User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2017/April

Apologies

I didn't mean to be rude to you earlier, if it came across that way. I'm a little irritated with myself that I have other things that I ought to be doing, and instead I'm entangling myself in Wikipedia content disputes I know I won't win. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. But I think that legal arguments don't support the case, only political ones could. At this point the overseas territories are small, sparsely populated islands and have little significance to the UK compared with before the Second World War. TFD (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My position is that the legal status of the territories, that is, their not being "part of" the United Kingdom, is irrelevant (hence they feature prominently in the main body of the article). Regarding your second point, what is the significance of places like Guam to American power and influence around the world? I would suggest that in relative terms, places like the Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Gibraltar are far more significant than US overseas territories (in relative terms) given their wealth and status as tax havens.

EDIT: Equally (and not that I think it matters), despite what you say, many of the populated overseas territories happen to be among the most densely populated in the world (Gib., 5th, Bermuda, 9th, Cayman Islands, 61st, BVI, 68th, out of 246 listed here L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It is Bermuda's choice to be a tax haven and if it becaame independent nothiing would change. Barbados for example is also a tax haven. Guam is arguably more a part of the U.S. because Americans can live there and the federal government and federal courts operate there and federal laws have force. I don't see how dense population matters. Bermuda has 64,000 people in 20 square miles, but London has 100 times the population and 5 times the density. TFD (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing different arguments. You suggested the British Overseas Territories are of "little significance to the UK", and I suggested they are of equal or greater significance to the UK than the overseas territories of most other countries, given their wealth, and status as tax havens and financial centres (and enormous British expatriate community).

I asked you what the significance of Guam was to the power and influence of the United States (since your other argument for non-inclusion of a map was that the territories are not significant, as above). Guam's legal relationship with the US is not important for the purposes of this argument, but it might be relevant for the argument concerning the legal status of the BOTs.

"I don't see how dense population matters": You apparently think it matters, since you suggested the fact that they are "small, sparsely populated islands" was a reason for the non-inclusion of the map. My comment was a direct response to yours, and I stated that I did not think population density mattered. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

ARe you saying that they are of significance to the UK because British people use them as tax havens? If Bermuda became independent today, it would still be a tax haven and status of UK citizens in Bermuda would not change. And Barbados is It is the Bermudian legislature that has determined it would be a tax haven, not the UK. There are plenty of tax havens that are not British overseas territories: Barbados, Nevis, Panama to name a few. And the significance of population is that even if you think these countries are assets of the UK, they are insignificant compared with the actual population and wealth of the UK as a whole. Hong Kong for example has 100 times the population of Bermuda, which is the largest remaining territory by population. The fact they are densely populated is irrelevant since they are tiny with small populations. TFD (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting they are significant as overseas territories because they are affluent, and many of them serve as prominent tax havens and financial centres. It is also true that they host a large British expatriate population. The fact that there are tax havens which are not British overseas territories is entirely besides the point. Aruba would still be a tax haven if it declared a republic, but why does this matter?

As for the following:"they are insignificant compared with the actual population and wealth of the UK as a whole", this argument would apply to any country with overseas territories. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You are saying that they should be included in a map of the UK because they have British expat populations and British offshore investors. But that would be the case regardless of their constitutional status, and in fact there are more British expats and investors in Australia, Canada, Spain or the U.S. than Bermuda. And I agree that the same argument applies to any country with overseas territories unless they are part of the country. While I appreciate it is not necessarily the political reality, particularly historically, the position in UK law is that the territories are subject to the crown not the country. That is reflected in the Gibraltar constitution. TFD (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that they are significant because they are British overseas territories that are also large financial centres. The expatriate community is a side point. Again, I am arguing that the legal status of the territories shouldn't matter, so it would save us a lot of time if you either state that you are unconvinced in this regard (please re-read my comments on the talk), or that you don't understand what I am arguing. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, you've tried to down-play the significance of the territories, on the other, you've said that their constitutional status alone ought to preclude a mention in the infobox (though not in the main body of the article, apparently). Would you be persuaded if the territories were more significant? In which case, what exactly are you arguing? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, in case you're an administrator, this IP is used almost exclusively for vandalism (possible anti-Semitism in the last edit): [1] L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The first reason not to include them is that they are not part of the UK. But what does it matter to the article about the UK if they are financial centers? They are not regulated by the UK, and provide no preference to British expats or investors. The UK receives no revenue from them, except for Bermuda, that pays for police and civil servants provided to them. They are as separate from the UK as any other country. The UK has no effective power to legislate for them against their will. Where they have permanet populations, they are free to be formally independent. TFD (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"They are as separate from the UK as any other country." This is not true. The British parliament and Privy Council are the source of legislative authority for the territories, the United Kingdom guarantees their defence and sovereignty, and is responsible for their foreign relations. They also retain the link with the British Crown. If you think these links are trivial, then we simply disagree.

What's more, your point concerning an "effective" power of legislating for them against their will would apply to the overseas territories of most countries. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what the Law Lords said. The Queen is acting in her capacity as queen of the territory not Queen of the UK, whether we are referring to the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council. And the constitution of at least one territory was re-written to reflect that.[2] If you have a different view, then please provide a source. Your interpretation may be correct but is not helpful if legal experts see it differently.

I think what you are missing though is that in UK law the UK is not a legal person (unlike American law where the U.S. is a legal person) and therefore has no rights or obligations. It is merely one of the territories ruled by the Queen. The Queen however is a different person for each territory.

TFD (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I understand this, but these are still relevant links which are retained with the United Kingdom. Like I said, the legal status of the territories should not matter for the purposes of featuring a map in the infobox of a Wikipedia article (you are yet to explain why it does). They may not be "part of" the UK, but they are entwined with it, share the same monarch and legislature, have their defence and sovereignty guaranteed by the British government, and do not have independent foreign policies. Under international law, they are treated as de facto units of the United Kingdom, since the United Kingdom is responsible for their defence and foreign relations. This is more significant than their peculiar legal status, which is a curiosity more than anything, and is of little practical significance. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Canada, Australia and New Zealand also share the same monarch and until the 1980s the same legislature. The practical significance is that the British government does not govern the territories and the legislature does not legislate beyond what the territories request. Under international law the territories are considered non-self-governing territories, not units of the UK, and HM Govt is required to provide them with independence and in the meantime to report their status each year. The UK has no obligation to defend them. If Bermuda became independent tomorrow, it would make little if any difference to the UK or Bermuda. They could even keep the same flag and you could still color them pink on the map. TFD (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The acts concerning the constitutions of the British Overseas Territories are of greater practical significance than the retained legal right to legislate for Canada and Australia prior to the final British North America Act and the Australia Act, since these rights have been invoked on several occasions. The British government is responsible for governing the territories (directly via the FCO in several cases), and the United Kingdom is responsible for their defence ("obligation" is a red herring). The United Nations list of non-self-governing territories lists the United Kingdom as the "administering power" for the British Overseas Territories, hence they are de facto units of the United Kingdom under international law, regardless of their status under British law. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders photos

Hi Four Deuces, your thoughts would be welcome at a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Photos. User:HopsonRoad 13:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Counter-punch

Hi. Scottyhinesis is trying to hide well-sourced, well-attributed and well-documented criticism about the leftist US magazine, without proper consensus on talk page (nobody agreed with that removal). For some reason he didn't explain, Malik Shabazz deleted the content again, even though he didn't participate in the discussion. BTW, Scottyhines is a single-purpose account that has only edited in that specific article, perhaps with the intention to whitewash the anti-Israel publication from its numerous accusations of antisemitism.--186.125.68.145 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

British Israelism

Thanks. This is such an important issue I'm wondering if I should go to TalkRS to discuss it. These BI articles were always a problem due to AngloPyramidologist and his socks, who was a white supremacist I think, and now with these two new SPAs. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean RSN? That would be a good idea, because RSN has a wider following than NORN. I notice that the "Scots are of Scythian Ancestry" has no valid sources. While sources by adherents may be used in articles about adherents, they cannot be used in articles about belief systems. TFD (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I was thinking of trying to clarify the issue of whether sources need to discuss the topic. I've had the same problem at Talk:Bene Israel as at Talk:British Israelism (which is a bit of a nightmare now with editors not understanding Wikpedia, thinking BI is a majority view in terms of NPOV, not seeing problems with self-published stuff, etc). Doug Weller talk 20:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You could do that. TFD (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Talk:Nigel Farage". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 May 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)