Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Queen of New Zealand?

By my reckoning, the "Queen of New Zealand" part was in the article for only about a week before it was disputed. As it got only 16% support in the first survey, and surely content doesn't continue to accrue de facto consensus while it's under discussion, there is no case for keeping it. Many editors would say that it should have been removed pending a consensus to include it.

The run-off survey showed 55% support for "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state". That's borderline and could be called a weak consensus or no consensus. In the case of no consensus, there would be the question of what do in the article, and, since nothing about the Queen has been in the article long enough to acquire status quo ante status, the only reasonable course would be to remove mention of the Queen.

Therefore I'm closing as weak consensus for "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state".

If there is objection to my closing as an involved editor, I would point out that I'm closing against my own position. But I would not object to a re-close by an uninvolved editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 29 March 2019 (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.

This is incorrect. Elizabeth II is not queen of New Zealand. Her correct title, to and reasonable New Zealanders, is the Queen of England. The Māori people of New Zealand recognise the Kīngitanga as their monarch and this disparity between tangata whenua and manuhiri in naming of their monarch should be corrected to better reflect modern New Zealand terminology.

Myself as a New Zealander I have never heard this awkward wording of Elizabeth the second's title. Clumster (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See www.royal.uk/new-zealand. She is the Queen of New Zealand. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Elizabeth II#Titles, styles, honours and arms : "In each of her realms she has a distinct title that follows a similar formula: Queen of Jamaica and her other realms and territories in Jamaica, Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories in Australia, etc." By extension we can arrive at Queen of New Zealand and her other realms and territories in New Zealand—or, a shortened version, Queen of New Zealand. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It is misleading to write "Queen of New Zealand" even if that is an official title because it sounds like New Zealand is her primary country of residence/kingdom. We should at least add a couple of words explaining the Commonwealth link. The current wording is ridiculous even if it is an official title with its own Wikipedia page.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that it's also confusing. As an Australian, I've never heard anyone refer to Queen Elizabeth (which is what you'll usually hear) as the Queen of Australia. Aussies, in their typical two syllable fashion, are more likely to call her "Lizzie" than anything else. If this is a common term in NZ, which it doesn't appear to be, then that's fine. Otherwise, I think it's best to use her formal widely known title: Queen of England. That's if a formal title is necessary at all, and we can't just write "Queen Elizabeth". Mr rnddude (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. Too tangential to the subject of the article, a pair of shooting attacks on Muslim places of worship. If readers want to learn more about the monarchy and the Commonwealth, that's why we have wikilinks. But, no objection to "Queen Elizabeth". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, Elizabeth is not (and has never been) "Queen of England" as mentioned in the first comment here, since the Kingdom of England legally ceased to exist in 1707. BTW she is also Queen of Canada, Australia, and a dozen other places, and has been so for a very long time. So the point here is that there are "common" perceptions, and "technical" ones. Elizabeth's common name/role vs legal/historic one. I had edited the sentence a week ago to clarify the difference, but it was subsequently edited out.JabberJaw (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "Queen of New Zealand" is not suitable. Media reports usually refer to Elizabeth as "Head of the Commonwealth" and this might be a better phrase to use.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state". Nurg (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. I've made that change now. Ross Finlayson (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth is Queen of New Zealand. That is not just a technicality. You do not hear that title often just like you do not hear "Queen of the United Kingdom" often. In everyday speech, she is known simply as the Queen or Queen Elizabeth in all the Commonwealth realms. Yet it is spelled out when necessary; just yesterday the Scottish Daily Mail reported that "some Kiwi observers" wondered why "the monarch, as Queen of New Zealand" did not sign the book of condolences at New Zealand House. The constitutional position that makes Elizabeth's reaction relevant is that of Queen of New Zealand. If Adern is not defined as New Zealand's head of government but as prime minister, I do not see the point in removing the mention of the office that makes Elizabeth's words relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your revert now reverted. New Zealanders, including me, are telling you this is inappropriate and that they don't want it. Akld guy (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Why not use "Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth, ..." - it doesn't beg the question of the the Queen's role but does give reason why she is a voice of the highest government official here. --Masem (t) 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
She is best described as head of state, the current wording. All of you, have some respect for what NZedders are telling you. In my 50 years of adult life, I have never heard her referred to as Queen of New Zealand. Not once. Yes, it is a formal title, but it's nowhere near as suitable as "head of state". Akld guy (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Your nationality is of no relevance here. Neither is mine. Elizabeth's title as head of state is Queen of New Zealand just like Adern's title as head of government is Prime Minister of New Zealand. Many in the UK may have never heard her referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom but that is what she is. I am certain you have never heard Elizabeth called "head of state of New Zealand" either. NZ's most circulated newspapers do describe her as Queen of New Zealand, however, when the context calls for it.[1] "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" is unnecessarily verbose and convoluted. We should not be afraid of telling our readers something they may not have known.
Besides, I have just cited a newspaper mentioning Elizabeth as Queen of New Zealand specifically in relation to this attack, and apparently it is NZedders who described her as such. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
What you are "certain [I] have never heard" is irrelevant here. It's only your opinion, and you are wrong. Please correct your link. Akld guy (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Which link would you like me to correct? Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This is silly. While "Queen of New Zealand" is technically correct, it's an unusual phrase that has the possibility of confusing some people into thinking that this is a different person from the "Queen Elizabeth II" that everyone knows about. This article is about a massacre, not "the formal title of New Zealand's Head of State". The less precise (but also more understandable) "New Zealand's head of state" reads better. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
If there really is a possibility that some people may think that there are two leaders known as Elizabeth II, how is "Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" any better than "Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand"? "New Zealand's head of state" sounds technical and detached, like "the USA's head of state" instead of "President of the United States". Besides, Elizabeth seems to be described as "Queen of New Zealand"[2] much more often than as "New Zealand's head of state".[3] Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That last Google count is completely misleading. Try "elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand" [4]. And comparison with "the USA's head of state" is irrelevant. Nurg (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Going back to my suggestion, most people in the world would take "Queen Elizabeth II" to be the Queen of England regardless of any other context. So I was suggesting you build on that and then tell why she is important to NZ, which is due to being its head of state via the Commonwealth , which is a term I would expect most English-speaking users to be aware of even if they can't name all the countries in the Commonwealth. It remains accurate and provides enough context so that uses can recall that NZ is part of the realms she overseems. "Queen of NZ" while technically correct is weird looking to me (US) and simply just calling her the head of state may may making thinki it is a different person than the Queen of England. --Masem (t) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of New Zealand" or vice versa would also be reasonable, given the attacker's links to Australia and even the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again! She is Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand. Aren't there more important things to discuss on this specific talk page? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
She is Queen of New Zealand. This is not debatable, it's factual. However, head of state is less contentious, and I would support that wording. --Hazhk (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand how it can be contentious at all if it is not debatable. Why should something that is factual be considered contentious anyway? Because some editors did not know about it before reading it here? I cannot imagine coming to a talk page to demand that a piece of info be pulled just because it's news to me. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would support the use of "Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" rather than "Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand", the latter being a phrase I'd not heard until it was used by Wikipedia. Also she's not the Queen of England in spite of the term being popular in various places around the world. She's Queen of the United Kingdom. The last Queen of England was Elizabeth I. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is not about New Zealand's form of government, and a reader of this article is not likely to care about New Zealand's form of government—at least not while reading this article. They came here to read about an attack and its aftermath. "Queen Elizabeth said she was 'deeply saddened' by the attack." If a reader of that sentence doesn't already know the Queen's role in New Zealand government, that lack of knowledge will not impede their understanding of the article subject. That completely figurehead role makes her comment no more or less significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds entirely reasonable. It should be noted, however, that the apposition naming Elizabeth Queen of New Zealand evolved from a hidden note to editors explaining why her words were there. The idea was that if editors did not understand why we quoted her, readers would not either. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I struggle to see why any editor or reader would wonder why we're quoting the Queen in a section titled "Reactions->World leaders"—unless it's that she's not really a leader, being only a figurehead, which would be entirely unhelpful hair-splitting. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that some wondered why she was mentioned alongside New Zealand officials (the prime minister and the mayor). Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
So insert a paragraph break. Problem solved. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is no indication of her connection to New Zealand, not even being in the same paragraph as the prime minister or the mayor, then there is no apparent reason to quote her while relegating other leaders, e.g. the Pope or the King of Saudi Arabia, to a footnote. I still think there is merit in your original assessment, even if it may leave some people wondering why we are mentioning her at all. Surtsicna (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I think debate has pretty much run its course. Let's start a survey and see if there is anything resembling a consensus. I will do so below. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Less contentious in the sense that's less obscure. Arguably the title "Queen of New Zealand" is going to throw many readers because it's used so rarely. --Hazhk (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those who are unaware, the phrase "Queen of New Zealand" has been used on NZ coins (see here). What is used in conversation is not all that relevant to what we use in an encyclopedia article, and opinions of New Zealanders do not need to be given greater weight here. Anyway, it sounds like we need an RfC on this topic. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC) --Hazhk (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Those are commemorative coins, never used in circulation. The title does not appear on the $2, 50c, 20c and 10c coins currently in my pocket. Akld guy (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I am completely dumbstruck by the argument that "a phrase I'd not heard until it was used by Wikipedia" should not be used on Wikipedia. We are essentially having people stop by to say that Wikipedia should not provide information of which they were previously unaware. Never mind its accuracy; I did not know about it, so it should not be here. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a question of weight. With one exception New Zealanders are telling you here that the title carries little weight. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The Constitution of New Zealand carries far more weight than what any New Zealander says on a Wikipedia talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The question of weight is decided by editors on a Wikipedia talk page. Akld guy (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh? I thought it was decided by New Zealanders. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is an indication that you're running out of argument. Akld guy (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I am merely paying attention to what you are writing. Surtsicna (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
New Zealanders are not the only target audience, or even the most important one. I think some editors may be overinterpreting ENGVAR. The choice of how to refer to the Queen is not equivalent to the choice between "practising" and "practicing" or the choice between 22 March 2019 and March 22, 2019. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey: The Queen

Tentative close pending acceptance of the run-off survey below, which would supersede this survey. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:24, 26 March 2019 (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.

  • Queen Elizabeth II We don't specify which country "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern" leads, no need to hammer home which realm Lizzie rules. But to single out Great Britain, Canada or the general Commonwealth rather than the relevant one is a bit crazy. We likewise don't refer to Ardern as the Labour Party Leader or MP for Mount Albert. Fancy people are always a lot of things, some pertinent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Queen Elizabeth It has been mentioned that people coming to this page will not be interested about her "figurehed" status, I argue otherwise. If she truly is Queen of New Zealand, does not the responsibility of the protection on all Māori and people whom she "reigns over" lie on her? This is stated in Te Tiriti, our founding document, of which there are two. Above and beyond the laws and rules of England and the internet deciding if she is Queen of New Zealand it has already been decided Te Tiriti and The Treaty of Waitangi which is the most suitable candidate to base the argument on. [1] . It is mentioned here that there is plenty of disparity between the two versions of Te Tiriti or The Treaty. This is our governing document and should not be ignored, and certainly not on a page such as this. Visitors coming to this page may be interested about previous attacks in New Zealand, and if so attacks from Pākehā on Māori will likely be of interest to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumster (talk • contribs)
The British monarch is not labelled as the Queen of New Zealand in our founding documents, the title is more correctly "Her Majesty the Queen of England" [2] One reading the English version of this document may also assume that because the word sovereignty is used that means she was granted the Māori tūpuna's mana and allowed to reign over them. This is incorrect as the Māori version states "kawanatanga katoa" which is a poor at best translation of sovereignty. Te Tiriti is the document that the Māori people's leaders understood and signed, which does not make "Her Majesty the Queen of England" the "Queen of New Zealand" this is a title which has been later added by foreign sources. This was never agreed upon by the Māori people of New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumster (talk • contribs)
To give context to what Clumster is saying here, there is in fact a Maori king. Not widely known outside New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Her relationship to the Commonwealth is irrelevant. Her relationship to NZ may be relevant. Nurg (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Christchurch is equally within New Zealand and the Commonwealth, so neither is more or less relevant. One's just more direct and focused. Perhaps because it also involves an Australian subject of hers, the fuzzier distinction is preferable this time (at least to "Queen of New Zealand and Australia", which I imagine some might want lengthened to "Queen of New Zealand and Queen of Australia"). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that "Head of the Commonwealth" is less direct and less focused, that is a reason to not use it. Nurg (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If viewed as a purely New Zealand topic, yes, it's a reason not to use it. If the Australian attacker aspect seems to make the attacks international and her sadness a bit deeper, it's a reason to use it. I'm on the fence, so sticking with plain and simple "Queen Elizabeth II". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state... per Nurg above.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The evidence you provided earlier for "Queen of New Zealand" being far more common was based on misleading Google search counts. I have already refuted those counts. Nurg (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
No, you have not. You also have not explained how my results are misleading. In your count you failed to exclude Wikipedia. Even if we do not exclude Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand" is less common than "Elizabeth II" "Queen of New Zealand". When we exclude Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II" "Queen of New Zealand" is again more common than "Elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand". However you cut it, her proper title is known better than the dictionary definition of her office. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: As everyone ought to know, Google results are perverse. The fact that Queen of New Zealand gets a lot of hits is because it's an obscure title and searchers are unsure what it means, not because it's the most familiar term. The more bizarre the phrase, the higher the number of Google searches for that phrase. Akld guy (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not the number of searches but the number of times it is mentioned on the Internet. Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state. She's a monarch and she's head of state; "Queen of New Zealand" becomes a distraction. --Hazhk (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Queen Elizabeth II as first preference or Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state as second preference if an explanation of her role in relation to NZ is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of Great Britain. Describing her as the queen of New Zealand is going to confuse people who aren’t familiar with the whole commonwealth business. Folks are going to think that there is a queen of New Zealand and a queen of Britain. 2601:3C7:200:7020:2172:98C3:73E9:5817 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if some people in discussion are confused by the legal realities of the situation with regards to NZ's head of state. First do not confuse the Commonwealth realm with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Queen being the Head of the Commonwealth (which means head of the Commonwealth of Nations) is not the reason she is the head of state of NZ. As our article mentions, it is only recently there was agreement over who will be the next head of the commonwealth, and AFAIK there's no reason this agreement couldn't change and maybe more importantly there's still no guarantee it will apply to the next generation. The majority (by far in terms of numbers) of commonwealth countries do not have the queen as their head of state. A few have their own monarchs. But it has been clear since he was born that Charles would be the next head of state of NZ assuming there was no change in NZ law and he didn't pass before the queen. Likewise William and George will respectively be the next head of state of NZ assuming there was no change in NZ law and their deaths didn't preclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Some people here are convinced that Elizabeth is not Queen of New Zealand and refuse to accept that they are wrong. Here is a NZ government website stating: "She reigns as Queen of New Zealand independently of her position as Queen of the United Kingdom." Others claim that since this information is new to them, it should not be in Wikipedia. Neither attitude is helpful in building an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thinking about it I am slightly wrong. It wasn't clear that Charles would be the next head of state since his mother was only heir presumptive. Until her father's death it was theoretically possible for her and so him to be pipped by her father having male issue and them having any issue etc. Still this is separate from my point which is that the head of state of NZ is a matter for NZ law (and as it is a monarchy there are clearly defined rules of succession) but the Head of the Commonwealth is something else entirely, even if these positions are currently occupied by the same person and there is now agreement for that to continue to Charles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • P.S. This also applies to Australia etc. I.E. While it may be true that the shooter as an Australian citizen was technically a subject of the queen, this arises because she is the head of state as a monarch/queen of Australia. It's not because of her role as the head of the commonwealth. Malaysian citizens aren't subjects of the queen unless they happen to also be citizens of some commonwealth realm country (which means they're liable to lose their Malaysian citizenship although not because of the queen bit). Indian or Pakistani citizens are subjects to no monarch (again unless .....). Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course she is the Queen of New Zealand, but that's not the issue; we are looking for how to describe her in this article. Per Wikipedia practice and policy we must follow Reliable Sources, and none of the sources reporting her comment referred to her as "Queen of New Zealand". So that construction is simply wrong for this article, and it should not be used. "Head of the Commonwealth" is also not used by the sources and should not be used. Most of the sources, being British, simply say "the Queen". Since this is not Britain, I would say "Queen Elizabeth II", just as we would use the full name for any person named. If some explanation of her relationship to New Zealand is needed, we should say "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state". (I now prefer "Queen of New Zealand" as my alternate choice; see below.) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • As I already said, the Scottish Daily Mail reported on 21 March that "some Kiwi observers" wondered why "the monarch, as Queen of New Zealand" did not sign the book of condolences at New Zealand House. It is therefore not true that none of the sources reporting her reaction referred to her as Queen of New Zealand, nor is it true that it is wrong for this article to describe her using her actual title as head of state. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) P.S. My personal preference is for simply "Queen Elizabeth II". She is the only Queen Elizabeth II we have at the moment, so there is no need to disambiguate her. The article is about New Zealand and she is speaking about New Zealand, so there is no need to provide context. Let me ask you this: If Donald Trump comments on something that happened in the United States, would we attribute it to "Donald Trump, President of the United States"? Of course not; we would say "President Donald Trump". If Macron says something about France, we would not feel obliged to say "Emmanuel Macron, President of France"; we would say "President Emmanuel Macron". Because their connection to the event is obvious. Same with the Queen. "Queen Elizabeth II" is enough identification IMO. But I would accept the "head of state" formulation if people prefer it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
You have a point, of course. "Queen Elizabeth II" really ought to be enough. As I said in the preceding section, however, the idea to make Elizabeth's relation to the country explicit came from a hidden note that explained to editors why her comment was relevant. And if any explanation of Macron's relationship to France were needed, we would say "Emmanuel Macron, President of France" and not "President Emmanuel Macron, France's head of state", wouldn't we? Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
She is the only Queen Elizabeth II we have at the moment - Per Queen Elizabeth dab, she is the only Queen Elizabeth we have at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Trump is the only President Trump we have ever had, but we still introduce him as Donald Trump. Surely the first time we mention Elizabeth anywhere, we should use the full regnal name, and afterwards use whatever feels right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand as it is. If a reader, even a fellow kiwi, upon reading it, is just learning that she is in fact styled as Queen of New Zealand, then...well, that's what encyclopediae are for. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth II seems to directly mirror the first use of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The readership should not be assumed to know any more of New Zealand's form of government than it is to know the present names of the monarch and prime minister. Imagine being a reader in a place with a different form of government, some time after the death of Elizabeth, perhaps also after Charles, and maybe even New Zealand has become a republic. This form gives clear information for what their roles are and why they matter. --Scott Davis Talk 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I still prefer "Queen Elizabeth II" without any other explanation or identification, but if consensus is that we need to explain her relationship with the country, I now prefer "Queen of New Zealand" rather than "head of state of New Zealand", for two reasons. One, no reliable source uses the "head of state" formulation; one source did mention the "Queen of New Zealand" title. (Most sources did not find it necessary to explain at all, which is why I still prefer just her name.) The other reason is what I found at List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II#Oceania, which outlines her actual official title with regard to the country over the years. It appears that around 1973/74 her title with regard to most commonwealth countries was altered to list her as queen of that country, rather than queen of the UK first and the country as an afterthought. So "Queen of New Zealand" accurately describes her connection to the country. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Those who are arguing for "Queen of New Zealand" need to take a serious look at New Zealand history. You do not understand the blatant definition which is spelled out in 2 articles of the Māori Tiriti of Waitangi. There is no legitimacy in this discussion. Clumster (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We are taking a serious look at New Zealand laws and government websites. They are very clear about it. You started this whole furor in order to push a particular point of view. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts
  2. ^ https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text
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.

Run-off survey: The Queen

This assessment looks only at first choices and ignores the small amount of negative !voting (i.e., opposing something in addition to or instead of supporting something else). If someone else wants to try a different approach, I wish them luck.

Eight variations were supported by nineteen editors as first choice. Not surprisingly, no variation has a majority. "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" was supported as first choice by 32% of the participants, and second place was "Queen Elizabeth II" with 26%. I'm proposing a run-off between those two.

@Clumster, InedibleHulk, StAnselm, Mr rnddude, MelanieN, This is Paul, and Starship.paint: @Feminist, Rsfinlayson, Roger 8 Roger, Akld guy, Anotheranothername, HuttValley, and Hazhk:

1 — Queen Elizabeth II
2 — Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state

Actually there were 7 in ping template 1, another 7 in ping template 2 + Scott Davis who was mentioned in the comment. My main goal was to ensure no participant was overlooked, so that a potential claim of discussion bias could be avoided. JabberJaw (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 2 - Informative, but not potentially confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfinlayson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 2 to emphasise a connection. JabberJaw (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 since absolutely no reliable source in this connection identified her as "New Zealand's head of state". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 since it was my first preference, and MelanieN does bring up a good point. Mr rnddude (talk)
  • Comment - I don't see how we can maintain the fig leaf of pretending that we're progressing towards consensus by !voting, and not just simply voting when we're literally holding runoff elections. No clear consensus emerged from the first discussions above, and I don't think this runoff election indicates anything about a consensus emerging now. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    You may be confusing this with a simple democratic vote. There has been ample discussion, and if I'm not mistaken not a single editor has changed their their first choice position or showed signs of being inclined to change their their first choice position. That's an excellent indication that further discussion would not be useful, particularly for such a minor issue. The survey format is simply a way of clarifying editors' positions and moving things forward so we can attend to other matters. Also, it doesn't preclude further discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah good. So we won't be simply claiming consensus to change the wording in the article according to the outcome of this runoff election then? Good to know. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I said; this will represent a consensus unless you can muster a ton of support for your argument—just as this kind of process has done in countless past discussions site-wide. I'd be interested to know what you think we should do in the case of no consensus, which is the only realistic alternative. Omit mention of the Queen entirely? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not quite true to say that not a single editor has changed their position. MelanieN said I now prefer "Queen of New Zealand" rather than "head of state of New Zealand". In fact, I thought the discussion was trending towards "Queen of New Zealand" so I was a bit disappointed that it was taken off the table. StAnselm (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You omitted what came immediately before that excerpt: "I still prefer 'Queen Elizabeth II' without any other explanation or identification, but if consensus is that we need to explain her relationship with the country,". Her first choice was unchanged, and as I said above I chose not to try to incorporate second, third, fourth, and even fifth choices into the assessment. I have also stated the obvious fact that anybody else is free to try a different approach to consensus assessment, and I note that nobody has yet taken me up on that. To the contrary, editors seem grateful for this opportunity to put this to bed. What seems unacceptable to me is spending another week or two and another dozen or so editor-hours on such a minor question, with only a slight likelihood of reaching a different consensus as a result. It's a cost-benefit analysis. I have modified my statement above. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
By my accounting, "Queen of New Zealand" was the part of the first choices for three editors, Surtsicna, Scott Davis, and 202.155.85.18, and even they differed on the exact phrasing. Some trend. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why her role matters. All she is saying is she is "deeply saddened". I think it is irrelevant that "she is New Zealand's head of state." Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If she weren't New Zealand's head of state there would be no point in quoting her. The role is the reason for us quoting her. Personally, I wouldn't bother quoting her but, if we're going to quote her, then we need to say why. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 3, omit entirely. It's an entirely irrelevant statement with no political or operational ramifications. There's little need to include this here. NZ's PM has some political significance. And yes - some of the other world leaders should be cut from here as well. General "sad", "sorry", "sympathy" responses get cut out of these sorts of articles in the end. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 1 is probably fine as everyone knows who she is, but 2 if a description is needed. This is Paul (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (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.

Supposed malware

Blue hexagon is a brand new company with 0 history as far as discovering malware, and has provided 0 evidence as to its existence. There are no known samples in existence as far as I can find. I think the language should be changed to state that they have claimed to have found malware, as opposed to taking it as a fact without verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.22.28.227 (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would question whether the content you are referring to ("A malware infected version (Microsoft Word) of the manifesto was found circulating by Blue Hexagon, they reported on 28 March. It contains a Visual Basic macro that downloads and runs a master boot record damaging executable. They called the version "|Trojan Haka" after the payload executable, haka") belongs in the article at all. It seems like an overly minor detail. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this needs to be in the article per WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOPIC, WP:10YT etc. Is this really notable enough for a mention?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd lean toward removing it. There is no indication it is of enduring importance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
id lean towards removal too. Malware is only encyclopedic if its important by itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.22.28.227 (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Remove. --Calthinus (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

GA

This looks like it can become a good article to me. What are your thoughts? Steve talk? 17:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the names of the shotguns used in the attack.

This is for DeFacto. I understand your concerns regarding the citing issues for my revision to the page, when I named the weapons as the Mossberg and Remington shotguns. The only "source" for the weapons are the actual helmet cam video Brenton Tarrant took. You can identify the Mossberg shotgun in a "clean" part of the footage (no shooting or blood or carnage has occurred yet). However, the only way to identify the Remington 870 in the video would be to skip ahead to a part of the video where the gunman is actively firing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicGhosty (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

TBH I'm not interested in the exact make of the guns unless it is covered in reliable secondary sources. Even then, this type of info can be of interest only to the gun buffs. And of course we can't use WP:OR interpretations of the video as a source anyway. When the case gets to court, it will probably include the exact makes and models of the guns, but we don't have this in RS at the moment, it only says that he allegedly had two shotguns. The semi-automatic rifles used in the shooting were reportedly AR-15 style rifles (yes, again) but this also lacks RS and would need to come from the investigators or the courts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not what we see.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The quality of coverage in the news is astoundingly poor - a person shouldn't end up at Encyclopedia Dramatica because it has the best news coverage. After trawling through various questionable forums and repeatedly searching I found no search term that I could get a 'reliable source' with; the closest thing I got was a Daily Mail cite that he had an AR-15 at a gun club (not the mosque) [5]. Washington Post has this article under the title "What guns did the New Zealand shooter have..." but emphatically does not answer that question. In the process, I noted some of the difficulty - one forum post said that it was Remington 870 "or a knock-off". [6] Maybe someone else can do a better job searching - I don't know much about guns. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Penultimate

Re: [7][8]

My question was not answered, so I'll repeat it. How many readers know what "penultimate" means? Obviously nobody can say with certainty, but we all have life experience to draw from. Unless the number is north of about 75%, which seems exceedingly unlikely, we shouldn't be using the word in my opinion. That doesn't make this Simple Wikipedia—it makes it about conveying information, not teaching vocabulary. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea it was considered a complicated word - it was either covered somewhere in primary school for me or I picked it up from general speech. I'd feel safe saying north of 75% for Australia - no idea about America or NZ. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The attached cite mentions neither "penultimate" nor "second-highest". As always, we should follow sources, which state "terror threat level has been lifted to high". WWGB (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Its not important, change it to "high" its what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Its not OR to say "second from last" (or variants of) if that is what it is. We do not have to use exact words (that is in fact plagiarism). It may not be all that clear for the less well educated, but its not OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It is OR when not mentioned in the source. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No, using a synonym is not 'original research'. Avoiding the word "penultimate" was a good idea; many people think it means "ultimate". (This is especially true in the U.S., where this word is not used much.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not the Simple English Wikipedia - which has an entry on this - and which tries to stick to simple English. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I didn't have to reach for a dictionary to know what "penultimate" meant, and would be surprised if a fluent English speaker did.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Believe me, as someone who has lived (off and on) in the U.S. (and one of the most educated parts of the U.S.) for four decades now, I can tell you that Americans are not very familiar with this word; they're likely to think it's just a dramatic way of saying "ultimate". Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The word "penultimate" strikes me as basic, and I am not a native speaker nor have I lived in an anglophone country. Is there a dictionary (or another RS) that says the word "penultimate" is not a universally accepted term, i.e. that US Americans might not recognize it? This article is written in New Zealand English; as the tag on the top of the page says, "some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from Australian, British, and other varieties of English." Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Americans being too stupid to understand simple words such as "penultimate" should not mean that we can't use them on an article written, as Surtsicna says, in NZE. In any case I've removed the phrase after discovering this discussion. —Hugh (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Of all the arguments for including the word, the claim that this article need not consider the common vocabulary of those stupid Americans is the only one clearly wrong. That is not what ENGVAR means. MOS:COMMONALITY, a subsection of ENGVAR, says: "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." Now that the word has been removed, this needs saying only because this is not the first time editors have mis-applied ENGVAR at this article. I hope it will be the last. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Penultimate means second last, not second highest. The 30th is the penultimate day of March; K2 is not the penultimate mountain of the Himalayas. Daveosaurus (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Valid point, but it also means second to last. Thus it becomes a usage issue, do we say it was the second from last highest or some other tortured sentence structure? Ultimately it is really not a major issue, it was the second from highest. But also the second from last or indeed one below. It's a matter of taste. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The highest level is only last in ascending scales. As we've seen in other states, things like this can go either way. I like to think the aim of counterterrorism is lowering the threat till it's ultimately gone. As for common usage, it seems common enough lately. Maybe better-known among sports fans, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This could be added to Penultimatly lamest edit wars. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
"Penultimately". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
oops Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Daveosaurus: penultimate is a perfectly good word that many English speakers can use properly... but that sentence does not do so. I would be prone to interpret the "penultimate terror level" as the level that was in effect the time before it was last changed. Wnt (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
And I, a highly fluent New Zealander, would interpret it as the second highest rating. On a scale increasing in severity from 1 to 10, it would be 9. Even when the context indicates your interpretation, it's likely to bamboozle readers. Find another way to phrase it. KISS principle. Akld guy (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
You may well be right about local interpretation. In the U.S. the word is not much used, so I feel that it hasn't participated as much in the shift in connotation that turns "ultimate" from "last" to "most extreme". Wikt:penultimate doesn't even mention that interpretation, and we already agree here, so maybe we should move over to Wiktionary to internationalize that word's entry. But the other thing is that in the U.S. at least, this implication of 'ultimate' is tied to what is conceivable, not what is enacted. If you see a blurb for a film about people living at the ultimate terror level you expect bioweapons, chips in heads, and concentration camps, not some bureaucrat from the DHS saying the color of the day is whatever the highest alert is. Even September 11 was hardly what I would call 'ultimate terror', unless you or a loved one were in the actual buildings. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The other other thing about confused implications (in the U.S., at least), is if you tell someone something about a "terrorism threat", they'll often interpret it as something about "terror" (or vice versa). The national terrorism threat level was never intended to measure and doesn't even mention terror (real or imagined), only the likelihood of terrorism (or even violent criminal or protest activity) occuring to a national (not to be confused with a nationalist).
Fun Fact: Despite existing in 38 of our sources' headlines alone, our article only mentions "terror" once (in Facebook's voice, no less). That's the legit scary flaw in widespread systemic reading comprehension; worrying whether an "ultimate thrill ride" threatens to be our last is a relatively safe and enjoyable mental exercise. Some might even call it "cathartic" (whatever that's supposed to mean). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

2605:E000:A44D:9200:9DB7:FE82:276E:96ED (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see more sources about the symbolism spotted on the Christchurch mosque shooter's firearms such as the Nazi/neo-Nazi misappropriated Tyr, Wolfsangel and Othala runes as well as the Archangel Michael's Cross of the pro-Nazi Romanian fascist organization Iron Guard, the shooter's support of the British Union of Fascists leader and British pro-Hitler, pro-Mussolini politician Oswald Mosley and the shooter's praise of Dylann Roof, Luca Traini, Anton Lundin Petersson, and Darren Osborne including the quote "take a stand against ethnic and cultural genocide" in addition to Anders Behring Breivik and the Candace Owens reference. I also want to see Candace Owens' reaction and the SPLC article added back in including the addition of the Neo-fascism template in the upper right corner alongside Islamophobia and Terrorism in New Zealand.

Sources:

11:21 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It would probably be quicker to list the alt-right symbols and memes that the shooter didn't reference. It is difficult to mention all of them unless there is notability established in secondary sources. The Candace Owens reference was removed because it was considered to have an element of irony/trolling/shitposting, leading to WP:BLP problems. As previously discussed, a lot of the manifesto does this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The article needs less stuff about his "manifesto", not more. The guy is not some kind of intellectual leader, he's a fucking idiot. The less crap about how much he idolized dylan roof the better. Wikipedia should not be a conduit for his trolling/shitposting MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree, lets not clutter up the article wit trivia.Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_8&oldid=935328691"