Talk:Elizabeth II

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.[1] 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..."[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[3] 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 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.[4]), 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)

Nicely done, I think it's a significant improvement. trackratte (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Of these two, DrKiernan's (18:40, 4 October) and W. P. Uzer's (06:45, 5 October))[5], either would be acceptable, unsure what tips the balance for one or other. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let 08:56, 5 October

[6], settle the question. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I object to the massive changes made to the second paragraph. This wasn't what this Rfc was about & furthermore, where's the consensus for such a change? GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposal for alphabetting raised at the top of this section has been overtaken by the current revision, 08:56, 5 October [7], and the section may be treated as 'closed, with thanks to all who have helped in bringing this to pass. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 5 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,[8] 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[9], that was later reverted and frozen for three days. [10] 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)

+ 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)

• 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)

• 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 other 16 independent states.

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)

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)

+ 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)

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)

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)

Time to close

Given that the dissension from which the RfC arose has resolved, the RfC is effectively closed, letting editing services proceed in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 17:07, 5 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)

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)

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.

1. The actual options for the lede sentence upon which we are !voting have not changed, and
2. 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)

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)

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)

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.[11] 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)

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[12] (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)

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)

So you're saying that the UK is not better or greater than the others, but that Elizabeth II is actually queen of 16 equal states but is most often personally involved with the United Kingdom? trackratte (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is the realm that is the most associated with Elizabeth II. She lives there, was crowned there, her family lives there, they'll all likely be buried there. The UK doesn't have (or need) a governor general. All these facts, make it necessary for the opening sentence to read Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..... GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that was a yes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other... is best for the opening sentence, Mies :) GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 5 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)

"so name none or name all alphabetically" Exactly right, which would either preclude the naming of the UK, or it would mean naming all 16 alphabetically. Listing none is problematic we really must mention her role as queen in the lede, but refering to how she is queen of 16 independent states would be much less clumsy than listing them all out, particularly as this is already done in the infobox. trackratte (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe FS means - name none after the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. FactStraight (talk) 06:12, 5 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)

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)

FactStraight Tabled means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting", so I meant now that it's been put forward for consideration, it needs to be resolved. And in having to look up the quoted definition, I've realised that "tabled" has a different meaning in American English: "postpone consideration of", so I can now see the confusion. How funny, I never knew there was a different meaning in the U.S. for that, learn something new every day. In any event this unhappy tangent has been suitably overcome by events as to be considered adequately resolved in my books. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:40, 5 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)

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)

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)

We don't have to carry on like porkchops to have a good time! Apart from the entertainment value, I'm enjoying this. We've pretty much explored every combination of words and concepts that we could apply to the lede, and we've explored some interesting aspects. The "black and white" differentiation of the realms, for example. I don't think it is possible to find any simple and elegant way of describing precisely how Elizabeth II is a monarch in so many ways to so many people, but what I'm seeing is that every one of us has noted in some way that the UK holds a special place in her life. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 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)

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)

I just wrote "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." My option includes "since 6 February 1952" and "from various dates"; trackratte's (now struck) proposal just above does (did) not. There's no confusing date and race. So, race is now a red herring.

The term "Commonwealth realm" doesn't have to be there. Nor does "queen regnant" But, it's pretty obvious you're going to want some indication that Elizabeth II isn't queen because she's the wife of a king. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We manage to describe Margrethe II without using the phrase "queen regnant" at all. Well, we kind of do. The list of categories includes her as a member of the "Queens regnant" category, alongside the "Tolkien illustrators" cat, which is pretty cool. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tolkien illustrator. What an incredibly odd fact of the day to come up ha. Who knew. trackratte (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But, in that way, she isn't described much differently than is Queen Letizia of Spain. The latter just has the "as the wife of..." attached.

Anyway, minor matter at this point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies, I agree that race is a red herring from our point of view, however I don't think that the perception issue is an invalid one, as after all it formed part of three editors' reasonings, so I wouldn't want to discount it out of hand. For someone to understand the reasoning underlying the decision to name some states in exclusion of the others would require them to deduce it by themselves by reading other parts of the article, or would require a second foot note. Two explanatory notes in the first sentence seems to be a red-flag, but could certainly work. And I would hesitate to say it was my proposal, it was an amalgam hoping that it would be at least palatable to all (with the understanding it would be "liked" by no one, including myself). trackratte (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant race is a red herring now, in the course of my present discourse with TFD, since I twice pointed out my option is pretty clear on how the realms are divided in it. There's no ambiguity as there is in "queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 12 other countries" and "queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries"; with both, one is left wondering why one or some countries have been separated from the others. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Kiernan's editing of the main page lead paragraph just now actually helps clarify that whole bit quite nicely I think. The way that paragraph is worded now, it makes any mention of specific countries or the Commonwealth redundant in the lede sentence I think. trackratte (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I mean, I would join the second paragraph to the end of the first, but, otherwise, to me, the lede spells things out very clearly and more concisely than before. It "divides" the realms in essentially the same way as my proposed option, but, is better in that it names the 12 of her current realms she became queen of after 1952. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Poll: Less Polling, more consensus?

Honestly, I think the way the first paragraph is worded now on the main page, all three proposals are redundant as the first paragraph states her role within the Commonwealth, and lists every single country in a very clear and fair way. Saying she is "queen of the UK +15 others" is redundant in that it says 'queen of the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, etc, etc, all listed out just one line down. Option 2 is redundant as the UK is already listed first within the paragraph now. Option 3 is redundant for the same reason as option 1. Why not just have a minor tweak to the now current mainspace version:

"Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[a]) is the queen of 16 independent states. 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 (where she is most directly involved), 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." (this is copy and pasted from the current main page with "of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations" replaced with "independent states", and the addition of "where she is most directly involved")

It's a very minor tweak to what is now currently on the main page, but like I said, piling anything more than queen of 16 states seems redundant, as the UK is already there first, no need for "15 others" or "12 others" as they're all already listed in a clearly articulated order, no need for Commonwealth as its already there.

If we really must highlight the UK further than being listed first, we can insert put something like "...Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom (where she is most directly involved), Canada, Au..." into the current paragraph as above. It seems to me everyone's concerns are more than adequately covered (1. queen of all 16 states (they're all listed), 2. primary involvement in UK (UK listed first and explicitly mentioned) 3. equality of states (all listed equally and fairly)). trackratte (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

UK+15 appears to be the over-whelming favourite & therefore I recommend it should be implimented. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting votes from several conversations up is missing the point. trackratte (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring what many have been posting, over these last few days. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to direct to the Disruptive Editing policy, or are you actually accusing me of disruptively editing a talk page because you don't always agree with my comments? trackratte (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Trackratte, I removed the link as it was too harsh. But again, you do seem to be ignoring what many have been posting (noting the opening of this new sub-section as an example) over these last few days. PS: I'll let others judge this for themselves, of course. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I was just making sure, and your apology is not necessary (although greatly appreciated), and I can see how from your perspective I seem to be ignoring the 11:4 vote, although I can assure you I'm not, I think we are not on the same page as to what consensus is, and that's fine. Also, this "sub-sub" section is just a continuation (which is why I put the outdent), I just created it as I thought there was a logical break, and it's a pain having to scroll so far up and down all the time. If people don't like it they are more than free to undo it, no issue. trackratte (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. ;) GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If the first sentence and second paragraph are joined in that way, there would be no need to add in "(where she is most directly involved)". Qexigator (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not fussed either way, just though it would help to drive the point home for those wishing to have the UK underscored. With the way the paragraph has been redone, I think it makes a lot of sense to simply join the first sentence to it (flows nicely, succinct, and neutral POV). trackratte (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only echo my earlier remark: the lede at present is acceptable to me. I'd say perfectly so if the second paragraph were rejoined to the first (I don't know why GoodDay felt the need to separate them again). I don't think the "with which she is most often personally involved" bit should be in; but, if it's preferred by the the "pro-UK" crowd, I'll accept it. Otherwise, for those who prefer (or insist) the lede say Elizabeth II is "queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries", the lede as is does: "she has been... queen regnant of... the United Kingdom..." (Elizabeth II is queen of 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" (and 15 other countries). With that desire satisfied, if they could accept (not love, but accept) what they wanted being in the second sentence of the lede, we'd be at the end of this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any consensus being reached to merge the opening sentence into the following (recently changed without a consensus) paragraph. Therefore, I re-seperated them. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've implimented a few bold changes to the article's intro. I still prefer Queen of the United Kingdom and the other 15.... However, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland etc etc... is a heck of alot better then Queen of 16.... I wish to point out however, that AFAIK, UK+15 is still favoured by most editors at this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be, more or less grudgingly, considered acceptable, is more truthfully said than "favoured". One of the fallacies or equivocations of rhetorical device and polemics is the pretext of asserting as known something that is not, in order to score a point by concealing the weakness of the case being argued: to fool enough of the people long enough for the occasion. Even when used skilfully, it may rebound on the proponent. Qexigator (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, we needed to have atleast one country mentioned in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium

Regardless of this Rfc's outcome. I wonder if a 6-12 month moratorium should be placed, after this Rfc closes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I always oppose moratoriums. Unnecessary, mostly unenforceable, inherently censorship. My guess is that once we switch the present contentious lead, this issue is unlikely to be brought up again. NickCT (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We can only hope. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Indeed. Hope springs eternal.

But seriously, sometimes there is a bit of contentious material on a page that causes endless bickering. Usually maintain by people trying to WP:SOAPBOX. The Hillary Clinton naming debate was a good example. After the contentious material is change, the debate peters out. NickCT (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bye bye, Queen of 'numbers'. Hello, Queen of 'countries'

Other monarch articles seem to have the dates of reign in the first sentence. I'm thinking something like: "Elizabeth II ... is the longest-reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, Australia, .... of which she has been Queen since 6 February 1952. She has also been Queen of 12 other states since their dates of independence: Jamaica, .... In addition to her role as head of state of these 16 Commonwealth realms, she is also Head of the Commonwealth." W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Too wordy. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In what sense "too wordy"? I don't think it's too many words for an opening paragraph - many opening paragraphs are much longer than that. If you mean too many words for too little information, then that may be true and improvements are welcome, but all of the information here seems pertinent, and there's no obvious way of saying it clearly using significantly fewer words. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the length of the opening sentence at 06:45 5 October 2015 (UTC) and that it contains the "12 other" phrase that is objected to above. I would like to see it split into two sentences as: Elizabeth II ... has been the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand since 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she 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. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not just "Since their independence, she is..." or "...she has been..." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that would be fine. Qexigator (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are we tinkering with the lead sentence? We should just wait till the RfC concludes and implement the RfC wording. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess because (this time around) nobody was reverting the changes & screaming "no consensus". GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - NO CONSENSUS!!! NickCT (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It's up to you, if you want to revert. Just like it was up to Trackratte, days earlier. You're even allowed to impliment Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other..., if you so choose. I've no control over this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - Just a tongue-in-cheek comment mate. This conversation does seem like an awkward tangent. I suspect people who don't like the result of the RfC above are trying to detract from it. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick: In case you missed the happy event as it casually flitted by: Result of side-bar poll is no-consensus and is thus withdrawn 22:30, 4 October 2015(UTC).[13] and We've pretty much explored every combination of words and concepts that we could apply to the lede, and we've explored some interesting aspects. The "black and white" differentiation of the realms, for example. I don't think it is possible to find any simple and elegant way of describing precisely how Elizabeth II is a monarch in so many ways to so many people, but what I'm seeing is that every one of us has noted in some way that the UK holds a special place in her life 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC).[14] The relief on the arrival at this outcome, experienced by participants in the discussions before and after the freeze, has induced some light-hearted but good-natured remarks. It was facilitated, no doubt, by the 3 day freeze. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The "side-bar poll" wasn't the RfC, which so far as I know is still open, unless someone wants to close it. I think we are all reasonably happy with the wording. I'm very glad that it all seems to have worked out well with not too many rocks thrown and even some nice words here and there. On that note, thank you to everyone for being of good cheer and patience! --Pete (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Like Qex said, the 3-day page protection helped calm tempers. Furthermore, the freeze at "16 of 53" seem to solidify opposition to that old version & created a consensus for change to something different. Anyways, I took a bold step & sorta combined Options 1 & 2. So far, nobody's reverted it or tried to strangle me :) GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skyring, Qexigator, and GoodDay: - The RfC looks like it's developing a consensus for Option 1. We shouldn't tinker with the lead until the RfC is closed and we can move to Option 1. NickCT (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick: Could it be that there has been a change of mind since your intervention in August 2010, letting your dislike of her be known?[[15]] Now, why not try to keep up with the flow, as expressed by participants above? Qexigator (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qexigator: - Awwwwww..... Ain't that cute. You dug through my edits. Did the RfC not go someone's way, and now they're upset? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, Qex. You shouldn't be bringing up such things from another editor's past. Earlier in this Rfc (or just before it), another editor brought up my past, which IMHO was uncalled for. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

He brings up a good point though, which is that we really should be deleting the "Elizabeth has occasionally faced .. but support for the monarchy and her personal popularity remain high." line from the lede. Pure opinion and editorializing. I guess we'll tackle that after the RfC above closes, and we accept option 1. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording is awkward. Would anyone agree to beginning Barack Obama by saying he "has been president of the United States since 20 January 2009?" If we are going to be historical, we should mention that she has also been Queen of South Africa and many other countries that are now republics. My recommendation is she is "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent states....The other independent states of which she is monarch are Canada, Australia, [etc.]" We can go into the Commonwealth Realm thing in its own section. TFD (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it to "is Queen of...", since she's still alive, hasn't abdicated or been deposed. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I may be raising nit-picky matters, but, I'm also glad we're at the point where these are all that's left. The opening as it now is still looks good. I do, though, agree with TDF's remark about "has been"; it could be taken to mean she was once queen of those countries, but isn't now. If we could alter the order of words to more like what I used in my "compromise" proposal a few days ago—"is, since 6 February 1952, queen regnant..."—it would allow "is" to slot in better. I'd like to see "also" dropped in between "is" and "Queen of Jamaica..." in the second sentence; it better connects the second sentence to the first. Then the "also" in the third sentence changes to "additionally", to avoid repetition.

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of 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. Additionally, she is Head of the Commonwealth.

Alternately, the Head of the Commonwealth bit could go at the end of the first sentence, since she occupied that position at the same time she became a queen:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. From their dates of independence, she is also the 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.

There are still minor ways to tweak either of those, but, I think either would be a step closer to perfection. Also, there's space for mention of Elizabeth being Supreme Governor of the Church of England; but, I guess whether that's in or out is a separate discussion (though, I don't really know why). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We'll be switching to option 1 at the conclusion of the RfC. If you have an alternative proposal, please RfC to demonstrate consensus, as has been done above for option 1. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
• WP:DEM: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting."
• WP:RFC: "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome..."
• WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: - Wow. You can recite policy. Does that mean you're ready to have the RfC above closed? NickCT (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Mies: On fine tuning the prose for communicating the information, the "less is more" axiom would support the simple statement we now have: Elizabeth II ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, since 6 February 1952. Would that be improved by changing the word order to: Elizabeth II ... is, since 6 February 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Maybe. There seems no good reason to make further change to what we now have:[16]From their dates of independence, she is the 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. She is also Head of the Commonwealth. Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in fact, what I suggested and what's there now are the same length; the "6 February 1952" simply shifts from the end to sit between "is" and "Queen of..." So, it violates the "less is more" axiom no more than what we have at present. I just find the rhythm reads better. Plus, it's certain the date relates to all four "queenships" (and Head of the Commonwealth, if it moves to the first sentence), rather than possibly just to her place as Queen of New Zealand.

I gave a reason why the addition of "also" helps in the second sentence. If it's a matter of adding another word (back to less is more), then, moving Head of the Commonwealth to the end of the first sentence makes all the changes with only the addition of an "as", which I think we can live with. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Qex. Sometimes, too much nitpicking can unravel a workable solution. Besides, as seen below, nothing has been decided yet. We all agree on a change, but we all haven't agreed on what change. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As Trackratte pointed out (a few days ago) about a consensus, everyone must be in agreement. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If we want to include all the CRs it might be better to say, "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada...and Saint Kitts and Nevis." We could footnote that we are using the Commonwealth order of precedence and explain what it is. TFD (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - Indeed. Consensus is unanimity. I'm keeping my fingers crossed too. Does everyone feel the RfC has run it's course? We can get it closed now if that's the case. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, if you (Nick) were to revert the changes of these last few days, back to the protected version. You would be doing the same thing that Trackratte & Mies did. I'm comfortable with the latest version in the intro, btw. Though "UK+15" remains my preference. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinoin on the current version. My only opinion is that the RfC above demonstrated what appears to be a consensus for option 1. It's fine if we want to move to something else, but we should have one discussion at a time. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just pointing out, that if it was alright for Trackratte & Mies to revert per no consensus? then it's alright for you (or anybody else) to revert per no consensus. We certaintly don't want to end this Rfc, under a cloud of bias or double standard. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use the version agreed to in the RfC. If someone thinks there is a better version, then keep the agreed change and start a new RfC. TFD (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no version agreed to in the RfC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Normally when the overwhelming majority of editors responding to an RfC select one option, that is considered agreement. TFD (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

See my comment at 17:56, 5 October 2015. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Mies, we've yet to achieve a consensus. Indeed, we haven't heard from all the participants, in the last several hours. AFAIK, everyone has agreed to a change from "16 of 53". GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: - The closer gets to decide that. Are we ready to close? NickCT (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - I think Mies wants his wording or no wording. There are always going to be difficult folks. At some point we just have to call in an independent closer to look at the RfC and determine if there's consensus. That's how DR works. I'm only going to accept one of the three options presented in Talk:Elizabeth_II#RfC_on_opening_sentence_in_lede, unless there's a poll showing an alternative proposal that has more or equal support. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Let's do one. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: - Thanks! NickCT (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nick, please cease trying to be provocative by making baseless accusations of bad faith. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Also watch your personal attacks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wowsers, when I decided to compromise with my big edit to the intro (earlier today), it really got the ball rolling. Guess I wasn't pushing my Canadian republican PoV, afterall ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead as of 5 October 2015

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, since 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she is the 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. She is also Head of the Commonwealth.

Users who can endorse this version, or a near copy of this version pending minor copy-edits

1. Factual and fair. Also, easily amended when the inevitable comes (e.g. "was the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, from 6 February 1952 until her death. From their independence onwards, she was the" and has room for expansion, with either other offices or the now-republican realms, after the part about "Head of the Commonwealth". This prose is as clear as it can be without over-simplification or loss of information and it can be adapted to suit future events. DrKiernan (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. Gives proper balance and clarity. I would prefer a slight rewording: "...Since their independence, she has been the..." - but that is a minor quibble. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict) Support Meets the desires of those who wanted "Queen of the United Kingdom" stated first while still implying no bias in favour of any particular country (or countries) and reduces what was previously two paragraphs into one. Could maybe do with some minor tweaks, but, generally, this is acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support The discussion has manifestly left the RfC versions behind, which have effectively lapsed, so that we can take the current version, as above, for the outcome, open for further discussion/tweaking in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support It is a clear statement of fact without artificial perspective. I do take issue with the tense though, the present perfect continuous is the correct form here, not the simple present. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Incorporates all of the major points that everyone brought to the table, and thus satisfies the goal of the RFC. It is neutrally presented, fair, factual, and concise. trackratte (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
7. Support We're into the tweaking stage now. Nobody's going to get their 100% preferred wording, but this is more than just a compromise we might grumble about, it is an accurate and comprehensible statement. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
8. Support wearily. I think this is as good as it gets, although I still share most of the objections of the opponents. FactStraight (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Tense - I see this has already been reverted, so to avoid any suggestion of warring we'd better agree on the tense here. Stripping out most of the sentence to leave the verbs:

• Elizabeth ... is the Queen ... since 6 February 1952. - this is the simple present and states a fact which is currently true, it is poor English to have "since" because the verb is only referring to this instant.
• Elizabeth ... has been Queen ... since 6 February 1952. - at some point in the past (since 1952) she became Queen, and continues to be; the present perfect continuous. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MoS: If it were a question only of getting the "correct" tense, then that would be all. But to communicate the intent without more words than are needed? Compare "will not put up with" and "up with which we will not put". Would this be better: Elizabeth II ... is the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and has been from her accession on 6 February 1952. From their dates of independence, she is the Queen of Jamaica, Barbados....? Qexigator (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the simple "has been" approach, but perhaps that won't swim the Atlantic too well. If we go with your suggestion I think it needs to be "From their dates of independence she became the Queen of Jamaica, Barbados....". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it seems like we're going in circles here, but something more like "...is, since her accession in 1952, the Queen of the United Kingdom, Cana..." I think flows a lot better. The exact date (6 Feb) seems like more detail than is necessary for the first sentence. This also makes it clearer why we're mentioning a date at all in the lede (accession). trackratte (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To that, let a monosyllable speak for me: Yes. Qexigator (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Users who oppose this version

1. Oppose - Still lacks precision. Still has many of emphasis issues the old lead had. Don't understand why we're not just sticking with option 1 as proposed above. It achieved a super majority support. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Clumsy wording. No explanation why we are talking about when various countries became independent. Also, it is unfair to set up an RfC and not accept the outcome. TFD (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Both its setting up and its supposed outcome are flawed to the point of reducing it to a useless nullity, except that the ensuing discussion has resulted in the current version. Now, that may not be as perfect as some would wish, but it is not clumsy, and it could be seen as unfair to make that jab. Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, an RFC "is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content", which is exactly what this is, an ongoing series of inputs regarding a dispute and thus forms part of the ongoing dispute resolutions process. I think we are confusing the request for comments towards an ongoing conversation with voting, which is not what this process is about. trackratte (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That would of course include this current 'voting process', aswell. Which also isn't binding. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely right ("an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support. Surveys should never be thought of as binding"). trackratte (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Like some others, for reasons already stated I doubt the use of a so-called straw poll here, or, if that is what is supposed to have been going on, the way in which it has been conducted or may be exploited. The better course is to let it quietly be forgotten, and let the present proposal, as presented here by DrKiernan, take its place.[17] Qexigator (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on comment - Frankly, I think it would be kind to call the wording "clumsy". It looks like something I might write after a pub crawl or several severe blows to the head. Sadly, when we contort language to attempt to compromise, it often results in this situation. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"The official website of The British Monarchy" says, "The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."[18] That's the type of professional writing to which we should aspire. TFD (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a British website. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

TFD, the official site for the Canadian monarchy says, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada." Seems equally professional and even more concise. That doesn't mean we should use it though, or even let it influence this discussion, as it clearly expresses a biased (Canadian) point of view and is thus not neutral, in the same way as the official British website. Yes, the UK being larger, more populous, and having more cultural clout is used more often internationally, which is why the UK is listed first amongst all other states, to give it that additional weight. However, to be neutral and fair, as an international encyclopedia should, we also list all of the other countries in an unbiased way (ie chronologically). I think your concerns regarding the UK and weight have been met here (with compromises being made away from "queen of 16"), and thus this offered solution is quite thoroughly middle ground. trackratte (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If I may gentlemen. TFD has chosen to oppose the version. Let's respect that & not turn this into another debate. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

While the Queen's website is located in the UK, as is the Queen herself, it is not a "British website," any more than Wikipedia is an "American website." In fact it invites visitors to "Choose your Commonwealth Realm."[19] That would make no sense if only visitors from the UK were targeted. When one clicks "Canada" it says, "The Queen acts as Queen of Canada, quite distinctly from her role in the United Kingdom or any of her other realms." trackratte, the Government of Canada website is not the official site for the Canadian monarchy. It of course explains the Royal Family, but it is prepared by officials of the Government of Canada rather than the monarch.[20] TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is prepared by officials of the Government of Canada" is what, my dear TFD, makes it official. The British Monarchy website is also prepared by officials, unless you are saying that the Elizabeth II wrote the entire thing personally herself. And the fact that it is "The official website of The British Monarchy" makes it British, so your assertion that the official website of the British Monarchy is not a British website is nonsensical. However, if you would like to continue to believe that the British Monarchy website prepared by British officials is not a British website, then we can simply agree to disagree, laugh about it, and leave it at that. trackratte (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

All aboard?

So close & yet so far away. Trackatte is quite correct, WP:VOTE makes the above unbinding. We've a consensus to get rid of "16 of 53", but we've yet to get a consensus for what to change to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)