|
The exclusivity of this article to England smacks of arrogance. Anyone reading it would have no way to know that he is King of Canada in a real and legal sense without looking for the fine print. This should be included in the introduction and info boxes. 216.19.181.213 (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- King of around a dozen other countries, in fact. Both the royalists and the republicans in those countries think that matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "No way to know"? The opening sentence: "is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", What do think should be changed? UK, deleted or all 14 realms listed (rather than a click through) or just UK and Canada listed? DeCausa (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- List them all, in alphabetical order. The current wording say that his role as King of the United Kingdom is somehow different and more important than all his others. It's not. I know that listing them all might seem clumsy, but I cannot think of another way to avoid some sort of imbalance in our description of him. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is more important than being monarch of St Kitts and Nevis (sorry St Kitts and Nevis). That's just reality. Where do you draw the line? The current approach is a practical solution and, like it or not, his UK role is, globally, likely to be the one he is most assocaited with. It's also not a role exercised through a Governor-General, which does make it different. Someone else does what he does in the UK (whatever that is) in those countries. DeCausa (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That would probably be a violation of MOS:INTRO and MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too cumbersome to list all 15, other than in the current footnotes, which are in the introduction (on the first sentence) and (as of now) the infobox. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- England? Could have sworn the intro says the United Kingdom. Anyhoo, clearly listing all fifteen Realms in the opening sentence would be ludicrous. It's not really justifiable to say "UK, Canada and 13 others" either. The UK is a different case from the others, invidious though that may be. (Like Harold Mount-Windy, I don't know how people will ever get over their shock that the monarchy isn't constructed on the basis of strict equality.) However, there's a case for them being listed in the introductory section at some point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point has been argued over and over for the better part of two decades. The same crew keeps insisting, contrary to the law and numerous statements by lawmakers and constitutional scholars, that the UK is not only different, but special. And so it is that Wikipedia gives the false impression that these monarchs have legitimacy only in Britain and continue to reign as British monarchs in the second class, non-British realms simply because parliamentarians there forgot or can't think of anything better.
I personally don't think listing all the countries is as "ridiculous" as others present it as. I also don't think it's unreasonable to just say Charles is monarch of each of the Commonwealth realms. Some editors will claim that term--"monarch of the Commonwealth realms"--doesn't exist. But, I've proven, with multiple sources, that it does. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So this is what you think the first sentence should look like:
Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom.
- Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be accurate and balanced. I'd be happy with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It also has the same effect as "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers can find out more about the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. PS - Interesting, that the only non-UK Commonwealth realm with Charles III as monarch, that continues to use the "United Kingdom" in its style, is Canada. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I've seen it before; I know what it looks like. As I said, this debate has been going on for most of the last 20 years. And, as I also said, I don't think it's ridiculous. It's just the facts communicated in a way that lines up with other facts; which is what should be primary in Wikipedia, not aesthetics.
- However, I've pretty much given up saying what I want in this regard. The American, British, and republican editors, with their own perspectives on the realms' monarchy, collectively outnumber the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders, and certainly those from the Caribbean and South Pacific. So, yes, I'm implying I beleive "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a WP:NPOV violation. But, again, I accept that my opinion doesn't matter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an Australian republican. I wonder where I fit in? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the group that eclipses the other group, I guess. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What is ridiculous and verging on WP:PA is charcterising those who have a different view to you (or even those with the same view) as by being motivated by either nationality or political opinion, neither of which you can have any idea. DeCausa (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The baseless accusation that I am acting in bad faith is what borders on WP:PA. I wrote nothing about motivations. The word I specifically chose was the passive "perspectives", which people can end up with entirely by accident and entirely unconsciously. Editors have, just as one example, literally used "the monarchy is part of our everyday life here and it's not where you live" as a reason to put the UK in top place. So, I know I'm not off-base saying perspective is a factor in how people reach their conclusions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weasel words. "Perspectives" is just another word for motivation. You may have "specifically" chosen the word to get in your defence first, but it's clear what you're saying. Not sure what the reference to "by accident and entirely unsconsciously" is supposed to convey. How else do people acquire views, opinions, biases, prejudices, bigotries and ... "perspectives"? DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for explaining your personal interpretation of "perspectives". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an NPOV violation. You have had people arguing listing all realms they reigned over is against NPOV here, here, here, here, here, and many others times I'm not interested in hunting for. It's not that your opinion doesn't matter, it's that consensus has consistently ruled against it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say no one said listing all the realms is a NPOV violation. I said my opinion is that "the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms" is a NPOV violation. I stand by that. But, I already quite clearly noted that I am outnumbered; so, I don't know what need there is for reminding me what the (latest) consensus is. Being in the minority does mean what I think is worthless; it's certainly not going to make any difference to the present state of affairs. But, I suppose, if someone were to start yet another RfC on this subject, my opinion might then count for something. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Commonwealth is a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown"; not the Antiguan and Barbudan crown, not the Canadian crown, not the Jamaican crown, not the Kiwi crown, the British crown. More than that, we acknowledge right next to "United Kingdom" that Charles is king of these places too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense. The Commonwealth is NOT a group of nations in "common allegiance to the British crown". HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Readers can find info on the other Commonwealth realms, in the footnotes provided by DrKay. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious as to where that quote comes from. From what I know of the modern Commonwealth, I'd say it is the sort of description that they would actively reject - partly because of the precise question we're discussing here. Kahastok talk 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The monarchy's website has that quote but crucially it begins "Until 1949.." Obviously there are republics (and Mozambique!) in the Commonwealth. The Comonwealth and the Comonwealth realms are not the same thing. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "King of the United Kingdom and the 14th other Commonwealth realms" is the best description. Charles is best known as the British monarch, due likely to where he actually resides (the UK & thus no need for a British governor-general), where his coronation will be held (the UK) & quite likely where (the UK) he'll one day be buried. Per WP:WEIGHT, he's best known & most recognised as the British monarch. Not the (for example) "Saint Lucian monarch" or "Bahamas monarch" etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument fails to address what I posted earlier, so I will repeat it. A lot of readers will have no idea what a Commonwealth realm is, nor which places might be Commonwealth realms, and will likely ignore what they see as a piece of trivia in the text, never learning that there are major countries involved. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has been (over & over again) to go with "...of the United Kingdom and the other # Commonwealth realms". We can't always get what we want on Wikipedia, but that's life. Some RFCs have gone my way on this project, while others haven't. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So your only argument is "You lost, before you even commented here." HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think consensus will go your way, hold an RFC. See what happens. No one is stopping you from doing so. GoodDay is just reminding you that belief that one is right is not always sufficient to get the changes you wish to see. But who knows; write a neutrally-worded RFC proposing a concrete wording change you would like to see happen, and maybe everyone (or enough to act as a consensus) will agree with you. --Jayron32 13:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Were previous RfCs on "this" matter actually about Charles? Or Elizabeth? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Both effectively, as one succeeded the other. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- While their roles are the same, they are different people. Please answer my question. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I did answer your question. If you're refusing to accept the results? that's not my problem. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave as is (i.e. King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms). Compusolus (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. You didn't answer my question. Look, I know what I and some others are proposing here is a little bit radical, in an area where conservatism is a core element, and will inevitably lead to some resistance, please keep that resistance rational. Obstinately blocking discussion is simply confrontational. (I now anticipate a response saying that's not what you're doing, and that's to be expected too.)
- HiLo48, if you don't like the intro to this BLP? then (as somebody else suggested) open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the British monarchy's website, in "The King and the Commonwealth" section, uses the wording, "The King is sovereign of 14 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK"; obviously putting the other realms first. That perhaps treats the other realms as less of a piece of trivia, to address @HiLo48:'s (valid) concern about they way they're presented in this article (and others). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're choosing to push this argument 'again', then open up an RFC on this BLP. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps direct me to the discussion wherein you were appointed as the referee of talk pages? That would clarify a lot. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to ask the same of you, concerning refereeing. Anyways, you & I have been (figuratively) at logger-heads over this topic for well over 15-years & (as before) you & I will just go in circles again. So, best to let others pow-wow over the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the one telling people where to go and what to do and you're the one who responded to me when I didn't address you. So, if you don't want to engage with me, don't. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
Option A
Option B
.jpg)