Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

RfC: Should the first sentence of the lead mention that Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom?

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 of the following should be used as the first sentence in the lead?

1. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is Queen of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other independent nations, Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
2. Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"). She is also the head of the Commonwealth, and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
3. [Other]

TFD (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support 1 as nominator. TFD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Retain 2 - longstanding consensus wording. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - much clearer. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 Option 1 is misleading. There is no justification for highlighting the UK out from the rest of the Commonwealth realms with whom it is entirely--legally, actually--equal. Giving the UK a POV special status would not explain that Elizabeth II is more often directly involved in the governing of that country; words explaining she is would. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Retain 2 As per the multiple reliable sources provided below. 1 is simple POV and contrary to policy. trackratte (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 While it's not the best worded sentence, Option 1 puts undue weight on the UK. Psunshine87 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support either if

  (a) the second sentence becomes "She is also Head of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and, in some of her realms, titled "Defender of the Faith" [something; see below]. ";

  and, if option 1 is used, (b) the first sentence becomes "...is Queen of the United Kingdom and of fifteen other realms of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth")." Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose putting 'Defender of the Faith' so high up. It's really not that relevant. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay – but is there something that might take the place of the "Defender of the Faith" phrase in order to maintain the sentence's "...X, Y and Z" structure? (There's probably one of those Classics words that encapsulates what I mean.) Otherwise, I imagine I'd try to incorporate the Head and Supreme Governor information in a different way, e.g.

"[Elizabeth II ...] is the Head of the [53-member] Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"), the constitutional monarch of sixteen of its realms and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd think her role as monarch (which comes with exercisable power) is more important than her role as Head of the Commonwealth (which is purely ceremonial). I'd flip the wording, then:

Elizabeth II is the constitutional monarch of 16 realms in, and head of, the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations, as well as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How about:

"[Elizabeth II ...] is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth"). She also serves as its head [and as...]"...?

Mention (or not) of her being Supreme Governor of the CoE, "Defender of the Faith" and/or any other role deemed sufficiently significant may then follow. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Retain 2 per Miesianiacal. I think that the undue weight argument actually cuts against option 1. In particular, it seems to me to be undue weight to include her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the first sentence, when her positions as Queen of various countries are not mentioned. If you're going to start singling out countries, then you need to explain why other realms that aren't mentioned aren't as significant as her position in the C of E. I see no evidence that reliable sources give her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England more prominence than her role as, say, Queen of Canada or Queen of Australia. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Other I agree with Neljack that the Supreme Governorship should be dropped. On the format of the first sentence, I propose that it is clearer and neater to reverse the usual order in this case and put head of the Commonwealth before the queenships, like so:

Elizabeth II is the head of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations and the constitutional monarch of 16 of its member states. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "[Elizabeth II ...] is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations (the "Commonwealth") and the constitutional monarch of sixteen of its member states [or: its 53 member states]."...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

*Support 2 - The status of the commonwealth realms is equal to the United Kingdom; there is no reason for it to dangle out. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note Arfæst Ealdwrítere has been indef blocked because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operatore has abusively used multiple accounts. [1]. --TFD (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 - For example, as the monarch of Canada her official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Almost everybody would acknowledge her predominately as the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is understandable given the history of the British Empire.ThoAthena (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The words "United Kingdom" are part of the Canadian Royal Style not her Canadian titles. Her official titles, as per the Act, are "Queen", "Head of the Commonwealth", and "Defender of the Faith". Thus, the Royal Style and Titles Act (a style and titles, plural). trackratte (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 - Elizabeth's role as Queen of England/UK is clearly more notable than her role as the monarch of other realms. The lead should duly reflect that fact by specifically calling out the UK. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Option 2 and her role as the monarch of other realms seems like information that should appear later in the body of the article.Familygardner (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - So everyone is aware, there are a bunch of royalist editors here (i.e. a bunch of sad guys who have some kind of perverse and likely unhealthy attraction to the queen) who are desperately trying to make the point that, legally speaking, the queen is equally the queen of the UK as she is queen of all the other realms. To that sad group of guys; We hear you. We get the point. But Wikipedia is not some kind of technical study in royal legalese. The project is written for your average reader, for whom the most notable "realm" Elizabeth rules over is the UK. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I gather you don't have any actual arguments, which is why you are forced to resort to personal attacks and unsupported assertions. As a republican, I am rather amused by your belief in a conspiracy of royalist editors here, though less so by your offensive slurs against those who disagree with you. Neljack (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that anybody who refers to the "Queen of England" is knowledgeable enough to comment, really. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that monarchists are intrinsically too biased to comment on this? As if republicans wouldn't also be? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - Actually, if you'd learn to read you could see some of my actual arguments above and strewn throughout multiple archive pages. You, Neljack, like your little pal Mech belong to one of the "15 other realms", and think it unfair that you don't deserve the same mention that the UK gets. Well guess what. You don't deserve the same mention the UK gets cause you come from a nowhere country with more sheep than actual people and GDP that makes you slightly less important than such notable places as Malaysia and Khazakstan. Now get off your patriotic high horse, recognize that WP is not a soapbox, and recognize that the entire rest of the world (i.e. all the important places in the world), sees QEII as the Queen of the UK.

@Skyring: - Good retort. Really.

@AlexTiefling: - I guess I'm suggesting that everyone voting for option 2 here is either doing so b/c they want to conflate the importance of the monarchy, or (in the case of some republicans) conflate the importance of their individual "realm". NickCT (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can conflate only one thing. What are they conflating those respective things with? And I think your claim steers awfully close to assuming bad faith on the parts of people you disagree with, rather than debating the proposal on its merits. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling: - I'm sorry. My vocab is failing me. I meant "inflate" (as in, "inflate the importance of"), not "conflate"..... NickCT (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, are you unable to engage respectfully with people who disagree with you? Until you came along, this discussion was focusing on the issues. You are derailing it with your incivility and personal attacks. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - So I take it when you said that I didn't have any "actual arguments" you felt you were "engag[ing] respectfully". Don't play the game if you ain't willing to take the pounding. NickCT (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, if you are unable to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the "game" for you. An observation that your resort to personal attacks suggests that you lack proper arguments is perfectly legitimate and a far cry from referring to other editors as "a bunch of sad guys who have some kind of perverse and likely unhealthy attraction to the queen". Neljack (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - If a comment isn't directed at any one person Nel it by definition is not a personal attack (which makes it different from your comment). If you felt that comment touched a little too close to home, perhaps you should ask yourself why. NickCT (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

NickCT, there is nothing in WP:NPA that says a personal attack cannot be directed at more than one editor. Your personal attack certainly did not "[touch] a little close to home" - the main reason that I decided it wasn't worth reporting you to ANI was that your statement was so ludicrous that nobody coming across it here would take it seriously. It serves only to discredit you, not any royalist editors there may be here. Neljack (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: You're coming across more like someone who's acting petty and lashing out against those ho have a view different to yours simply because your view isn't (at this time) winning. Personally, I voted for option 2 not because I'm from one of the other 15 realms (although I am) but because the argument in favour of "the UK and the other 15 realms" didn't seem as strong as the argument for "the 16 realms." Psunshine87 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Psunshine87: - Does it not strike you as just a little odd that essentially everyone here from one of the "15 other realms" is supporting option 2, and virtually everyone not part of the 15 other realms is supporting option 1? NickCT (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: I haven't spent that much time investigating where different users are from. I do find it interesting how you're making this argument only to go on and criticize someone who votes in favour of supporting 2 and is from the US (Jojhutton). Finding ways to belittle people for how they're voting is just you being immature. Psunshine87 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Psunshine87: - Come off it. I wasn't belittling anyone. Hutton hit the nail on the head. He recognized it's a question of perspective based on where you are from. The only problem is he didn't realize his "American" or Global perspective is the right perspective here. NickCT (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 Britannica[2] and Burke's[3] both open by describing her as queen of the UK. Even the British Monarchy site puts this title first: "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms."[4] Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are British sources, so evidently their British POV is no suprise. Encyclopaedia Britannica literally means "British Encyclopaedia". Burkes is a reference for the British peerage. The British Monarchy site is exactly that. This is not a British article but an international one, so a purely British POV based on British sources is innappropriate in my opinion. trackratte (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So the Royal family is biased in calling themselves British because they are British and therefore have a British POV. Is that your argument? TFD (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Elizabeth II, the person
2. Monarch, the office
3. Royal family, the people

These are three different concepts. It is unhelpful to talk about one as if it were another. The royal family, for example, is comprised of several different individuals, all resident in England, and all (SFAIK) born in England and citizens of the UK. They have various British titles, for example Duke of Cambridge, Prince of Wales etc. There are no corresponding Australian or Canadian or Jamaican titles. There are no Australian Princes. No Canadian Dukes. No Papua New Guinea Earls. The only member of the Royal family to hold a title in each of the 16 Commonwealth realms is the Queen. Do you understand this? --Pete (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not understandng your point. The Prince of Wales is just as much the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, etc., in Canada as he is in England or Scotland or Wales. The Queen's style and titles in Canada is "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, [etc]." But articles should be based on reliable sources, not OR TFD (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's break it down for you.

1. Elizabeth II, the person
2. Monarch, the office
3. Royal family, the people

These are three different concepts? YES/NO --Pete (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with this RfC? (And can you please take your comments to the discussion page below.) TFD (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just responding to you, comrade, where you responded to trackratte above. If you want to move the discussion further down, that's fine. However, i notice that three times you've avoided addressing my point about the royal family not being the same as the Queen or the monarchy. If you don't want to clear this up, that's fine, I'll accept that you prefer obfuscation rather than anything more conducive to productive discussion. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I will reply below. TFD (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2 Too much undue weight to mention a single country over the others. I realize that she is best known as the Queen of England, but from my American perspective, I feel that it is my own bias to think that way. So basically I am throwing out my bias and moving toward neutrality.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  @Jojhutton: - From your Global perspective. Not your American perspective. Remember, most those supporting 1 are doing so because they have a perspective from "inside the empire" so to speak. NickCT (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 A lead sentence should succinctly describe what the person is notable for. The Queen's position in the UK is far more heavily discussed (i.e. more notable) than her position in the other 15 realms, so it should be more heavily weighted in the lead. Those citing WP:Undue weight should read it more carefully, as it is explicitly not a demand for "equal weight". Toohool (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from Britain .. although maybe I'm also biased in some other way as someone who has no interest whatsoever in the royal family, but the forced equality that prevails in the current wording sits oddly, and is also pretty vague and unclear, with its reference to her being "monarch of sixteen realms". The queen is primarily noted and described, surely, as being the queen of the UK. She and her predecessors are/were only head of state elsewhere for historical reasons to do with the former British empire. As noted, due weight and NPOV are about giving proportionate weight, not equal weight or false equivalence. N-HH talk/edits 08:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 For readability. I don't see a problem with it as while she would be notable for her roles overseas, she is clearly best known for her role in England. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you support referring to her as "Queen of England".... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2 Because she is equally queen of all of the commonwealth. Also, this portrays her in the most NPOV in regards to all nations. Editingisthegame (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1 because the most notable part of her reign is over the UK. Red Slash 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In your own personal opinion, of course. People in countries she's queen of, other than the UK, may hold a different position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support 2 - the fact that she is Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms needs to be mentioned straight away. Yes, her "main" realm is the United Kingdom, but leaving out the rest is demeaning to those countries. Imagine (as say, an Australian or a Jamaican) that your head of state's article didn't mention (within the first few lines) the fact that he or she is head of state of your country. Option 1 gives undue weight to the United Kingdom and makes it sound like there is a (on-going) constitutional link that means that its head of state is also that of 15 other countries. Each realm is equal. I have to say I do find it a bit worrying that many who are voting on this subject are referring to the "Queen of England". If you don't even know there's no such thing, then you shouldn't be expressing an opinion on the matter at all. Argovian (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 - there is no argument that she plays a greater role in the UK than elsewhere but in styling each realm is treated as equal to name single realm in the lead sentence would go against WP:NPOV, this rationale was also the reasoning behind moving the article from Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom after a long and complex RFC. Gnangarra 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2, with modifications – Option 2 must prevail, though it is rather poorly written at present. I cannot see how one can think it is right to subordinate realms other than the UK. This is incorrect legally, and incorrect in practice. She is Queen of many realms, and this must be made clear. She does not rule over a flock of subordinate colonies, both of equal independent states. I could never support the WP:UNDUE weight given to the UK realm in the first option. However, I recommend simplifying the first part of second option to "she is Queen of the sixteen Commonwealth realms". RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Instead of throwing in the policy WP:UNDUE, could you explain where it says we should ignore the weight used in reliable sources. And if it is "undue" to provide greater weight to the queen's role as queen of her only kingdom, why is her official title under Canadian law "of the United Kingdom, Canada…Queen?"

She is undeniably Queen of sixteen realms, as reliable sources state. As such, privileging one realm over the others is entirely opposed to the concept of the Statue of Westminster. It has already been established that the Canadian title is a quirk of law. In all other realms that is not the case, for example, in Jamaica, she is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Jamaica and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth". Britain is not even mentioned. She does not have "one kingdom". She has sixteen realms. I apologise if you disagree with the concept of monarchy, but that does not change the facts of the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It baffles me as to why people keep raising the silly straw man of Elizabeth's Canadian title. Every other one of her titles other than that for Grenada (and the UK, of course) makes no mention of the United Kingdom whatsoever. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It belies the silly straw man argument that placing the UK first is "privileging one realm over the others." Presumably Canada, by far the largest of the other realms, would change the title if they saw it that way. BTW, Grenada also puts the UK first. And of course in 13 realms, by law the sovereign is whoever happens to be head of state of the UK. But all of this ignores the main issue, which is WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever you think is a straw man, it's evident you've no problem with red herrings. It's also clear you don't read what people write. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support 2 - tells us more and no need to mention United Kingdom 3 times in the lead. PLUS...."Queen of the United Kingdom" is the first link with big bold text people see in the info box.-- Moxy (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1, but do we really need to have awkward parenthetical text right at the start of the first sentence? We must make the lede more readable, and it's OK to put something like the date of birth in a later sentence - the date of birth is not a defining characteristic of this person and nor is it the most important thing that readers are looking for. Now Look What You've Done (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2. Yes, I think of her primarily in terms of the UK, but for Wikipedia to highlight the UK like that is undue. The UK can always be mentioned outside of the first sentence as a followup description of her reign. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1. She's first and foremost and forever the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is her legal title. The commonwealth can come and go, but the UK is The country, the mother well. It is not at all WP:Undue to use her legal title. It is wrong for editors to decide they don't think it's 'fair' or that it diminishes the commonwealth countries to mention her legal title. That is original research and violates WP:NPOV. There are no reliable sources that claim her legal title is soley "Queen of 16 commonwealth countries." SW3 5DL (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that in each of her realms, the Queen holds a different legal title.Psunshine87 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no she doesn't. The Commonwealth itself is not a legal entity. There are no reliable sources that claim her title is first and foremost "Queen of 16 Commonwealth Countries." She was not crowned, "Queen of 16 Commonwealth Countries." That title exists only in the parallel universe of WP. And that's the point, which you seem to be missing. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no one is saying that she was crowned "Queen of 16 Commonwealth Countries". What is being said is that she is Queen of 16 Commonwealth countries because she holds legal title as Queen of each of those 16 countries, ie "Queen of Canada" in Canada, "Queen of Australia" in Australia, etc. So, she is first and foremost "Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the UK. In Australia she is "the Queen of Australia" first only-most. Same goes for the other 14. Saying that she is first and foremost Queen of the UK is a British centric POV. trackratte (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well crap. I've spent a lot of time battling against American editors who see the whole wikiworld in American terms. It's all miles and dollars and July 4th and the Mississippi is longer than the Amazon. Just to acknowledge that there might be other nations is a struggle with these guys blokes. Why the hell are we still having the same old same old here with the Queen? Australia and Canada and New Zealand exist, we have the monarch at the top of our trees, we have feelings, dimensions, pride and existence, just as much as the British Poms. This whole online encyclopaedia is a global thing. It's not something where the seppos come first and bugger the rest. The legal situation is that each of the Queen's realms is a distinct entity, none of them dependent on another for anything. That goes for the monarch. She doesn't put on her Australian crown and tell the New Zealanders what's what, and neither does she play the British Empress and tell the colonials what to do. Those days are gone, and while some British people might think the Empire still exists, you aren't the boss of us, okay? We're all grown up now and the UK is just one of sixteen. Name one realm in a list, name them all. --Pete (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, this sort of nationalistic rant just weakens our case. Try toning it down - you'll win more converts. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. We don't want nationalistic preference, which is what we'd get by identifying one nation out of sixteen. --Pete (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not relevant. No one has suggested that Australia is subservient to the UK. The only issue is due weight, ensuring that we provide the same emphasis on her position as Queen of the UK as do reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the sources you prefer are UK sources. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources that say she is Queen of X and Queen of Y or Queen of Z countries. We also have reliable sources that say she is the Queen of 16 Commonwealth realms. So when you have reliable sources that can support 17 different ways to phrase the same fact, the way to approach it editorially is to ensure that the information from all 17 options is presented in as neutral and unbiased a way possible.

Saying that 'she is Queen of Canada and 15 other Commonwealth realms' is factually correct. It is also not providing undue weight if it is a Canadian article (ie Elizabeth II as a Canadian), in the same way as the phrase 'is Queen of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms' in an article about Elizabeth II as British. However, I think we all agree that it would be ridiculous to have 16 different articles on the same person. Since this is an article international in scope, the most neutral way to present all of the facts is from a neutral, international perspective, ie not giving reliable sources from any one country any more weight than any other. This also includes removing bias from outside countries referring to factually inaccurate titles such as the "Queen of England" as well. trackratte (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That may be a valid argument but it goes against policy, which is where you should take your views. Pete, even if most of the sources I provided are British, the fact is that most of the sources are British and the rest of the world takes their cue: CNN ([Prince George] is third in line to the British throne),[5] al jazeera (Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is the [Commonwealth]'s official head.")[6] the United Nations ("Speaking as Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other Member States, as well as Head of the 54-member Commonwealth....")[7] In Canada of course, she is "of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories Queen," although the Canadian Encyclopedia refers to her as "Queen of Canada, the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms."[8] TFD (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, certain news agencies give the UK weight due to its size (economic, population, military, historic, cultural, etc), that is only natural. People from Germany probably don't want to hear about the Queen of Grenada (probably cause confusion), but would be interested in something about the "Queen of England". In the same way that U.S. involvement, or a celebrity's participation, in an event or organisation eclipses coverage of anyone else. News agencies are not expert or unbiased sources, generally speaking. Which is why they are generally not considered reliable, expert sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. Academic scholars and official texts on the matter generally would be however. The way it's presented now, anyone from around the world could read it and fully understand, and come away a little more educated perhaps. The way it is now, it presents the same fact but in the most neutral way, respecting the reliable sources from all 16 countries, and not placing any one country above the other, showing respect and equality to all of our readers.

You concede that this neutral option "may be a valid argument", but that it goes against your interpretation of policy (which many other users take away the opposite view from the same policy as you do). However, there is always the WP:NORULES policy (Project-wide principles), as well as other non-official guidelines such as WP:PRINCIPLE, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:REASONABILITY, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, etc to help guide you if you find yourself so stuck on just one interpretation of just one policy. Educating readers, and portraying facts based on reliable sources in as neutral and respectful a way possible is what improves Wikipedia. Bureaucratically and doggedly enforcing an interpretation of a policy irrespective of improving the project is not. trackratte (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• '"Neutrality" requires us to provide the same weight to different aspects of a topic that is found in reliable sources. Most sources mention her office of Queen of the United Kingdom first, if the other nations are mentioned at all. The monarchy's official website says, "The Queen is Sovereign of 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. She is also Head of the Commonwealth itself, a voluntary association of 54 independent countries."[9] The article about Elizabeth II on the Commonwealth website says, "Aside from the United Kingdom, there are 15 Commonwealth realms in existence today."[10] The Canadian parliament has determined by law that her title in Canada is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."

The articles about her predecessors, George VI, George V, Edward VIII, Queen Victoria and so on all place the office of sovereign of the UK first.

The Law Lords wrote in 2005, "But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible.... The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom."[11] So legally there is an argument that the Queen's role as head of state of the UK, 15 other sovereign states, and dozens of other territories including overseas territories (some uninhabited), Crown dependencies and sub-national countries, states and provinces is equal. However, neutrality does not require we provide them equal weight in this article.

Also, I think we should avoid jargon such as "Commonwealth realm" in the lead.

TFD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your premise is unclear. Here you're all about "putting the UK first". At the NPOV noticeboard you were arguing the opening should be "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states" because she's "generally known in the world as the 'Queen of the United Kingdom' or the 'Queen of England'." The former doesn't address the latter.

Ignoring the "she's more widely known as" bit, the claim "most sources mention her office of Queen of the United Kingdom first, if the other countries are mentioned at all" is a defence reliant entirely upon the false premise that popularity equals accuracy and neutrality; it does not take into consideration quantification, the quality and origin of the sources, nor the context in which the words "Queen of the United Kingdom" are used. And all you've presented to support it is two or three misrepresented quotes. As has been pointed out to you already by other editors, what you misleadingly call "the monarchy's website" is, in fact, the British monarchy's website, which will, of course, highlight the UK (though, it places the UK last in your quote, not first); the website of the Canadian Crown, of course, refers to her as Queen of Canada. Further, you've already been told the Canadian Royal Styles and Titles Act (even if one does read it as you do, and you know others don't) is one of two oddities among the sixteen there are. How does that do anything but undermine your case? And, yet again, you've ignored context: the biographies of Elizabeth's predecessors use the wording of the time when they reigned; you didn't mention that the articles actually say those monarchs were sovereigns "of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire". The UK could not be included among the Dominions since it wasn't one, which is exactly why the term Dominion was abandoned at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, so the equality of her countries could be communicated by using one term to describe all of them: Commonwealth realm.

So, without a solid argument explaining why the UK should be mentioned first when describing what EIIR is, you present a proposed change that doesn't just mention the UK first--saying she's "the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis" just puts the UK first, as the first sentence of the lede's second paragraph already does--it singles out the UK from the other realms as though it and EIIR's role as Queen of the UK somehow had special status apart from and above the rest of them. That contradicts the established equality of the realms to each other and the equality of Elizabeth's place as queen of each in favour of reflecting your unfounded opinion, which violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. There are various sources that affirm the equality you deny:

• "[The realms are] equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."p.3
• "Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
• "The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[12]
• "The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
• "Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369
• "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Although there was no hesitation among the Queen's realms in showing allegiance to their sovereign by appearing at her Coronation, their lack of official participation in the ceremony itself proclaimed to the world, in a dignified yet visible fashion, their status as equal, independent, and autonomous constitutional monarchies... [T]he Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status."[13]
• "We in this country have to abandon any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [House of Commons, vol. 512, col. 199]
• "In the Commonwealth the path to equality has led to separate but equal facilities. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this process is the way in which the monarchical part of the constitution has been domesticated in the Commonwealth countries overseas."[14]
• "Britain could no longer rest on its imperial laurels and dreams of former glory; it had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had an elevated status within the Commonwealth and its queen was equally queen of separate autonomous realms."p.144
• "The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930... declared the Dominions to be equal in status with the United Kingdom...

"So what changes in that constitutional relationship had occurred, which the Royal Style and Titles Act reflected? Australia, as a Dominion, was given equal status with the United Kingdom."pp.81, 111

So, the UK is, in fact, not elevated above all and apart from the other realms and Elizabeth II is not more queen of one country than the other.

And, by the way, your header for this survey is also misleading: the first sentence already says Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is one of the Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean that we treat each office equally, but that we reflect how reliable sources treat them. As I pointed out, the Queen is equally sovereign of all her territories, but that is irrelevant. And what you call the "British monarchy's website" is the website of the royal family, maintained by them, while what you call "the website of the Canadian Crown", is actually the page of the Government of Canada website explaining Canada's head of state. But as you accept, the Queen's official title in Canada is "of the United Kingdom, Canada....Queen." TFD (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence: reliable sources treat them equally, see the 10 sources just presented. 2nd: That is not what he calls it, its what it calls itself with a header of "Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy", it can't get any clearer than that. 3rd: www.royal.gov.uk/ is a gov website. canadiancrown.gc.ca is a gov (gc) website in exactly the same way. 4: Abjectly false. trackratte (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, it pointed out that the Queen is equally queen of all her territories. But reliable sources still normally refer to her as Queen of the United Kingdom. And while the British government hosts the royal family's website, it is the royal family's website as you have just quoted. It says it is prepared by Buckingham Palace staff. It has sections about her roles in all her various realms and territories and information about her family and how to contact them. The Canadian government web page merely explains her role as head of state of Canada. TFD (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The website that you're citing is a British site for the British monarchy. It is a government site maintained by the British monarchy. The website for the Canadian monarchy is run by the Canadian government and names Elizabeth II as the Queen of Canada, as does the website for the Canadian Governor General, the Queen's representative in Canada. The website for the Governor General of New Zealand refers to her as the Queen of New Zealand. This site is run by the government of New Zealand on behalf of the Queen's representative in New Zealand. And so on. Saying that because the official website for the British monarchy refers to the Queen as the Queen of the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms it's appropriate for Wikipedia to do so is displaying a bias towards the British monarchy over the other 15 realms that also have the Queen as the head of state. Furthermore, on the website for the British monarchy the Queen is referred to as "Queen of X" when you go into the individual pages for her realms, where X is that realm, not "the UK and whatever realm's page we're on." In fact, in all of the pages it says some variation of "The Queen's relationship to St Vincent and the Grenadines is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom." Psunshine87 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The site says, "This is the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present."[15] It says on the home page "Choose your Commonwealth Realm". IOW Elizabeth II is responsible for the website. She is not responsible for the Government of Canada's page explaining the role of the Crown in Canada. TFD (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"This is the official web site of the British Monarchy." That's your problem, right there. --Pete (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves, consistent with how they are normally described in reliable sources. If you want to persuade them to change that description, then I suggest you contact them, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct common usage. Tell them you think it should be called "the official website of the Monarchy/(Monarchies?) of 16 Commonwealth Realms." TFD (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not see the problem? This whole lengthy discussion is just your failure to understand? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves in Britain. In other nations they refer to themselves as being of that nation. Psunshine87 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is how they choose to describe themselves period. There are links on the website where you can contact them and ask them to describe themselves differently. TFD (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Why on earth should the British monarchy describe itself as something else? Looking at it another way, it's like describing the USA as California and 49 other states. --Pete (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought your point was that in Australia for example they might describe themselves as the Australian royal family. TFD (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What an odd concept. No. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point about the royal family calling themselves on their website the "British monarchy" (your hightlights)? TFD (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The point about the monarchy is that it is divisible. You can't do that with the people. You do understand this point? --Pete (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the monarchy is divisible. That is explained in the House of Lords decision which you read http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/quark-1.htm[ here] The Crown in Right of the the United Kingdom was divisible from the Crowns in right of New York, India, Ontario, Hanover, etc. But George III was called the "King of the United Kingdom" in the colonies, the Empire was called the "British Empire". subjects of Her Majesty were called "British subjects" until 1981. even if they lived in republics. The first divided Crown must have been when Cabot claimed Newfoundland, but we do not call Henry VIII king of two realms. But the issue is not constitutional law, but terminology that is normally used. Charles is the "Duke of Cornwall" and called that in Cornwall. But his article calls him the "Prince of Wales" because that is how he is called outside Cornwall. Do you think that is an anti-Cornwall POV? TFD (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is you flogging a dead horse. --Pete (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skyring: - You're more of a stubborn mule than a dead horse. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I am replying to your rhetorical question about. Obviously the Queen is different from her family, her office, etc. Now can you please explain what your point is. TFD (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why, instead of talking about the Queen, you talk about the royal family instead. You asked for comments on very specific wording, but when pressed, you direct your mind away from that. Any notion of an "Australian royal family" must be a red herring. Don't feel you now have to respond by talking about the various princes and dukes - I would be happier if your kept your attention on Elizabeth II. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No, trackratte brought up an argument that the website of the "British royal family" was a biased source because it calls the royal family "British." I suppose one could argue that it is the website of the family, not Elizabeth II herself, but she is certainly a member of the royal family and it is doubtful that she would disagree with the contents of the site. But one cannot argue that it is meant for the UK public only. The fact is, it is the only website the Queen or the royal family have. So even if it was mean only for the UK public, the fact that their only site is aimed at the UK would show that they consider that country their major role. In fact, the Queen does not normally carry out her responsibilities directly, except in the UK - in the other Commonwealth realms they are typically carried out by viceroys. TFD (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If you could find an earlier mention of "royal family" on this page than the one added by yourself, then I might believe you. You introduced this particular red herring, and you have been caught out. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you began your socratic dialog I wrote, The "British website" is "the official web site of the British Monarchy. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [23:37, 11 June 2014] trackratte then claimed it was merely "the official site of the British monarchy says Queen of the UK."[00:17, 12 June 2014 ] When trackratte repeated his argument, I replied "So the Royal family is biased in calling themselves British because they are British and therefore have a British POV. Is that your argument?" [20:33, 27 June 2014]

You then began your socratic dialog by asking if I knew the difference between the Queen and her family. But the whole point of socratic dialog is to establish a point. Could you explain what your's is? If you prefer to continue the socratic dialog, I have answered your first question, and await the follow-up.

TFD (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

See my comment about red herring immediately above. To return to the thread, you are attempting to argue that a UK website is your authority for giving the UK some sort of pre-eminence. That's like using a Texas history book to tell the story of the USA, which apparently happened mostly in San Antonio. Or a German website to explain why Volkswagens should lead the parade.

The Queen is monarch of sixteen realms, and I am unaware of any website which overrides the Treaty of Westminster, which established equality between them through equal access to the shared Crown. No one realm has first call - the Queen is monarch of all as individual entities, distinct but equal. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that the Queen's family website says "the UK and 15 other realms" is evidence of how a neutral description of her offices should be written. Of course, third party sources should be consulted as well. As explained, they provide greater weight to her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. Hardly surprising that most sources referring to the Queen mention her kingdom.

The "red herring" is your comment that the realms are equal. Neutrality requires that we provide the same weight to these offices as is found in reliable sources.

Incidentally, the Statute of The Statute of Westminster 1931 only applies to four current realms - the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. All the other realms gained independence after 1931, and their constitutions are all written to say the Queen of the UK is their head of state, regardless of what they choose to call her. Hence no formal assent was required in those 12 nations for the proposed change in succession law. And of course the Queen is equally the queen of all her territories, regardless of their degree of independence.

TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

More red herrings. The number of realms is immaterial. When they became realms is immaterial. If they have the Queen as their monarch, that's it. They are a Commonwealth Realm. Equal and individual in that regard. Not in population size, history, wealth or anything else. But in the simple fact of having the Queen as sovereign.

Nor are we talking "territories", such as Bermuda or Guernsey. The precise sentence we are discussing is about Elizabeth's role as monarch of sixteen realms. --Pete (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting policy. Certainly the Queen is equally Queen of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (population nil) as she is of the United Kingdom. But her role as Queen of the UK is more significant, based on coverage of reliable sources. It could be that she spends an equal amount of time on the two realms, but sources do not support that. TFD (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

South Sandwich is not a Commonwealth realm. The Queen of the UK is sovereign over that territory. So your above point is simply false.

And Elizabeth II does not have a personal website. The Queen of the UK and/or the British Royal family have a web space run by the government of the UK using the gov.uk webspace. The Queen of Canada has a web space run by the government of Canada using the gc.ca webspace. Your supposition that Elizabeth II has a 'personal' webspace applying equally to all realms is simply false.

Also, Elizabeth II is just as much Canadian, technically speaking, as she is British. In fact she has been quoted as saying she is Canadian, or something to that effect (I'd have to look it up). The Duke of Edinburgh refused an honourary appointment to the Order of Canada on the grounds that he is Canadian, and was subsequently appointed to the Order as a Canadian last year. She has multiple nationalities, and this article is international in scope. Writing a non-British, international article, from a British POV is exactly that, undue POV.

Think of it this way, we don't say that the United Nations was founded with the United States and 50 other member states. We say it was founded by 51. Why? Because the former is American POV, the latter is a neutral presentation of fact. trackratte (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Queen of the UK" is not sovereign over the SSGI - the sovereign is the queen of the SSGI. Although her title there may be Queen of the UK, just as it is in Canada. See the Law Lords decision that declares the Queen is equally queen of the UK, the SSGI and Alberta. ("But it is now clear, whatever may once have been thought, that the Crown is not one and indivisible.... The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom.")[16]

And the royal family's website is run by them out of Buckingham palace while the Canadian webpage you mention is run by the Canadian government. Of course the queen has been a Canadian citizen since 1947, but that has no relevance to her being best known as queen of the country where she happens to live.

Speaking of the U.S., did you know that it is composed of 50 states, D.C. and Palmyra? WP policy dictates we put them in that order and normally Palmyra is omitted, but that does not mean we are not saying that Palmyra is not equally part of the U.S. as New York state.

TFD (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Right out of it. The Queen of the UK is sovereign over SSGI, as you freely admit, that's her title there. gov.uk does not equal personal website, it equals a Government of the UK website (thus "gov" and "uk", gov being short for government and not Buckingham palace in case there's any confusion). No, Elizabeth II has not been a Canadian citizen since 1947, the concept of citizenship does not apply to a monarch in our constitutional system. And once again, your argument that Palmyra is as equally part of the U.S. as New York is nonsensical. You're comparing tomatoes and oranges. An "unoccupied atoll" administered by the U.S. as an "unorganized incorporated territory" is not even comparable to the state of New York. They are not 'equally part of the U.S.'. One is void of permanent inhabitants and has no organised goverment, whereas the state of New York is, well, the state of New York. And how this relationship remotely applies to the UK and 16 other sovereign states is beyond me, since you know, they are equal and sovereign countries and not subordinate "unorganized incorporated territories" of the UK. So your first three point are simply false, and your last point doesn't really seem to have one. trackratte (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

We are getting off-track here. If you want to discuss finer points of consitutional law, then my talk page would be a better place. I take it your argument is that the equality of the Queen's role in the UK and her other realms and territories, combined with the various titles laws and the independence of the realms but not the territories, means that we should provide equal status to her role as queen of each realm. And my reply is that while I accept the facts supporting your position, the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT, which means that we should provide more weight to the role for which she is best known. She in fact spends more time in the UK, more time on government matters in the UK, has eight or nine homes in the UK, is paid by the UK, travels abroad usually representing the UK and is most commonly referred to as Queen of the UK. Do you question any of those assertions? TFD (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In Canada, Elizabeth II is most commonly known as the Queen of Canada. She has two Canadian residences, has and continues to represent Canada abroad, and her and her husband consider themselves to be Canadians.

Your arguments boils down to simply this: The UK has a larger population, larger economy, and is much more renowned throughout the world than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or any of the other 12 realms. Since the UK is larger/better known/more often discusses, its corresponding head of state is also better known/more often discussed. Where your argument fails however, is that Canada's head of state, or Australia's, etc, is not 'less important' than that of the UK simply because the UK is larger. By that logic, the U.S. should come first and dominate nearly any article that is international in scope, for example putting "due weight" on the President of the United States in all cases above everyone else. This is clearly not the case here in Wikipedia. The U.S. is equally weighted in international articles, for example the UN article does not mention 'the U.S. and 50 other member states', because doing so would be undue POV. Elizabeth II as an individual human being is equally Australian, British, Canadian, etc and she occupies 16 separate roles as 16 different sovereigns. To present her equal roles equally is providing an article with a Neutral Point of View. Putting one "equal" role above her others, ie elevating an entire country as more important above 15 others, is not neutral, its POV pushing. trackratte (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the argument being presented. Frankly, I think this whole threaded discussion section should be collapsed. The two opposing camps are going around in circles, neither one edging towards the other. It is obvious that useful discussion ended some time ago. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

22 July, with the flogging a dead horse comment, and that was on top of a long pre-RfC discussion. I'm not seeing any consensus for change to the existing wording, no shift in weight of arguments. Sometimes new information is brought out, positions change, a new consensus forms. Here the trenches are being dug deeper with no change in position. --Pete (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the outside editors who have commented on the RfC seem to support sentence one, and as more uninvolved editors join the discussion you may find yourself in an increasingly reduced minority. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about counting noses. Besides, these uninvolved editors don't seem to know much about the subject. Who's this "Queen of England" they talk about? It's like asking the guys in the pub to explain quantum physics. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors replying here do not need to know about subjects, they need to understand policy. TFD (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Pete and TFD both make a good point. This isn't about votes (although I'm counting 8-7, so clearly no consensus). And editors don't need a detailed working knowledge of the subject to 'vote', although I would certainly trust someone who has a detailed and nuanced knowledge of the subject over someone who does not.

This is not a 'fact' issue requiring knowledgeable editors, as both options portray the same facts. This is not a policy issue, or at least not a clear-cut one, as both sides are reading the same policy and coming to completely opposite conclusions. Weight was written about giving equal weight to different view points (using the examples of flat-earth view points, and of creationist viewpoints in an article about evolution). Both sides in this case are really expressing the exact same view however (QEII is head of state of 16 countries), it's just how this view is stylistically expressed.

So, the crux of the issue is a stylistic one. Should this article be written from an international perspective (on the assumption that QEII is an international figure with multiple nationalities), or should this article be written from a British perspective (on the assumption that QEII is British and only incidentally happens to be head of state of other countries due to historical and cultural ties). trackratte (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. That isn't the issue. Americans that write about the Queen of England aren't writing from an English perspective. So, saying she's the Queen of the United Kingdom isn't writing from a British perspective either. This point was made earlier: she is best known internationally as the British monarch. DrKiernan (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone calling QEII the Queen of England plainly speaks from ignorance. There has been no such title for hundreds of years. However, that's by the by and has no effect other than to identify such folk. The real issue is the Statute of Westminster, which gave effect to the resolution of the Imperial Conference that the United Kingdom and the Dominions were to be treated as equals. That is the legal basis for the relationship of those nations with the Queen as their monarch. It is not the mother country and her child-colonies. Rather it is a family of adults, each independent and governing their own affairs in free association. Commonwealth nations might ally in war or go their own way. They might have trade agreements or not. There is no question of the United Kingdom telling other nations what to do. They are equals.

That's why listing the sixteen realms as "the UK and fifteen others" is so offensive. It implies a relationship, a superiority and a dependence which does not exist in any legal or practical sense. Ignorant folk might think that the Empire remains, and the Queen of the UK rules her empire from Buckinghuge Palace, but it is not so. --Pete (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not "the UK and 15 others," it is "the UK and 15 other independent nations." Saying that Elizabeth II is queen of 16 Commonwealth realms really tells us nothing, as a Commonwealth realm turns out to be an independent country where Elizabeth II is Queen. TFD (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Queen of the Commonwealth realms tells the reader nothing. She is first and foremost the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The world knows her as the Queen of England. I doubt if most of the world has even heard of her title as "Queen of the Commonwealth realms." Queen of England, Queen of Great Britain, that is how the world knows her. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TFD and SW3 5DL. This whole discussion should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the wider community would ever agree to not emphasize Elizabeth II's position as Queen of the United Kingdom. The world knows her (and reliable sources refer to her) first and foremost as Queen of England or Queen of the United Kingdom. LK (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The wider community may think that there is somebody who is Queen of England, but the fact is that there is not. No matter how many people believe in rubbish, it's still rubbish. The significance of the Statute of Westminster is likewise unlikely to be appreciated by someone so poorly informed. --Pete (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support version 1 per TFD. While I admire the efforts of those whose edits tend to induce Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc to see Elizabeth II as much their Queen as she is anybody's (because she is), accuracy alone is not the basis on which article titles are selected on Wikipedia. Unlike our selection of content, the primary criterion for selection of the article's name is the frequency with which reputable sources use that name to refer to the subject. Other factors may legitimately weigh in, but "it's unfairly discriminatory" is unconvincing as a rebuttal since any such discrimination originates in the preponderance of English-language references rather than in the cultural prejudice of Wikipedia editors. I will shout hurrah! when most English-speakers come to think of and to refer to Elizabeth II primarily as "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms", but that day has not yet come -- and it violates our due weight standard for Wikipedians to distort reality in order to encourage people to think of the situation in the way we believe is appropriate. Nice try, wrong tool. FactStraight (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the title of the article. And everyone agrees with the fact that must be presented. The discussion is about whether the lead sentance should be phrased using an international viewpoint, or just a British one. So, it's not about the title of article, but which POV do you support for the lead sentance? trackratte (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The international viewpoint is that she is Queen of the UK. See the examples from the UN, CNN and al jazeera or the Canadian or Grenadian titles acts for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that point, thanks. Since the due weight standard applies to article content, I stand by my support for sentence version 1, which I think is the international viewpoint -- the problem is that we here think it shouldn't be, and as sympathetic as I am to that very legitimate concern, I don't think Wikipedia is a legitimate tool for correcting the world's "misperception" in this respect. We owe it to all to present (and even emphasize) the fact of equality of realms, but we have no right to use the article to mislead readers into thinking that is already a prevalent view of her role. FactStraight (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for an international viewpoint, rather than the UK-centric one endorsed by Option 1. By changing from a "sixteen realms" wording to "the UK and fifteen others", TFD wants to move away from consensus - and this is hardly the first time we've had this discussion - and create a list with some members listed and some not. The consensus is that if we list one, we should list all, and the current wording is a more elegant solution. --Pete (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"International perspective" means not only following the usage in the UK, Canada, Grenada, the 3 crown dependencies and 15 British overseas territories where her role as Queen of the UK appears first in her title, but the usage in the approximately 180 sovereign states where she is not the monarch. The idea that Elizabeth II is just as well known internationally as Queen of Tuvalu as Queen of the UK is ridiculous. TFD (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to put that proposition, which is, as you say, ridiculous. It's a strawman, which means that you are evading the real argument. We have a long-standing consensus which you are trying to overturn by promoting a UK-centric view of the Statute of Westminster which is the very antithesis of it. --Pete (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No-one's trying to put that position either, so that's also a strawman. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you stuck to the issues. I am not interested that you and Miesianical and trackratte etc. have long agreed. Although it is tangential to the argument I find it irritating when you repeat false information. The Statute of Westminster 1931 applies to four Commonwealth realms only - UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. In the first two the Queen's first title is Queen of the UK. The inconvenient truth is that the Queen is best known "internationally" for her role as Queen of the UK. And she was only called "Queen" in the former colonies because that was her title in the UK. TFD (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Queen's title(s) is not the issue here. She is monarch over each of the sixteen realms - including those created since 1931 - in her own right, not because she is the Queen of the UK. The British Empire effectively changed at that point, with the Statute of Westminster recognising the independence of each dominion and that the British government no longer advised the monarch on dominion affairs. The Statute of Westminster meant that the British Empire was no longer the UK and other bits and pieces. It was now Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and other bits and pieces. Which led to the Empire being renamed the Commonwealth. I see naming the UK alone in the list of realms as being exactly contrary to both the spirit and the legal reality of the SoW and subsequent acts. --Pete (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Closure

The RfC tag will be automatically removed soon, as we are approaching the 30 day cut-off. It seems to me that the numbers are evenly split. Nor do I see a clear way to reconcile the two arguments that (1) the article should reflect the practice of the majority of reliable sources in highlighting her role in Britain over her international one; and (2) that the article should not fall into the trap of systemic bias nor be written in a way that might mislead readers or that some readers might perceive as discriminatory. I'd be surprised if this closed in any way other than default to status quo. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Issue

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.

---

My question is: Is there a particular reason why the Queen's children are referred to by the legal term issue, rather than children in this article? Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It sounds de-humanizing. She's human, and her offspring are human...why not use children, the standard name for human offspring? I think it should be changed to children.—140.153.24.155 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have been waiting to see if there might be other points of view, with none forthcoming to date (apart from our's), I have now added a 'request for comment' banner to get further input. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the obvious reason for using the word "issue" is that it's the traditionally correct word for "Offspring; progeny" (according to Miriam Webster, and all other good dictionaries), particularly for royal births. If it's de-humanising, then an awful lot of history books are too. A search in Wikipedia for articles containing "died without issue" (just one common usage of the word) quickly found me well over a 1000 entries. There may be many more. Elizabeth herself is listed in the Issue section of her father's article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The criticism implies that "issue" is used more for animals than humans, whereas I've never heard it used to describe descendants of an animal. Properly, "children" is not synonymous with "issue" since the latter may refer: 1. to remoter descendants (e.g., "Elizabeth II's issue include her great-grandson, Prince George of Cambridge"); 2. to living descendants (e.g., "She died bereft of issue, though she became a mother and grandmother relatively young"); to one's biological children, (e.g., "I know that Angelina Jolie has six children; how many are her own issue?"). The more precise and yet flexible term is "issue", which minimizes ambiguity and is used when giving genealogical details for that very reason. FactStraight (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I met with a lawyer recently to revise my will, and we discussed the clause that defines "issue". ("Issue" includes biological children and children by adoption, unless limited by express provision to biological children (as in the case of Ms. Jolie given above). It does not include stepchildren unless extended to them by express provision.) It is evidently a standard term of probate law, at least in the United States, and presumably also in the 16 countries of which Elizabeth II is the monarch. So "issue" is the correct them to include all of the Queen's descendants. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reword - At first glance, the word seems entirely inappropriate. Maybe this is some form of Brit English with which I'm not familiar, but it clearly doesn't seem right. Maybe "offspring" or "descendants"? NickCT (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is it inappropriate, let alone entirely inappropriate? "Offspring, progeny" is the third of eight meanings of the word given at TheFreeDictionary.com ("an American online dictionary"). It is the standard term in genealogy, law and history. Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's legalese. NickCT (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Just another opinion, I think descendants would be a better choice from a word choice. Though there is nothing wrong with the terms offspring or progeny, descendants has more weight. Editingisthegame (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The term "issue" is used fairly frequently throughout Wikipedia, not just in this page. To me, there seems to be a different implication between what "Issue" entails and what "Children" entails. The former implies (to me) a clear table or list detailing a person's children, grandchildren, and possibly great-grandchildren, while the latter implies that it's going to be somewhat of a discussion on their children - paragraphs, sentences, etc. "Offspring," "Descendants," or "Progeny" come across as adding a third variable to the mix just for the sake of changing things - when "Issue" already appears on many pages. Psunshine87 (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this view of the matter, and support the retention of 'issue'. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reword "Issue" is archaic. 19th century books would say for example, "John Smith was without issue." Today they would say "John Smith had no children." TFD (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as issue appears to be a term specific of genealogy which is rather distinct from (and consequently less specific than) the term "children". Specifically, in royalty, the word "issue" is held apart from "heir". In law, per stirpes is a further distinction when it comes to inheritance and estate distribution. SueDonem (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep – "Issue" in common law refers to children of legally recognized subsisting marriages. Thus the term is important in articles about royalty in the context of royal succession. Link the term to issue in the Wikitionary. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward VIII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedureal close – this proposal is a duplicate of Talk:Edward VIII/Archive 1#Requested moves. Let the discussion proceed there. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Elizabeth II → Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
• Edward VIII → Edward VIII of the United Kingdom
• Queen Victoria → Victoria of the United Kingdom

– Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected.Matthew David González 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, having all those articles-in-question, moved to ...of the United Kingdom. The UK is (according to sources) the kingdom most associated with these monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Word order in the first sentence

Now that the discussion on the content of the first sentence has been closed, I wish to try and rescue one idea from the section above on the arrangement of words in the first sentence. Specifically, to consider moving from:

• [Elizabeth II ...] is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations. She is also Head of the Commonwealth and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

to

• [Elizabeth II ...] is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations and the constitutional monarch of 16 of its 53 member states.

While I appreciate that items should generally be listed in order of importance, so monarchies first then head of the Commonwealth, I think that the proposed wording is much clearer. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. I agree that the order of importance should be followed, placing her as monarch first and head of the Commonwealth of Nations second, but saying that she is the "constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations becomes a bit convoluted and implies (at least to me) that the other nations are also realms headed by someone else. Is there a reason why "is the constitutional monarch of the sixteen realms known as the Commonwealth Realms" is no longer used? Psunshine87 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It does follow the logic of importance. Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth in 53 independent states while she is only queen in 16. TFD (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, with all due respect, the current lead of this article is already different from the real world common usage, thus a breach of WP:WEIGHT. I suggest that we don't expand that difference. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week since I opened this section, and I think it fair to say that the idea has not caught on. So, now to consider the next suggestion, which is moving from:

• Current: [Elizabeth II ...] is the constitutional monarch of sixteen realms of the 53-member Commonwealth of Nations.

to

• Proposed: [Elizabeth II ...] is the constitutional monarch of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations.

This retains the word order, but I think it is much clearer in clarifying that the Commonwealth comprises 16 states of which she is queen and 37 others. The present wording to me makes it sound as though the 53 members are arranged into 16 realms. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose usage of constitutional monarch in the lead, when other monarchial bio articles use king or queen regnant. She more commonly known as Queen Elizabeth II, not Constitutional monarch Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Could we just focus on the proposed change please? If you wish to discuss other matters they should be in a separate section, otherwise the discussion will drift off-topic. DrKiernan (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceylon

The country Sri Lanka which is in the article should be named as such, not as Ceylon, the country hasn't been called Ceylon in a very long time.2001:8003:4407:CC01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was the Dominion of Ceylon at the time. It changed its name to Sri Lanka when it became a republic. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014

All references to the Queen as HRH are incorrect. As Queen she is ALWAYS referred to as HM

89.240.165.168 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No references to the Queen as HRH found in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Divorcee

While divorcé and divorcée are divorced people of each gender, a divorcee is someone of either gender who has been divorced. All three words are used in English. I appreciate that the narrow distinction is likely to be lost. DrKiernan (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)