Jump to content

Talk:Order of Merit/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Past members

Seeing as the Past members section consists of more the half of the page, I am seeking a concurrences to move it to a new page. Thoughts? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't presently over the recommended size, so I don't see a real need to move the list of past members out. But, I'm also not adamantly against it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the same way. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind either way - I think it's ok as it is, but I wouldn't object if someone wanted to split that section off into its own article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The Order of Merit has infrequent changes given it is the most senior order of Merit (which differs from the more senior Order of the Garter which is an order of Chivalry). When I say infrequent I'm referring to 6 appointments in the last 5 years. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs)
I am not too worried about it either. I just thought it might clean it up a bit. On a side note, concurrences was supposed to be Consensus, damn spell check. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag bias

Can the anon unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines explain why two people in the current members list who are nationals of more than one country must have the flag of only one country next to their names, in clear violation of WP:NPOV? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your statement that these two are "nationals of more than one country." I have already provided one which states: "The Duke of Edinburgh had not been admitted to the Order of Canada before because he is not a Canadian citizen," so what other countries were you thinking of? 2.27.98.192 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Apart from your lack of proof of Philip's and Charles' citizenship, only you have come in here and set the goalposts at citizenship. There's been no community agreement to do so. These two individuals are subjects of the sovereign of each Commonwealth realm, not just that of the UK. Philip himself has stated he is Canadian, refusing honorary appointment to the Order of Canada because such is reserved for foreigners. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you actually going to provide a source for that bit of sophistry? 2.27.98.192 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
P.281.
Are you going to keep on with the citizenship straw man? (On that note, care to explain how Philip became a British citizen two years before there was such a thing as British citizenship?) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The use of a flag denotes citizenship, so yes. There is no pagination in the source provided; please cut-and-paste the material here. (From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.) 2.27.98.192 (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The use of the flags does not necessarily denote citizenship. Again: There's been no community agreement to make it so that it does.
"Royal Family – means those persons, being subjects of the Canadian Sovereign, who bear the title 'Royal Highness'."
You didn't explain how Philip became a citizen two years before there was such a thing as British citizenship, as your source claims happened. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
In case you missed it, my explanation is in brackets above. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If it was missed, it's because it isn't there. What you said above doesn't explain the contradiction between what your source says (and you pointed directly to) and historical fact (which you've shown you're aware of). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, but: Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship or nationality. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not veracity. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your inability to defend the cite you added only affirms its unreliability.
It is also unnecessary. You've shown above that flags can indicate citizenship or nationality. So, you can drop the pretense that this is all about citizenship.
A source has been provided showing that Philip and Charles are not foreigners of, at least, Canada. Putting aside the point that, logically, the same should hold for the Queen's other realms, the Canadian situation alone makes placing solely the UK flag next to their names a biased act, which isn't allowed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. Citizenship and nationality are the same thing in international law. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please expand... 2.27.98.192 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
'Nationality' is not always and forever a synonym for 'citizenship' in international law (or English).
  • "[T]he terms nationality and citizenship technically have two distinct meanings..."[1]
  • "[I]n most writing on the subject, 'nationality' and 'citizenship' are used as interchangeable synonyms. However... the terms 'national' and 'nationality' are used in some international legal contexts and related writing to describe membership of a 'nation' in the sense of a particular cultural, ethnic, or historic community."[2]
  • "[N]ationality, in law, membership in a nation or sovereign state. It is to be distinguished from citizenship, a somewhat narrower term..."[3]
  • "The focus is on the existence (or absence) of a formal bond of nationality, without pausing to consider the quality or effectiveness of citizenship."[4]
  • "We distinguish the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' in a technical legal sense."[5]
The Canadian House of Commons recognised the Quebecois as a nation. Yet, where's their Quebecois citizenship? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Duke of Edinburgh has been somewhat inconsistent in this matter. While he has stood on his digs and refused the insult of honorary admission to the Order of Canada, he has had no such qualms about becoming an Honorary Companion of the Order of Australia. He seems to consider himself a Canadian citizen but not an Australian citizen. Work that out and get back to me.

The only reason that his son Prince Charles is a substantive Knight of the Order of Australia, otherwise available only to Australian citizens, is that the Constitution of the Order was amended by Letters Patent to specifically include him in that status. Canada has now also created its own work-around, the Extraordinary Companion. Both of these matters demonstrate that Charles and Philip are not citizens of either of these Commonwealth realms, and I have no doubt it extends to all Realms including the UK, and it also extends to the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family. They are above politics and they are beyond citizenship. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Queen is above the law, other members of the Royal family are not. Philip was naturalised in 1946; Charles was born in the UK making him British. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether or not they are citizens is not at issue here. They may or may not be citizens of the UK, but they almost certainly aren't citizens of any other Commonwealth realm. But, it also remains true that they aren't foreigners of those countries, either; at least, that is the case for Canada. Not only do the Canadian Forces and the Federal Court of Canada explicitly separate Canada's royal family from foreign royalty, the CF defines the Royal Family as being subjects of the Canadian monarch, not the British or any other. Official protocol in Saskatchewan states that, since the Royal Family is the family of the Queen of Canada, it is wrong to call them British.[6]
To avoid dealing with those facts, the anon has tried to impose his own limitations: first on the discussion, keeping it focused only on citizenship, and then on the definition of 'nationality', forcing it to be only the same as that of 'citizenship'. Unfortunately for him, neither are true, meaning he has no defense for putting just a British flag next to Charles' and Philip's names. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
A Canadian is not classed as a foreigner in the UK; that does not however, confer British nationality. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to do better than that. Anyway, I thought Canada proudly displays the Royal Union flag, also known as the “Union Jack,” as a symbol of membership in the Commonwealth and allegiance to the Queen? 2.27.98.192 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As the editor wanting to make an edit that's failed to achieve consensus, it's you who'll have to do better. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus ... yet. You and I are, for the most part, the only ones engaged in discussion and we disagree. I however, have provided a source. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is no consensus favouring your edit. As such, that which has gained consensus by virtue of remaining in unchanged for a long time through which numerous editors have worked on this page--the content you tried to change--remains until such time as you've found a consensus for your so far disputed edit. See WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:EDITCONSENSUS, supported by WP:SILENCE.
You've provided an inaccurate source for an straw man issue. I've provided reliable sources demonstrating Philip and Charles are more than simply British.
If you want to gain a consensus for your edit, pursue dispute resolution. (We've already had a third opinion, which seems to be against yours.) Otherwise, propose something else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It was already changed before this discussion, backed by a reliable source. Sorry if you disagree with it. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Red herring again. You changed the long-standing. It was immediately disputed. You thus have to find a consensus to make the disputed edit stay. You'll end up blocked for disruptive editing if you continue to revert knowing you don't have the backing of the community, either explicitly or implicitly. A source that says someone became a citizen of a country two years before that country had such a thing as citizenship doesn't justify your edit. Ignoring reliable sources shown to you doesn't justify your edit. Inventing your own parameters doesn't justify your edit.
A possibility is to return to the use of Elizabeth II's personal flag as a representation of all the Commonwealth realms. But, those were removed because that flag was not Philip's or Charles' and nobody disagreed with that edit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Disputed by you. As I said before, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not your personal opinion. The BBC is a reliable source and British nationality, quite clearly, pre-dates 1948, even if Canadian nationality does not. 2.27.98.192 (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Disputed by me is enough. You can take it up at the talk pages of the guidelines I directed you to if you don't like that fact.
As I said before, we don't need your straw men arguments. This isn't about citizenship, inaccurate source or none. As I said before, you don't get to ignore the reliable sources presented to you showing Charles and Philip are not merely British. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It is ludicrous to claim that the DofE and PofW are themselves Canadian (or anything other than British), even though they may be members of what is called, in Canada, the Canadian Royal family. Anyway, the threshold for inclusion... 2.27.98.192 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Now you're resorting to personal opinion. (One that differs from their own, as they've expressed it.)
Threshold for inclusion (exclusion, in this case) has been met. See sources provided above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I see no particular reason to include flags for anyone. If people insist on using a flag, then I would tolerate Philip's personal standard (which is not different between countries) for him and some other icon for Charles (ostrich feathers badge?). The flags are used inconsistently anyway; since Yacoub is Egyptian and May is British and there are at least a couple of Austrians and a Swiss-American in the list of past members, which is not indicated despite the presence of other non-realm flags (USA and South Africa) in the list, the flags neither indicate citizenship nor place of birth nor realm of residence. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the inclusion of the flags. On the one hand, they provide a bit of extra information, but as we've seen above they can lead to some quite heated debate. Maybe the simplest approach would be to either remove them entirely, or to use Philip's and Charles' personal standards. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is off-topic, can you both restate your intended purpose for using flags?
This debate started as nationality, moved to citizenship, stayed away from country of birth then got lost discussing foreign status/citizenship of two of the Commonwealth Realms.
Before you answer, remember that the Duke of Edinburgh (and Prince of Wales) are poor choices for a precedent on account of the exceptions made for both men (rightly or wrongly I'm not commenting on if this inconsistency is good or bad).
Note that flags are used in the list of deceased honourary members to signfy country of birth then later residence. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs)
The removal of all flags would be an acceptable compromise. 163.167.121.152 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
On this matter, I do believe that personal standards for royal member's would be better. They are after all, the Royal family of Australia as well. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The idea of removing all flags crossed my mind not long into the discussion yesterday ('round about the time it became clear the anon was only going to put out red herrings and straw men and red herring men (so, yes, of course the conversation got off topic)). But, after considering it, I dismissed it, as it seemed the flags give a quick, clear indication of the range of nationalities in the order's membership and it would be a loss to see that go (especially for the reason it would be going). I'm going to maintain that the flags are of benefit, though, they may need fixing, according to what DrKay says. However, I won't put up any great fight if most think it's the best course of action. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The order's statutes were amended in 1935 to include members of the Royal Air Force and in 1969 the definition of honorary recipients was expanded to include members of the British Commonwealth.

?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible title discrepancy

Is it desirable that order of merit and Order of Merit should lead to completely different pages? I can see a possible justification, inasmuch as the Order of Merit is a particular example of an order of merit, but is the distinction between lower- and upper-case Wikipedian? 45ossington (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh/Prince of Wales

Why no flags?

195.194.238.103 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is that this subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Order of Merit → Order of Merit (Commonwealth realm) – The above commenter is right. This article should most suitably be renamed Order of Merit (Commonwealth realm), something that I have prepared Order of Merit (disambiguation) for. Then Order of Merit should properly redirect to the more generic Order (honour), just as Order of merit currently does. Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I think there is a case for the topic of this page being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Order of Merit. My Google search brings it up first (i.e. the award for British and Commonwealth realms). Ignoring the result for this Wikipedia article itself, it is then followed down the page by various prizemoney lists for golf tours and even darts. None of the other fifty or so "Orders" on the Order of Merit (disambiguation) page make it into the top fifty Google results. This is not surprising for an English language user of both Google and Wikipedia. A more suitable solution may be for Order of merit (lowercase 'm') to redirect to this article, i.e. Order of Merit (uppercase 'M'). Readers looking for other meanings will still see the link to the disambiguation page at the top. -- Ham105 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Support, with variation An English-language search inevitably privileges the Commonwealth decoration, but (although I admit to not being up to speed on Wikipedia policies on this and many other topics) I am not sure that justifies "primary topic status"; might not the same be said of "knighthood"? Nor is the Commonwealth Order of Merit is an ancient institution, hallowed by history - it's quite a recent invention. My suggested variation, or query, is that there is no one Commonwealth realm, but a number of Commonwealth realms. Would it be better to have Order of Merit (Commonwealth realms), or perhaps just Order of Merit (Commonwealth)? 45ossington (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: If it is decided that the subject of this article is not the primary topic, the new title will need a more complete disambiguation. Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica and New Zealand are all Commonwealth realms with their own Orders of Merit. Opera hat (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Postnominals in table

I understand that not all post-nominal letters can be included in the table at the bottom of this page. However, I question for Sir James Dyson and Dame Ann Dowling why FRS is including but not FREng - both are Fellowships from from sister national Academies - if one is included then should it not be both? In both cases, the FREng was awarded first. I have amended the table to include both Fellowships - do discuss here if I have missed some convention in this or if there are objections. Aaronboardley (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Did same for Tim Berners-Lee Aaronboardley (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say they were potentially overlooked, because they ('FREng') were not mentioned in the Honours lists. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Prince Charles lack of flag

Some care to explain this? Perhaps @Miesianiacal:
78.148.67.136 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It was explained in my last edit summary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
All you said in your edit summary was "restore neutral; see WP:NPOV and WP:BRD". --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of what I wrote. The answer to the anon's question is right there: there's no flag for reasons of neutrality (the same as for Philip). It's fairly clear. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Either use the UK flag or use all 16 Commonwealth realm flags for Charles. Either use the UK flag or all 13 Commonwealth realm flags for Philip. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Magdi Yacoub has multiple flags, so I don't see a problem doing the same for Charles and Phillip. In fact not doing that may me that the article isn't neutral. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No prob, go with the multiple flags. It would be more consistent, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
PS - I'm not certain if Mauritius was a Commonwealth realm, when Philip received his Order of Merit in 1968. If it was? then the total realms are 13, otherwise they were 12. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - There's yet another option. Remove flags from all entries to this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 35 To the anon: The problem with doing the same for Charles and Philip is verifiability. As far as I'm aware, there's reliable sources only for their British and Canadian nationalities. We know they're associated with the other realms, but, can't verify or haven't yet verified if they're nationals, or, at least not foreigners to, the other realms. Best to have none, then. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I was bold & removed all flags from the entries. It just might help avoid potential headaches. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case it would be a good idea to add nationality in writing, since its a commonwealth honour. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Then you're right back to the question of whether to list all the Commonwealth realms next to Philip and Charles, just two, or none. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
As Miesianiacal accurately pointed out, it would be back to square one. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Or for royals you could just use either the Commonwealth flag or just write (All commonwealth realms) with a note briefly explaining why? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree to using the Commonwealth of Nations flag. That flag also covers Commonwealth republics. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Merit/Archive_2&oldid=1079707766"