remember that we all agreed this was not about a title, but about a descriptive term. So, the crux of the problem was and still is very simply:
  1. Was the Irish Free State (1931) a "country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen"? Yes or no.
  2. Was the Irish Free State (1931) part of the Commonwealth? Yes or no.
trackratte (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe Ireland was a country ruled by a king and part of the Commonwealth and , but whether that was sufficient to make it a "Commonwealth realm" is another thing. Tonga is a part of the Commonwealth ruled by a king, but is not a Commonwealth realm. The Realm of New Zealand is not a country. India was ruled by an emperor. Incidentally, India was a colony when it joined the U.N. We can avoid all this discussion however by following the no synthesis policy. TFD (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
So 1) Yes, and 2) Yes? trackratte (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


Re: "but whether that was sufficient to make it a "Commonwealth realm" is another thing":
It clearly states that the SoW created the first Commonwealth realms, and not Commonwealth Realms. Again, what do you think realm means? For example, Australia is a kingdom by statement of fact, but not the Kingdom of Australia. The UK is a monarchy by statement of fact, but not the Monarchy of the UK (as a country name). Canada is not a dominion by statement of fact, but is the Dominion of Canada (and more commonly, simply Canada). The Irish Free State was a realm by statement of fact, but not the Realm of the Irish Free State. These are basic and simple concepts within the English language, and we assume that by using the English Wikipedia, our readers are able enough in the English language to undertand the very basics, and by extension, our editors as well. (And to be perfectly clear, I am stating a basic operative assumption, and not insulting anyone's language ability, reader or editor, and I have no idea if everyone's first language here is English or not) trackratte (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
See my comments in the discussion thread below. TFD (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

India and Ireland

India and Ireland differ from the other dominions in some respects. All other Commonwealth realms were obtained through settlement or cession from other European countries, who had obtained them through settlement. None of these territories were kingdoms, and Her Majesty is only called "Queen" in these territories because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. But Ireland was a kingdom and India an empire. Also, the constitution of the Irish Free State said that "all lawful authority comes from God to the people", which is contrary to the philosophy of commonwealth realms. It is questionable whether had they remained monarchies in the Commonwealth that they would have had the status of Commonwealth realms and a source is required if we want to conclude that they are former realms. TFD (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD,
(1) I disagree that 'all realms were obtained through settlement or cessasion', as this does not apply to the countries of India, Ireland, Scotland, or England, which I suppose is three realms in total from today's standpoint.

(2) I disagree that Canada was not a Kingdom, as clearly the founders who drafted the 1867 legislation thought so. It was only after being rebuffed by the UK government did they choose, as a synonym, the term "Dominion". (3) I also disagree that the Queen is monarch in these territories today only because she is Queen of the UK, clearly the Queen of Canada since 1982 has no legal connection to the Queen of the UK, only historical and political ones. Even the sentiment of a shared Crown under the 1931 SoW is only politically binding, not legally so. (4) I disagree that India was in and of itself an Empire, it was part of the British Empire, and before that, various others. (5) The philosophy of 'all lawful authority coming from God' does not seem to me to be either compatable or incompatable with the criteria of a Commonwealth realm, but conjecture or personal opinion depending on your chosen faith or lack thereof, and whether or not a country desires to be secular or not. (6) The question of a what Ireland's status would have been if it had not become a republic is conjecture and beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

In summary, I'm not sure of what relevance any of your six points has on the present conversation. trackratte (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(1) All realms were obtained through settlement or session. Scotland and England are not "Commonwealth realms". My argument is that India and Ireland never were. All other Commonwealth realms were obtained through settlement or session. (2) The founding fathers may have wanted to found Canada as a kingdom, but Westminster rejected them. (3) Had the Queen of the UK been called the Countess of the UK, she would be Countess of Canada, not Queen. (4) Victoria was only called an Empress because she was "Empress of India". Check out your old coins (pre-1948) that say George VI Ind Imp (i.e, "Emperor of India"). (5) Check out the coins in your pocket that say "Elizabeth II D.G. Regina". DG stands for By the Grace of God, meaning she is Queen by divine right, not by the will of the people. Irish coins never said that. (6) If The question of a what Ireland's status would have been if it had not become a republic is conjecture and beyond the scope of Wikipedia, then we cannot say it would have been a Commonwealth realm.
The relevance is that speculating that Ireland and India are former Commonwealth realms is OR.
TFD (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
TFD, thanks for numbering your points, it makes it a lot easier to track what's being said in relation to what.
(1) I never said Scotland and England were Realms, I said they were countries, which even the PM of the UK uses to describe them. And I said that would mean a total of three realms (Ireland, India, and the UK), so no, not "All realms were obtained through settlement or cessation".
(2) "Westminister rejected them" not on the basis that Canada was not a Kingdom, but on the basis that they did not want to offend American sensibilities, so Canada coined dominion as a synonym for Kingdom. (3) "Had the Queen of the UK been called the Countess of the UK" then we have no idea what would have resulted because that would be conjecture. Maybe it would have rained purple-pink elephants, who knows. What I do know though, is if that if Elizabeth II of the UK were only a countess, Elizabeth II of Canada would still be Queen regardless of what the UK does. (4) Style and title is not statutory and has no bearing on the title of countries. Although, if you have a source that states that India, in and of itself was an Empire, I'd be more than happy to concede the point. (5) "By the Grace of God" is style and title, and has no bearing on the statutory law or constitution of a country. A monarch can unilaterally choose whichever styles and titles they please. Elizabeth II of Canada could choose 'Supreme Wiccan of the North' as a title, but this would not make Canada a Wiccan country, just as 'keeper of the faith' does not make Canada an Anglican one, nor even a theistic one, today. (6) When you say Commonwealth realm you are using it as Commonwealth Realm, or at least in the sense that it was called a Commonwealth realm. No such arguements are being made. What is being said is that this is a list by classification, by which we have an officially sourced criteria, and an officially sourced name for this criteria. If a given set of things meet the criteria for inclusion, then it is included, regardless of what it is officially called or known as. Once again, in the same way that the List of Canadian monarchs article lists monarchs (listed but were never known as such) because they meet the criteria for inclusion, not because they had ever been called a King or a Queen of Canada (actually only one out of all of them ever was). In this same vein, realms here is used in the same way as monarch there. I have no problem titling the tables as 'Present realms within the Commonwealth', and 'Former realms within the Commonwealth', etc, since it is not in dispute that Ireland was a realm (strict English language definition, not Commonwealth title), and that it was part of the Commonwealth. And no, no reference will ever be found for King/Queen X as being called "of Canada" because they weren't. This same accepted practice applies here. trackratte (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I have answered all your questions. If you want to know more about all these issues, then you are on your own. It seems argumentative to me that you claim Canada is a kingdom because the sovereign is Queen of Canada, yet then say, "Style and title is not statutory and has no bearing on the title of countries".
Incidentally, the monarch was once King of France and Elector of Hanover - does that make them former Commonwealth realms?
TFD (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(1) You think its argumentative to state that Canada was a kingdom when it had a king? What do you think kingdom means? And Canada is not a kingdom due to style and title, they have nothing to do with it.
(2) What do you mean by "them"? Was 'them' a Commonwealth country? I'm assuming by 'them' you mean France and Hanover? In which case, according the the three sourced criteria, 1. NO, 2. YES, 3. NO (Commonwealth can't share the same monarch if it didn't exist). If you look at the criteria, it's quite clear. trackratte (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:It does not matter why Canada did not become a kingdom, that fact is that it did not. The colonial office objected also, btw, because they did not think a colony could be a kingdom. In any case the Queen is queen in every territory subject to her, it does not make each territory, whether the uninhabited South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands and the province of New Brunswick kingdoms. How can a kingdom be a province of another kingdom? In any case, you need a source that they are kingdoms.

And yes both France and Hanover shared the same monarch with England/the UK at one time. Were they part of the Commonwealth? I do not know because like going back and calling countries Commonwealth realms, it requires OR. Just as you claim "realm" is a new word for dominion, "Commonwealth" is arguably the new term for the Empire, which itself was merely a new term for the territories held by the Crown. Incidentally we can add Holland and Scotland to the list.

TFD (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you are confusing Canada's title as a Kingdom, with its being a kingdom. One Canada never and still does not have, and the other Canada is, and was, by definition. How can a province be Kingdom within another Kingdom? I doubt it can...who cares? The South Sandwich Islands are not inhabited and thus don't even meet the dictionary definition of country. New Brunswick clearly isn't a country. So what's your point? The definition specifically states country.
As for your adding Scotland and Holland to the list, Scotland is offically part of the Realm of the UK, not elligible. Holland was, and is, clearly not part of the Commonwealth. Your point?
Re: Your inquiry as to whether or not Hanover or France were ever part of the Commonwealth.
  • From the Commonwealth's own website - History:
"The empire was gradually changing and Lord Rosebury, a British politician, described it in Australia in 1884 as a 'Commonwealth of Nations'"
"the Balfour Report which defined the Dominions as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
"This definition was incorporated into British law in 1931 as the Statute of Westminster."
'It was adopted...in... Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and India'
So, the Commonwealth did not legally exist until 1931. The only countries included within the Commonwealth were countries within the British Empire. So, were Hanover and France part of the British Empire? Were they mentioned within the 1931 SoW? Then they were not part of the Commonwealth.
  • From the Commonwealth's own website - Modern Commonwealth:
"The London Declaration of 1949 was a milestone on the road to developing the modern Commonwealth."
"Would Commonwealth membership only be for countries "owing an allegiance to the Crown" as the Balfour Report had stated? A conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1949 decided to revise this criterion and to accept and recognise India's continued membership as a republic, paving the way for other newly independent countries to join. At the same time, the word 'British' was dropped from the association's title to reflect the Commonwealth's changing character."
Thus, as of 1949 the Commonwealth eliminated the criteria of having an allegiance to the Crown and accepted new members, all of which can be found under the 'Member States' section. trackratte (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You like the date 1931 as the cutoff for being in the Commonwealth and I like the date 1952 as the cutoff for being a Commonwealth realm, and for the same reason as you - the term did not exist before. Scotland btw was a separate country in personal union with England until the crown was merged in 1701.
The monarch is "Queen of SSGI" and "Queen of New Brunswick", and of every territory which is subject to the Crown. See the Lords case, "Ex parte Quark."[11] And yes all of them are countries under some definitions.
TFD (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Union of the Crowns was in 1707, not 1701.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also; yes, what a dominion was in say, 1907 was totally different to what a Commonwealth Realm was in say, 2007, and yet the latter clearly developed from the former. It might be perhaps a convenient cutting off point to define the notion of commonwealth realms as 'starting' from 1953 with the 1953 Royal Titles Act, but this is an oversimplification. The Dominions were very gradually given concessions to sovereignty over the course of the first half of the Twentieth Century, often on an individual basis (for example, the Irish Free State's membership of the League of Nations and her adoption of a separate Great Seal from the rest of the dominions), and it would be grossly oversimplifying things to state that, say; Pakistan was any different in on independence in 1947 (as a dominion) from its constitutional position on the eve of the declaration of the republic in 1956 (by when it would have been-and was-referred to as a Commonwealth realm).JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD, no, I do not like the start date of 1931, that was the date that the Commonwealth was officially and legally formed, as per the Commonwealth itself, and the SoW 1931 (official secondary source, official and legal primary source). The style and titles of 1952 have no bearing on the legal formation of the Commonwealth as they are simply what the monarchy wants itself officially and legally refered to as. And as you say, you "like the date 1952 as the cutoff for being a Commonwealth realm" because that it your own unsubstatiated personal opinion. And if you think that Canadian provinces are countries in their own right, that is definatly a very far out fringe opinion, unsubstatiated, and certainly not reality by any reliable source. Scotland in 1707, by the way, has nothing to do with this conversation, much like the majority of your posts. This is a very simple problem solved by two simple yes or no answers to two very simple and straight forward questions, which you still continue to avoid directly answering, and instead continue trying to obfuscate the real issue by bringing up the legal status of a country from over 200 years previous to our topic, or by trying to convince me that 'Canadian provinces are countries so the entire criteria must be flawed' arguments. trackratte (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, if you were going to use the adoption of the word 'realm' in the Queen's various titles, you should use 1953 as the cutoff date, as that was the year the 1953 Royal Titles Act was passed giving the Queen a particular, different style for each realm. Prior to that (1952-1953), she had used the same title as her father in each country, including the word 'dominions beyond the seas'.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, depends how one defines 'country' as regards the Canadian provinces, there certainly is the legal concept of 'the Queen in right of (e.g.) Saskatchewan', (as there is for example 'the Queen in right of, say, Papua New Guinea), and Canada certainly has, along with Australia and Malaysia the distinction of being a federal monarchy, so personally I would say that they're as much 'countries' as the American or Malaysian states are, but not in the sense of 'sovereign states', though they do of course have greater autonomy than say, a Province of a non-federal sovereign state.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So then, would the word be rendered meaningless, as then the state of Alabama is a country, Queensland is a country, and so is every other political division within 'a country', and is unsupported. Your statement that 'Quebec is a country' is cause for a national meltdown, and is soundly rejected by every government and political scienctist in the world. "Queen in Right of..." means by the authority of..., and de facto means government (with and by the advice of my privy council ...etc). Which means that that entity has a government as distinct from the country in question's government, not that they enjoy equal international status, sovereignty, or any recognition as a country. Which is all tertiary to the discussion at hand, as there are only two pertinent questions to which everyone continues to ingnore, and instead seems to want to carry on discussing side-issues such as 'are Canadian provinces countries'. trackratte (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, 'TFD', the Netherlands was not in a personal union with England, Scotland, etc during the reign of William III. The Dutch stadtholder was not the Head of State of nor was he sovereign of the Dutch Republic, constitutionally speaking. The States-General was.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_realm/Archive_16&oldid=1136630314"