Talk:Elizabeth II: Difference between revisions
Trackratte (talk | contribs) →Current RfC Summary as of 4 Oct: strike poll, leave discussion/comments |
|||
Line 952: | Line 952: | ||
'''<u>Blended solution for further tweaking</u>''': |
<strike>'''<u>Blended solution for further tweaking</u>''': |
||
'''Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states. |
'''Elizabeth II''' (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states. |
||
[[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
[[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) </strike> |
||
<small> Result of side-bar poll is no-consensus and is thus withdrawn, below still useful for discussion. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)</small> |
|||
Line 966: | Line 968: | ||
* '''Oppose''', well you folks already know my reasons. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
* '''Oppose''', well you folks already know my reasons. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''', let's keep our eyes on the prize by making only the distinction which is driving this RfC: UK+15. Adding in some but not all the other 15 muddies the waters, so name none or name all ''alphabetically''. [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk:FactStraight|talk]]) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''', let's keep our eyes on the prize by making only the distinction which is driving this RfC: UK+15. Adding in some but not all the other 15 muddies the waters, so name none or name all ''alphabetically''. [[User:FactStraight|FactStraight]] ([[User talk:FactStraight|talk]]) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
'''<u>Comments/Discussion</u>''' |
<strike>'''<u>Comments/Discussion</u>''' |
||
If possible, please leave comments here, and above simply put "support" or "oppose" to keep things simple, keeping in mind what you are supporting or opposing is the principle not the exact phrasing. Tweaking can be done as part of this conversation. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
If possible, please leave comments here, and above simply put "support" or "oppose" to keep things simple, keeping in mind what you are supporting or opposing is the principle not the exact phrasing. Tweaking can be done as part of this conversation. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)</strike> |
||
*'''Objection''' Please withdraw this "blend" which combines the faults of all and merits of none of the 3 options which were: |
*'''Objection''' Please withdraw this "blend" which combines the faults of all and merits of none of the 3 options which were: |
Revision as of 22:30, 4 October 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show] |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Queen of 16 of the member states
Discussion prior to RfC
|
---|
The description of Elizabeth II in the lede is at odds with any common usage. We're about the only publication that doesn't call her "Queen of the United Kingdom" or similar. Yes, she's Queen of Tuvalu (about as big as Twickenham, with one-tenth the population) as well, but honestly, we can only be so precious before we're locked up in the Tower along with the Crown Jewels! --Pete (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: As I understand it, there are two versions for which consensus is being claimed:
Of those two versions, the second is clumsier and is unlikely to be seen (or heard) or proposed outside Wikipedia. The first is the same as, or close to, what is normally seen and heard outside Wikipedia, and appears to be the better version for the article. My pov is of a person born, bred and residing in UK, but with family connections with former colonies (from early 19c.) and present realms in both eastern and western hemispheres, and supporting encyclopedic npov editing for Wikipedia. Qexigator (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Comment. The problem with the version supported by Miesianiacal is that it fails to mention, in the opening sentence, the words "United Kingdom". All the evidence that I have seen is that, internationally,the monarch is best known for her role in the UK, and the opening sentence of the article should reflect that. So, I generally prefer the first option proposed by Qexigator, although I do not think that the word "also" needs to be in the second sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Whether one form or the other is heard outside Wikipedia is irrelevant; we are writing an encyclopaedia not indulging in a bar room discussion. To the supporters of the "UK and 15 other" form I would ask why stop there? She is commonly referred to as the English Queen. We could phrase it Queen of England, other parts of the UK and other parts of the Commonwealth; or even Queen of England and her other possessions! If Wiki is to keep to NPOV we need to accept the fact that she is Queen of 16 countries and leave it at that in the lead. Further down in the article it is clear how her position arose. I'm speaking as an Englishman, but I would be unhappy at a current encyclopaedia dismissing as "also" other nations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: I'm throwing this out here as a possible point to meet midway and maybe an actual improvement to the lede, as it merges the first and third paragraphs, thereby reducing the length of the lede and removing some duplication of info. It gets out of the way at the opening what Elizabeth is for whom and for how long.
That gives the UK its own mention and first and "splits" the realms. But, if the realms must be "split", the above does so according to date of Elizabeth's accession as queen of those realms, rather than some personally imagined class structure. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The UK has even more special prominence over the other realms, "other independent Commonwealth realms" is vague, governors-general are off topic, and she has residences in other countries.
All this about governors-general and place of residence is a shift of the goalposts. The original concern was that the lede didn't identify Elizabeth II the way she apparently (still no proof) commonly is: as Queen of the United Kingdom (a false claim, but, no matter now). As there's still no answer to my question, it can be concluded the opening "Elizabeth II is, since 1952, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates" successfully imparts to readers first-off that the Elizabeth II this article is about is the one that is Queen of the United Kingdom, thereby quelling the concerns of those who felt the earlier version of the lede didn't communicate that fact well enough. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC) As I've been reading over the latest posts in the last several hours, the consensus has developed that "...of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..." shall be in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In view of the above discussion, we seem to have converged on letting the most recent version (Hazhk's) be adopted for the first paragraph to be revised thus:
This small insertion is not controversial, and I will go ahead, but leaving open any further revisions in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved? May we now treat the current revised version[4] as sufficing to resolve the question raised at the start of this section about the opening description of Elizabeth II , and let anything further be put in a new section? Qexigator (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
New proposal supporting 16 of 53
Looking at it we have two seemingly intractable camps, one with a UK-centric view (primacy of the UK over all other realms), and the NPOV-view (all realms equal in accordance to laws and convention). I propose the following in an attempt to address the principal concern of both sides:
This revision suffices[5] if "53" is to be mentioned. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) +The version as of 10:11, 28 September 2015[6] gives all the neccessary information in an orderly, encyclopedic, npov manner. First paragraph, UK "...and of 15 other..."; third, "Upon her accession... queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries..."; fourth, "Today...Queen of Antigua and Barbuda,..., Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Qexigator (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Note: She is "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" everywhere, it is a title specific to her and her alone, - it is defined by the use of "Church of England." She attends the Church of Scotland in Scotland, but she is not governor of that Presbyterian Church. Was there ever a reason for such awkward wording?
I've disregarded Mies' version & restored the "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other..." style. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid none of the above is acceptable; all stray far away from Wikipedia's neutrality policy. "It reads like a constitutional lawyer wrote it" is an unfounded personal opinion. This encyclopaedia gives facts and does so in a clear and neutral manner, not in a way that ignores facts and allows bias just so it can appeal to the lowest common denominator. But, frankly, I fail to see how "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" reads any less like the words of a lawyer than does "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other countries from various dates." I met you "she's British!" "and 15 other whatever countries" people half-way with my proposal and even incorporated the "she lives mostly in the UK" info. If placing the UK as the very first country mentioned in the opening sentence, stating explicitly that it's where she lives, having multiple other mentions of the UK in the lede, and the phrase "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" in the infobox doesn't impart to people that the UK is really, really special, then this dispute has become about something else. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
An Rfc seems to be the way forward. Though I must confess, it's odd to see the progress of the last few days, being stymied by two individuals. Anyways, it's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
|
RfC: Candidate versions of lede
Discussion has grown heated above, but it seems there is strong support for a change to the long-standing lede, which describes Queen Elizabeth II as queen of 16 nations all at once, without identifying any order of precedence or importance. There have been various versions proposed in discussion, but I'd like to sort out a definitive listing ahead of an RfC. Let's have some wikiprocess instead of shouting and stamping our feet and edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Gents, not sure where you'd like this comment to go, but in looking at what information everyone wants to have in the lead, the points are as follows:
- Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
- All of her realms are distinct and separate from the UK, and are all politically and legally equal in status.
- She is a resident of and primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom above her role in all of her other realms.
- She is represented in all of her realms by a resident governor general (excepting of course, the UK).
- She is head of an organization of states called the Commonwealth.
- She is, in her capacity as Queen of the U.K., also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
As I understand it, these are all of the points for inclusion which have been brought up to date. So the trick is to place these 6 facts in just a few sentences in as neutral and readable a way as possible. If the reader immediately gets all of those 6 points within the first couple of sentences, then I think everyone that has commented above would be satisfied. trackratte (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fact is, Elizabeth II is mostly associated with the United Kingdom. The UK is unique among the Commonwealth realms, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Right, point three already above, duly noted. trackratte (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Options
(Longstanding version) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is unacceptable, as it fails to present the UK as the country that's the most closely associated with Elizabeth II. We must reflect International common-usage. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree, but I'm just looking for candidate wordings here, so they may be listed in an RfC, which will attract more eyes, and we can gauge a wider view and hopefully consensus for another version. I personally don't support this version, but it is appropriate to list it first. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) GoodDay, I understand you're rushed, but let's just take a step back and let all of the proposals come in, reflect on it, and then start the work of consensus building later on. Right now I think everyone has their blinders on and is pretty deeply dug in, and are emotionally unwilling to seek honest compromise with the goal of gradual improvement here. Sometimes it takes a few days to realise there are no winners or losers here, just a bunch of folks who should be working to improve articles by making them more detailed, factual, and readable for Wikipedia's users. trackratte (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Who's rushed? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree, but I'm just looking for candidate wordings here, so they may be listed in an RfC, which will attract more eyes, and we can gauge a wider view and hopefully consensus for another version. I personally don't support this version, but it is appropriate to list it first. --Pete (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unacceptable, for reasons differing from GoodDay only insofar as, in naming articles we should "reflect International common-usage" while in the content of articles we present documented facts, whether subscribed to by "common-usage" or not. It happens, however, to be a documented fact that E2 is most closely associated -- by residence, rearing, coronation, worship, funding, coverage, etc with the UK -- so the lede is justified in affirming that and would be misleading to fail to disclose it. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unnacceptable. Concur with User:GoodDay's thoughts. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is fine. It's what was reached by consensus after a very long discussion involving many editors and it stood the test of time. The snippet is misleading, too, as it omits the fact Elizabeth was still described as queen of the UK in the lede, which nullifies the "common usage" argument. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not acceptable, per weight. The sovereign is most notable for her role as Queen of the UK. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't believe the "16 of 53 member states" has any bearing on her role as Queen. Queen of Canada not supreme gov of UofE, so I don't particularly like the way it comes across here as I find it misleading. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: needs sentence added mentioning UK (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Excess detail which is not useful in the lead. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(TFD) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable, not preferred: minimizes "15 other" states by not naming them. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable and Preferred - Simple and balanced. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is imbalanced with a bias favouring the UK and against the remaining Commonwealth realms relegated to the status of "others". As such, it flies in the face of 80-odd year old international agreement (Balfour Declaration of 1926) that is a core principle of the arrangement between the realms, which are what's being represented in this sentence as what most greatly defines Elizabeth II as a notable figure (her being queen of all of them). We shouldn't be misleading readers to think there is inequality among the realms or plant a false impression in their minds that Elizabeth is really queen of one country and just happens to have a sort of withered association of tradition with the rest.
- If it's meant to say "Elizabeth II is mostly known as Queen of the UK" (which she's not; and certainly not "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries") or "Elizabeth II is personally involved more with the UK", then it fails; neither of those messages comes through. Pointing to WP:COMMONNAME is also a red herring; it applies to article titles only and (hat tip to trackratte), even so, states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered..." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable and preferred. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't believe the "16 of 53 member states" has any bearing on her role as Queen. Queen of Canada not supreme gov of UofE, so I don't particularly like the way it comes across here as I find it misleading. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable Though the number "15" may change at any point. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(Qex) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable, not preferred. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "TFD". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable with the same caveat. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(Qex II) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable, not preferred. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "TFD". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(Trackratte) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she is most often associated with her role within the United Kingdom. As she resides in the U.K., she is represented in each of her other 15 realms by a resident governor-general. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version as unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred, as the option which treats all of Elizabeth's realms equally while acknowledging her unique relationship with one and the public's awareness of that relationship. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred, as the option which keeps to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration and the London Declaration, specifically "acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth". As such it reflects the legal and constitutional position. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. This version introduces material not found in the article body that would be difficult to source and could be open to dispute by (1) stating that there are governors-general because she is non-resident; (2) implying that supreme governor is part of her official title in the UK; and (3) emphasizing her position as honorary head of the English national church while ignoring her association with the national church of Scotland, which she also holds "in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom". It also repeats "the UK" three times in as many sentences. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - For reasons already stated by DrKiernan. NickCT (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not adamantly against mention of governors-general, but I do lean heavily against it. The lede of this article that is specifically about one person shouldn't get into constitutional matters that apply to whomever is monarch, not specifically Elizabeth. Additionally, it draws a seemingly arbitrary line; Australian state governors are as much direct representatives of the Queen, as are Counsellors of State, yet, they're not to be mentioned? Lastly, as DrKiernan notes, the article does not discuss the general subject of viceregal representation and so it summarises nothing if it is in the lede. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely, the only reason it is in there is because it seemed that one or more people wanted it mentioned in the conversation section above, and thus fell into one of my six points that need to be accomplished to achieve consensus that I put in above. Personally, I don't think the governors-general need mentioning. I think when we go into the next "round" and take the top two or three results from here, we can then discuss how to improve upon the final proposals towards a final consensus. trackratte (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred, alhthough as Mies says, I think it would be better to drop mention of the governors general, can be tweaked post-RFC if it makes it that far. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Introduces material not bearing on the person. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(Qex III) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth, comprising 53 states in all, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of the nine versions above, in my view, Track's and the one labeled "Longstanding" are least acceptable. TFD's is acceptable, and Qex III is more acceptable than the other two Qex, and the versions below (including Qex IIII) are less acceptable or unacceptable. Qexigator (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- + In other words, if the TFD/Skyring (noted below) version is adopted, only 3 and 4 listed above need be added, given that: 5 is already there; 6 is false (see DrKiernan's comment); 2 is sufficiently evident in the context of the article and need not be unduly and awkwardly pushed to the detriment of the article's topic and content as a whole. Given the complete list in the infobox drop-down, the naming of all 16 in a single alphabetic list may be unnecessary, but it would help a reader to have the list in or after the first paragraph. The details now in the third paragraph are not needed in the lead, given the content of "Continuing evolution of the Commonwealth", including the Further information link to "Historical development of the Commonwealth realms" which could go to the part headed "From Queen Elizabeth's accession ". Qexigator (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "TFD" and "Trackratte". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arbitrarily diminishes the status of 15 co-equal states in contradiction to political and legal reality, and is therefore misleading for an encyclopedia. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(Mies) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates; together, those 16 independent states are known as the Commonwealth realms. Upon her accession, she also became Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Between then and 1992, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.
- This version is unacceptable, as it seems to be trying to downplay the United Kingdom's unique status & close assosciation with the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable (neatly sums up all the info necessary to distinguish the terms used therein; coutnries, realms, Commonwealth. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unacceptable per GoodDay. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, how can I find this unacceptable? In defense of my own work: While I find the "where she predominantly resides" part superfluous (again, it doesn't summarise anything in the article itself), the above is neutral, it isn't misleading, and it is a compromise between the version that refers to all realms equally ("16 independent countries") and that which gives the UK seemingly undue prominence; rather than it being unclear what divides the UK from the rest of the realms, as in other versions, it divides the realms by date of Elizabeth's accession as queen of each country: four on the same date, 12 each on a different date. It also achieves in one paragraph what a number of other proposals do in two. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is my preferred version. I don't think we can find a version to satisfy all, but Mies has put some thought into this, not just in being accurate, but in addressing the concerns of others. It is also a very fitting opening for a BLP; Elizabeth II is first and foremost a monarch, and although the UK is her first and closest realm, it is clear that she holds the others high in her regard. Her sense of duty and responsibility shows this clearly, as is illustrated throughout the article. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not preferred but more acceptable than most. Acknowledges some of the other realms, however still diminishes 12 other co-equals to an inferior status to that of the other four. Besides the "12 others" bit, I see no major issue with this version going forward. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral Adds non-relevant stuff to a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(Qex IIII) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates; these 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms. Upon her accession, Elizabeth also became Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states currently) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- This version is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unacceptable. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "Mies", except in this version, it reads as though the 12 other countries are independent while the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not. There's a precedence to the realms as well (by "seniority"; I don't have a ref at hand); a minor matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not preferred, but in line with MIES above, better than "UK and 15 others". trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
(DrKiernan) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. These 16 states are now known as the Commonwealth realms. She is also Head of the Commonwealth (comprising 53 states currently) and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Since her accession on 6 February 1952, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.
- This version is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Acceptable, 2nd preference. Comprehensive. FactStraight (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unacceptable. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "Mies". Also, I don't outright reject the naming of the countries, as the lede originally did. However, I think "12 other independent countries" becomes redundant. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not preferred, see my comments for QexIII above, also listing all the countries while fair, is somewhat unwieldy. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And (Collect) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is queen of the United Kingdom. She acceded to the title on 6 February 1952 on the death of her father King George VI. She was crowned on 2 June 1953. She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms, including 16 countries and other territories, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- Leads should be short and in summary style, and not excessively detailed - details go into the main body of the article and are not useful in a lead. This gives her title, date she acceded to the title, avoids the "list of specific countries" problem, and includes her role in the CofE. Remember many folks will not get past the lead if it is too wordy. Collect (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred Short, simple, comprehemsive. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- See my remarks for "TFD". This wrongly states the UK is not a Commonwealth realm. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As this suggestion most certainly does not say the UK is not part of the Commonwealth, I find your cavil to be ill-founded. She is queen of each part separately and collectively - and we do not list her other titles here. The idea is to give readers an accurate and short overview of the BLP. Would you like to add the Channel Islands peculiar status here? Isle of Man? We could muddy this up to be four pages long for the single paragraph <g> but WP:MOS appears to back a short summary in these cases. Collect (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am telling how I read it. She "is queen of the United Kingdom... She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms". The word "also" quite clearly separates the UK from the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- "also" is not needed then. Collect (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am telling how I read it. She "is queen of the United Kingdom... She is also queen of the Commonwealth realms". The word "also" quite clearly separates the UK from the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As this suggestion most certainly does not say the UK is not part of the Commonwealth, I find your cavil to be ill-founded. She is queen of each part separately and collectively - and we do not list her other titles here. The idea is to give readers an accurate and short overview of the BLP. Would you like to add the Channel Islands peculiar status here? Isle of Man? We could muddy this up to be four pages long for the single paragraph <g> but WP:MOS appears to back a short summary in these cases. Collect (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The UK is also a Commonwealth realm & so "other 15" needs to be added, to make it acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Worst of the bunch as leads reader to believe, at the outset, that she is simply Queen of the UK and that's it. trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred simple and uses official title as its base. Collect (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(Collect II):
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) was born April 21, 1926, in London, England. She is "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, and Defender of the Faith." She became queen on the death of her father, George VI, February 6, 1952.
- is also completely unusable in any encyclopedia article? Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Preferred Uses official titles. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And (Ghmyrtle) Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states. She acceded to the throne on 6 February 1952. She is Head of the Commonwealth of Nations and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She resides in Britain, and is represented by a resident Governor-General in each of her other realms.
- This is missing reason for the split between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and the 12 other realms, which is the exact same problem all the "United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms" proposals suffer from. Also, Elizabeth resides in places other than Britain. And my opinion on mention of governors-general remains the same. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unacceptable, having Australia, Canada & New Zealand highlighted. Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other...", is more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not preferred, but better than simply "Queen of the UK and 15 other...". trackratte (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looses simplicity of the existing text which encompasses the whole article content (see Qex revised, below). Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose "resides in Britain" is pretty useless. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And (DrKiernan2) Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations, including the United Kingdom.
- Oppose: Could invite the question, whether in pedantic or trivial mood: Why not name one of the others instead? Or say, "from UK to Antigua and Barbuda (in descending order of seniority) and from Tuvalu to UK (in ascending order of population)".
- Qexigator (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- This version is unacceptable, as it (IMHO) appears odd, distorts the fact that the United Kingdom is the realm that's the most closely associated with the Queen & is also the realm that's unique among the others. Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..., is more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
And Qex revised (instead of Qex I-IIII): Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She resides in the United Kingdom and is represented by a resident governor-general in each of the other independent states where she is monarch. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- This version is unacceptable, as its opening senetence is downplaying the United Kingdom's unique association with Elizabeth II & thus its unique status among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Supporting comment: This retains the simplicity of the existing first sentence, which encompasses the content of the article as a whole, while compatibly mentioning the singularity of the Queen as monarch of UK and of her other monarchies, and, if briefly expanded in the main body in connection with how she conducts her life and work for the UK and for the other independent monarchies, will notably improve the article, in no way diminishing, downplaying, or belittling the importance of the association with her of any of them. Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose For same reasons. Collect (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Those are the various versions which have appeared in the article over the past couple of days. I've omitted some minor tweaking - frankly they all started to look the same after a while - and perhaps those editors identified with each version could buff them up a little to reflect minor edits? There were also several versions proposed in discussion, some involving more or less extensive surgery upun the lede as a whole. Um, I might get round to including them, should my eyes recover, but if others want to add their preferred candidates, that would be fine. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pete, thanks for taking the time and effort to put all of this together. I see what you mean about it all just bleeding together into one schmozzle. Perhaps when we get around to tackling this (hopefully we wait at least 24 hours), we could create sections to have a few rounds, ie eliminating all of those which are unanimously removable, and whittle it down as we progress along. trackratte (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be good to see fine aspirations matched by avoiding edits[9] of a disruptive tendency. Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, someone has made a request for protection of this page at that version. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It would be good to see fine aspirations matched by avoiding edits[9] of a disruptive tendency. Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Following guidelines isn't disruptive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm quite amazed that there's even resistance to "Queen of the United Kingdon and 15 other...". But hey, welcome to Wikipedia ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The summary of suggestions is useful. I like QEXIII at the moment; Trackrate's is a little too wordy, and I think over-emphasizes the importance of the Commonwealth. Options which list all the countries don't really work - I think we need to either have something along the lines of '16 states/Commonwealth Realms' or 'the United Kingdom and 15 others'. QEXIII is neat in that it explains why we are emphasizing the UK. Frankly I don't really see what's wrong with the long-standing version - the claim that we have to emphasize residence in the UK seems based on the idea that we need to copy/mimic verifiable sources, which I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia. But if editors want to change, then it equally doesn't seem to be particularly problematic. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose that we commence the next phase of choosing the top two proposals (or three if necessary) tomorrow (Wednesday) so that we can commence the formal RfC Thursday, and attempt to develop consensus by tweaking the top candidate Friday and Saturday so that in the end everyone is on board and can live with it. In this way we can aim to open up edits to the main page not before this Sunday to avoid any non-amicable edit warring on the main page which an admin had to come in to avoid. trackratte (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- After reminding self that the article is headed "Elizabeth II" not "Queen Elizabeth II (of UK)", and noting comments above and TFD's information about Gibraltar below, there is now something for me to add, modifying my previous comments. Let the first sentence be retained unchanged: Elizabeth II... is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. This is plain fact and comprehends the article content (as others have remarked), but insert a new
secondthird sentence to say something about UK, such as: She resides in the United Kingdom and she is represented by a resident governor-general in each of the other countries where she is monarch. Some brief mention of this in the body would in any case improve the article. Qexigator (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)- I don't think this article should go into the details of constitutional arrangements. It should be focused on her life and be structured as a biography. The lead already mentions other material not covered in the body (such as devolution). While I'm not proposing to delete that material, I don't think it should be added to. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is not merely constitutional, it is about her personally: where she lives, and how she is able to conduct herself from day to day in respect of all the monarchies from which she is absent in person, except for the occasional visit. How she lives and works from day to day and year to year. How she is engaged in the event of a crisis in one or more of the overseas monarchies. Does she go and visit in an emergency, or is it normally something she leaves to the local governor-general? Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this article should go into the details of constitutional arrangements. It should be focused on her life and be structured as a biography. The lead already mentions other material not covered in the body (such as devolution). While I'm not proposing to delete that material, I don't think it should be added to. DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Works fine for me. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is this a response to trackratte or Qexigator? DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, Qexigator. I think that it is clear and reasonable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is this a response to trackratte or Qexigator? DrKiernan (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Various dates
The lead says, "queen regnant of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates." "From various dates" is inaccurate. The sovereign became queen of all her territories at the same time and none have been added since. TFD (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is totally accurate; as you're aware, it says "countries", not "territories". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- ou appear to say that countries must be independent in order to be countries, which is not accurate. Regardless the sovereign was sovereign of all these countries since her ascension to the throne. Even if we accept your argument that there was no crown in right of Barbados until 1966, the sovereign was still recognized there. TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It says quite clearly "those 16 independent states". Those "12 other countries" were not independent in 1952. If you want to pretend there's no difference between Elizabeth reigning in Barbados as queen of the UK and reigning there as queen of Barbados, you may as well advocate for the lede to simply say "is, since 6 February 1952, queen of her territories". But, nobody wants that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The reason we do not mention the territories is the same reason we refer to her role as Queen of the UK first - weight. However we do mention that monarchs from Victoria to George VI were emperors of India, not that George VI became emperor only when India became independent. And the sovereign is also queen of each Canadian province. We would not say she became queen of Quebec when that province separated, assuming it did. TFD (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest mentioning territories or provinces.
- Of course we would. Elizabeth reigns in Quebec as Queen of Canada. If Quebec separated from Canada and made Elizabeth its queen, she would reign there as Queen of Quebec; she would've become Queen of Quebec the day that sovereign country came into existence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is by way of illustration. As the House of Lords decided, "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." It is erroneous to say that she only became queen the 16 countries at "various dates."
- The sovereign is the queen of Quebec, just as she is of New South Wales, and would remain so at independence, just as she did when every other territory became independent. Quebec would not have made her their sovereign but would have retained her role as queen of Quebec.
- TFD (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah, I was waiting for you to trot your old favourite out. It's irrelevant. The "Queen of Wales" isn't an actual office; hence, you can't find evidence of it. Elizabeth didn't become "Queen of Wales" in 1952; she started to reign over Wales as the sovereign queen of the United Kingdom. She didn't become "Queen of Barbados" in 1952; she started to reign over Barbados as the sovereign queen of the United Kingdom. She didn't become "Queen of Quebec" in 1952; she started to reign over Quebec as the sovereign queen of Canada. She didn't become "Queen of Tasmania" in 1952; she started to reign over Tasmania as the sovereign queen of Australia. She didn't become "Queen of Auckland" in 1952; she started to reign over Auckland as the sovereign queen of New Zealand. She became the sovereign queen of Barbados when that territory of the UK gained its independence and it became a country. That same process happened on various dates for the other 11 of those "12 other countries".
- The lede says (or, said) Elizabeth "is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand"--all indisputably true--"and of 12 other countries from various dates; those 16 independent [emphasis mine] states are known as the Commonwealth realms." Even if you don't want to accept the facts in the preceding paragraph, you can't deny that Barbados wasn't an independent country in 1952, so, it can't have been one of the independent countries Elizabeth became queen of that year. It became one of the independent countries of which Elizabeth is queen on 30 November 1966. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The reason we do not mention the territories is the same reason we refer to her role as Queen of the UK first - weight. However we do mention that monarchs from Victoria to George VI were emperors of India, not that George VI became emperor only when India became independent. And the sovereign is also queen of each Canadian province. We would not say she became queen of Quebec when that province separated, assuming it did. TFD (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- It says quite clearly "those 16 independent states". Those "12 other countries" were not independent in 1952. If you want to pretend there's no difference between Elizabeth reigning in Barbados as queen of the UK and reigning there as queen of Barbados, you may as well advocate for the lede to simply say "is, since 6 February 1952, queen of her territories". But, nobody wants that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- ou appear to say that countries must be independent in order to be countries, which is not accurate. Regardless the sovereign was sovereign of all these countries since her ascension to the throne. Even if we accept your argument that there was no crown in right of Barbados until 1966, the sovereign was still recognized there. TFD (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you please point me to the policy that says I should accept your opinion on constitutional law above that of the highest court in the United Kingdom? Also, you have misread the text. The Law Lords did not say the sovereign was "Queen of Wales", they said she was "Queen of England and Wales." While England and Wales united with Scotland and later Ireland, it remains distinct in some areas, such as the Church of England and the court system, neither of which extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The crown of Tasmania is distinct from the crown of Australia and in fact pre-dates the federation. The sovereign has been represented by a governor since 1804. Until the 1970s the governors were appointed on the recommendation of the UK government, they are now appointed on the recommendation of the Tasmanian government.
Here is a link to a Supreme Court of Canada case that names "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada" as a litigant and "Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia" as an intervener. Or do you find Canada's supreme court no more authoritative than the UK's?
Barbados became independent when the Barbados Independence Act 1966 came into effect. The act said that "Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Barbados." It did not create a government in Barbados, that already existed. The governor of Barbados was restyled the governor-general, and the premier was restyled the prime minister. The colonial legislature and courts likewise continued.
TFD (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can you point to the policy that says I should accept your personal misinterpretations of a couple of court rulings misapplied to this debate? You didn't prove what I wrote wrong in any way; what I wrote specifically addressed concepts like the Queen in Right of Canada and the Queen in Right of British Columbia.
- It's nice you have a hobbyhorse, but, it doesn't belong here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a misinterpretation, it is a direct quote. "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." And it is not a "couple of court rulings", it is a decision by the highest court in the UK, which specifically decided the queen of an overseas territory is distinct from the Queen of the UK. Sorry but I missed your writing about the Queen in right of Canada and BC. TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a quote you've interpreted out of context. That's a misinterpretation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I interpret it to mean "the Queen is...queen of [every] territor[y] acknowledging her as head of state...." What's your interpretation? TFD (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal for the lede speaks of Elizabeth becoming queen of independent countries. So, this argument is academic and there's more pressing matters, at the moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. In the meantime could you tell we where you wrote about the Queen in Right of Canada and the Queen in Right of British Columbia or do you mean your 21:25, 28 September comments cover it? TFD (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal for the lede speaks of Elizabeth becoming queen of independent countries. So, this argument is academic and there's more pressing matters, at the moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I interpret it to mean "the Queen is...queen of [every] territor[y] acknowledging her as head of state...." What's your interpretation? TFD (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a quote you've interpreted out of context. That's a misinterpretation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a misinterpretation, it is a direct quote. "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." And it is not a "couple of court rulings", it is a decision by the highest court in the UK, which specifically decided the queen of an overseas territory is distinct from the Queen of the UK. Sorry but I missed your writing about the Queen in right of Canada and BC. TFD (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is how the government of Gibraltar sees it: "Under the Gibraltar Constitution, and under UK law, the Governor is the representative in Gibraltar of Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Gibraltar. He is not a representative or official of HMG in the UK....These propositions were established by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the Quark case..."[10]
Here is what Keith Azopardi, who is a barrister, says, "But as long as Gibraltar does not opt to become a Republic and would retain Her Majesty as Head of State of an independent Gibraltar, she would continue to be the Queen of Gibraltar as much after independence as she was before independence."[11]
TFD (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Article fully protected, three days
Not an endorsement of the protected version. Please don't edit war on a featured article. --NeilN talk to me 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Noted that the freeze is at the version before Skyring's as of 18:57, 25 September 2015, "A more accurate representation. Wikipedia is about the only publication that shies away from mentioning her most visible role!"[12] The change was from "...the queen of 16..." to "the United Kingdom and 15 more"... "of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Qexigator (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. This looks like it's the wrong version. Any chance NeilN could read the section above and adopt the language that is gathering consensus there. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT, which option in that list is gathering consensus? --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Haha. I was sorta hoping you'd read and decide yourself! Option 2,3,4,6 (i.e. TFD, Qex, Qex II, Qex III) haven't received any opposition. Note the version that's been protected (i.e. Longstanding version) seems to be opposed by everyone who has weighed in on it. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NickCT: Support for options 1 or 5 may be construed as opposition to the other options. The lack of explicit opposition may indicate positive support for an alternative. If "everyone who has weighed in" was opposed to the longstanding (and Trackratte) versions there would be no discussion. Perhaps "some" might be more accurate than "everyone"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Martin of Sheffield: - As it stands in the current RfC posted above, everyone who has commented on the longstanding version has stated they oppose it. The Tackratte version has received majority opposition. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT, I did look before I posted and there was no option that everyone clearly supported. --NeilN talk to me 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - It seems clear at the moment that the protected version is not the preferred version. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT, it's the long standing version. Is it no longer correct? No. Is it obviously misleading? No. If you can point to consensus for a new preferred version, I will gladly make the change. Otherwise, there's no reason for rushing and editing through full protection. --NeilN talk to me 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Fair enough. One issue though is that the "long standing" version appears inherently unstable, by virtue of the fact that this debate keeps recycling. I think the longstanding version has always been somewhat incorrect and somewhat misleading which has led to the raft of efforts like the one above. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT, it's the long standing version. Is it no longer correct? No. Is it obviously misleading? No. If you can point to consensus for a new preferred version, I will gladly make the change. Otherwise, there's no reason for rushing and editing through full protection. --NeilN talk to me 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - It seems clear at the moment that the protected version is not the preferred version. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NickCT: Support for options 1 or 5 may be construed as opposition to the other options. The lack of explicit opposition may indicate positive support for an alternative. If "everyone who has weighed in" was opposed to the longstanding (and Trackratte) versions there would be no discussion. Perhaps "some" might be more accurate than "everyone"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Haha. I was sorta hoping you'd read and decide yourself! Option 2,3,4,6 (i.e. TFD, Qex, Qex II, Qex III) haven't received any opposition. Note the version that's been protected (i.e. Longstanding version) seems to be opposed by everyone who has weighed in on it. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NeilN - Since you ask, let me say that you will be able to see that the balance of intelligible, emotive-free, npov was already agreeing with TFD/Skyring's change from 16 to 15 before the freeze, and is gathering further support. Most of the later proposals were to confirm 15 against reverts to 16, with add-ons or not. For instance, my addition about "resides..." was an expansion to show a reason for the singularity of the UK, something which would not need much emphasis outside this article, as Skyring/Pete and others have been at pains to point out. As far as I am aware, most everyday speech and writing takes that for granted, and I see no RS to the contrary cited in the article. It may be challenged in polemical debate (perhaps among a small number in Canada?) but we are not here to enter into polemics on either side of any such debate. A public and notable debate is, of course, reportable as such, duly sourced and proportioned to the article. As another instance, my proposal to add a list of all 16 alphabetically was to allow all to be mentioned, with favour to none, and UK at the end, to avoid the invidious naming of a few, leaving the rest to be among a nameless 12. Qexigator (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- NickCT, which option in that list is gathering consensus? --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. This looks like it's the wrong version. Any chance NeilN could read the section above and adopt the language that is gathering consensus there. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support any version that mentions the UK first. I am undecided whether any other countries should be specifically mentioned but expect that issue can be resolved without edit-warring. TFD (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: - Have you considered commenting in the section above? NickCT (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that irks me (a little) about this protected version, is that the individual who requested it, personally favoured that version. I would've preffered that an unbiased/uninvolved individual had made the request. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I did consider that but I will generally go back to a stable version before protecting for GAs and FAs. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I sorta object to the use of the term "stable version". Stable version aren't versions that lead to dozens of RfCs and debates. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being in the same state for over a year and a quarter is stable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- MIESIANIACAL - If you're going to lecture people on stability, it might be best if you had some to begin with, no? NickCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- You were wrong. It's okay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Miesianiacal: - Witty as usual. NickCT (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- You were wrong. It's okay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- MIESIANIACAL - If you're going to lecture people on stability, it might be best if you had some to begin with, no? NickCT (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Being in the same state for over a year and a quarter is stable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I sorta object to the use of the term "stable version". Stable version aren't versions that lead to dozens of RfCs and debates. NickCT (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I did consider that but I will generally go back to a stable version before protecting for GAs and FAs. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly care which version remains in the lede for three days while we sort things out. As Mies pointed out above, this version (or something close to it) has stood for over nine years. What's a few days more? I had immense difficulty in compiling the list above, particularly as other editors kept on diving in while the process was ongoing. I gave up and went off and read a book. About Anne Frank, as it turned out, and I've been so depressed ever since I felt no urgent need to hurry back here. I'd like it if we can settle this in a peaceful fashion. Please? --Pete (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be possible to have subsections of the RfC. It is unwieldy since it requires votes on numerous versions and hard to avoid edit conflicts. TFD (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: - Ditto on the "unwieldy" comment. No offense to User:Skyring, who deserves kudos for trying, but this RfC could have been put together better. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The RFC also hasn't been tagged as such so it's unlikely you'll attract many outside opinions. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I never intended it to develop the way it has. Perhaps a new (shorter) list of those versions most popular, and we can either sort out something we are all happy to live with, or go forward to an actual RfC? To be frank, one of Mies' versions resonated with me. We've been butting heads for years now, but I've always admired his scholarship and pragmatism. The lede shouldbe a summary of the whole article, and what sings out in the main body is that although the Queen's role in the UK is overwhelmingly pre-eminent, her attention and devotion to "her imperial family" as she described after the war what would later become the Commonwealth is firm and enduring. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have to take the blame here. I should've waited until the options were put up & then in one post, review IMHO the versions from acceptable to unacceptable. Others would've followed the pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's productive to assign blame. I could have avoided this by developing a list in userspace and then put it up fully-formed. So I'm to blame. What happened, happened. You acted in good faith, GoodDay. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have to take the blame here. I should've waited until the options were put up & then in one post, review IMHO the versions from acceptable to unacceptable. Others would've followed the pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I never intended it to develop the way it has. Perhaps a new (shorter) list of those versions most popular, and we can either sort out something we are all happy to live with, or go forward to an actual RfC? To be frank, one of Mies' versions resonated with me. We've been butting heads for years now, but I've always admired his scholarship and pragmatism. The lede shouldbe a summary of the whole article, and what sings out in the main body is that although the Queen's role in the UK is overwhelmingly pre-eminent, her attention and devotion to "her imperial family" as she described after the war what would later become the Commonwealth is firm and enduring. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The RFC also hasn't been tagged as such so it's unlikely you'll attract many outside opinions. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: - Ditto on the "unwieldy" comment. No offense to User:Skyring, who deserves kudos for trying, but this RfC could have been put together better. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It was my impression we were to use the above listing of options to see if we could weed any out among ourselves, then present the remainder in an RfC (if still necessary). A few are very similar to others (hence, my remarks about one applied to one or a few others). Perhaps we could decide to eliminate a few simply by deciding on the one thing that makes it only slightly different from another with a yea, nay, or meh. For example:
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England
and
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom, where she resides, and of 15 other independent states, in each of which a resident governor-general represents her. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England
are quite similar, differenced mainly by mention of governors-general. Same for
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England
and
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she is most often associated with her role within the United Kingdom. As she resides in the UK, she is represented in each of her other 15 realms by a resident governor-general. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and in her role as Queen of the United Kingdom, holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England
If we can get an answer on whether or not to include mention of governors-general, we'll find out whether or not to eliminate either a whole or a part of at least one of the above. We then repeat the process for other elements, such as mention of place of most frequent residence. Or, maybe mention of place of most frequent residence versus mention of more frequent personal association. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Reference to "governors general" is only needed as a contrast to "where she resides", which is a parsimonious way of distinguishing her connection to the UK from her other realms, but is not the only possible option. To get around differences in their precise titles, instead of "governor general" a phrase such as "a resident represents the Crown's role" might be substituted. FactStraight (talk)
- Pete has conscientiously and laboriously presented the main variants that sprouted after he made the first change from 16 to 15. The freeze at 16 not 15 was arguably the wrong choice, but either way the main contentious issue is whether to retain the "Longstanding" version or instead to adopt the simple change to 15: ...the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 more of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. Unless the change to 15 is adopted, there will be no need to consider the add-ons which became attached to that. But if the change is not made, there is no need to consider the add-ons (or rewrites) which were proposed by, or in deference to the opinions of, those who uphold 16. For my part, I see no good reason for continuing the debate about elaborating the text beyond the simple change first proposed. My own opinion at this stage is that there is a preponderance in favour of that simple change. Points for and against have been sufficiently presented above. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the others cropped up and they seem to be in play. If you think we should decide first on whether the words "of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries" stay or don't and then work on the rest, fine; it's the same process as I proposed, but in reverse. As I thought I made clear (no, I'm certain I did), my notion was to trim the options and then have a shorter list for an RfC on the change to the long-standing lede (the absolutely correct version to "freeze" the page at).
- Still, you omitted the option of something between 16 and 15. I'll assume you didn't intend to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pete has conscientiously and laboriously presented the main variants that sprouted after he made the first change from 16 to 15. The freeze at 16 not 15 was arguably the wrong choice, but either way the main contentious issue is whether to retain the "Longstanding" version or instead to adopt the simple change to 15: ...the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 more of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. Unless the change to 15 is adopted, there will be no need to consider the add-ons which became attached to that. But if the change is not made, there is no need to consider the add-ons (or rewrites) which were proposed by, or in deference to the opinions of, those who uphold 16. For my part, I see no good reason for continuing the debate about elaborating the text beyond the simple change first proposed. My own opinion at this stage is that there is a preponderance in favour of that simple change. Points for and against have been sufficiently presented above. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, Qex. The base of the dispute was/is 16 -vs- UK & 15. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was quoting whole numbers in respect of the main contentious issue, and in effect the only one, between the short version with 16 (as now frozen) and the short version with 15, which came in the next edit after it. There is no ambiguity in my comment, which quotes ...the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 more of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. Qexigator (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Agreed, well about what the question is! :-o Resolving the 16 -vs- UK & 15 issue is the core. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As long as you all understand and accept that an RfC and consensus building isn't about vote-getting for your preferred of two candidates. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's just hope you'll back off, if the result isn't to your liking & that you won't filibuster. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can tell you in advance he won't. He will have to be made to back off. NickCT (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's just hope you'll back off, if the result isn't to your liking & that you won't filibuster. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- There are other ways of emphasising the pre-eminence of the UK besides the black and white approach of "UK plus 15" and "16". I particularly like the version I identified as Mies in the list above. Not sure why Canada comes before Australia and New Zealand (date of independence, population?) and the "various dates" sounds a little awkward, but it is accurate and a summary of her position as a queen, which is the most striking thing about her life. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've already made my position clear on the matter, so there's little need to repeat it :) GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As long as you all understand and accept that an RfC and consensus building isn't about vote-getting for your preferred of two candidates. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Agreed, well about what the question is! :-o Resolving the 16 -vs- UK & 15 issue is the core. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The order is a very minor matter; alphabetically versus seniority (UK as oldest country, then by date upon which the others became Dominions; this has been used before, but, as I said above, I don't have a source at hand just now). All I'd say against one is arranging them alphabetically means the UK would go last. With seniority, the UK goes first. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was seniority. I think that is an excellent way of handling the matter. And as the article is a biographical article, the dates matter, as events in the Queen's life. Not so much those realms which had gained independence before her coronation, maybe, but going by date order solves a lot of problems. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The order is a very minor matter; alphabetically versus seniority (UK as oldest country, then by date upon which the others became Dominions; this has been used before, but, as I said above, I don't have a source at hand just now). All I'd say against one is arranging them alphabetically means the UK would go last. With seniority, the UK goes first. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- My understanding and my proposal on the way forward was to 1. leave the last stable version (which I don't support), 2. put up all the proposals and narrow them down to just two or three, and 3. Hold a RFC with only the final two options (three if required). 4. Tweak the choice gaining the most support to incorporate all 6 points I listed above that people want mentioned to achieve consensus (ie incorporating all valid points or concerns brought fwd by all players). I think Pete did a fine job, particularly as we are not at the RFC stage yet, so I see no need to tell him that it was poorly done, particularly as he took the time and effort to put it all together on his own accord to help us out. trackratte (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the result of this Rfc ends up being not to your liking. I hope you'll accept such a result, then back off & not filibuster. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- My understanding and my proposal on the way forward was to 1. leave the last stable version (which I don't support), 2. put up all the proposals and narrow them down to just two or three, and 3. Hold a RFC with only the final two options (three if required). 4. Tweak the choice gaining the most support to incorporate all 6 points I listed above that people want mentioned to achieve consensus (ie incorporating all valid points or concerns brought fwd by all players). I think Pete did a fine job, particularly as we are not at the RFC stage yet, so I see no need to tell him that it was poorly done, particularly as he took the time and effort to put it all together on his own accord to help us out. trackratte (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Trackratte. I think the procedure you have outlined is an excellent way of moving forward. GoodDay, I do love you, but perhaps you could go and contemplate the beauty of the moon or the joy of the day for a few minutes before responding to others? A brief pause, no more, then say what you will. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with using seniority is that it resolves what has been identified as a problem for only one discussant, who prefers that any distinction made between the UK and other realms be "justified" by date, residence or some other discrete factor -- whereas most others here seem to concur that, even if only one factor is cited in the lede for the sake of conciseness, it is the fact of Elizabeth's overall greater role in the UK which calls for the change under consideration. That fact may, however, be noted in the lede without the reasons for the distinction being explicitly explained there -- I'm fine with just listing the UK first. But the lede should not raise yet more questions needing explanations, which is what ordering the 15 in any way save alphabetically does. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Shall we leave aside items such as governors-general, predominant place of residence, inclusion of the term "Commonwealth realms", and order of countries, then, and decide (by RfC, if necessary) between three most basic options:
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- ...
- Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service the following year was the first to be televised. From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four of the aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.;
and
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
- ...
- Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service the following year was the first to be televised. From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some became republics. Today, in addition to the first four of the aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.;
and
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other countries [possibly either list them here or in footnote] from various later dates; together, those 16 independent states are now known as the Commonwealth realms. She has also been Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England since her accession. Between then and 1992, the number of her realms has varied as territories gained independence and some became republics.
- ...
- [No third paragraph; televising of coronation can either be worked in elsewhere in the lede or left out]
We can then look at adding in the aforementioned elements. My only concern is option one above is presently at a disadvantage without, say, mention of predominant place of residence, which is easily done and would make it better meet the wants of those who wish the opening to communicate Elizabeth's greater personal involvement with the UK. It can be done with the other two, as well, but, they already give the UK prominence by either singling it out or putting it first. This is a tricky business. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of these options, since the first fails to distinguish her UK role, I can't support it. Nor the second option because although it lists the UK first, other realms are either ordered by date or omitted, raising more questions than the lede should allude to. The last option is acceptable if it includes the names of the other realms (for equity) and does so alphabetically (for simplicity). FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- It needs to be recognised that people may well wish to take a "mix and match" approach, taking elements of the different options. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I found, when compiling a list of versions, that there was a whole bunch of "mixing and matching" going on. It was quite distracting to hunt down the precise (and often minor) differences as editors tweaked this and that. If we can decide on the major issues first, then we can work on minor tweaks. Things like whether queen or Queen is best, or where her main palace is situated, or the roles of governors-general, these are probably tweaks. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please, let's add no more questions to be answered until we've addressed those already posed! FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I found, when compiling a list of versions, that there was a whole bunch of "mixing and matching" going on. It was quite distracting to hunt down the precise (and often minor) differences as editors tweaked this and that. If we can decide on the major issues first, then we can work on minor tweaks. Things like whether queen or Queen is best, or where her main palace is situated, or the roles of governors-general, these are probably tweaks. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- The argument was & is - Queen of the United Kingdom and 15... or Queen of 16.... GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Very true. But perhaps there are ways of wording the lede so that all parties may feel reasonably happy with the result. This isn't supposed to be a test of who can reach higher up the urinal than anybody else - it is a way of presenting information in the best way possible. We are not so much a football match as a play. And there is certainly enough drama in our discourse. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I placed the 6 points in the section above to try and summarize what we all wanted to see included in the final lead. So, if I'm to understand correctly, we are saying we can remove point 3 (residence) and point 4 (governors general) for now. I would also suggest to remove title of Supreme Gov of CofE for now as well, as others have pointed out it fails to mention her role within Scotland, and is needlessly distracting us from the core issues. I would remove Commonwealth for now as well, as I think her role within it is non-contentious. So this would leave us with:
- Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
- All of her realms are distinct from, and co-equal with, the UK.
- She is primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom.
- If we can agree on the core points both "sides" want included (Queen of XX, 16 co-equal states, primary associated with UK), then it will focus the preliminary analysis of proposals, ie eliminating all those that don't directly portray the above three points. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Refocusing As above-mentioned, I am not supporting, and see no need for, a re-write, beyond the simple change from the frozen version to one with "..queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states..." or very similar addition of a new sentence mentioning UK. But, if more than that is proposed and it includes a list, from a reader's point of view alphabetic is easier to understand, especially a longish list with unfamiliar names, unless the order of priority is expressly stated: something like "at the time of her accession she became queen of (n) countries, which, in order of (????) were P....., Q...., R....., S....(etc.)". As said above, if such a list places UK at the end, so be it: it is so in other articles; the reason (alphabetic) is self-evident, and it is entirely neutral as to precedence of any kind. It is not self-evident to the ordinary reader that Canada is named before Australia because of some, as yet unstated, "seniority", which, if it determines any official precedence should be cited. While I can see some sense in the rewrites proposed above, in the end they are little if any improvement on the present lead. If there is any new information to be introduced into the article, such as about residence or governors-general, let that be a separate exercise. At this stage of the discussion, we can see that first of all, the main issue remains as when it started: briefly, Queen of UK + 15, or Queen of 16. Once that is settled let us go on to consider how the lead can be trimmed, rather than expanded with new information which is better placed in the main body. Qexigator (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- It struck me that if we order her realms in some non-obvious fashion, we'll get people coming along and reordering them in some fashion which seems more logical. Alphabetically, for example. I'm not sure there's a non-wordy way of making the ordering plain, and a lead sentence should be clear and straightforward. But I think we can now identify three candidate versions if we ignore some of the minor issues for the moment, and perhaps we should list those three as RfC options? --Pete (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Qex, Queen of "UK+15" is the whole reason why we're here, and we know it will be impossible to gain consensus around it. We also know that "Queen of 16" by itself is equally unworkable. So, it is not an either or proposition, as both have been proven to lead to consensus-failure. The underlying issue of "Queen +15" is point 3 above (primarily associated with the UK above all else), and the underlying issue with "Queen +16" is point 2 above (states co-equal with UK). The crux of the issue isn't which side is right (both are), but how do we state that the Queen is co-equally queen of 16 different states, while at the same time making it clear that Elizabeth II is most often associated with the UK?
- Pete, you are absolutely correct, which is why, the more I think about it, I think we need to state something like "...queen of 16 states...most closely tied to the UK..." or something along those lines to have everyone's main concerns heard and incorporated. trackratte (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds promising and expediting. But please let's address the questions already raised before shifting to yet another line of focus and leaving editors unsure how to participate here effectively. Let's come back to this, swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- trackratte, I do agree those are the three main points to be considered at this point. However, it's not simply her realms that are distinct and equal, Elizabeth's roles as queen of each are distinct and equal, as well. Also, the UK is one of her realms. I'd thus change 2 to "All of her realms and her positions as queen of each are distinct from and equal with one another" or "All of her realms are distinct from and equal with one another, as are her positions as queen of each." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- A consensus for "UK+15" is possible. There's only 2 individuals vigorously opposing it. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC Candidates
Alright, looking over all of the proposals from the above section, all responses essentially broke down to Preferred (first choice), Acceptable (can probably live with it), and Oppose (deal breaker). The job wasn't helped as not everyone put a bold statement to preface their comments, but I tried to parse it as best as I could. I weighted the choices as 2 points for a Preferred, 1 point for a Acceptable, and -1 for an oppose (I also calculated for Preferred is +1, Acceptable is 0, and Oppose is -1, and the top 3 choices were the same under both systems)(also going off of just the most preferreds yeilds the same top 3 results as well). It came to the following 13 options presented:
Longstanding: 0 preferred/1 acceptable/6 oppose : -5
TFD: 2 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose : 4
QEXI: 0 preferred/2 acceptable/3 oppose: -1
QEXII: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0
TRACKRATTE: 3 preferred/1 acceptable/5 oppose: 2
QEXIII: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/4 oppose: -1
MIES: 1 preferred/4 acceptable/3 oppose: 2
QEXIV: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0
DRKIENAN: 0 preferred/3 acceptable/3 oppose: 0
COLLECT: 1 preferred/1 acceptable/2 oppose: 0
Collect II: 1 preferred/0 acceptable/1 oppose: 0
GHMYRTLE: 0 preferred/2 acceptable/4 oppose: -2
DRKIERNAN2: 0 preferred/1 acceptable/2 oppose: -1
QEXREVISED: not enough data (adding in my !votes) Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose we move fwd with a simple binary option to ease discussion, particularly as they all essentially boil down to a single choice: 16 co-equals with UK as primary association, or UK + 15 lessers. Under all three wieghting systems TFD and TRACKRATTE were the top two, so I propose we move fwd with those, and tweak whichever one is chosen as the most suitable start-state for consensus building. In line with the discussion above on focusing on the 3 core points (leaving residency, governors-general, head of the commonwealth, and church of england to the tweaking stage) the proposed RfD choices would then be as follows:
- Oppose We were not told this would be a vote at this stage - I have added my !votes now, and suggest we examine the issues behind the votes before holding a beauty contest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposed RfC Candidates
1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. ; or
2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.
trackratte (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Mies' proposal is now actually in second place) Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Most often associated with her role in within the United Kingdom" isn't verified; it isn't verifiable. You want to say something more like "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom", something more quantifiable (she tours more places there, she opens parliament more often, grants royal assent, etc., things we know and can verify). The "q" in "Queen" should also be lower-case in 2 and upper-case in 1.
- Aside from that, it seems you're proposing the RfC be about which of the above will best accommodate the remaining two of the three "core points". Those points should be spelled out clearly so that contributors to the RfC are aware they're a factor in the choice being made.
- And is my proposed compromise (and removing repetition from the lede and reducing its length) disallowed now as an option because it came in second to a tied first place? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on going forward with the proposed binary methodology. But also agree with comments that 2 is "not verifiable", and "the three core points should be spelled out".The MIES ("compromise") version would be better suited to consideration in the stage after. For the next (binary) stage perhaps 2 could be tweaked, so that it is to its own same effect in respect of core point 3 (primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom). Could we substitute "where she predominantly resides", borrowed from MIES, thus:
- 2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is Queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, although she <+>predominantly resides in<+>
is most often associated with her role withinthe United Kingdom. - Qexigator (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- As trackratte noted, residency should be left for "the tweaking stage" and I tend to agree. I think 2 just needs to be altered to say what I proposed above: "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom". That meets "core point" 3, just as "of the United Kingdom and 15 other" does (or, is intended to; I don't think it really does) in option 1 immediately above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom" could be expanded in a verifiable manner. Agree about "of the United Kingdom and 15 other" in option 1. Qexigator (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- As trackratte noted, residency should be left for "the tweaking stage" and I tend to agree. I think 2 just needs to be altered to say what I proposed above: "she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom". That meets "core point" 3, just as "of the United Kingdom and 15 other" does (or, is intended to; I don't think it really does) in option 1 immediately above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are the above 2 candidates, our final options? All along, my major concern has been the opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that the freeze is due to expire at the beginning of 3 October UTC, it would be helpful to suspend revisions of the first paragraph (2 sentences) for a further seven days, to 10 October, or until the RfC closes, whichever is the sooner. Qexigator (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree wholeheartedly with Mies' proposed amendment. Also, Qex, I completely agree. Mies, currently not on a computer, could you make the necessary amendments to point 2 above directly? trackratte (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose the system being proposed as it becomes a beauty contest not dealing with the issues actually raised. Collect (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
In case it had been forgotten, "of 16" has been in the opener from at least 13 February 2006 [13] in one variant or another, while the article has undergone countless revisions. This should be mentioned in the RfC. Has some editor woken from a near-decade hibernation?What notable event makes a change necessary at this time: the longevity of the Queen's reign, overtaking Victoria? Some notable republican debate somewhere yet to be added to the article? This should be mentioned in the RfC. Qexigator (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The dissociation of the list from the first few lines[14] probably played a part. DrKiernan (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that editors have been losing track of the article's long-term and recent history, including the inadvisable switch of paragraphs 2 and 3 (13:53, 18 September 2015 [15]) If the proposed RfC is to make sense, before proceeding further the article should be reverted to as it was at 16:10, 14 September 2015[16] --Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- + It has been the second paragraph from 6 June 2012[17], and is better there, whether the first continues with a version retaining "..16.." or is changed to another using "...15..." Qexigator (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) By the way, in the process of looking for something else, I came upon the last RfC on this matter. It asks essentially the same question as what's being proposed this time. The RfC preceding it was also on "reigning queen and head of state of 16 independent sovereign states". Between them, the basic subject—UK first or all equal—has been debated, either about the article title, opening sentence, or infobox, multiple times, as well as on many other occasions going back at least ten years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If we are having a binary choice of the two versions above ("UK+15"and "16"), my vote would be for UK+15. Elizabeth II's "queenship" is not equivalent over the sixteen realms, and this goes beyond where she lives or the number of church fetes opened. In the UK alone, her reign is direct; there is no vice-regal representation. That goes beyond a mere convenience to cater for the fact that she resides at an inconvenient distance; in Australia at least her powers are greatly diminished from those available to her in the UK where she has the full extent of the royal prerogative available. In Australia, the power to appoint ministers does not belong to the monarch, and other significant portions of the ancient royal prerogative have been given directly to the Governor-General. Other realms have different constitutional arrangements, but even if the Queen were somehow to retire to the sunny climes of Saint Kitts, where in theory she might be as much queen of both the UK and Saint Kitts as before, there would be an immense uproar. Would there be a need for a Governor-General to represent the absent monarch in the UK? What rights, powers and privileges would he or she have? Perhaps Samuel Weymouth Tapley Seaton could move from Springfield House to Buckingham Palace? It is ridiculous to contemplate such a prospect.
If we accept the notion that the Queen is equally queen over sixteen realms, then that is only true to a certain extent: that of the symbolic and ceremonial rather than the practical. It is a nonsense to so mislead our readers without any explanation. --Pete (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Aside from its factual inaccuracy, your final remark above is addressed by point 3 of the three "core points" set in the preceding section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- This goes beyond representation of an absent monarch or where she spends most of her days. The nature of her monarchy is different in her different realms, and it goes directly to the role of the monarch in governance. We might say that Richard I and Elizabeth II had the same roles, but it would not be true, and it would go beyond the number or names of their realms. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- In agreement with you (Skyring), as the UK doesn't have (or need) a governor general. Elizabeth II doesn't open the parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc on an anual basis, as she does the UK parliament. Elizabeth II & her family do not reside outside of the UK, nor do they even rotate living in the other realms. Also, it's safe to assume that Elizabeth II's funeral & burial will take place in the UK. There's no mistake about it, the UK is unique among the Commonwealth realms & should be treated as thus, in this articles opening. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- On such points, being raised against the present "16..." first sentence. I see no contest. The question which has (I would now say) needlessly arisen following an earlier unnecesary switch of paragraphs in the lead, is the way in which the undisputed facts can be presented in the way most suited to the article. At first glance, it seemed to me that the changing from the longstanding "16..." to the recently mooted "15..." would be the better option.. But I now see that, for the purpose of the article, the longstanding "16..." as now placed in the currently frozen version, is the better option editorially considered, as comprehending the entirety of the article content, followed very soon after that, with sufficient expansion, while alongside the text we see the infobox with the label "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". There is nothing to show that this is likely to mislead readers. In fact, we are discussing what can be seen as essentially a non-issue. Qexigator (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- We are writing a biographical article here. The Queen's job is an important aspect of her life. Her job in the UK is a very real and demanding one - something she spends a good deal of time on. Her jobs in other places, not so much.
- Let us consider what she earns money from. She is very well paid for her job as Queen of the United Kingdom. She does not earn a cent for her supposedly equal jobs as monarch of various far-flung islands. Just a few perks and a free stay in the governor's mansion. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I shall have to disagree with your new observations, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there is anything to show that what is there is likely to mislead readers, I would like to see it. Repetition of the assertion does not make it fact or probability. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we say that she is Queen of sixteen realms without qualifying that statement in any way, then readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. The statement may be true, but it is also misleading. It is like saying that "Lamborghini, Toyota, Mazda, Opel, Skoda, Seat, and Hyundai" are brands of cars driven in the UK. True, but one of these things is not like the others.[18] --Pete (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. Not at all. What basis is there for presuming such stupidity (outside Wikipedia)? Fact is, experience shows that most readers will already have a hazy idea of some sort of their own, and are unlikely to be inclined to make such a hasty deduction from those few opening words, and remain forever fixated by the false deduction of an editor's hyperbolical imagining. We compose these articles on the assumption that the inquirer will read on and see how the bare first sentence is developed and filled out, and they are aided with links, the lead summary, the table of contents, See alsos, annotations and, in the case of this and related articles, the colourful infobox right beside the lead, which has been carefully constructed to present an outline of some basic facts, which may be all that a reader is looking for at that time, and which also serves as a navigating aid by way of links. Encylopedically, the editorial aim is to let the opening sentence, in the context of the topic title (here, Elizabeth II) and the sentences that follow and the remainder of the lead, be as comprehensive of the article's content as possible. It so happens that after much editing and re-editing over the years, that was arrived at in the form of the present opening pargraph, in particular using the words: "...the queen of 16...". That is the reverse of either UK-centric or downplaying the independent statehood of any one of the 16 monarchies where the Queen now reigns, or the place in the scheme of things generally of the Queen herself or of any of the sovereign states. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we follow that reasoning, then the reader will be informed of the special significance of the UK by reading the lede and the full article. Fine. So what is the problem with not saying it in the first line? The "16 realms" line just grates like fingers down the wall of Westminster Abbey to anyone who knows something about the close relationship of the Queen and the UK, and her not-so-close relationship with (say) Bermuda. --Pete (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having connections with both the places mentioned, and others, that is not so in my experience, but if any RS is shown to corroborate the contrary I would be happy to reconsider. I note that your comment accepts my point, but dislikes the effect. The point you have been advancing is well understood, and needs no reiteration so far as I am concerned. Let editors aspire to that sublime npov state residing above personal and private sentiments or affections. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we follow that reasoning, then the reader will be informed of the special significance of the UK by reading the lede and the full article. Fine. So what is the problem with not saying it in the first line? The "16 realms" line just grates like fingers down the wall of Westminster Abbey to anyone who knows something about the close relationship of the Queen and the UK, and her not-so-close relationship with (say) Bermuda. --Pete (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. Not at all. What basis is there for presuming such stupidity (outside Wikipedia)? Fact is, experience shows that most readers will already have a hazy idea of some sort of their own, and are unlikely to be inclined to make such a hasty deduction from those few opening words, and remain forever fixated by the false deduction of an editor's hyperbolical imagining. We compose these articles on the assumption that the inquirer will read on and see how the bare first sentence is developed and filled out, and they are aided with links, the lead summary, the table of contents, See alsos, annotations and, in the case of this and related articles, the colourful infobox right beside the lead, which has been carefully constructed to present an outline of some basic facts, which may be all that a reader is looking for at that time, and which also serves as a navigating aid by way of links. Encylopedically, the editorial aim is to let the opening sentence, in the context of the topic title (here, Elizabeth II) and the sentences that follow and the remainder of the lead, be as comprehensive of the article's content as possible. It so happens that after much editing and re-editing over the years, that was arrived at in the form of the present opening pargraph, in particular using the words: "...the queen of 16...". That is the reverse of either UK-centric or downplaying the independent statehood of any one of the 16 monarchies where the Queen now reigns, or the place in the scheme of things generally of the Queen herself or of any of the sovereign states. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- If we say that she is Queen of sixteen realms without qualifying that statement in any way, then readers will incorrectly deduce that there is a significant equivalence. The statement may be true, but it is also misleading. It is like saying that "Lamborghini, Toyota, Mazda, Opel, Skoda, Seat, and Hyundai" are brands of cars driven in the UK. True, but one of these things is not like the others.[18] --Pete (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there is anything to show that what is there is likely to mislead readers, I would like to see it. Repetition of the assertion does not make it fact or probability. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I shall have to disagree with your new observations, Qex. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I recommend that the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other 12..., be included among the 'final' options. Though it's not my first choice, it's darn better then that Queen of 16.. eye sore ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The sovereign's role as Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand is far less significant than her role as Queen of the UK and only marginally more significant than her role as Queen of the other 12 realms. Your recommendation reads like "Queen of the UK, three other white countries and 12 third world countries." TFD (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The significance is that they were Dominions at the time of her accession. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's what they tell the Commission of Racial Equality. TFD (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your interpretation isn't really relevant or helpful - the point is that there is a rational explanation for separating out those three, with the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- We can easily put in a footnote explaining the ordering and requesting that it not be changed to alphabetical. This sort of thing is commonplace thoughout Wikipedia, where an official spelling is slightly odd or similar. --Pete (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your interpretation isn't really relevant or helpful - the point is that there is a rational explanation for separating out those three, with the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's what they tell the Commission of Racial Equality. TFD (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- My proposal was "Elizabeth II is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and of 12 other countries from various dates; together, those 16 independent states are known as the Commonwealth realms." GoodDay failed to include the dates, which demonstrate the division lies between four countries that Elizabeth became queen of simultaneously and the rest that she became queen of each at a different time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The significance is that they were Dominions at the time of her accession. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Alphabetting the 12, and noting the 7
But for the freeze, I would have added after the list of 12 at the end of the third paragraph : (in the order of becoming attaining independent
statehood sovereign states), which corresponds with the infobox dropdown. Canada is listed before Australia in the list of 7 in that same paragraph, with the same ranking in the infobox. That unalphabetic order stems from August 2005: Rearrange countries of which she is Queen in chronological order of age of the crowns.[19] If that was the result of earlier discussion now archived, can it be identified? (revised) Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
+Editorially (distinct from personal opinion or sentiment), it is unlikely that many would welcome a change in the order as it now stands in the third paragraph and infobox: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, but I see a way of resolving the point by adding a footnote to explain what otherwise appears to be anomalous, thus:
- "Canada's formation as a federal state was in 1867, Australia's in 1901."
The (paper?) trail for this (as regular editors will be aware) is that the infobox links to Commonwealth realm, which states: "The Statute of Westminster 1931 provided for the then Dominions—named therein as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland—to have full or nearly full legislative independence as equal members of the British Commonwealth of Nations", and the Date column in the Table (year each country became a member of the Commonwealth, as from the year of enactment of the Statute of Westminster or the year of the country's independence) gives 1931 for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and UK, while the infobox for Monarchy of Australia shows Formation 1901, for Monarchy of Canada shows Formation 1867, and Monarchy of New Zealand's History section states: "In 1907, New Zealand achieved the status of Dominion...". The "Application" section of the article Statute of Westminster 1931 states: "Since 1931, over a dozen new Commonwealth realms have been created, all of which now hold the same powers as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand over matters of change to the monarchy..The Parliament of Australia passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942.". Finally, the primary source: the Statute's preamble mentioned the delegates of HMG as "in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand..."[20] Qexigator (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- This potential problem of order of listing, can easily be avoided with "Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other...". GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but whether or not that would be so, it is a different point, and applies not to the text we now have. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Qex. I thought you were suggesting this for the opening sentence. This Rfc is difficult to follow, sometimes :) GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a problem for all of us, including those who may believe they have the solution, or at least one that is better than others on offer. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry Qex. I thought you were suggesting this for the opening sentence. This Rfc is difficult to follow, sometimes :) GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, but whether or not that would be so, it is a different point, and applies not to the text we now have. Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
On further consideration, perhaps the footnote should give the formation dates for all seven, thus:
- The United Kingdom was formed in 1801, Canada's formation as a federal state was in 1867 and Australia's in 1901, New Zealand (as a Dominion) was formed in 1907, the Union of South Africa in 1910, Pakistan in 1947, and Ceylon in 1948.
Qexigator (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly -- the "British North America Act of 1867" established the "Dominion of Canada" which did not include Newfoundland until 1949, etc. We could have an entire article on what was, and was not,part of the "British Empire" over the years - but is it of value in a biography of Elizabeth II? Collect (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your friendly comment. The act was instrumental in the formation of Canada as a federal state, whatever happened later. It is not proposed to have an entire article, but a small footnote to explain an anomaly which is not otherwise self-evident to a reader who lacks the detailed knowledge that some specialists or hobbyists may have been taught or otherwise acquired. You may be aware that Wikipedia aims to cater for a wide range, from fact-checkers to newbies of school age. Know-alls need not apply. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly -- the "British North America Act of 1867" established the "Dominion of Canada" which did not include Newfoundland until 1949, etc. We could have an entire article on what was, and was not,part of the "British Empire" over the years - but is it of value in a biography of Elizabeth II? Collect (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Dating the crowns is a problem. The crown of Barbados was established in 1627, while the crown of the Great Britain was merged with the crown of Ireland to create the crown of the UK in 1801, then altered when Southern Ireland beccame independent in the 1920s.
Similarly, the independence of the dominions was recognized (not created) by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and the Statute of Westminster 1931 was enacted at different times in each dominion. Furthermore, under the declarative principle of statehood, they were independent when they joined the League of Nations in 1919, but then India joined the UN before formal independence. Using the Montevideo convention, none of the countries achieved statehood until citizenship laws were proclaimed in 1947 and in the case of the UK in 1948. If we date independence to when the UK parliament ceased to have any power to legislate, Canada, Australia and NZ were the last to achieve independence - in the 1980s. If we use the end of appeals to the Privy Council, we have a different set of dates and NZ and Mauritius and Trinidad (which are not Commonwealth Realms) have not ended appeals. Similarly if we use substantial independence, then Canada was independent before 1867, and Bermuda and Gibraltar at least are independent now. And of course if we use creation of dominion status, we get another set of dates.
Collect's example provides another problem - PEI, BC, the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland were not part of the original Dominion of Canada. TFD (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you TFD, that information is interesting. But I do not see that it falsifies the proposed wording for either of the annotations. For one thing, so far as international law is concerned, a change of boundaries does not of itself result in discontinuity, and the Dominion of Canada's existence, once established pursuant to the act, was not abolished before 1931. Qexigator (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves here, but: There's no consistent way out there of listing these countries. Even the British monarchy's website has no apparent order. Looking at some reliable sources: Here (UK parliament) and here (p.45) (Canadian government) they're listed in alphabetical order. However, here (book), here (Canadian media), here (Canadian media), and here (British media), they're ordered by age.
- It might be of help to find a reference in a gazette or court circular listing high commissioners in attendance at an event or something. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Quexigator, could you re-phrase that? When you mention international law, are you talking about the constitutive or declarative theory? What is your point about state continuity?
- Why do we use a date of 1867 for Canada, when Bermuda and Gibraltar have more autonomy today than Canada did then?
- TFD (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the present purpose of discussing the improvement of the article by the two annotations above, I will let the infobox and the paper trail in my above comment suffice as provenence for the dates in my draft. On the internationl law point, please take my comment as based on well-informed opinion or not, but I do not propose to debate it here. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your commentary was, "so far as international law is concerned, a change of boundaries does not of itself result in discontinuity." Indeed the resolution of the Alaska boundary dispute did not result in discontinuity of the United States. But no one has mentioned a change in boundaries. State continuity may come into question though when states are merged or divided The division of the Czech Republic and Slovakia for example meant that where two states once existed two did and international law had to recognize one, both or neither as continuator states. TFD (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please identify the abolition of Canada as established pursuant to the 1867 act. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Whoever said Canada was abolished in 1867? TFD (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that statement needs further elaboration. We need a source before blanking the Canada article and being needlessly accused of vandalism. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've got the point: federal Canada, once established, has continued in existence from that day to this, and the date given in the infobox etc is correctly treated as the provenance of my draft annotation. Qexigator (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that statement needs further elaboration. We need a source before blanking the Canada article and being needlessly accused of vandalism. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Whoever said Canada was abolished in 1867? TFD (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please identify the abolition of Canada as established pursuant to the 1867 act. Qexigator (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your commentary was, "so far as international law is concerned, a change of boundaries does not of itself result in discontinuity." Indeed the resolution of the Alaska boundary dispute did not result in discontinuity of the United States. But no one has mentioned a change in boundaries. State continuity may come into question though when states are merged or divided The division of the Czech Republic and Slovakia for example meant that where two states once existed two did and international law had to recognize one, both or neither as continuator states. TFD (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the present purpose of discussing the improvement of the article by the two annotations above, I will let the infobox and the paper trail in my above comment suffice as provenence for the dates in my draft. On the internationl law point, please take my comment as based on well-informed opinion or not, but I do not propose to debate it here. Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The transcript of the Remembrance Day ceremony in London in 2011 records the order in which High Commissioners placed their wreaths at the cenotaph. The realms are mixed in with the other Commonwealth nations and Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, and (for obvious reason) the UK are missing, but, the realms are in order of age: [United Kingdom,] Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Cyprus, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Singapore, Guyana, Botswana, Lesotho, Barbados, Mauritius, Swaziland, Tonga, Fiji, Bangladesh, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, [Solomon Islands, Tuvalu,] Seychelles, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Brunei Darussalem, Nvidia, Cameron, Mozambique, any member of the Commonwealth, and Rwanda. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I had been hoping that something of the sort would be found online, confirming Canada before Australia. attributable to the sequence of the countries becoming independent. Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"Federal Canada" was a continuation of the "Province of Canada", NB and NS, and the province was a continuation of the two provinces, which was a continuation of Quebec. Modern Canada is a continuation of the original dominion, PEI, Nfld, BC and the NW territories. None of these units were ever extinguished, but continued. The question is which starting date to choose and how to treat the fact that modern Canada derives from territories that joined at different times. TFD (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- This debate is way, way off topic. Can you please take it somewhere else? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The topic is how to order the various independent states over which the sovereign rules. My point is that listing the date at which each became independent is problematic. However I do not mind using your order, which is the order of protocol, but it would be OR to claim the order was based on order of independence. It could be for example based on when high commissioners were first received by the UK government. TFD (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Using the order of precedence solves several problems. Australia is a clear-cut case, but places like Canada and Ireland not so much. How is this assembled, do we know? It is based on the nations, I trust, rather than the dates of appointment of the various High Commissioners? --Pete (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how it's assembled. But, it's not a coincidence it's in the order of oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence: United Kingdom (1707? 1801? time immemorial?), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), Jamaica (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (July 1978), Tuvalu (October 1978), St Lucia (February 1979), St Vincent and the Grenadines (October 1979), Belize (September 1981), Antigua and Barbuda (November 1981), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- In diplomatic circles, when an ambassador presents their credentials to the head of state is important, and determines their position on protocol lists. New Zealand order of precedence is an example. In the Australian equivalent, the State Governors are listed by seniority dating from personal appointment. If the British order of precedence ranks High Commissioners by order of personal appointment rather than the order of their realms/dominions gaining independence, then this would change as various appointments are made. The Canadian High Commissioner gets run over by a bus, then the replacement gets to lay his wreath last instead of first. You see what I mean? I'm pretty sure you are correct that it's in order of realm rather than appointment, but it would be nice to know for sure. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you'd like a source containing the exact words "the realms are arranged by oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence", fine, I can't fault you for that. But, I think you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing anyone it was mere coincidence the order of precedence at the 2011 Remembrance Day service was also the order in which the countries became a Dominions followed by the order in which the countries became independent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting that it is so. For the dates of appointment to be in the same order as the dates of independence would be a massive coïncidence. I don't know the exact probability, but it would be vanishingly small. I'm quite sure that listing the realms in the order you give above is fine. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you'd like a source containing the exact words "the realms are arranged by oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence", fine, I can't fault you for that. But, I think you're going to have a very, very hard time convincing anyone it was mere coincidence the order of precedence at the 2011 Remembrance Day service was also the order in which the countries became a Dominions followed by the order in which the countries became independent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- In diplomatic circles, when an ambassador presents their credentials to the head of state is important, and determines their position on protocol lists. New Zealand order of precedence is an example. In the Australian equivalent, the State Governors are listed by seniority dating from personal appointment. If the British order of precedence ranks High Commissioners by order of personal appointment rather than the order of their realms/dominions gaining independence, then this would change as various appointments are made. The Canadian High Commissioner gets run over by a bus, then the replacement gets to lay his wreath last instead of first. You see what I mean? I'm pretty sure you are correct that it's in order of realm rather than appointment, but it would be nice to know for sure. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how it's assembled. But, it's not a coincidence it's in the order of oldest realm followed by order of becoming a Dominion followed by order of independence: United Kingdom (1707? 1801? time immemorial?), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), Jamaica (1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (July 1978), Tuvalu (October 1978), St Lucia (February 1979), St Vincent and the Grenadines (October 1979), Belize (September 1981), Antigua and Barbuda (November 1981), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Using the order of precedence solves several problems. Australia is a clear-cut case, but places like Canada and Ireland not so much. How is this assembled, do we know? It is based on the nations, I trust, rather than the dates of appointment of the various High Commissioners? --Pete (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- The topic is how to order the various independent states over which the sovereign rules. My point is that listing the date at which each became independent is problematic. However I do not mind using your order, which is the order of protocol, but it would be OR to claim the order was based on order of independence. It could be for example based on when high commissioners were first received by the UK government. TFD (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the UK Flag Institute the "Order for Commonwealth Events Held in the UK (but not the Commonwealth Games)", the national flags are displayed in order of "original accession to the Commonwealth." The original dominions, which became members of the Commonwealth at the same time, are listed according to when they obtained dominion status.[21] So I think we can use something like that, since it is not clear when any of the dominions achieved independence. While I imagine that date of accession and independence are the same for the other former colonies, I have not checked it out. Certainly it is possible that it is not the same, because a state could conceivably become independent but join the Commonwealth at a later date. Also, ambassadors and high commissioners receive precedence in order of when they were accepted, but that should not concern us. TFD (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the above comments. The RfC below is proposing a new footnote that lists all realms and explains their ordering by date. So I am looking forward to see what that will be. Meantime, this section remains open for further comment toward that end. Qexigator (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Gone ahead There's no great urgency, but emboldened by the above discussion, I have composed and added a footnote, placing it at the end of the current first sentence. It looks good to me and would be no less so if the sentence is changed (as RfC responses show is to be expected). Of course, this is open to tweak and at risk of revert. If allowed to stay there, perhaps there will be no need to add a footnote for the two lists, of 7 and 12, now in the second paragraph. Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's unnecessary to present essentially the same information in the lead, the infobox and a footnote. I was under the impression that the footnote would either (1) explain the order without repeating it, or (2) would list the realms if the lead did not. DrKiernan (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it gives the same information, but it overlaps the infobox, and presents in one place the names, with dates of "seniority" in a way which combines the lists intelligibly. Admittedly, it does not say explicitly "This list is here to explain why the lists in the text are analphabetic". Should it? Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the footnote duplicates information already in the lede; it was my first thought upon seeing your edit. What it really adds is the reason for the order of the realms. So, I think the note should be stripped of the list and moved to another spot in the lede, likely the second paragraph. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it gives the same information, but it overlaps the infobox, and presents in one place the names, with dates of "seniority" in a way which combines the lists intelligibly. Admittedly, it does not say explicitly "This list is here to explain why the lists in the text are analphabetic". Should it? Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I note that Papua New Guinea was administered by Australia and the date given for precedence is when it became independent of Australia. Singapore, which is a republic, had become independent as part of Malaya and became an independent state upon expulsion, but its date is given for when it later joined the Commonwealth. So I think saying the order is based on date of admission to the Commonwealth is better. TFD (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
DrK, Mies., TFD:: Thanks for those comments. I will be coming up with something which moves or removes the footnote. Qexigator (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In the knowledge that it is sometimes near impossible to cover every conceivable aspect outside a properly drawn legal document (party of the first part etc.[22]), I am going ahead with adding something in line after the 7, and then after the 12. If retained, then the long list in the note for the first paragraph can go. May a few words be sufficient to the actual context.Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- When the lead was re-written prior to the period of full-protection, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon were removed from the lead. No-one complained. We may wish to consider some way of doing that again once the RfC has finished. DrKiernan (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree with these footnotes. As I've said below, in the RfC section, a lead paragraph that requires parenthetical explanations or footnotes is poorly written. It is possible to eliminate the repetition of "She is Head of the Commonwealth ... became Head of the Commonwealth" in immediately succeeding sentences and remove the 3 republics and incorporate an explanation by writing something like:
- Since her accession on 6 February 1952, she has been Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of four independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. From their dates of independence, she is also Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, much better: will you go ahead with that? Qexigator (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'll wait for a while in case someone raises an objection. DrKiernan (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, much better: will you go ahead with that? Qexigator (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC on opening sentence in lede
|
Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?
The lede sentence of this biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which of the versions below best incorporates the following three criteria?
- Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
- All of her realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another.
- She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.
1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states. ; or
2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom. ; or
3. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates[b]; together, those 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms.
Footnotes:
(Footnote a explains why the Queen's Birthday is celebrated on various dates, none of them the actual date.)
(Footnote b lists the 16 realms and explains their ordering by date.) --Pete (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment before responding The current version, at 11:04, 2 October 2015,[23] is Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations..... "of 16" has been in the opener from at least 13 February 2006, in one variant or another, while the article has undergone countless revisions., until a change was made on 25 September[24], that was later reverted and frozen for three days. [25] Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment on comment before response - The current version has been around for a while, but there have been discussions for years about its need to change. It has been a source of edit warring for years. Hopefully we can end those discussions and edit wars now. NickCT (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- A more honest statement is: over years, it has infrequently been the source of edit warring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 is the most accurate, for various reasons I've already mentioned & should be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose Option #2, for reasons already mentioned. PS - It reads more like the name of a card game. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I shall have to oppose Option #3, aswell. It's too wordy & seems to pander to over-exaggerated concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 Most concise. Most accurate. Most balanced. On another note, this option already gained a large majority of supporters in the section above. I don't know why we are RfCing this a second time. NickCT (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of those three, and noting above "Comment on commnent":
- Oppose 3: It is too clumsy in trying to say too much, and each bit of information is spoiled. Nor could it be tweaked into something acceptable, if it contains "...and of 12 other..."
Of 1 and 2, reading them in context as being followed by: "She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.(next paragraph) Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon."- Support 2, reading "...queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom. She is Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England./P/ Upon her accession on 6 February 1952, Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon...." but the words of ...most often personally involved with the United Kingdom... may need some tweaking, and a suitable footnote may allow some trimming.
Oppose 1, but read with the next sentence and paragraph as above, would be intelligible and sufficient.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qexigator (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2015
- Support 1. For reason of content and "prose", given that this is a biographical article for "Elizabeth II". Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose 2. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose 3. Qexigator (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how you feel Option 1 best expresses that "[a]ll of [Elizabeth's] realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know your interest. I don't have anything to add at this stage to my comments, which can be found by searching on qexig , but you will have noticed that in the course of the discussion the balance for me has eventually tipped from 16 to UK+15. You may have seen my comment below "... UK +15 would be acceptable, if the choice is determined, not on the supposed effect on the mind of the ordinary readership, but instead on having an opener which is the more comprenhensive of the article content, and in line with the article heading "Elizabeth II", and with a sidelong look at the infobox...Given that this is a biographical article, ... the balance is tipped by the fact that while she was proclaimed in London as Queen of UK etc at her accession, the local governor-general made proclamation in each of the other 3 countries while the 12 now included in the 16 attained independence in her reign. "...and there is a case for arguing that "equality" is delusional when overstressed: the tradition, expression and responses relating to the monarchy and the monarch are not "equal" but distinctive among the people of each country, and shown formally in such ways as the making of proclamations, and, obviously, in oaths of office and allegiance, and there is an order of precedence by seniority of formation. If there is equality it could be in such matters as membership of the United Nations, but only the UK is a member of the Security Council. There must be very few who, in their daily lives, are at all fussed about this "equality" abstraction, but most will be interested in whether their own country's passport will get them where they want to go, and let them do and stay there as they desire." Finally, my surmise is that we can depend on the ordinary readership not being so dumb or stupid as to fail to get the gist of the article by reading the sentence in the context of what follows and of the article as a whole, so there is no problem which may be implied in the way you put that question. Qexigator (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how you feel Option 1 best expresses that "[a]ll of [Elizabeth's] realms are equal in status with, and her roles as queen of each legally distinct from, one another." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- + While, as far as I can see, nowhere in this biographical article about Elizabeth II is "equality" mentioned at all, the article content is compatible with the proposition of the equality of the 16, far as that is meaningful. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- As none of that has anything to do with point 2, it can be summed up as: "I've simply decided point 2 of the main points of debate as distilled by trackratte is irrelevant." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted. Thank you for letting us know about it. Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Likewise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted. Thank you for letting us know about it. Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- As none of that has anything to do with point 2, it can be summed up as: "I've simply decided point 2 of the main points of debate as distilled by trackratte is irrelevant." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- + While, as far as I can see, nowhere in this biographical article about Elizabeth II is "equality" mentioned at all, the article content is compatible with the proposition of the equality of the 16, far as that is meaningful. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 per consensus attained over the preceding days. The lede should be concise and accurate. It should not be worded in order to avoid hurt feelings or used to needlessly promote equality among nations that aren't equal. That's what alphabetizing is for. --AntHerder (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 Gives proper weight to Queen's most notable role as Queen of the UK and is concise. TFD (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 is the only one which adequately & concisely asserts her unique association with the UK without unnecessarily raising other questions: Oppose #2: makes it sound as if the UK association were a mere matter of her preference, and Oppose #3: tries to say too much and looks arbitrary in its reference to her other realms. FactStraight (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #2 is factually accurate and NPOV, in short truly encyclopaedic. Option #1 is unacceptable and dismissive of "other realms" and belongs in a republican tract. Option #3 is confusing: remember WP:RF. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of those three options, Option #1 gives the best overview. Option #2 is acceptable. Option #3 is over-complicated with detail. My preference would be to use #1 but drawing on #3 - "...the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 12 other independent countries." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option 2 This has survived the test of time on this high traffic article and has been supported by at least two consecutive RfCs. It is the only one of the three that is both concise and totally neutral. WP:NPOV is a core policy that trumps WP:COMMONNAME (and especially misapplication and misreading of it), Canadian republican motive, and personal feelings (pov) about the "specialness" of the UK.
- If those opposed to Option 2 wish for the lede to impart that Elizabeth II is most often personally involved with the UK (an acceptable, verifiable fact), Option 1 fails to do so. There is no evident or verifiable reason for why the UK is separated from the rest of the realms; it leaves the unfamiliar reader to assume the UK is simply special by nature, the established relationship of the realms places the UK above the others as a leader, or Elizabeth is head of all the realms as Queen of the United Kingdom. That is contrary to the verifiable, 80+ year old international agreement of equality among the realms under the Crown (of which Elizabeth II is the personification) set by the Balfour Declaration in 1926. As the opening sentence is intended to communicate the most important characteristic of Elizabeth II, the aforementioned fact must be acknowledged; she is notable as a queen and she is queen equally of 16 independent states. Wikipedia should not be misleading readers; many already believe the non-British realms remain under the United Kingdom in some fashion precisely because Elizabeth II is queen of all of them.
- Since all the options require additional explanation to impart that Elizabeth is most often personally involved with the UK (perhaps already, at least partly, supplied in the second paragraph) and Option 1 is both weak and biased, I adamantly oppose Option 1.
- I can accept Option 3 as a compromise, since it at least separates the realms according to when Elizabeth became queen of each of her countries, rather than some unjustified declaration of the UK's supremacy. Elizabeth became queen of four countries simultaneously and queen of 12 more on a different date for each. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option 1 seems acceptable; Option 3 is too wordy and unnecessary -- Hazhk (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support Option 2. This option is not only concise, but is the compromise solution in that it takes into account the UK+15 side by indicating the direct involvment of Elizbeth II in the UK, but also the 16 realms side by treating all 16 co-equal states co-equally. It is also the most neutral of the three. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose Option 1. This option is predicated on a clearly UK-centric and therefore biased way of presenting the fact that Elizabeth II is the queen of 16 co-equal states. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can accept option 3. trackratte (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option 1 as an accurate statement giving due weight to her main job, for which she is best known, receives a salary, and is her most common title. There is a thousand years of history behind the job. As Queen of (say) Tuvalu, her role is more of an honorary appointment - no salary, the job is performed by a representative, she rarely even visits. We discussed this question last in July 2014, where there was an even division of opinion. I have since changed my opinion and can no longer support this false impression of equality over sixteen different nations, when she is associated with the UK first and foremost. I also favour Option 3 as a good compromise. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Minor point of fact: The Queen does not earn a salary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. Most of us could have a pretty ritzy lifestyle on her !salary, I think. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the Crown Estate generates much more funds than are outlayed to provide for the Royal family (currently 15%), thereby making its statutory transfer to HM Treasury in 2012 a situation whereby the population of the UK actually makes money off the Crown. Secondly, the profits from the Crown Estate are not properly "public money" ("money that has been collected by the state, usually through taxation"). trackratte (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, in no other realm are we talking about a billion-dollar estate generating tens of millions of dollars in income each year. She's not doing it tough in the UK, but she'd be eating saltine crackers, ten cents a pound, in Tuvalu. --Pete (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the Crown Estate generates much more funds than are outlayed to provide for the Royal family (currently 15%), thereby making its statutory transfer to HM Treasury in 2012 a situation whereby the population of the UK actually makes money off the Crown. Secondly, the profits from the Crown Estate are not properly "public money" ("money that has been collected by the state, usually through taxation"). trackratte (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. Most of us could have a pretty ritzy lifestyle on her !salary, I think. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Minor point of fact: The Queen does not earn a salary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1 is my preferred option, as outlined in the earlier #Queen of 16 of the member states section. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Option #1. #1 is immediately understandable and concise. While I would argue that the longstanding version is also immediately understandable and concise, that option is not presented here because the discussion of the RfC candidates clearly showed it had lost consensus. #2 is not an improvement on the longstanding version: (1) it introduces unnecessarily an unfamiliar and unusual term (Commonwealth realms); (2) it introduces an additional clause at the end that appears to be exactly what it is: an additional clause tacked on as an afterthought. It reads messily and is a poor way to introduce the article and subject matter. The first sentence should introduce the subject in a simple, straightforward way; it shouldn't be used to define a different, barely-used term that doesn't need to be mentioned. #3 is over-complicated. It contains a parenthetical aside, a footnote, a clause set apart with parenthetical commas and an additional sentence after a semi-colon to explain something that the previous two options and the longstanding version explained in a simple "subject-verb-object" phrase. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Commonwealth" has been used for hundreds of years, in this particular context for most of the 20thC. "Realm" has been used in its current form since the 17thC and is the common term for the territory over which a monarch reigns. What therefore is either "unfamiliar" or "unusual"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Malaysia, Tonga, Lesotho and Swaziland are realms in the Commonwealth but they are not Commonwealth realms. It is the compound noun that is unusual and needs definition not the individual words. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Broadly agree with DrKiernan's comments, but there is another valid way of composing a simple sentence, thus:
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of
the United Kingdom and 15 other16 independent states.
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of
- Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perfectly good sentence. Of course if I was being awkward (what me?) - then is a "state" 1/50 of the country known as the USA or the summation of 3 countries as in the UK? ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- What would a USA citizen or resident understand by "independent states", Mexico and Cuba or New Mexico and Alaska? But maybe the phrase should be "16 independent sovereign states" ? Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perfectly good sentence. Of course if I was being awkward (what me?) - then is a "state" 1/50 of the country known as the USA or the summation of 3 countries as in the UK? ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Commonwealth" has been used for hundreds of years, in this particular context for most of the 20thC. "Realm" has been used in its current form since the 17thC and is the common term for the territory over which a monarch reigns. What therefore is either "unfamiliar" or "unusual"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't really have a personal preference between #1, the longstanding or that "perfectly good" opening sentence. I think the POV issue can be argued either and both ways: in my view, it's essentially a personal choice, not a choice determined solely by the political/cultural leanings of the commentator, but a choice nevertheless. I can live with either "1+15" or "16"; my comments reflect my opinion of the options' prose and do not address the issues of balance or bias. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. and in the course of the discussion below I am begiinning to find there is so little to choose between them that UK +15 would be acceptable, if the choice is determined, not on the supposed effect on the mind of the ordinary readership, but instead on having an opener which is the more comprenhensive of the article content, and in line with the article heading "Elizabeth II", and with a sidelong look at the infobox. But so far, I see too little to tip the balance from 16. Qexigator (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't really have a personal preference between #1, the longstanding or that "perfectly good" opening sentence. I think the POV issue can be argued either and both ways: in my view, it's essentially a personal choice, not a choice determined solely by the political/cultural leanings of the commentator, but a choice nevertheless. I can live with either "1+15" or "16"; my comments reflect my opinion of the options' prose and do not address the issues of balance or bias. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- + Given that this is a biographical article, perhaps (as others may have intimated) the balance is tipped by the fact that while she was proclaimed in London as Queen of UK etc at her accession, the local governor-general made proclamation in each of the other 3 countries while the 12 now included in the 16 attained independence in her reign, whatever other comings and goings there have been, details of which are somewhere in this or linked articles. Qexigator (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've made your judgement based on prose. However, the RfC asks the judgement be made on which option best incorporates the three main concerns of editors involved in this dispute: Elizabeth II is queen of 16 countries, the countries and her place as queen of each are equal, and she is more often personally involved with the UK. Improvements to prose can be made later. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC originally asked "Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?" It was changed after the RfC had started and after many editors had already commented on the original question. It's fine to change or discuss the heading before comments are underway, but it is bad practice to change it after responses are made. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- In agreement with you, DrKiernan. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is; there should've been a preview of the RfC wording before the RfC was opened. The original opening didn't outline the actual issues in dispute (though, I'd think we who've been involved in this for days might've been aware of them). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've notified those who commented already and don't seem to have been by this talk page since doing so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC originally asked "Elizabeth II holds the title of queen of sixteen different nations. However she resides in the United Kingdom, and she is represented in her other realms by governors-general. The lede sentence of her biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which version is preferred?" It was changed after the RfC had started and after many editors had already commented on the original question. It's fine to change or discuss the heading before comments are underway, but it is bad practice to change it after responses are made. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prose? A protest too far, perhaps a variant of apophasis. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- My comment was based on this version. --AntHerder (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prose? A protest too far, perhaps a variant of apophasis. Qexigator (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that "Commonwealth Realm" is jargon and its use should be minimized. At least avoid it in the lead. When it is used it needs to be explained in text. Also, oppose saying "sovereign states." It is confusing because the article is about a sovereign, so we are saying she is sovereign of 16 sovereign states. And Alaska is indeed sovereign although it is not independent, which is why the Alaska secessionist party is called the Alaska Independence Party. It is sovereign in all areas that are not assigned to the federal government. TFD (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
Kudos to Pete on a better looking RfC. ;-) NickCT (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Over the past week I've been trying to sort out RfC candidates. This is the RfC, as per the template and the heading and the listing on RfC noticeboards. Previous discussions have been around gauging support for various alternative wordings - we regular editors might be able to choose one from a dozen that differ only in minor details, but more eyes from outside always help, and boiling the dozen options down to two or three lets us focus on the essential. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a job well done, and still in progress, so that we can settle it cheerfully and allow such further improvements to be made as are contributed. Qexigator (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you - and many others - for the insights and the thoughtful comments. Yes, there's a bit of tweaking to do, whichever wording we choose. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- You da man, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a job well done, and still in progress, so that we can settle it cheerfully and allow such further improvements to be made as are contributed. Qexigator (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to say thanks without criticism, but, I do have to point out that the opening speaks of where Elizabeth resides (neglecting the fact she resides many places, just mostly in the UK) and governors-general, but, none of the options make reference to either of those matters. The opening doesn't explain what most editors opposed to the present opening said they were concerned about: Elizabeth is most often personally involved with the UK. The options therefore aren't being judged on how well they impart that information. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I put it as even-handedly as I could, but Mies, you are welcome to make it even more so. I am by no means as perfect an editor, or a human being as I could be, and we can all fill in for each other's shortcomings with our strengths. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to pick on anyone's imperfection. I'm merely pointing out a disjoint between the opening of the RfC and the options the RfC focuses on. Would you (or anyone) object to
- The lede sentence of this biographical article has been the subject of much debate and three candidates have been drafted by editors in discussion above. Which of the versions below best incorporates the following three criteria?
- 1. Elizabeth II is Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.
- 2. All of her realms are distinct from and equal with one another.
- 3. She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.
- That incorporates the three points distilled by trackratte from all the earlier discussion and to which nobody objected. Points 1 and 3 simply replace the first two sentences of the present RfC opening. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- As per your wording, except I've changed the numbers to bullet points to remove a source of confusion and inserted "legally" ahead of equal in case some pedantic fellow wants to talk about population or GDP or land area. (Disneyland is bigger than Tuvalu, imagine that!) --Pete (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. I have made a minor (I think) tweak to point 2 to use the wording of the Balfour Declaration itself ("equal in status") and use "legally distinct" for Elizabeth's place as queen, since the Balfour Declaration is an international agreement, not actually law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm afraid that I must object to this post-!vote rewording. When evaluating the points to be considered in wording the RFC, I agreed with and understood myself to be accepting point 3 as "She is primarily associated with her role within the United Kingdom." But I now see that wording was objected to (as "unverifiable", a point with which I also don't agree, since the lede may -- without footnotes -- summarize points documented subsequently in the article's body, and I have consistently pointed out in this discussion that it is not Elizabeth II's "residence" or any other single discrete fact which distinguishes her connection to the UK from that in her other realms, but as Pete elsewhere put it, 1,000 years of history which has shaped that role into a unique one and is documented throughout her bio and those of her ancestors) and was unilaterally changed to "She is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom", a minimialisation to which I've objected as implying that the difference in her degree of connection to the UK from other realms is merely due to her own preferences or to convenience (i.e., where she "happens" to "predominantly" reside) rather than to history, current function and public expectation intrinsic to the positions she holds. In our advocacy, let's take care not to conflate the issue here, which is a dispute about the degree to which the article is obliged to emphasize that her queenships are equal vs acknowledgement that they are not the same. FactStraight (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is reason to make objection to the unilateral change, and there is a case for arguing that "equality" is delusional when overstressed: the tradition, expression and responses relating to the monarchy and the monarch are not "equal" but distinctive among the people of each country, and shown formally in such ways as the making of proclamations, and, obviously, in oaths of office and allegiance, and there is an order of precedence by seniority of formation. If there is equality it could be in such matters as membership of the United Nations, but only the UK is a member of the Security Council. There must be very few who, in their daily lives, are at all fussed about this "equality" abstraction, but most will be interested in whether their own country's passport will get them where they want to go, and let them do and stay there as they desire. So far as the Queen herself is concerned, in her relations with the governments and the people of the countries, she evidently takes care to avoid overt favouritism, like a parent with numerous children. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- If my mother had kept my older sister and farmed the rest of us out to various different locations under the care of foster mothers who changed every few years, I might have had some comments to make about favouritism! To be frank, I think this whole "Monarchy of Belize/Papua New Guinea/Canada/etc." thing is a confection. There is the British monarchy, and while Papua New Guinea might decide to become a republic - perhaps they have already; their executive arrangements can get chaotic from time to time - without the British monarch feeling any effect, the reverse is not true. If the UK decided to ditch the monarchy, that's it for her other realms as well. This notion of equality is a confection, and there is no Canadian monarchy or Australian monarchy or Tuvaluvian monarchy except for the fantasy that Wikipedia promotes. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you still holding onto those canadrs? Well, it's a good think there's a difference between what you think and what's reliably sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, yeah. Canarda already thinks in the matter of succession that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Canadian monarch. Seriously, you think - does anyone think - that if the UK decides to become a republic, then the Queen will move to Ottawa and be Queen of Canada? Or remain in the UK and be Queen of Australia, Tuvalu etc. while not being Queen of the UK? It's ridiculous. The UK is the key. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you still holding onto those canadrs? Well, it's a good think there's a difference between what you think and what's reliably sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- If my mother had kept my older sister and farmed the rest of us out to various different locations under the care of foster mothers who changed every few years, I might have had some comments to make about favouritism! To be frank, I think this whole "Monarchy of Belize/Papua New Guinea/Canada/etc." thing is a confection. There is the British monarchy, and while Papua New Guinea might decide to become a republic - perhaps they have already; their executive arrangements can get chaotic from time to time - without the British monarch feeling any effect, the reverse is not true. If the UK decided to ditch the monarchy, that's it for her other realms as well. This notion of equality is a confection, and there is no Canadian monarchy or Australian monarchy or Tuvaluvian monarchy except for the fantasy that Wikipedia promotes. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is reason to make objection to the unilateral change, and there is a case for arguing that "equality" is delusional when overstressed: the tradition, expression and responses relating to the monarchy and the monarch are not "equal" but distinctive among the people of each country, and shown formally in such ways as the making of proclamations, and, obviously, in oaths of office and allegiance, and there is an order of precedence by seniority of formation. If there is equality it could be in such matters as membership of the United Nations, but only the UK is a member of the Security Council. There must be very few who, in their daily lives, are at all fussed about this "equality" abstraction, but most will be interested in whether their own country's passport will get them where they want to go, and let them do and stay there as they desire. So far as the Queen herself is concerned, in her relations with the governments and the people of the countries, she evidently takes care to avoid overt favouritism, like a parent with numerous children. Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- As per your wording, except I've changed the numbers to bullet points to remove a source of confusion and inserted "legally" ahead of equal in case some pedantic fellow wants to talk about population or GDP or land area. (Disneyland is bigger than Tuvalu, imagine that!) --Pete (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to pick on anyone's imperfection. I'm merely pointing out a disjoint between the opening of the RfC and the options the RfC focuses on. Would you (or anyone) object to
- The three options on which we are !voting have not changed at all. Mies made an objection to my "brief, neutral statement" before the three options are listed, and I decided to incorporate his suggested text, leaving mine as struck-out. I think both versions are about as neutral as each other, but there are two reasons why I went with Mies' wording.
- The actual options for the lede sentence upon which we are !voting have not changed, and
- I don't want Mies to complain after the fact that the wording was skewed. Very little happens in this particular little corner of Wikipedia without either Mies' approval or anguished and dogged resistance. I would like him to feel that the process is as open and transparent as possible. Sentence options 1 and 2 are those which emerged from a far longer list as being the binary choices, and option 3 is Mies' own wording, which I think is an excellent compromise.
- I guess, after this RfC is closed, we can argue about the effect of changing the brief, neutral wording mid-stream, and maybe those on the losing side can call for another one, but there is another option available to all who have already !voted - simply reëvaluate your original !vote and modify it if you think modification is needed. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Look, I know (because you said so) you get off on teasing me. But, if you're going to persist, you really shouldn't also be a hypocrite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not teasing you here, Mies. I'd like you to have as much input into this as possible so you can't complain afterwards. If that means we get your preferred version rather than mine, so be it. --Pete (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the options offered us for !vote have not changed, but as I was invited to respond to this notification about the change in the 3 rationales undergirding the RfC, I felt obliged to do so since the expectation was expressed that the change might alter the !vote, mine or others, and I therefore wished to clarify the muddle which led to a change I did not notice at the time. On the point at hand, I affirm my continued support for Option #1. FactStraight (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Look, I know (because you said so) you get off on teasing me. But, if you're going to persist, you really shouldn't also be a hypocrite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The change hardly affects most of the choices and preferences already made, or the likely outcome, but why we should be expected to re-check to gratify one rather than another editor I fail to see. The clearest way of inviting comment would have been for either "...is Queen of 16 independent states." or "...is Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states.", which, as a number of participants have pointed out, is the main issue, with possibly a subsidiary pair or set of options for or against adding in the same or adjacent sentence something about the Queen residing and/or working predominantly in UK. For my part, after seeing responses, comments and the Discussion below, I will cancel my previous response and instead support option 1 and oppose the other two. Qexigator (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The three options on which we are !voting have not changed at all. Mies made an objection to my "brief, neutral statement" before the three options are listed, and I decided to incorporate his suggested text, leaving mine as struck-out. I think both versions are about as neutral as each other, but there are two reasons why I went with Mies' wording.
Neutral point of view. Since one of the editors has brought up neutrality, I would like to state that it does not require us to give equal weight to every state over which the sovereign is queen, but "to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". There is no doubt that reliable sources spend far more time discussing her role as Queen of the UK than of her other independent realms. Even in Canada, her largest realm and most populous after the UK, where the Queen is styled "of the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]", news sources report more on her UK than Canadian role. In addition, the monarch is queen of 15 British Overseas Territories, 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, and various states associated with or dependent on Australia and NZ. But no one suggests they be afforded equal weight. TFD (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Those are three red herrings: Nobody suggested the lede shouldn't communicate that Elizabeth II has more frequently acted in her role as Queen of the UK. Common mistakes don't make the mistake a fact. The lede presently talks about member states of the Commonwealth of Nations and it and all three proposals above use the words "independent countries". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The sovereign is overwhelming better known in reliable sources (even in Canada) as the Queen of the UK and in keeping with policy we should state that she is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. That is not a red herring, it is policy. And of course when reliable sources start referring to her as Queen of New Zealand or wherever more often than Queen of the UK then we can put that nation first. TFD (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- What policy are you referring to? trackratte (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The sovereign is overwhelming better known in reliable sources (even in Canada) as the Queen of the UK and in keeping with policy we should state that she is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. That is not a red herring, it is policy. And of course when reliable sources start referring to her as Queen of New Zealand or wherever more often than Queen of the UK then we can put that nation first. TFD (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You spoke of "weight appropriate", not what gets mentioned first. You've shifted the goalposts from your earlier comment. (And, it's self evident that being queen of 16 countries has more weight than being queen of one.)
- I'm with trackratte in wondering what policy requires the article to state Elizabeth is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 3:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- See my comments at 23:12, 2 October 2015.[26] The policy is "Balancing aspects", which is part of "Neutral point of view": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- That policy doesn't require the article to state Elizabeth is Queen of the UK before mentioning any other role. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- See my comments at 23:12, 2 October 2015.[26] The policy is "Balancing aspects", which is part of "Neutral point of view": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're quite correct TFD, reliable sources do indeed recognize Elizabeth II most closely associated with the United Kingdom'. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- So far I see zero sources to support either claim about the counter-intuitive (and presumptuous) supposition that there is a serious likelihood of any of the world-wide English-reading population of any country in or outside the Commonwealth (in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa or the south-eastern hemishpere/Pacific Ocean), for whose information this article is composed, being misled either way if the words used adopt the "UK + 15" option " (which may have most support in the RfC) or the "!6 (including UK)". I see such contentions as red herrings, which have attained a prominence in the bill of fare out of proportion to a balanced diet. But I do not see as a red herring TFD's comment that There is no doubt that reliable sources spend far more time discussing her role as Queen of the UK than of her other independent realms. Even in Canada, her largest realm ... A recent addition to the article mentions the length of the Queen's reign exceeding Victoria's[27] (now in the lead's 4th paragraph) and the citation in section "Diamond Jubilee and beyond" is to the Canadian Governor General's website, which announces an event "in celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest-reigning sovereign in Canada’s modern era....To mark the time when Her Majesty will become the longest-reigning monarch in our country’s recent history..." is an opportunity (for Canadians) "to celebrate Her Majesty’s remarkable work and outstanding dedication, as well as the heartfelt connection she has had to Canada throughout her incredible reign" and " in celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II becoming the longest-reigning sovereign in Canada’s modern era." That seems tactfully to avoid words which a polemicist might claim leant one way or the other. If the Canadian Governor General can do it, Wikipedia should not do otherwise, but nor should we make untested and unverified assumptions about the dumbness of the readership. Qexigator (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
moved and corrected after wifi botch. Qexigator (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
In the past, the 1931 (note the year) Statues of Westerminister were brought up. It got me wondering. Why haven't the very few here pushing for 16, not making such a push at the openings of George V, Edward VIII & George VI articles? GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Just curious aswell. When Elizabeth II passes on, will she be chopped up into 16 pieces, with each piece buried in a realm? Will Charles hold 16 coronations, each held in a realm? Will the roayl family begin living in each realm on a rotational plan? etc etc. Hypothetical questions to be sure, but something to ponder about, when considering this article's opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Some things about the British monarchy and monarchs are yet more curious, but just now they have even less to do with the content of the lead or the article as a whole, and are of less concern here than sabotage of the RfC would be. Qexigator (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Qexigator, the Canadian source used is Maclean's, Canada's foremost news magazine. In the title it says, "Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest-reigning British monarch ever." In the body it says, "the longest-reigning British monarch in history." There is no mention of her role as Queen of Canada, in fact no mention of Canada at all, although there is an indirect reference: Victoria (the previous record-holder) did not want "Empire-wide celebrations", and neither does the current monarch.
- The Canadian governor-general's website of course emphasizes her Canadian role, and some reliable sources will. But the overwhelming majority do not.
- GoodDay, see WP:BEANS.
- TFD (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just confounded TFD, as to how a few (very few) individuals would filibuster to try & keep out "Queen of the United Kingdom" from this article's opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to be a position of the Monarchist League of Canada. In order to defend retention they claim that it is a Canadian institution distinct from the British institution. Following obiter dicta from Lord Denning in 1982, more or less, they hold that a separate Canadian Crown was created in 1931, although current legal theory rejects Denning's opinion. So aboriginals, French Canadians, Irish Catholics and descendants of non-UK immigrants should accept it along with other Canadian institutions. TFD (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- TFD: to your knowledge, is that mentioned in this or any other article? Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It would be useful though in the League's article to explain their arguments for continuing the Canadian monarchy, which they present on their website. Even the Debate on the monarchy in Canada does not actually state any arguments. The League's current views are well explained on its website and the views on divisibility of the Crown which they formerly presented and which at least one editor still argues can be found in "The Emergence Of A Canadian Monarchy: 1867-1953", which they published in 2003. TFD (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you seriously trying to convince us that the divisibility of the Crown is a sham? My, you'd best tell all the governments the Perth Agreement was a total waste of time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And what does constitutional debate in Canada have to do with the opening sentence to the Elizabeth II article? trackratte (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which it appears that the Canadian government holds that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Canadian monarch. As opposed to every other realm. Refreshing in their honesty. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not opposed to every other realm and you're apparently not aware that position is being reviewed by the courts as unconstitutional. So, you may want to hold off on popping your champagne.
- Also: Off topic. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Which it appears that the Canadian government holds that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Canadian monarch. As opposed to every other realm. Refreshing in their honesty. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And what does constitutional debate in Canada have to do with the opening sentence to the Elizabeth II article? trackratte (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Are you seriously trying to convince us that the divisibility of the Crown is a sham? My, you'd best tell all the governments the Perth Agreement was a total waste of time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it isn't. It would be useful though in the League's article to explain their arguments for continuing the Canadian monarchy, which they present on their website. Even the Debate on the monarchy in Canada does not actually state any arguments. The League's current views are well explained on its website and the views on divisibility of the Crown which they formerly presented and which at least one editor still argues can be found in "The Emergence Of A Canadian Monarchy: 1867-1953", which they published in 2003. TFD (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- TFD: to your knowledge, is that mentioned in this or any other article? Qexigator (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to be a position of the Monarchist League of Canada. In order to defend retention they claim that it is a Canadian institution distinct from the British institution. Following obiter dicta from Lord Denning in 1982, more or less, they hold that a separate Canadian Crown was created in 1931, although current legal theory rejects Denning's opinion. So aboriginals, French Canadians, Irish Catholics and descendants of non-UK immigrants should accept it along with other Canadian institutions. TFD (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just confounded TFD, as to how a few (very few) individuals would filibuster to try & keep out "Queen of the United Kingdom" from this article's opening sentence. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Miesianical, you are well aware after many postings that I have never said the divisibility of the Crown is a sham. In fact your derisive comments above ("Ah, I was waiting for you to trot your old favourite out." - 21:25, 28 September 2015) are clear evidence. And the "favourite out" is "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible," What part of that statement do you read to say the Crown is indivisible? You are imparting to me that your arguments are so weak you need to misrepresent other editor's comments.
Agree the constitutional issue is irrelevant to the lead. But that is the basis of your argument - all realms are constitutionally equal, therefore the lead should not give precedence to any one. It is a tempting distraction to argue the point, but ultimately the issue has to be determined by policy, in this case weight, which is about not the relevant importance of each country, but about the relative weight provided by reliable sources to the sovereign's activities related to her various offices.
18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's me who's misrepresenting arguments. These are your words: "[F]rom Lord Denning in 1982, more or less, they hold that a separate Canadian Crown was created in 1931, although current legal theory rejects Denning's opinion." You said the league holds that stance not because it has grounds in fact, but because it can be used by the league "to defend retention [by claiming] that it is a Canadian institution distinct from the British institution... So aboriginals, French Canadians, Irish Catholics and descendants of non-UK immigrants should accept it along with other Canadian institutions." Sorry, but that does not come across as though you believe the league's position; you present it as though it's propaganda contrary to the mysterious "current legal theory" that rejects a separate Canadian Crown. If you don't believe there exists a Canadian Crown, it follows you don't believe in the divisibility of the international crown. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Miesianicial, I have presented Kerr's opinion, which was later accepted by the Lords of Appeal, many times. "The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867."
- IOW the Canadian Crown was not "created in 1931," because it already existed "by 1867."
- Sorry if you think my representation of the League's position makes it sound like propaganda. The reality is that there are different views whether (culturally at least) the monarchy is British or Canadian. The League defends its Canadianness. However, no matter how important this debate is to Canada, it is little significance to this article.
- TFD (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, as long as we agree on that. But I think we are misunderstanding each other here, the equality piece isn't grounded in the Canadian constitution and has nothing to do with precedence (precedence has nothing to do with importance). It is entirely due to the fact that that of the 16 states, one is not 'more of a country' than another or 'more important' than another in terms of the role it its sovereign, but that the queen is co-equally the sovereign of 16 independent states (you are either the queen of a state or you are not, you cannot be more queen in one and less queen in another). Secondly, the equality of states more generally speaking is a matter of normative international law, and not one of the Canadian constitution. So, the Canadian constitution is only relevant to the lede in terms of making it about 16 states instead of 15. trackratte (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody has been saying that the UK is better, greater, etc etc. The argument is -- the Queen is associated the most with the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
TFD: thank you for replying to my question with that information. I see it has attracted some attacking comment, which may explain in part the prolongation of the RfC, which is being conducted in a way, which, if well-meaning, has attracted adverse comment and may not be doing anything useful in the attempt to arrive at an improvement on the current version. Qexigator (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Current RfC Summary as of 4 Oct
In looking at the 3 core consensus points listed as the goal of the RfC compared to the three RfC candidates:
Option 1 covers point 1: 50%, point 2: 0%, point 3, 100%.
Option 2 covers point 1: 50%, point 2: 100%, point 3, 100%.
Option 3 covers point 1: 75%, point 2: 50%, point 3, 100%.
(all three options are 100% factually accurate)
To summarize the votes: once again somewhat problematic as we are presented with a trinary choice which voters essentially ranked with different variations and words to express support, weak support, weak oppose, and oppose. Subsequently, I just classed all support (weak or not) under "support", and all else as opposed.
Option #1: 11 support;
Option #2: 4 support; and
Option #3: 2 support.
Subsequently, at this stage option 1 is clearly the preferred option with option 2 having 36% of that support.
Looking above, option 1 makes it impossible to gain consensus ("agreement among all the people involved", or "group solidarity") since it completely neglects core point 2. Option 2 is too heavily opposed to ever generate consensus. Option 3 covers all three core points, although perhaps imperfectly (which would explain why everyone gravitated to the binary choices of 1 or 2 since why compromise if your preferred choice is there?). Perhaps it is time to draw on Ghmyrtle's suggestion/preference and "to use #1 but drawing on #3".
This would represent a change from "...is queen of 16 of the 53 member states..." (current) to "is queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states." This takes option #1 ("queen of the United Kingdom"), half takes option #2 (equality), and simplifies and strips down the prose of #3. Thus, as I understand the problem with the current lede ("16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations.") is that it doesn't say "queen of the United Kingdom", and the problem with just "queen of the United Kingdom" is that it cuts out the other 15 states (and regardless of size of the other states she is still queen of them, a fact which is personally important to her and readily verifiable). Thus, as always, the only hope of achieving consensus is to blend both points, ie have "queen of the United Kingdom" instead of "16 of the 53" while at the same time mentioning the other 15 not simply as 'the other [lesser/not important] 15'.
Blended solution for further tweaking:
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and 12 other independent states.
trackratte (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Result of side-bar poll is no-consensus and is thus withdrawn, below still useful for discussion. trackratte (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support In the (apparently unlikely) event that this compromise wins the hearts of all those !voting in the current RfC. Pete (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support (add my own vote for ease of tallying). trackratte (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Suffers the exact same balance/bias issues as the other two options: making the predominantly black countries inferior and giving the four most populous/internationally important ones a greater prominence that is not necessarily justified. Also mildly oppose this constant hijacking of the RfC process, which appears designed to either steer it or sabotage it. DrKiernan (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The only way to resolve the issue of "making the predominantly black countries inferior" is to either list them in the lede, or place them on equal footing with the UK. trackratte (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with DrKiernan. TFD (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Object: this should be withdrawn for reason moved by Trackratte to discussion below. Also, agree with TFD and DrKiernan. Qexigator (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, well you folks already know my reasons. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, let's keep our eyes on the prize by making only the distinction which is driving this RfC: UK+15. Adding in some but not all the other 15 muddies the waters, so name none or name all alphabetically. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments/Discussion
If possible, please leave comments here, and above simply put "support" or "oppose" to keep things simple, keeping in mind what you are supporting or opposing is the principle not the exact phrasing. Tweaking can be done as part of this conversation. trackratte (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Objection Please withdraw this "blend" which combines the faults of all and merits of none of the 3 options which were:
- Option 1 ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states.
- Option 2. ...is queen of 16 independent countries known as the Commonwealth realms, though she is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom.
- Option 3. .... is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom (where she predominantly resides), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and of 12 other independent countries from various dates[b]; together, those 16 states are known as the Commonwealth realms.
- Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what not to do. This is not a poll or a vote. Supports and opposes should be backed up with rationales not just tallied up. DrKiernan (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is to "identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart" (WP:RFC). There is nothing to withdraw as it is within the RfC process, ie drawing editors towards common ground to build consensus. You're right, any opinions should be backed up with rationale, which is what this section is for. When we mix in long drawn out conversations with the "votes" it becomes very troublesome to follow who wants what, and when (particularly when people change their minds and then things can become even more confusing). And yes Wikipedia is not a democracy obviously, the "votes" piece is to see how much interest there is in going towards this "common ground" in a simple and clear way. trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- And to respond to your rationale above, how does "making the predominantly black countries inferior and giving the [one] most populous/internationally important one a greater prominence" help anything?trackratte (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- On October 1st, the section entitled RfC Candidates was still open and users were still commenting there, since then we have had two different RfC questions in the formal RfC section, and now we appear to have a fourth separate RfC section opening here, all covering essentially the same topic or asking much the same question. RfCs typically last 30 days; they've been four opened or closed here in as many days. The confusion is being caused by the multiple different discussions. I already made an attempt to simplify it by collapsing two earlier sections. Creating yet another section on top of the existing half-dozen to ask the same question in a slightly different way as before is not helping. DrKiernan (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is only one RfC, this is a sub-section within the RfC as you can see in the list order (RfC being 8, this section being 8.2 or the second sub-section within the RfC), and is a side-bar to the main conversation. What has added confusion is that someone jumped the gun in starting the RfC before we had established how it would be phrased, and what the candidates would be (which was the goal of the "RFC Candidates" section which was essentially a pre-RFC). This premature start led us having to change what the RfC was even asking after voting and discussions had already begun. It also proposes three candidates instead of two, leading everyone to select the one they actually prefer while actively opposing the third (compromise) solution, because everyone will naturally select what they are 100% happy with vice what they are only 50% happy with, thus short-circuiting the consensus building portion of the follow on discussion, since any work towards compromise (and thus consensus building) has been torpedoed through built-in rejection of the "third way" within the RfC. This is simply an attempt to restore focus on the "common ground" between everyone (two of the three core points), and re-start actual compromise rather than battleground tactics. Which is to say one side wants "queen of the UK" as the only title, and the other wants complete equality "queen of 16 independent states", the only way to achieve true consensus is 'queen of UK and' or 'queen of 16 (UK centric)'. Any other option, as far as I can see, will result in maintained opposition and simply be a majority over minority vote, which is not consensus ("consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution."WP:STRAW) but simple voting. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- You know, it is becoming clear that many here are treating this as a popularity contest: whichever wins the most votes goes in the article. It's entirely contrary to WP:DEM and, as you note, an evasion of consensus building. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is only one RfC, this is a sub-section within the RfC as you can see in the list order (RfC being 8, this section being 8.2 or the second sub-section within the RfC), and is a side-bar to the main conversation. What has added confusion is that someone jumped the gun in starting the RfC before we had established how it would be phrased, and what the candidates would be (which was the goal of the "RFC Candidates" section which was essentially a pre-RFC). This premature start led us having to change what the RfC was even asking after voting and discussions had already begun. It also proposes three candidates instead of two, leading everyone to select the one they actually prefer while actively opposing the third (compromise) solution, because everyone will naturally select what they are 100% happy with vice what they are only 50% happy with, thus short-circuiting the consensus building portion of the follow on discussion, since any work towards compromise (and thus consensus building) has been torpedoed through built-in rejection of the "third way" within the RfC. This is simply an attempt to restore focus on the "common ground" between everyone (two of the three core points), and re-start actual compromise rather than battleground tactics. Which is to say one side wants "queen of the UK" as the only title, and the other wants complete equality "queen of 16 independent states", the only way to achieve true consensus is 'queen of UK and' or 'queen of 16 (UK centric)'. Any other option, as far as I can see, will result in maintained opposition and simply be a majority over minority vote, which is not consensus ("consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution."WP:STRAW) but simple voting. trackratte (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- We want to keep the first sentence of the lead concise. We can list all the CRs at the end of the lead or in a separate section. Listing the white CRs makes it appear they are more important. But Jamaica has almost the same population as NZ while Barbados is the oldest realm and at one time the most important. TFD (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The lede follows the same order as the infobox, where Barbados is listed in the infobox as 1966, and we've already gone through this when someone added a note earlier explaining the precedence of the states included in the infobox. By that logic the ordering in the infobox will have to change to avoid being "racist", which I fail to see how ordering these states chronologically is any more "racist" than alphabetical. Furthermore, by that same logic listing the UK by itself and relegating the rest of the "predominantly black 15 nations" as an afterthought in the lede would be equally racist. If the requirement is simply to have a "white country" (whatever that means, Canada is not a "white country" but a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural one which is Constitutionally entrenched) then drop NZ and have "and 13 other independent states". trackratte (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above comment by trackratte shows so little grasp of the objections it purports to answer as to suggest that it would be better if s/he recused on this one, to avoid further muddle, of which we have had enough. Qexigator (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- No one has responded to the question of how removing all countries from mention except for the UK repairs the relegation of "black countries" which both TFD and Kiernan brought up as part of their reasoning underlying objection. trackratte (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes, it is better to backtrack some way to see where one had gone offtrack, instead of demanding that all follow along the same track one had mistakenly proposed. Qexigator (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is that addressed to me or TFD or Kiernan? I'm certainly not the one who brought up "making the predominantly black countries inferior", I'm the one who would like an explanation on why such a disgusting sentiment is being brought forward, and now that it's been tabled, how those advocating the point intend to resolve it. trackratte (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- If it's been tabled, as you acknowledge, then it need not be further "resolved". Further focus on it seems dilatory. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that you have shown an aptitude to mishandle this. You may not be aware that the slur on others in that last comment is quite out of order. Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- My above comment is entirely fact: 1. I did not bring it up, and 2. I would like an explanation on how the point will be resolved.
- What is slanderous is stating that my proposal is racist (and by implication all of the proposals within the RfC). Either the point which was brought up by TFD and Kiernan is valid (in which case we must resolve it), or it was attempt to portray the proposal(s) as racist (insinuating assumptions about the proposers, in which case apologies should be made). I assume it was the former and no ill-intent was desired, in which case it is a valid point of consideration and must be resolved, and therefore my comment remains standing, how is the point to be resolved? trackratte (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is that addressed to me or TFD or Kiernan? I'm certainly not the one who brought up "making the predominantly black countries inferior", I'm the one who would like an explanation on why such a disgusting sentiment is being brought forward, and now that it's been tabled, how those advocating the point intend to resolve it. trackratte (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since the fundamental change driving this RfC is acknowledging Elizabeth's unique association with the UK, that association alone has sustained momentum in this discussion to merit mention in the lede (balanced with reference to the equality of realms, i.e. "equal but not the same"), whereas we have tended toward gradual agreement not to alter the lede for other purposes in this RfC. Thus that narrow focus mitigates a taint of racism insofar as it reflects that only that association is salient enough for the lede: other factors which may evoke that taint (e.g. identifying realms by seniority of association with Elizabeth) are disposable distractions. FactStraight (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes, it is better to backtrack some way to see where one had gone offtrack, instead of demanding that all follow along the same track one had mistakenly proposed. Qexigator (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- No one has responded to the question of how removing all countries from mention except for the UK repairs the relegation of "black countries" which both TFD and Kiernan brought up as part of their reasoning underlying objection. trackratte (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- The above comment by trackratte shows so little grasp of the objections it purports to answer as to suggest that it would be better if s/he recused on this one, to avoid further muddle, of which we have had enough. Qexigator (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And that spat is exactly the reason to treat all co-equal realms identically. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have faith in our fellow editors. This Rfc has been quite civil :) GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just my observation: It appears that ...UK + 15... is the preferred version. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- trackratte, the reason we mention the UK is weight, the sovereign's role as Queen of the UK has far greater coverage than all other realms put together. The reason we place the realms in sequence is that that is official protocol. But what reason is there to stop at CR-4 (NZ), rather CR-5 (Jamaica) or CR-6 (Barbados)? I note that Canada is 74% white, while Jamaica is 1% white; Barbados, 3%. In fact the first four CRs are often referred to as the "Old Commonwealth" and before it was politically incorrect as the "White Commonwealth." TFD (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)And what reason is there to stop at CR-1 (UK)? I note that the UK is 87% white, while Canada is only 76% white, New Zealand only around 70% white, and the Bahamas only 15% white. Refusing to accord the co-equal sovereign of these states equal footing based on these countries' "whiteness", or membership to some supposed "Old Commonwealth", or "White Commonwealth" are all equally unacceptable.
- Coverage is a strawman, the quantity of verifiable sources in this case is a function of the UK's size and international presence, and nothing to do with the function of the office of sovereign itself. trackratte (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- trackratte, the reason we mention the UK is weight, the sovereign's role as Queen of the UK has far greater coverage than all other realms put together. The reason we place the realms in sequence is that that is official protocol. But what reason is there to stop at CR-4 (NZ), rather CR-5 (Jamaica) or CR-6 (Barbados)? I note that Canada is 74% white, while Jamaica is 1% white; Barbados, 3%. In fact the first four CRs are often referred to as the "Old Commonwealth" and before it was politically incorrect as the "White Commonwealth." TFD (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I offered up a perfectly viable opening sentence that both used the exact phrase "queen regnant of the United Kingdom" as the first words stating what Elizabeth II is and made clear the division between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and the remaining 12 realms was according to the date of Elizabeth II's accession as queen of each country: four at the same time and 12 each on a different date. You didn't indicate either that you accepted it or outright rejected it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It has the issue I just explained (White Commonwealth nations given priority over Non-white Commonwealth). Also, there is jargon "queen regnant", "Commonwealth Realm"). And it is inaccurate to say she is queen of the independent countries from various dates - she was queen before they were independent. TFD (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (February 2015)
- Biography articles of living people
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- FA-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Top-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class British royalty articles
- Top-importance British royalty articles
- WikiProject British Royalty articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Commonwealth of Nations articles
- FA-Class Caribbean articles
- Mid-importance Caribbean articles
- FA-Class Antigua and Barbuda articles
- Mid-importance Antigua and Barbuda articles
- WikiProject Antigua and Barbuda articles
- FA-Class Bahamas articles
- Mid-importance Bahamas articles
- WikiProject Bahamas articles
- FA-Class Barbados articles
- Mid-importance Barbados articles
- WikiProject Barbados articles
- FA-Class Jamaica articles
- Mid-importance Jamaica articles
- WikiProject Jamaica articles
- FA-Class Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
- Mid-importance Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
- WikiProject Saint Kitts and Nevis articles
- FA-Class Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
- Mid-importance Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
- WikiProject Saint Vincent and the Grenadines articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles
- FA-Class Melanesia articles
- Unknown-importance Melanesia articles
- FA-Class Papua New Guinea articles
- Unknown-importance Papua New Guinea articles
- WikiProject Papua New Guinea articles
- FA-Class Solomon Islands work group articles
- Unknown-importance Solomon Islands work group articles
- Solomon Islands work group articles
- FA-Class Polynesia articles
- Unknown-importance Polynesia articles
- FA-Class Cook Islands articles
- Top-importance Cook Islands articles
- Cook Islands articles
- FA-Class Niue articles
- Top-importance Niue articles
- Niue articles
- FA-Class Tuvalu articles
- Top-importance Tuvalu articles
- Tuvalu articles
- WikiProject Polynesia articles
- FA-Class Central America articles
- Latin America articles
- FA-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- FA-Class Canada-related articles
- Mid-importance Canada-related articles
- FA-Class Governments of Canada articles
- Mid-importance Governments of Canada articles
- FA-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- Mid-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- FA-Class New Zealand articles
- Top-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- FA-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- FA-Class Grenada articles
- Mid-importance Grenada articles
- WikiProject Grenada articles
- FA-Class Zimbabwe articles
- Low-importance Zimbabwe articles
- FA-Class Rhodesia articles
- Top-importance Rhodesia articles
- Rhodesia task force articles
- WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
- FA-Class Malta articles
- Mid-importance Malta articles
- WikiProject Malta articles
- FA-Class South Africa articles
- Low-importance South Africa articles
- WikiProject South Africa articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Scouting articles
- Low-importance Scouting articles
- Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force articles
- FA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- FA-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment