Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 5


 * Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive - may require summary here.
 * Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive 2 - Talk beginning shortly after mediation
 * Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive 3 - Continued
 * Talk:Commonwealth Realm/AVD - Extraneous comments by ArmchairVellixologistDon
 * Talk:Commonwealth Realm/Archive 4 - commentary/dispute

India, 1947
'Her father, King George VI, upon becoming Emperor of the Dominion of India in 1947, had also become Emperor of many former Indian Principalities which had merged with the Indian Union in 1947 which were originally never British Colonies but had been under the suzerainty of the British Crown.' From the article.

I'd like to object at this. As far as I know, George VI reigned over the Dominion of India in 1947-1950 as a King of India, not as an Emperor. Certainly he wasn't 'Emperor of many former Indian principalities'. Mapple 05:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe you're correct. As I recall the "Emperor of India" title was dropped upon India's independence. Homey 06:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, he only abdicated the Imperial title in 1948, but his abdication was retroactive to August 15, 1947 (the day India and Pakistan became independent). I have not been able to find the exact date in 1948 that he actually abdicated, nor a reason why he didn't give the title up immediately upon independence.  Anyone else know? --Jfruh 18:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
The article mentions the invasion of Grenada as a moment where the Queen's roles in various states were in conflict. However, it seems as if there's a more obvious example: in the Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947, George VI was actually the head of state of two states that were at war with one another, yes? Or am I missing something? --Jfruh 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds familliar. And wasn't Mountbatten Viceroy of India and Governor General of Pakistan at the same time, or something like that? (I am only going by something I read some time ago now.) --gbambino 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Pakistan's G-G was Mohammed_Ali_Jinnah -- who, until he died the next year, was the real executive there, an anomaly. Up till August of 1947, Mountbatten had been G-G of Indian Empire, which had included the territory that became Pakistan; but after partition, he was G-G of India only. --Jfruh 19:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, my mistake. However, if Pakistan and India both had a Governor General representing King George VI at that time then technically the King was at war with himself. --gbambino 19:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Commonwealth Realm - comment
Hello! Thanks, Chris Bennett, for your edition; it is now properly balanced (and I considered doing something similar, using New Zealand). It is not merely, however, about "my" nationalist sentiment (though that can be a factor, as I am a Canuck coincidentally) and please be careful about characterising it in such a grandiose way ("Oh please"): your prior note, as well, to keep scrolling down for a wikified Canada, while there were numerous wikified instances of Australia or Australian upfront, is unbalanced and can be perceived as being denigrating. I would've insisted on wikifying the first instance of the country or its adjective (since either is a major topic point, and since the latter terms redirect to former country articles) for balance, no matter what national example appeared. E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problem if someone wants to implement an editorial policy of wikifying a reference to a country on its first mention, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Personally, I don't greatly care what gets wikified, so long it's a noun or a nominal phrase and the link is correct.  So I can't get excited whether "Australia" (or "Canada") is wikified once or 99 times or not at all.  But I do object to wikifying words or phrases that aren't grammatically nominal, because its a meaningless thing to do.  "Canadian" is not nominal.  Its an adjective. (And, BTW, there is no instance of an unqualified "Australian" being wikified in the article, it only occurs as part of a nominal phrase.)


 * As to "Oh please", sorry, but you earned it. The justification you gave for wikifying "Canadian" separately from "province" was that it was unacceptable to you as a Canadian for "Canadian" not to be wikified.  That's about the silliest argument I have ever read.  It's an editorial issue, pure and simple.  Your nationality or mine is absolutely irrelevant.  --Chris Bennett 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There are guidelines ensuring that terms are not excessively wikified, which was my intent from the get-go in wikifying the country or the nationality (not both). Your assessments of nominality are dubious: Canadian is just as nominal as Australia upfront (the former redirecting to Canada, same for Australia); otherwise, why indicate either upfront?


 * What are you talking about? Its a simple matter of standard English grammar.  "Australia" and "Canada" are both nouns:  there is a place called "Australia", there is a place called "Canada".  But "Canadian" is just an adjective:  there is no place called "Canadian".


 * In the nominal phrase "Canadian province", "Canadian" is an adjective modifing the noun "province". You wanted to wikify the two words separately, with the adjective linking to an article about "Canada". But (a) wiki articles aren't about attributes of things (adjectives) they are about things themselves (nouns) and (b) since the link is from a mention of Canadian provinces, the reader is going to be completely baffled by being taken to an article about Canada.


 * Actually, what are you talking about? Your distinctions of what are and are not nominal are nonsensical, with no cited, authoritative basis in Wp.  It's a matter of "simply" wikifying, not grammar.  As per my initial goal, initial instances of the country or nationality (which means "of (a country)") should be wikified, not repeatedly and excessively as you contend. E Pluribus Anthony 21:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm perfectly happy for you to provide links to "Canada". I don't personally care how many times you do it, but I'm glad someone worries about the proper balance of wikification.  What I objected was to you creating a link from the isolated adjective "Canadian", for the simple reason that wiki articles aren't about adjectives, they are about nouns.  And in this case the relevant context was "Canadian provinces", not "Canada".


 * Since you want me to resort to Wp authority, I point out that there's nothing in the article you point to that says or suggests its OK to link to adjectives (or prepositions or verbs or any other part of of speech except nouns). I doubt the authors considered that it needed to be said.  Since my explanation of why isn't good enough for you, I suggest you go read a textbook on English grammar. --Chris Bennett 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would've insisted the same if the countries were in the reverse order in the article; my nationality is (parenthetically) a coincidence and segue. Since you employ a logical fallacy and cannot cite reasons to not wikify adjectives (particularly in such a context when describing nation/ality) and persist in personal attacks, I suggest you learn to better articulate your opinions, re-educate yourself, and stay cool. E Pluribus Anthony 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: it is an editorial issue and ... and, actually, I did not 'earn' anything (nor is it "silly" ... again). I might point out that it was you who indicated previously that a user would have to "be rather far along in the article" for an instance of a wikified Canada...Canadian but not for Australia...Australian; this is favouritism and can be POV.  I parenthetically indicated my nationality, and is coincidental, after indicating country/nationality (but not my nationality initially) earlier.  Perhaps you should attempt to better balance your over-emphatic statements/edits initially; otherwise, such discussions would not need to unfold or escalate. E Pluribus Anthony 20:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I reacted to a silly justification for a silly action, nothing more. We all make silly mistakes at times, no need to get upset because I pointed one out to you.  If you want to get het up about it, feel free. But, since you and I are both happy with the end result, what's the point in getting bent out of shape? --Chris Bennett 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: a modus vivendi has been reached. Yay!  I am responding to emphatic statements initiated – and perpetuated – by you (e.g., "silly" ... yet again, et al.).  Refrain from such emphatic characterisations and I will gladly revert to my former "shape." :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree its a non-problem. I'll continue to call things as I see them.  I suggest you consider the difference between a criticism and a personal attack.  --Chris Bennett 21:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great. Since you persist in using criticism to attack personally (e.g., initial references to "Oh please" and "silly" could've been omitted or substituted with "Justification/please elaborate?" or something more tactful), you are apparently as myopic (to continue your metaphor) as your "call(s)" are.  The balcony is now closed ... E Pluribus Anthony 21:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Calling you silly would have been a personal attack. Calling your argument silly is not. You gave your justification -- that your action was justified because you are a Canadian. The statement was perfectly clear, no elaboration needed.  It was and remains a silly argument.  If you are going to take every disagreement so personally I suggest you read the wiki guidelines on staying cool. --Chris Bennett 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave prior justification as well, that didn't seem to satisfy you; too bad. I'm glad the article lead reads as it does now; for that, I thank you.  Summarily, however: if you cannot judiciously comment (or learn to) regarding users or arguments (and this all could've been obviated by your use of tact terms initially and, moreso before that, by the provision of a different example for the country lead (beyond both of our purview)), don't do so at all or I will move to have you (or other similar users) censured for them. E Pluribus Anthony 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history page for the main article you will see that the only issue I ever disagreed with you was about linking from "Canadian", and the only justification you gave for doing it is the one I cited.


 * Also, and if I am wrong about this I apologise in advance, but I get the impression that one reason you are annoyed with me is that you think I am personally responsible for every wikified reference to Australia. That is certainly not the case.  This article has had many authors.


 * As to lack of tact, you started this thread by calling my comments "grandiose", for 'Oh Please', and "unbalanced" and "denigrating", for noting that "Canada" was first referenced some distance later in the article, a purely factual remark. My skin is clearly thicker than yours, but I certainly don't regard those remarks as tactful, let alone accurate.  --Chris Bennett 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As the old saying goes: "get a room!" :) Doops | talk 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: perhaps we should get a room, but I am particular. :)


 * Actually, I gave prior and additional justification, i.e.: I wouldn't have bothered expanding on it here and on your talk page, and explicitly stated this. You just failed to read or comprehend.


 * My skin is fairly thick: I do have hyperkeratosis, after all. :) Remember: I do not question your edits, the end product is better, and (contrary to your belief) I do not hold you to account for the overwikifying of Oz. However, if your initial assertions to wikify this and that were retained, the article would have been unbalanced: Australia/n would have been wikified more than needed upfront and Canada/-ian too little; while this was factual, it (would have) required correction.


 * Importantly, I do challenge your attitude and comments thereafter, both of which require refinement. For instance, calling an argument "silly" upfront and persisting in doing so (particularly after I elaborated about the multiple reasons for my position) is grandiose and insulting to me.  What basis is there for that?


 * I think the word you are looking for might be "pompous". It certainly isn't "grandiose".


 * I agree that you have explained, in this thread, that you wanted to wikify Canada on its first mention. I have said repeatedly -- and this is the last time -- that I have no problem with that, my only complaint was that you didn't wikify "Canada", you wikified "Canadian", and I have explained why that's a problem.  I can't help it that you don't get it.


 * Your silly argument was that "Canadian" should be wikified because you are a Canadian. That was and remains a silly argument.  My original "Oh please" was just an expression of momentary annoyance, and the "silliness" was an explanation of why I was annoyed, but apparently you can't admit the possibility you made a mistake and move on, I have to grovel.  I'm sorry about that, for your sake, but I am not going to retract the statement just to make you feel better, especially since it happens to be true.  And threatening me with "censure" and god knows what else does not advance your case.--Chris Bennett 19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your opinion, which is just as valid as mine? Oh yeah: "Oh Please" ... which is similarly denigrating.  I can rightly challenge inflamed assertions – which you instigated with "silly" – and I did appropriately.  You then proceeded to again denigrate my position about only wikifying initial terms by saying I "deserved" it, by continuing your "silly" tirade of my argument, asserting that only "nominal" terms should be wikified (which is your opinion and has no cited basis and, despite your query to support this contention, at least my position does), and by directing me to an English grammar text.


 * WTF? If you think I'm going to sit back and have you persist in making such comments, you are mistaken.  Instead, I will cite a number of Wp policies and guidelines which I believe you've contravened: personal attacks, assume good faith, making a point, point of view.  If you have difficulties with having me characterise your inflammatory, initial opinions as "denigrating" and "unbalanced", the thickness of your skin is questionable and not-so-clear, and that's beside the point.  I'm calling 'em as I see 'em ...


 * Thus: if you do not see or acknowledge that many of your instigating comments from the get-go have been inflammatory and escalatory, or if you cannot articulate your opinions with tact (as I've tried to do), then you will be held accountable for them. Hailing frequencies closed. E Pluribus Anthony 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)  Hailing frequencies closed. E Pluribus Anthony 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually it just looks like they're moved. The one marginally useful thing to come out of this discussion is that it apparently really is necessary for WP guidelines to remind people that links should usually be from references which are nouns or nominal phrases.  As you know, we are now discussing that question. See you on the other page.  --Chris Bennett 19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your words, not mine. Your repeated assertions of this and that do mot make them so.  It's not about truth or your opinions, it's about verifiability and other policies in Wp, which you haven't successfully used to prove your point ... yet?


 * I get it fine but your argumentation is in dispute, and your comments just as well (your contention of "silly" is your questionable opinion and one of your admitted "annoyance"). I'm willing to acknowledge mistakes, but you must as well in initiating this escalation with inflammatory language.  More to the point (and a potentially serious escalation) ...


 * My comments have been moved ... where? No: you deleted them!  I've restored them.  DO NOT DELETE MY STATEMENTS.  Feel free to archive them (as has previously been the case, and if I've overlooked this, I apologise) and link appropriately, but outright deletion of them?


 * Let me be absolutely clear: given this contested issue and combined with your inappropriate behaviour/judgement and unacceptable deletion, if you do so again, everything will form part of and prompt an arbitration (not a mediation) of this issue against you. This not a "threat": it is a warning that I will fully realise.  Capiche?  E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, keep your statements, I was just trying to maintain a smidgin of readibility to the thread. I initially answered you here to explain things to you, but its become completely clear that you just want to be told that you were completely in the right all along, and to feel insulted and aggrieved if I say otherwise.  As to archiving, I agree with Doops, there is nothing worth keeping here.  Once we're done on clarifying WP policy on wikifying parts of speech, which will get resolved on the other page, not here, this thread should be deleted in its entirety.


 * You should also know that I don't kowtow to threats or "warnings". Since the original dispute was resolved satisfactorily to both sides there is nothing of substance to arbitrate.  As for taking me to the woodshed for "inappropriate language", be careful what you wish for, you may not get the result you expect. Stay cool.  --Chris Bennett 20:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your attempts to ensure "a smidgin of readability", while commendable, are questionable. Again, this calls into question your judgement and behaviour.  An archiving of these statements would've sufficed (and ideally after resolution of the dispute), but you again have escalated the issue inappropriately: Is this not apparent?  The original dispute is a fait accompli, but your ongoing behaviour isn't.


 * Similarly, forgive me if I'm wrong, but Doops was referring to our mutual exchange, not just mine (as his comment appears after your comments). Regardless, all comments will be archived or moved (and not yet), not deleted: they are germane to the current issues of your position and behaviour.


 * As for what you will respond to: I've tried to pose rational arguments (and you as well) and to stay cool (and can accept criticism), but your 'incendiary' language and acts (coupled with your still dubious position, not adopted) throughout serve no purpose and has the opposite effect. Practice what you preach.  Besides, this is no longer material: an arbitrator will decide, and I can live with the results of that decision no matter what they are.  Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 21:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel the need to do this. Why not just accept that my opinion of your original argument is what it is and isn't going to change?  It would be more productive to move on to resolving the Parts of Speech question in the appropriate place.  However, I am happy to clarify any queries the arbitrator may have, if and when one contacts me.  --Chris Bennett 21:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: it is regrettable. I don't question that you have a unique viewpoint or position (elements of which are unsupported), but I seriously question your comments and behaviour earlier and (particularly) since.  Nothing and no-one can change that except you, or if and when you are held accountable by Wp.


 * Besides, I can multitask. :) Moreover, I will not address your additional inquiries or comments in this respect on this page pending arbitration.  Take care!  E Pluribus Anthony 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Most wiki links are nominals (nouns and noun phrases) or words and phrases derived from nominals. With a few exceptions where something else just works better. Let's not forget, the goal is comprehension and convenience for the readers. Peter Grey 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)