While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There is consensus to move the countries to a footnote (Option C), but no consensus to go one step farther and remove them altogether (Option B). (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which country(s) should we show in Elizabeth II's notes?
A) United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, Pakistan & South Africa? which is the status-quo.
B) United Kingdom
C) United Kingdom, with a footnote for the other six countries
D) No countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
B or C - would be my preference, as the 1952 Time Person of the Year source, mentions only her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. A compromise would be to add the six other realms in a footnote. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
D or B. Only UK was mentioned, but I think it's easier if we just don't mention any country at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The note is fine as it is.
This RfC--opened mere hours after the end of the previous acrimonious dispute--is not intended to improve the article. In reality, it has a twofold purpose: 1) attempt to further promote GoodDay's Canadian republican agenda and 2) stir up more conflict to satiate GoodDay's need for it. The RfC should be closed immediately. --₪MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you prefer option A. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You can be certain I'm about an inch from reporting this and you at AN/I. --₪MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
B or C, not only for reasons given but per COMMONNAME, which applies mainly to article titles but makes sense to apply here. Her full title is probably as long as your arm (inc. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, before you start to fully name 'the others'). The purpose is simply to identify WHO and links satisfy the need for further info. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no title that "fully name[s] 'the others'"; she has a different title in each realm. (That's the result of agreement in the early 1950s to have her titling reflect the independence and equality among the realms she reigned over, which certain people here in Wikipedia would prefer be forgotten.) --₪MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In agreement, Pincrete. Also, we've the Time Magazine 1952 source. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I realise she has many titles, the countries have long full titles. My point was that we are inevitably involved in abbreviation and the abbreviation should be one which is not insulting to her, nor her realms but is still recognisable to our readers as how they would think of her. The fact that Time referred to her a Q of UK, is I think a detail. There is no reason to think that they were doing other than what I am suggesting (ie being brief), rather than making her TPotY BECAUSE of being Q of the UK solely. Pincrete (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Abbreviation is not the main concern. Accuracy and neutrality come first, abbreviation second.
We don't know what the author of the TIME piece was thinking about what his or her readers would think. It's quite possible the person was poorly educated on leaders of other countries, as American journalists commonly are (*ahem* "Queen of England" *ahem*). Equally, we don't know what readers of this site think (is it based on the inaccuracy they read in and hear from the mass media?). In the end, this is an encyclopedia and it's certainly a disservice to its readers to give false impressions due either to internally invented stratification (even if it is based what editors feel the mass media does; we're not working on a magazine or a newspaper) or outright omission. --₪MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
A sort of, but in a different form. I'm not thrilled with the current text. This is prose, and it should be reasonably simple to mention everything important. Britain was important because of its Empire, which the realms emerged from. Listing just the realms or just Britain seems inadequate, note Britain's empire and the non-UK realms after that. I don't understand how this went to an RfC so quickly, as there is no discussion on the matter. CMD (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I opened an Rfc on this matter, to get as much input as possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
And also, most of this discussion was already done as a part of the Flag RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I recall no significant discussion on different ways the note section could be formulated in the flag RfC. CMD (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It's mainly the same discussion. "What countries should be included". --OpenFuture (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Treating a discussion on entries in a plain list (a discussion in which the meaning of the list entries was brought into question) as the same discussion on how to word some prose is not convincing. CMD (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No one is treating anything like anything. It is the same problem and hence mainly the same discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
B then C -- or even better, "British Empire" with hyperlink to that article. The point here is that she was "important" according to sources partly because of her being "queen of the world" in a sense in the crumbling imperial framework of the world at the time, as well as being "Queen of England" but it feels really weird to me to refer to the "throne of... Pakistan" for instance... faraway lands that didn't choose her or install a throne for her by self-choice. So it is reifying a colonial version of history in a sense. Linking to British Empire sort of solves this problem. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
To the extent which there can be said to still have been a British Empire in 1952, neither Australia, nor New Zealand, nor Canada, nor South Africa had been part of it at least since 1931; Sri Lanka/Ceylon hadn't been part of it since 1948; and Pakistan had never been part of the British empire, as it was only founded as a separate nation after Indian independence. So that won't solve the problem from the point of view of people who want to mention those nations. Personally, I would think C is the best option, but I really don't think it's all that important either way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
C then B. I don't necessarily have a problem with including all the kingdoms, but they aren't how she's primarily known, and so shouldn't be front and center like that. For the same reason, I wouldn't object to simply stripping it down to option B. Fieari (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
And for the love of all that is holy, why did you once again make an RfC with "What should it say of Elizabeth II" and the option "Kill everything!"? That's not a good way to make RfC's, as proven above. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
In agreement, I've removed the 'delete all' option & made it into a no countries option. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
After about a week & so far, we've input from only 3 individuals. Oh well, we've got about another 3-weeks, so no major concerns. Like in any other Rfc, I will abide by & accept the results of this one :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Her 1952 titles, which is the relevant year, was "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann". Although those two last ones together with Queen of Gibraltar" seems somewhat unoffical. Hence, should we mention anything than the United Kingdom mentioned in the source, it should say that she in 1952 "became Queen of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas". --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Would "became Queen of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions beyond the Seas", suffice? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I would say no. Either we go with what the source says, or what the official title says. Or "Became Queen", which is still my preferred solution. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
'became Queen', is I think exquisitively concise, but I thought the RfC was about 'of where?' or, at least, which do we mention. To be honest I don't understand why there is a problem or why this is an issue. Pincrete (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
We've one major problem with having "Ireland" mentioned, OpenFuture. The Republic of Ireland has been in existence since 1949, thus 5/6th of the island wasn't in anyway connected with the UK, when Elizabeth II ascended the British throne. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but her title still to this day says "Ireland". Yeah, it's a mess. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Re Ireland, you can't take her 'official title' and then start synthing-out the bits you don't think she's entitled to hold! just try telling the other 1/6th of Ireland, (with nearly half the population and at that time most of the industry), that they weren't Ireland or she wasn't their Queen. Why Duke of Lombardy for god's sake? You expect these matters to have much rhyme or reason? Pincrete (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" was the name of the sovereign state in 1952, just as it's today. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The country yes. But that's not what she is Queen of. That would for example, most relevantly for this discussion, not include Canada. Her title does, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to stick with options B or C, in that order. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Time Person of the Year. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
The Earth and computer are fine, but some of the cartoons are just silly and smack of being placeholders. Like the beaker, when we have a free image of William Shockley. The peace sign- we have a photo of Nelson Mandela. The whistle is especially dumb. We have a free photo of Coleen Rowley. I'd like to use these instead. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, but the You photo is seriously pushing the nonsense threshold as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)