Talk:CANZUK International

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it describes an existing organization in a politically neutral way. It does not promote the organization or give biased information.

Content: organisation vs policy

This article is about the organisation CANZUK International, but much of the content added is about the idea of a CANZUK region, as promoted by CANZUK International, but not about the organisation. I'e just gone through and deleted a fair chunk of such material. If editors feel an article on the idea is warranted, create one, but material here needs to be about the organisation. Bondegezou (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can at present separate the organization and the idea. When people talk about CANZUK, they are referring to the proposal of CANZUK International. If the idea gains traction of course, that will change. TFD (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that when people talk about CANZUK that they are referring to the proposal of CANZUK International. It looks to me that the idea predates CANZUK International and that many people refer to it without reference to the organisation. It is not appropriate to include references to the idea here without a clear link to the organisation. We have separate articles for UKIP and Brexit, separate articles for the Scottish National Party and Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of anyone talking about the concept without reference to the proposal of CANZUK International. Can you? TFD (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed numerous references (see recent edits) that discuss the broad approach/idea with no reference to CANZUK International. To presume those are linked to CANZUK International's specific proposals would be original research.

I will reach out to some WikiProjects for more input. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Having skimmed the article and your edits, I would broadly support them in terms of ensuring a focus in the body of the article on the organisation. Perhaps the parliamentary/governmental reaction section could be fleshed out to refer to those occasions where the objectives of the organisation have attracted significant support from leading politicians/political parties, beyond Canada? Maybe the section could be re-titled "political response" and restore the odd sentence from your deletions? Just my five pennies' worth MapReader (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of material that Bondegezou's deleted could be added to CANZUK (the bits that aren't already there). A lot of the remainder of this article doesn't seem linked to the organisation and would fit a lot better in the concept's article rather than the organisation's. Ralbegen (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Conflict of Interest template

Is it not time to remove the maintenance template from this article? Wiki guidelines indicate that "maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently", yet this template has been active since April 25 2016 (2 years). From what I can see, everything in the article has been sourced appropriately and describes the article in a politically neutral way. No bias information is presented as both support and opposition opinions towards the organization are given. Graham kent (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You are probably correct. On the other hand, overly promotional IP editing was going on as recently as this January. Bondegezou (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A problem as always. Given this organisation's role in politics, it is foreseeable that additions will be made from supporting, opposing and conflicting sources. However, perhaps this should be rectified by consistent monitoring of the page? In the meantime, removal of the COI template would clean up the article. From reading, I see no obvious COI content as everything has been sourced.Graham kent (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Graham kent, could you clarify whether you have any conflict of interest with respect to this article? Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I have no affiliation with the organization. I take interest in the CANZUK idea and ongoing affairs with Brexit/UK politics, but no ties to this article. That being said, I am relatively new to editing in Wikipedia and still learning, so if any of my additions in the past have seemed COI, this was not intentional.

Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The COI notice was put up because user Jrskinner003 was an initial major contributor to this article and he is the founder of this organization. I don't see any editing from him since around the time the COI noticeboard post by him was posted and declared. Note that this article was originally titled differently. I think the COI notice at the top of the article is not of any use now and I have removed it. If "overly promotional IP editing" is happening, that should be dealt with differently. Air.light (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun: You have reverted my removal of the COI notice but I am failing to see what sections of the article are overly promotional. What areas do you think need to be changed to fix this? We don't have any COI editing happening now or in more than a year. We should not use this tag indefinitely or without good cause. The IP editing in January was perhaps not balanced but I don't see any indication of obvious COI rather than just NPOV violations, which have been reverted anyways; the style of editing was different than the declared COI earlier on in the article's history which has ceased. Air.light (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Air.light on this. I have re-read the article and fail to see anything overly promotional. All COI accounts have been dormant for over a year.Graham kent (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also agree. Some articles start out in poor condition but evolve later. This issue seems stale now for years. Outback the koala (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Citobun:, I see you have added the COI tag because of content I recently added. You were also trigger happy to add the COI tag to this page 3 years ago. You seem to have this relentless vendetta of adding COI when none exist. Could you explain how the content I am adding is COI? As I have explained above in 2018, I have no affiliation with CANZUK International. I am a 84 year old man who lives in Manitoba Canada and simply support the efforts of the organization. It is a hobby of mine to keep the page up-to-date so others can also read about the organization and the work they are doing. Again, I have never met anyone from the organization, nor am I affiliated with the staff. The added COI tag for my additions, and describing them as "relentless COI promotional editing" is simply incorrect and nothing short of abuse for your position as a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham kent (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this one can come across as being overly promotional. Wikipedia focuses on reliable secondary sources. The tweets of individuals are not normally considered particularly reliable or notable. It is good to keep the page up-to-date, but content additions need to be well-founded. Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. I would also like to add that I am not a moderator/administrator. Citobun (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. However, @Citobun: added the COI label before that post was made. I am asking what evidence he has to suggest that any editors (myself included) are affiliated with CANZUK International that warrant this label. This page has been functioning for many years, and @Citobun: has also been criticized for relentlessly adding a COI tag in 2018 (see above). This is unwarranted, unreasonable and is nothing more than single-minded activism disguised as page maintenance.

Let's try and all walk back from making any disparaging statements about each other.

Citobun, Graham kent says he has no connection to CANZUK International. I believe him. As per WP:AGF, you should too. If there is no good reason to suspect any recent editors have conflicts of interest, then the COI tag should be removed. If you are concerned about overly promotional editing and think some sort of tag is needed, there are other approaches that would be more appropriate perhaps, like a POV tag.

The purpose of all tags is to motivate fixing the problem. They are not meant to be left on a page for years. The Template:COI documentation has instructions, and likewise Template:POV. If a problem can be easily fixed, just fix it. If it can't, there should be a Talk page discussion that specifically explains the concern. Bondegezou (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bondegezou. I appreciate the feedback and will certainly keep these points in mind for future additions and edits to this page. It's always good to learn new things and help the Wiki community.

Latest polling result

I added this latest polling result, is there some kind of dispute about this? Seems reliable to me. Outback the koala (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The polling data doesn't tell us anything noteworthy about the organisation. (One could consider adding it to the CANZUK article.) There's no secondary sourcing, so the edit is just repeating the organisation's own release. It's not the job of a Wikipedia article to do PR for organisations. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t even know there was a separate article, how confusing. Outback the koala (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is! It makes sense for the main article to be larger, with stuff like polling, while this article is smaller and focuses on information specifically about the CANZUK International organisation and its actions. There might be an argument for merging this article into CANZUK. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. As discussed in previous posts above, there is no sense in merging the two articles together. This article focuses on the organization itself, while the other focuses on the idea. In the same way, there would be no sense merging articles about the Scottish Independence movement and the Scottish Nationalist Party, or the UK's departure from the EU and UKIP. One article is about the organization the other is about the movement; two completely separate things.Graham kent (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Redundant content

Parts of this article, namely the 'Public response' and 'Governmental and organizational support' sections of this article, describe information that discuss the CANZUK idea in general rather than information specific to the CANZUK International organization. Much of the content in these two sections is repeated or can be added to CANZUK's 'Advocates' and 'Contrary views'. I propose merging these sections into the CANZUK article. Leotext (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I support that, but see the immediately preceding section for one vote to the contrary. If we're not merging, then I favour removing general information from this article and moving it to CANZUK. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)