Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

It's reigning again.. but different

"Oldest reigning British monarch".. isn't she the only reigning British monarch, hence the oldest, youngest, fattest, thinnest, etc? Rich Farmbrough, 19:47, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Indeed, she's the oldest British monarch, in the UK history & the British Isles history, when you include the UK's predecessor kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oldest ever, in other words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed it to oldest monarch in the history of the United Kingdom. If others want to, they can expand it to oldest monarch in the history of the British Isles (even though the BI thing, will get a few editors screaming). GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! (East Atlantic Isles - Airstrip One - MegaCity 2(?)... ) Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
"oldest monarch in British history" seems better to me. john k (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer "longest-lived". Oldest can be a difficult word. Was William I older than William II?, well he was when they were both alive. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...yes. john k (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Need to be careful about using the "British" in this context. "Great Britain" as a state only existed between 1707 and 1801. Are you meaning more narrowly that she is the oldest reigning monarch of the UK ie the oldest reigning monarch since 1707 ? Or also that she is older than any of the monarchs of the preceding English Kings (which she is anyway) ? If referring to the island group is this statement also meant to be a statement about Irish, Welsh and Scottish kings and queens (it is true that she is older than any monarch of those nations but I'm not sure that's what OP was meaning). Marlarkey (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the broader sense is what is intended. In other words, it is supposed to mean the "longest-lived person to have reigned over the United Kingdom or its predecessor realms". I'm not sure it is necessary to use all those words. "Longest-lived British monarch" conveys that without being overly wording and giving the factlet more space than it should have. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This is only true if Richard Cromwell is not considered a monarch, but by any reasonable definition of the word he was. ðarkuncoll 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth II/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewers:

Checking against GA criteria

1. Well written:

a) Clear, yes. Concise, yes. Spelling and grammar, yes. A good start.
b) Lead section, yes. Perhaps needs shortening a little bit? But everything else in the Manual of Style?

2. Factually accuarate and verifiable:

a) There are plenty of references;
b) Plenty of references, from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
c) And no original research -

3. Broad in its coverage

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Maybe!

4. Neutral:

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias

5. Stable

Not really changing, some bot edits, but not edit wars.

6. Illustrated by images - only 14 images on whole page and most are portraits; but they are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions; all copyright and everything.

Now, there are five s and nine s, so the majority speaks for itself! This has a good chance of getting to Good Article status!

A few things here and there, but all in all...

Please reply to the discussion below. RCSprinter123 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just wondering if you have specifics where the article noes not pass GA? yet. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you mean? Rcsprinter (talk) - (Reviewer) 20:47 1 February 2011
For example 2.c). Give me a list of specific problems and I will work on it. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, right. Well...
1B - Lead section needs shortening a tiny bit to comply with the Manual of Style; sentences rearranged and paragraphs jiggling about... But still try and keep all the vital information in there.
2C - Not much, just needs verifying here and there, with the refs and all. All the sources need reviewing and classing as reliable, primary, secondary and tertiary sources. See Wikipedia:NOR for more info and a help guide on that subject;
3 - it does address the main aspects of the topic (the Queen), but goes into absolutely loads of detail that needs working on.
The prose size (text only) is 36kB. Queen Victoria has 41kB, and the FAs Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (31), George V of the United Kingdom (31), William IV of the United Kingdom (37), George III of the United Kingdom (35) each have about the same size. Considering she has had a long reign, I don't think the article is that over-detailed. Do you have specifics in mind? Nergaal (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Not really, I just thought that it seems to say an awful lot in detail, but I suppose your points are valid, she does have a long reign, and the other king/queen articles are about the same size, so you can leave it if you want, but I thought I had better just point it out as it needs to meet all criteria. RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
6 - And finally, all the pictures need reviewing for copyright and so on for a Good Article, so just whizz through those.
Work on all of the above and you will have yourself a Good Article.
Rcsprinter (talk) - (Reviewer) 16:36 2 February 2011
PS:Bet the queen'll be pleased!
Thank you for your review. I can comment on two of your comments:
On point 1B, the lead is the result of extensive discussion (see for example present talk page and an archive). It will, I believe, be extremely difficult to get agreement on any changes.
On point 6, there are two disputed images: File:Lizwar.JPG and File:Queen Elizabeth-1946.JPG. They are both tagged for deletion. There are two fair use images: one of those tagged for deletion and File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. All the others appear to have verifiable and correct public domain or creative commons licenses. DrKiernan (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Second reviewer

With all due respect to the original reviewer, I'm going to act as a second one and put the nomination on hold immediately until at least the photo issues (see above) are resolved. Copyright issues are some of the most serious issues that exist on Wikipedia. Also, because I feel this review was somewhat unclear with yes and no symbols, what exactly needs to be improved and what exactly the result of the review was (did it fail? is it on hold?) I'll review the article and share my additional thoughts, if I have any. It is quite a large article, after all. Again, the nomination will be on hold until at least the photo issues are resolved, and whether it remains on hold for a longer time, passes or fails will be determined then. Once the photo issues are resolved, I will let Rcsprinter have the final say regarding promotion (unless he allows me to). My thoughts on possible additional issues I see will follow shortly. Swarm X 23:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The two images were deleted. The CoA one is not clear to me what to do with it. Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The copyright information appears to be incorrect. If it was user created, it isn't protected by copyright and shouldn't be used according to fair use policy. I've contacted the image's creator to request that they fix it. Swarm X 13:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Coat of arms image was created in 1994 and protected under Canadian Crown Copyright. No matter if I made the image or not, the issue of derivative works still comes into play and we have to license the image the way it is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
While this would apply to logos, it does not apply to coats of arms. See my comments on Zscout's talk page. Swarm X 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Then my drawing is a faithful reproduction of said 1994 arms, so copyrighted it stays. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Swarm's review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice article, and it meets most of the GA criteria. Unfortunately, it does not qualify as a good article because it does not meet the stability criterion. Swarm X 15:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Is too much emphasis placed on the queen's role in the 15 other Commonwealth realms? I don't know, but it's currently in dispute.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    As of right now, 11 editors would support altering the lead to place more emphasis on her role in the UK. 15 would not support a change. This RfC reveals that, while there's no consensus for change, there's no consensus for its current form either. If the RfC ends with "no consensus," that does not mean "current lead endorsed." And, since issue clearly isn't going to go away, editors will have to agree on one, the other, or (the realistic option) compromise.
    Secondly, there has recently been a major edit war over the precise wording of "queen" (evidenced below). Out of the most recent 50 edits I sampled, 17 were edit warring revisions or alterations. That's more than a third!
    There's no way would I classify this article as stable when a third of the most recent 50 edits were edit warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A high level of instability is shown by the recent edit warring and the lack of consensus over the current lead's wording (evidenced by the sharply divided RfC). As stability is essential to a good article, I don't see any way to characterize this article as one. I want to make an important point: Considering the review from last year and Rcsprinter's list above, and my own careful review, I would pass this article if it was stable. For now, however, I will regrettfully close this as failed (assuming Rcsprinter wasn't going to return and pass it).


So because a few people edit war the article loses its status. The stupidity of wikipedia is incredible at times. Perhaps it should not be an encyclopaedia for all to edit if that is such a problem. A bunch of people can move around wikipedia creating arguments on articles to remove their GA status. Simply wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely there is stability if the issue in question has been resolved and the edit wars are not on going? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I find this approach puzzling. Nearly all of those edits relate to the activities of a single editor and the majority of other editors correcting him, on a single issue (the phrasing "Queen Regnant"). In fact what you see is the article stability being defended until consensus can be reached. The article itself is remarkably stable. It would appear based on this that only articles that have no controversy attaching to any element of them can be passed as GA/FA, is that correct? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The Good article criteria page has it down as one of the main criteria's. Not that I would recommend it but, if you want to sabotage a nomination that's the way to go about it. :) John Hendo (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
About the images, I already told you Swarm that the coat of arms of Canada is under Crown Copyright and cannot be placed under a free license. There is nothing "waiting to be resolved"; the Canadian Government already decided and we already decided at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Bras%C3%A3o_de_Armas_do_Canada.svg.png User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
@Britishwatcher There's no need to demean yourself by getting uncivil. Ongoing or recent edit wars are part of the "quick fail criteria". If you think articles that suffer from edit wars should still be allowed to be listed as good articles, you're free to start a discussion and try and get the guidelines changed by consensus. Apart from edit wars, "stability" means that there are no ongoing major content disputes (there's actually an RfC going on!). Also, the article didn't "lose its status," as it has never been listed as a good article. See the article milestones above. @James Edit warring is never acceptable on either side (unless dealing with vandalism). You can't edit war to "preserve stability". You are equally guilty of edit warring as everyone else. The edit war was a result of a legitimate content dispute that's closely divided. Anyone who thinks that this is all a result of "a single editor" clearly did not look at the diffs I provided. I mean, come on. I sorted through the history edit by edit so I would have evidence to back myself up! The least you can do is look at the evidence before challenging me. @Zscout The review has already been closed for a different reason. Anything having to do with the images is irrelevant at this point. Having a fair use rationale on a free image would not have impeded good article status anyway. That being said, I'll update the field since nothing's on hold.
Once all the disputes are resolved it can be renominated. I can't guarantee that it will pass obviously, but I can say, again, that in that situation I would list it as a GA. Swarm X 00:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Having a fair use rationale on a free image would not have impeded good article status anyway." As I told you, it is non-free and having a free license would not work. It was traced from a PNG file, so derivative work of something copyrighted. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_4#Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg. You can ask someone to make a drawing of it, I would suggest http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sodacan. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. The confusion came from how you worded your response, rather than saying "it was traced from a PNG file" you said "It was a faithful reproduction." I assumed that meant "I drew it" as opposed to "I traced it." Are we on the same page now? Swarm X 07:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. When I meant Faithful reproduction/trace, it was of the official image published by Canadian Heritage. I sent a message to that above user asking for a redrawing of the arms so a free version could be possible. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, alright, thanks for doing that. Swarm X 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Channel Islands

Shouldn't the article include something about her role as head of state of the Channel Islands (ie the Bailiwick of Jersey adn Bailwick of Guernsey) as a result of her position as Duke of Normandy ? They're crown dependencies but not part of the UK or EU, but in the islands she is not known or addressed as Queen Elizabeth. Marlarkey (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

I would like to propose that Queen Elizabeth II have her signature displayed as other monarchs have. I have uploaded a high-resolution PNG image of her signature with transparent background. Image size: 1654x838.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6646/queenelizabethiisignatu.png

~wizwaz3~ (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Queen of the UK ? Queen of the world !?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The numbers were as follows:

  • Support current lead: 15
  • Support change: 9
  • Support compromise: 1
  • Support current lead or compromise: 1

So 16 supported, or were willing to support, the current lead; 2 supported, or were willing to support, the compromise; and 9 wanted change. That's not enough to overturn the status quo. Having said that, the editors who argued that the list-like quality of the lead was inelegant made a good point. This is therefore an issue that's likely to arise again, so it would make sense for some form of compromise to be hashed out in the longer term. But for now, consensus favours the current lead. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Introduction - At issue is the lead paragraph, and specifically whether the lead paragraph ought to list all of the Commonwealth realms over which Elizabeth II legally rules.

Current Lead

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926) is the reigning queen and head of state of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 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. In addition, as Head of the Commonwealth, she is the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations and, as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Suggested Change

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926) is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms. She is also the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations and, as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Potential Compromise

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, born 21 April 1926) is the reigning queen and head of state of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms. She is resident in and most directly involved with the oldest realm, the United Kingdom. As Head of the Commonwealth, she is also the figurehead of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations and, as the British monarch, she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Description of Debate - This RfC comes after several protracted discussions which can be read above. Here are a brief list are arguments which have been put forward.

Pro Current Lead

  • A number of sources point to Elizabeth II's legal status in each Commonwealth realm as being equal to that in the UK. Therefore, mentioning the United Kingdom separately from the other realms, is counter factual and violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.
  • Failing to list the other realms makes them seem unimportant or "ghetto".

Pro Change

  • While in a legal sense, Elizabeth II might be equally the queen of the United Kingdom as she is St. Vincent and the Grenadines, in virtually every other sense (i.e. socially, culturally) she is primaly the queen of the UK. This can be demonstrated by search engine tests, which show that most references associate Elizabeth II with either the UK or Britain. Hence, listing out every country places undue emphasis on her role as queen of those countries.
  • Listing out every single country is laborious, and not in-line with the concision called for by WP:LEAD.

For the sake of simplicity, please respond to this RfC in the following format

  • Support Current Lead - This is obviously the only choice that makes sense. Joe Blow, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Change - This is obviously the better choice. Joe Smoe, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Compromise - The middle road is always best. Confustious Says, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Current Lead or Compromise - I could swing both ways. Androgewnus, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015

Thanks in advance for everyone's input! 12:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Change - The Queen & her family live in the UK. She was crowned in the UK. The British prime minister visits her the most often. She -in person- appoints the British prime minister. She was married in the UK, her children were married in the UK & two of her grandchildren are scheduled to be married in the UK (in 2011). UK has no Governor General, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support change - but is there any reason not to add the word "the" before "...15 other independent Commonwealth realms."? I had to double-check that "Commonwealth realms" means those countries over which she is sovereign, rather than meaning all Commonwealth countries. Stating "... queen regnant of the United Kingdom and the 15 other independent Commonwealth realms..." would be clearer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason not to either. I'll try to do this if the "change" motion carries. Alternatively, you can be WP:BOLD and do it yourself. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current lead: Relevance is relative to the reader. The Crowns were created equally to each other, so each realm must be represented equally. This is colonialsm all over again! Also, how many readers will know what a "Commonwealth realm" is? It's a vaguely official term barely known outside parliament. The lead of WP:LEAD clearly states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and "should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article". So no, when I want to read an article on the Queen of Australia, I'll expect Australia to be mentioned somewhere in the opening paragraph. Establishing context is essential. Nightw 16:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
re "created equally" - Legally speaking maybe, but are you really going to tell me the crown of St. Vincent and the Grenadines is as notable as that of the UK? NickCT (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Who are you? Are you British? Were you Vincentian, you might think differently. Your perspective is one of almost 7 billion. Are you so narrow-minded that you can't think that other people may feel differently? Notability, like relevance, is relative to the reader. Nightw 04:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am actually British, but I also have fairly deep family ties to St. Vincent and have spent a significant portion of my life there. Frankly, if you can't see why someone might say, the United Kingdom (population 62,041,708 , GDP 2,183,000,000,000) might be a little more notable than St. Vincent and the Grenadines (population 100,000 , GDP 1,000,000,000) , I'm not sure we're going to be able to have an intelligent debate. NickCT (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Note that our article on David Cameron is far longer than our article on Ralph Gonsalves, even though the latter has been prime minister for about ten times longer than Cameron (which is not to say that the Gonsalves article couldn't be longer than it is now; but there are obviously far, far more reliable sources that deal in detail with Cameron than ones that do the same for Gonsalves). Elizabeth II itself, of course, talks at far, far greater length about Elizabeth II's role in the United Kingdom than it does about her role in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Why are we allowed to exercise discretion of this sort most of the time, but when it comes to the lead the only consideration is the formal legal equality of the sixteen realms? The basic fact is that I don't care about formal legal equality. It is but one way of looking at things, and not the most important. john k (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead I imagine this is a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" the current one seems perfectly alright to me. Although I'd prefer if the figurehead was replaced to Head of the Commonwealth as that's her title within the Commonwealth. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
But, it is broke. Can you point to another biography of this importance that has a huge list of this nature in it? That doesn't seem the least bit unusual? NickCT (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to another case (apart from her predecessors) where a monarch reigns in not one but 16 countries? This is historically unprecedented. Unusual situations call for unusual solutions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There are tons and tons of monarchs who have ruled over many different distinct territories. Miesianiacal actually points to some below that do list several (but not all) of their realms, and there's many more. See, for example, Philip IV of Spain. He was, separately and distinctly, King of Castile, King of Portugal, King of Aragon, King of Navarre, King of Valencia, Count of Barcelona, King of Sardinia, King of Sicily, King of Naples, Duke of Milan, Count of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant, Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Limburg, Duke of Gelders, Count of Hainaut, Count of Namur, Count of Flanders, Lord of Malines, Margrave of Antwerp, and various other titles. Our article pares this down to King of Spain, King of Portugal, and ruler of the Spanish Netherlands. I'd personally pare it down further to remove the reference to the Spanish Netherlands. Also take a look at Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor - Charles V ruled even more lands than his great-grandson - all those territories except Milan and Portugal, but also Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Upper and Lower Austria, Duke of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, Princely Count of Tyrol (these all only briefly), Count of Holland and Zealand, Lord of Utrecht, Frisia, and so forth. The article intro, quite properly, only mentions his roles as Emperor and "King of Spain," ("Spain," properly speaking, did not exist until the 18th century; it was just a convenient term for the whole Iberian inheritance of Charles V and his descendants). In fact, Elizabeth II's role is anything but unique, and in other articles about monarchs who ruled many territories we are absolutely selective. If we don't have to mention specifically in the intro that Charles V and Philip IV were Counts Palatine of Burgundy and King of Naples, why do we have to mention that Elizabeth II is Queen of Tuvalu and Saint Lucia? john k (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but creating lists within a lead paragraph is just unusual for royal biographies, it's unusual for any biography. Katty Perry's lead only lists a few of her most important singles in the lead. Why doesn't it just list all of them? NickCT (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
All of her singles, it should be noted, are legally equal costing the same amount to purchase on iTunes and the same legal copyright protections. Choosing just some of those singles to mention in the lede, on the basis of mere "popularity" betrays POV-pushing. john k (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Philip II of Spain, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, George II of Great Britain, John VI of Portugal, as a few examples. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well in those cases the list is small. It's as easy to say "John VI of Portugal was king of Portugal and Brazil" as it is to say "John VI of Portugal was king of Portugal and realm subjugated by Portugal". Find me any biography (not necessarily royalty) that list 15 separate items in the lead that are attributed to the subject. NickCT (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Why? At what number does the cut-off occur? Three? Eight? Fourteen? Two of those articles I linked to above have listed in their leads 10 and 13 geographic areas over which the individual reigned.
Regardless, as I've said a number of times, I'm equally happy with replacing the list with "queen regnant of 16 independent states known as the Commonwealth realms." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the fact that she was head of state of Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, is mentioned only in the infobox and categories. Is there any other biography where the fact that someone was the head of state of a huge country is not mentioned anywhere in the text? We consider it sufficient to cover her previous role as Queen of Nigeria by mentioning it only among "25 other countries", "half of her realms", "the Commonwealth", "Africa and the Caribbean" and "over 20 countries", etc. We already apparently accept that we can use short concise summary phrases to encapsulate details; if we didn't the article would soon become unwieldy. DrKiernan (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support change I'm an uninvolved editor who lives outside the Commonwealth. The introductory paragraph should not contain such lengthy minutiae. Even though the material is fascinating to me, I would expect to see it in the body of the article, not in the lead. The initial "change" proposed seems very good to me. Apollo (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current lead with addition, or "compromise" - The requester's proposed rewording puts an undue and counterfactual emphasis on the United Kingdom when speaking of the countries of which Elizabeth II is queen, separating Britain from the other realms and lumping the latter into a common, second class group (a "ghetto" - the noun - not "ghetto" - the adjective NickCT mistakenly uses). Dividing the countries this way clarifies nothing; it can imply all sorts of inaccuracies: Elizabeth's position in the non-British realms is an afterthought, or, worse, that the non-British realms are still under the Queen of the United Kingdom.
In reality, completely apart from their monarch's primary place of residence, the equality of the realms under the sovereign has been established not only in law but also in diplomacy and practice for over 80 years:
    • 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."[18]
    • "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
Subjective opinions on social and cultural relevance, anecdotes, and a Google search are not reliable sources that override the above.
There is no reason the equality of Elizabeth's queenship in the realms cannot be expressed alongside the equally valid fact that she lives predominantly in the UK and thus more often personally carries out her queenly duties there. Hence, I support the wording of the lead, as it is, with the addition of the sentence "She is resident in and most directly involved with the oldest realm, the United Kingdom"; the present opening is a compromise reached years ago and which has stood accepted ever since, even through various other changes to the lead and GA reviews. I certainly don't feel we should sacrifice clarity and accuracy for the sake of verbal frugality. However, the "potential compromise" given (a second option, really) works just as well with fewer words and so I give it my support as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
re "a "ghetto" - the noun - not "ghetto" - the adjective NickCT mistakenly uses" - Nice little jab. Well, I guess if you hadn't been a dick I might be worried it wasn't you. I guess this is the "I've got substance to my argument, better start with the ad hominen attacks" routine? And I thought Canadians were a nice passive group...
But seriously, it does look as though you have one or two supporters here. Curiously, they appear to be like minded royalists..... This makes wonder whether the current wording really is a WP:PEACOCK attempt. NickCT (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and comment on the content, not the contributors. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at those right after you're done with Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As the 1931 Westminister Statue is being used as the reason for equality. Why weren't the same changes to this article, made at George V of the United Kingdom, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom & George VI of the United Kingdom. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. This page really get treated unequally, both in the context of the subject under discussion and in the context of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). NickCT (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Those articles already handle the subject matter correctly: When those sovereigns acceded to the thrones, the term "Commonwealth realm" didn't yet exist; that group of countries was known as the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, which is what's stated in the leads of the three articles you point to. The terminology changed over time to reflect the equality of the countries, pretty much catching up by the time Elizabeth became queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The crown of Australia was around under George VI. Why isn't he mentioned in his article's lead as King of Australia? NickCT (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
He is; Australia was one of the Dominions of the British Empire. If you mean to ask why his article's lead doesn't specifically say he was "King of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ceylon, etc...", then I don't know the precise answer. It could well use that method of expressing what George VI was king of, just as the lead of this article does. But, conversely, "King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth" works there just as well as "queen of 16 independent states known as the Commonwealth realms" would here. Besides the number of words used, it's a matter of six and half a dozen to me. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait a sec.... so you're OK with the wording "King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth" but not "queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms"?! That seems a little fantastic. NickCT (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
One accurately reflects the terminology of the time. The other does not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well... I think the point is that the nature of Monarchy is UK-centric, hence it would be appropriate to take a UK-centric tone. Also, I don't mean to needle here, but WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to establishing notability. That's not what we were trying to do here. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "the nature of Monarchy is UK-centric"? Many other countries have monarchies (and not just the other Commonwealth Realms either). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. That was confusing. I mean the nature of the Monarch in question is UK-centric. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if that is the case, it's certainly not for the monarchies she heads. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but could you explain your logic? The debate about whether or not the term "head of state" is applicable to Elizabeth in the Australian context doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not she's somehow less Queen of Australia than she is Queen of the United Kingdom. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the changed wording, which reflects the situation on this precise point. I'm indifferent to the other matters. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I still don't follow. Simply removing the words "head of state" from the present lead would satisfy your concern just as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This Bio article is mostly a British bio article. The article topic was born in the UK & will likely be buried in the UK. Since the intro is a reflection of the article, have United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've already explained (with reliable sources) how the monarch's birthplace and place of usual residence have no bearing on the equality with which she holds her crowns. The lead can communicate the subject's relationship to the UK without driving a POV division through the group of monarchies Elizabeth heads equally. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of the article, is about her being British & being the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
After just scanning the article, it seems the first observation is not true and the second one is hardly true and irrelevant anyway. I reiterate: The lead can communicate the subject's relationship to the UK without driving a POV division through the group of monarchies Elizabeth heads equally. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a Canadian monarchist opinon though. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No. It's simply a demonstrable fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is disputed, as 1 of the 16 realms doesn't have a Governor-General. 1 of the 16 realms is host to the royal weddings. 1 particular realm, is where the Queen's coronation took place, where most of her ancestors are buried. Even in the Canadian royal style, the United Kingdom is given prominiance over Canada. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't get how any of that relates to either the claim that the article is about Elizabeth being British and the British monarch or that the lead can communicate the subject's relationship to the UK without driving a POV division through the group of monarchies Elizabeth heads equally. If you mean to say that the location of royal weddings and a coronation somehow mean Elizabeth doesn't hold her crowns equally, then you're using POV and OR to try and override reliably sourced facts. The law, governments, diplomats, historians, and political scientists have recognised, and continue to recognise, the equality of the realms, completely regardless of weddings, coronations, and titles (of which only three out of the 16 the Queen holds mention the UK, and one of those is her British title). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
We're just going in circles here. I'm not gonna convince you & you're not gonna convince me. Best we let others chip in (from here on). GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's no fun. Now I have no excuse not to go and do the dishes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Just aswell for both of us. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am opposed to the UK being singled out among the Commonwealth realms, although "she is resident in and most directly involved with her oldest realm, the United Kingdom" strikes me as quite reasonable. (If I recall correctly, a similar sentence used to be there; I'm not sure when or why it disappeared.) I do think it's important to name the countries of which she's monarch—it doesn't add too much length, and is very likely something a reader of the article would want to know promptly. I suppose this all means I want a compromise between the current paragraph and the compromise proposal. Alkari (?), 13 January 2011, 01:04 UTC

  • Support Current Lead or Compromise - but she is the Head not figurehead of the Commonwealth. Eddaido (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead The lead (especially the opening sentence) can never give all the details of the subject of the article so there is alway a conflict between being concise and being accurate. In this case, on balance, I thing it is slightly preferable to give more detail at the start, as now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Compromise - I'm uninvolved with this topic and have no strong opinions either way. The compromise version seems to be accurate and concise though. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise is generally good but in this case it reads like a bit of a camel. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if that was true (which I don't think it is, at all), it'd be better than something that's misleading. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You're free to choose as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out above there is often a conflict in the lead of an article between accuracy and conciseness. That fact is that, in some ways QEII is equally the queen of all the commonwealth realms and in other ways she is not. This can all be explained in the body of the article but it is pretty well impossible in the lead. Bearing this in mind, I think that proposed changed lead would also be fine (although I slightly prefer the current one). The compromise version is the worst because it attempts to do the impossible and thus reads rather clumsily and unencylopedically. Martin Hogbin (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't share your opinion of the "compromise" (it is, to me, hardly clumsy, and even if it is a bit, that could be remedied with some minor tweaking). But, I too am satisfied with the present opening; though it could do with the re-insertion of the few words about where Elizabeth lives most of the time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not intending to be critical of whoever write the proposed compromise, I just think it attempts the impossible although maybe someone very good with words could pull it off. In the end, the lead can never cover everything, that is the point of the main body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change, of course, for reasons I have frequently discussed before. The Compromise would also be acceptable, although less optimal. BTW, an alternative possible compromise: "Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and thirteen other commonwealth realms." I'm not too keen on it, but it'd be better than the present mess, and it's perfectly reasonable to mention only the three largest and oldest realms, which between them contain the vast majority of subjects of Elizabeth II. john k (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current lead - Mentioning the UK without any other realm in the lead is a violation of WP:NPOV. The present lead is probably the best, and coincidentally seems to mention the realms in the order Elizabeth is most involved in with. And, additionally, a Google search for "queen elizabeth ii united kingdom" gives less results than one for "queen elizabeth ii australia" or "queen elizabeth ii canada". --~Knowzilla (Talk) 05:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I genuinely don't understand this NPOV claim. Mentioning all sixteen realms is the violation of NPOV, because it violates due weight. The United Kingdom is genuinely a more important country than any of the other realms, and certainly than all of the other realms besides Canada and Australia. It is also the only realm in which Elizabeth II actually regularly exercises the role of head of state, as the other fifteen realms all have governors-general who customarily perform all the practical duties of the head of state. Mentioning the UK individually in the intro, but not the other realms, is perfectly appropriate because reliable sources in general talk far more about her role in the UK. This obsession with the legal equality of all sixteen realms is being given far more importance than any conception of due weight would give it; as Nick has said, in every sense other than the formal legal one, Elizabeth II's reign in the UK is far more significant than her reign anywhere else. Your google search, by the way, is ridiculous - it doesn't even come out with the same results when I do it on my computer (I get slightly more for the United Kingdom one), and basic google searches don't tell us much of anything anyway. john k (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
John, how do you cope with the burden of speaking on behalf of the entire world? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That's just childish, Mies. john k (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No. A little glib, maybe. But the point is there nonetheless: You're assuming the voice of some 80 million people outside the United Kingdom and assuming their voice says the queen of their respective countries means less to them than she does to the Brits. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather closer to 70 million than 80 million. At any rate, I don't care what people in Canada or Tuvalu think, and I was making no claim to speak for them. I care what reliable sources say, and reliable sources emphasize her rule in the UK over her rule in the other commonwealth realms. If anyone is claiming to speak on behalf of the peoples of the commonwealth realms, surely it is you, with your unsourced contentions that Elizabeth II means exactly as much, and no more, to them as she does to the Brits. I don't care how much she means to anyone, Brits, Canadians, Tuvaluans, or otherwise. I care about what she actually does, and what reliable sources say about her. john k (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Your lack of concern for what people in Canada or Tuvalu think was made pretty clear when you said the UK is more important than any other country that has Elizabeth as sovereign. No reliable source affirms that opinion of yours; because some focus on her role as Britain's queen doesn't mean her role as Britain's queen is more important than her role elsewhere. It just affirms that she's more often personally engaged with the UK, which nobody here has ever denied. I've provided the sources that show she's queen of all her realms equally; yet you keep arguing in favour of wording that subverts, or at least muddies, that fact. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This is pure madness. When reliable sources talk about one aspect of a subject more than others, we can infer that that aspect is more important than the others. For example, Abraham Lincoln lived 56 years and 62 days. Each day was just as long as the others, and Lincoln spent equal amounts of time each of those days engaging in a variety of activities. However, all biographies of Lincoln tend to give disproportionate focus to the 4 years and 42 days of his presidency. Biographers do this because they believe that this period of his life is more important than the earlier part of his life. General histories of Europe spend much more time on French history than they do on Swiss history. That's because they think France is more important than Switzerland, even though both countries are fully sovereign. I don't see how it is even vaguely controversial to say that the United Kingdom is a more important country than Tuvalu. john k (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Madness is looking at sources that focus on her role as Queen of the UK and concluding that all sources focus on her role as Queen of the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current. Again? How many times to we have to address this. I strongly support the current lead. NPOV Brian | (Talk) 09:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current. Firstly, encyclopaedic facts should come before the need for concision. Secondly, although I understand the WP:LEAD; this is a special case in trying to impress upon readers (within the first few lines) the complicated concepts of the Statue of Westminster and the situation of the Commonwealth. To state that the Queen spends more time in the UK - and then that makes her more Queen of the UK (And therefore the only realm worthy of mention) is a POV, even if that is fact (BTW where is the source on this please?). I think the clinical and legally correct, even if a little long-winded, current lead is the most neutral of the suggestions and should stay. Sodacan (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • She is not "more" Queen of the UK. She is equally queen of all sixteen realms, something which none of the proposed texts denies. Her role as queen of the UK is, however, more important. Barack Obama is equally president of the United States, a former United States Senator, a lawyer, a husband and a father of two. We only mention the first two in the first paragraph; we mention the third in the second paragraph; and don't mention the last two until the "family and personal life section." This is because his role as president of the United States is more important than his other roles, even though he is equally all of those things. In Elizabeth II's case, we mention the fact that she is head of state of all sixteen realms in the opening paragraph, but, just as we can judge that Obama's role as President of the United States is more important to readers than his role as father of two, we can similarly judge that Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the UK is more important to readers than her role as Queen of Tuvalu. To make this judgment is not to make a POV judgment; it's to represent the emphases of virtually all reliable sources. In fact, there is far more discussion in reliable sources about Barack Obama as family man than there is of Elizabeth II as Queen of Tuvalu. There are thousands of articles in wikipedia about people who wear or wore multiple hats. It is the job of an encyclopedia to make jugments, based on reliable sources, about which hats are significant enough to talk about in the lead, which should be dealt with in other parts of the article, and which can safely be ignored. In the case of Elizabeth II, it is not even slightly a hard call to look at reliable sources and see that her most significant role, for encyclopedic purposes, is as Queen of the UK. john k (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I’m totally uninvolved in this issue, but can’t avoid barging in here to pointout the flaw in your logic. An article on Barack Obama, just another lawyer would not be on Wikipedia, even less on as a father of two. We have an article on him because he is the 44th President of United States. Queen of Grenada on the otherhand would have her own Wikipedia article even if she is not the Queen of UK. I don’t see people arguing here to state that EIIR was formerly a princess or to state that she has mothered princes and princess. I’m sorry, am not in for an argument, but with all due respect, your logic can’t be more wrong. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, whose "logic can't be more wrong" San Roze, are you talking about John K or Brian from the above comments please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, am talking about John K's comment. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if Grenada had its own queen, she would have her own article. It would be an article comparable to Letsie III of Lesotho or Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. And note that those two have far more of an active role in governing their countries than Elizabeth II does in Grenada. Are you suggesting that there are only two levels of importance worth considering, "notable" and "non-notable"? Being Queen of the United Kingdom is more important than being Queen of Grenada, there are far, far more reliable sources that discuss EIIR's reign in the UK, and it is perfectly appropriate for our article to follow them in emphasizing her reign in the UK over her reign elsewhere. john k (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
My comment in this thread was for your view on Obama the father of two not being mentioned in the lead. If you want to discuss your logic of notable vs non notable let us have it further down where I am already discussing this. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not try for avoiding words like directly involved in a compromise. Have something such as the compromise and change the second sentence to "She resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in her other realms by a governor general." Or if you want to flip it "She is represented by a governor general in all her realms except the United Kingdom where she resides." Not perfect, but this is a biography, it'd be nice to know what country her majesty resides in! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is a better compromise text. I'd want it to be combined with removal of specific mentions of the other fifteen realms to some other part of the article. john k (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It's the eagerness for recognition, that's behind alot of this 16 are equal push, at this article (and across the 'pedia), not a push for NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current lead Although she is permanently-resident in the United Kingdom, (since she has to live somewhere 180+1 days of the year), the Queen is still HoS in each of those places with a 'Vice-Royal'. I try not to think of the Monarchy as just a person, instead, it is an institution. In this case it just so happens that these separate institutions have vested that power into the same individual. This really is no different than when someone serves on two different corporate boards of directors. Their service to each board doesn't diminish the other. Several examples of this can be witnessed at Apple Computer. If you look at the board, several of the board members appear to be serving concurrently on other boards too. Actually, BT as well when you look at the CEO's bio CaribDigita (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The monarchy is not a person, but an institution, or rather, several. And we have articles about those monarchies. Elizabeth II, on the other hand, is a person, and this article is about her. Her being queen of the United Kingdom does not diminish her status as Queen of Grenada. But Grenada is much less important than the United Kingdom, and because of the existence of a Governor-General of Grenada, the role of Queen of Grenada is of even less importance compared to that of Queen of the United Kingdom. When we have articles about someone who is a CEO of one major company, and then a mere member of the board of directors at other, smaller, companies, we would expect the article to mostly focus on his role as CEO. If the number of smaller companies on which he is on the board is sufficiently high, and the article is sufficiently extensive, we might even divert mention of the other companies to somewhere else. john k (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Saying Elizabeth II is "queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms" does nothing but diminish her status as Queen of Grenada. The fact that she is more often personally engaged with the UK can be communicated without resorting to such POV wording. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not POV to treat the practical realities of the world as being just as important as constitutional theory. Constitutionally, the sixteen crowns are equal, which is why we should say she is "Queen of the UK and fifteen other independent Commonwealth realms" - nothing in that sentence implies that they are not constitutionally equal. That's what the word "independent means." In actual practice, her role in the United Kingdom is much more important, which is why we are singling it out, as reliable sources tend to do - Britannica, for example, or the New York Times. Your argument seems to be that theoretical constitutional equality negates any judgments based on the way things actually work in the real world. This is nonsense. john k (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
"Queen of the United Kingdom and some other countries" is not an unbiased sentence; anyone can see it favours Elizabeth's position as queen in Britain over her positions as queen in the remaining realms. Not only can that bias not be justified by saying her duties in Britain are different to her duties elsewhere - since her duties in Britain actually aren't unique amongst the realms, nor does different necessarily mean more important or relevant - duties are not position and a number of reliable sources say her positions as queen are equal in all the realms.
There are two known facts here: 1) Elizabeth is queen of all her realms equally. 2) Elizabeth resides in and thus is more often personally engaged with the UK. "Elizabeth II is queen regnant of the United Kingdom and 15 other independent Commonwealth realms" communicates the opposite of the former and doesn't communicate the latter at all. What is optimum is either "Elizabeth II is queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 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; she resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in her other realms by a governor general", or "Elizabeth II is queen regnant of the 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms and is resident in and most directly involved with the oldest realm, the United Kingdom", or "Elizabeth II is queen regnant of the 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms; she resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in her other realms by a governor general", or something akin to that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be reasonably happy with your last formulation as a compromise. My only tweak would be to prefer "of 16 independent sovereign states" rather than "of the 16 independent sovereign states." john k (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it and I've no objection to your tweak. I imagine that, if the consensus is for the compromise/third option, then there will have to be another discussion on the finer details. But, we shall first have to see how this plays out . --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Another known fact, the international community views & recognizes her as the UK's monarch. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
And here's one more: the international community views and recognises her as Australia's monarch. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
How often & when last, which foreign trip? Also, whatabout her Canadian Styles and Titles, where it reads "By the Grace of God...", it has the UK mentioned before Canada. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't make sense of your question. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Canada & Grenada have ...of the United Kingdom' before ...of Canada & ...of Grenada respectively (see the Styles & Titles page). GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. But, I thought we were talking about how Elizabeth II is recognised by the international community in a wider discussion about how to describe in this article's lead her positions as queen. Her titles in two countries seem to have little to no bearing on either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I just don't recall reading or hearing about the Tuvaluian Queen visiting the USA, the Australian Queen visiting France, the Canadian Queen visiting Germany. Howabout within the Commonwealth realms? The New Zealand Queen visiting Australia, the Grenadian Queen visiting the United Kingdom or the St. Lucian Queen dropping in on New Zealand. The British Queen visiting Canada or the Canadian Queen visiting the UK. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) again I'm afraid I still don't follow. The Queen doesn't pay visits to herself. She has made state and official visits to other nations on behalf of Canada and Australia (and has acted specifically as queen of those countries and New Zealand in the UK), and does make most of her state visits as Queen of the UK. But, again, the relevance of this to our discussion is unknown. The Queen has never paid a visit to Venezuela, as Queen of Tuvalu, New Zealand, the UK, or anywhere. Is that supposed to mean something? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If she chooses, Elizabeth II can visit Canada as the British monarch. She can visit the UK as the Canadian monarch. Afterall, are those not seperate Heads of State? GoodDay (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't we hearing about the Canadian royal couple getting married in April 2011? or was that the Australian royal couple. Why hasn't CBC news & CTV news been reporting that the Queen of Canada has be visiting the UK, so often? GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As I crowed before, those in favour of 16 are equal, have got to show some flexibility on 1 of 3 things. 1) The title. 2) The intro or 3) The infobox. This sign of flexiability will ease tensions. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if I would regard her as less in Grenada etc. I mean if she tells H.E. The Governor-General in Grenada, Barbados, St. Lucia, or elsewhere that royal assent cannot be granted on any certain bill I think that would be the end of it? I don't think the G.G. can outright flout Elizabeth's authority. I mean several former Governors were led back to England in shackles in the earliest years of Barbados' history for not following the wishes of the then Imperial Crown. CaribDigita (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the end of it, because the monarchy would in practice be immediately abolished if the Queen tried to do anything without being advised to do so by her government in that realm. There is no chance whatever that the Queen would order governor-generals to refuse assent to any measure, just as there is no chance that she will never refuse assent to any measure within the UK. I'm not sure what your point is.john k (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment From 1589 to 1830, the Monarchs of France were also Monarchs of Navarre. From 1871 to 1918, the Monarchs of Prussia were also Monarchs of Germany. From 1814 to 1905, the Monarchs of Sweden were also Monarchs of Norway. Heck today, the French Presidents are also co-princes of Andorra. In those incidences, 1 role was presented as more prominent then the other, even though legally equal. GoodDay (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • These examples aren't so great - Navarre was just a title, not a separate realm, at least after 1620; the Prussian and Swedish monarchs list both realms in their articles. Note that most articles on presidents of France don't mention Andorra anywhere, though. I think better examples are the Kings of Spain from 1516 to 1713, who ruled over numerous different realms, most of which we don't mention specifically in the intro to their article. The same is true of the Austrian Habsburg rulers. We say Leopold I was Emperor and King of Hungary and Bohemia, but don't feel the need to specifically mention Austria, Styria, Carinthia, etc. Our intro to Napoleon I calls him only Emperor of the French, not mentioning that he was also King of Italy. The intro to Charles the Bold calls him Duke of Burgundy, but not Duke of Brabant, count of Flanders, and the various other titles he held. Hell, even Elizabeth II already doesn't mention her reigns in South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, the Gambia, Guyana, Mauritius, or Fiji, which were just as legally equal as the other sixteen. john k (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • So far we've got 11-in favour of current, 6-in favour of change & 2-in favour of compromise. If the trend continues, I've an idea for a 2nd compromise. GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, yas beat it out of me. Here's my 'compromise', make tweaks to the current lead. Have it as thus "...is queen regnant of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada ...." Remove the 16 commonwealth realms & Head of State things , keep the UK listed first, with the other 15 in alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't think when the realms are listed the UK should be first. The debate has to do with her residence and more direct personal influence there, but when listing her positions, best to keep alphabetical. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather than "alphabetical order, but UK first", I'd favor retaining the current order of the realms, by date of independence—which results in the UK being listed first anyway. Alkari (?), 16 January 2011, 10:11 UTC
I agree, leave it as it is. As I have said before you will never get everything right in one paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No probs, but atleast change it to 'Queen regnant' & leave out the 'head of state' & '16 commonwealth realms' parts. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change. Most of the planet thinks "Britain" when they think of Her Maj. It's just down to plain notability - she is quite clearly the heir and (at least partial) blood descendant first and foremost of the very long line of Kings and Queens of England, Scotland, Normandy and places eastwards that make up the British Royal Family. The Commonwealth is a very new institution compared to all that history. It is also flexible and subject to change - note that for example many in Australia are eager to dispense with her and there has been a referendum, which could be held again. When people think of the Queen, they think Buck House. They think Beefeaters. They think of her family and they think of Helen Mirren and they think of Windsor Castle and they think of Prince Philip and Diana and Charles and the rest. The Commonwealth is in that thinking ladder somewhere, but it is down the list. Long overdue suggestion to change it and well made. Strong support. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support current lead. Has anyone reviewed the still currently in-play state of Fiji, republic, Commonwealth ejectee. This country's motto remains "Fear God and Honour The Queen" and in the box under Government still lists "Paramount Chief of Fiji, Queen Elizabeth II". Somehow, perhaps after all those personal visits by her, even if she does not live there, they seem to remain notably anxious to hope to keep the strong connection and Elizabeth in the usual position, whether she accepts it or not. Could this mean, should she consider using it, she might have some influence on that government's behaviour? Eddaido (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but, while conciseness is valuable, I thought accuracy and clarity should be considered first, brevity second. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The question is really "How much accuracy do you sacrifice to gain how much accuracyconcision". If we wanted to super technical and 100% accurate the lead could be 10,000 words.
What really matters at the end of the day is the WP reader. Does the reader want a long, technical, accurate lead? Or does the reader want a lead that is short, and easy-to-read but lacks nuance? My feeling is usually that we should assume readers are laymen looking for basics.
It strikes me that in our example the amount of accuracy we're losing is insignificant, and the amount of brevity we're gaining is large. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree at all that conciseness is paramount to accuracy and clarity. Good writing seeks to find a balance between all three, and it's not impossible. The "compromise"/third option (or some slightly tweaked variation of it) explains Elizabeth's positions as queen in a manner that uses only the number of words required to get the facts across with accuracy, clarity, and neutrality. The "change"/second option may be brief, but it achieves that in a way that leaves the sentence unclear at best, misleading, at worst. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
re "Good writing seeks to find a balance between all three" - Note that's sorta of what I said with "How much accuracy do you sacrifice to gain how much accuracyconcision". Albeit with a typo. Anyways... we're rehashing old points and getting off-topic. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
For a long time on this article, I've been pleading for balance. Title, Infobox, Intro - I've requested that ..of the United Kingdom and the 15 other... be added to either 1 of 3. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead The Queen herself would be horrified if someone thought she or others regarded her UK responsibilities as more important than her other responsibilities as Head of State of the other realms. I am not a royalist by heart but I am by head. There is great value when there is a non political Head of State and her having many hats as it were has greatly benefited (IMHO) all her realms. The Queen has been faultless as far as I am aware in handling this juggling act. And part of the reason for that is because she does take her other roles very seriously. Apparently it sometimes annoys UK Prime Ministers when she swaps hats and speaks to them on behalf of some country other than the UK. They get an unfair advantage in that sense because the Queen meets with the UK Prime Minsister weekly. In practical matters the legal situation is very clear and the Queen takes her various roles very seriously indeed. To suppose otherwise is pure devilment. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We're not really asking what is "more important"; rather, we're simply questioning which country she's most strongly associated with. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As a side-note, this user likely hounded me from Park51. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead She has to reside in one of the realms and UK being the oldest it is only fair that she lives there. Having said this, I do realise the question is not on what is fair and what isn’t. If I were to read on the Politics of Grenada and end up in this article would it not be disgraceful for the article not to state in the lead that she is the queen of that independent nation? I see no reason to be unfairly bias on Grenada (or any nation) over United Kingdom. She is the head of all these nations – period! It is not for the wiki community to be bothered if she exercises one better than the other. (I am from a Commonwealth nation, and a former resident of three members of the Commonwealth realm). --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Question wasn't really whether she governs one "better", but whether she is more strongly associated with one over the other. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Association would differ from person to person. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to tell people what they already know (nor to stress on that), by to the contrary it should present facts without bias. Be it a prominent nation like the UK or a tiny island nation of the Commonwealth realm. Just because some people might associate her with the UK doesn't make her more notable as a British monarch alone. I have already read the discussions so far, and only after that did I chose to support the current lead. So unless there are anything new which had not been already I personally find no reason to change my stance. And to add - I don't want to beat around the bush either. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
re "just because some people might associate her with the UK doesn't make her more notable as a British monarch alone." - If most RSs note her as a British monarch then she is most notable as a British monarch, as dictated by WP:NOTABLE, WP:V and WP:RS. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Which reliable sources are these? Where are they from? And where are the quantitative totals for us to compare? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, I think Nick means to say that if more RS material call her monarch of the UK then it becomes more notable. [Correct me if I am wrong on this Nick.] However, if this is right, I'm afraid Nick has interpreted the wikipolicies wrong. I am assuming good faith that this interpretation is not deliberate. I would strongly advice him to go read them again. These policies are relevant on the issue if we mention that she is not the right regent according to the line of succession as shown by Tony Robinson in a TV documentary (not sure if it was BBC or Channel 4). However here it is about established facts and not about contradicting facts. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
@Wiki San Roze I've interpreted them wrong, huh? So you don't think policy supports the idea that "An individual/subject is notable for what RSs note them for"? @MIESIANIACAL - We've already discussed this. It's called google testing. I've provided evidence that the gross majority of sources discuss EII in the context of the UK. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Google is not a repository for all the world's reliable sources, nor does it limit its searches to just reliable sources. From WP:GOOGLE: "Search engines cannot: Guarantee the results are reliable or 'true'...; guarantee why something is mentioned a lot...; guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean...; guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression; [or] guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant...; and search engines often will not:... be neutral." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute anything you just said. Google certainly is not the final word or 100% reliable on how a majority of sources name/treat/refer to/associate any particular person/subject. It is, however, a good indication of how a majority of sources name/treat/refer to/associate any particular person/subject; hence, Wikipedia:Search engine test. So, I'll say again, Google seems to suggest most RS associates EII with the UK. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Google seems to suggest what's popular, not what's neutral, accurate, or reliable. Besides, suggestions are a pretty weak foundation to build a case on. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, if by popular you mean "notable" then I think we've achieved consensus on this point. To your second point; while, as you point out, search engine tests are'nt a completely solid grounds on which to build a case, I'd suggest they're slightly stronger than one's own POV. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
You claimed most reliable sources focus on Elizabeth's role as Queen of the United Kingdom, as proven by a Google search, which means her role as the UK's queen is more notable than her role all 15 of her other realms. But, the Google search doesn't affirm that most reliable sources focus on Elizabeth II as Britain's queen: As I've said at least twice already, Google searches are not limited to reliable sources, nor do they go through all the reliable sources in the world; Google picks through whatever’s in English and on the Internet, and how popular the use of the words "Elizabeth II" together with "Britain" is amongst thousands of biased, inaccurate, and unreliable sources certainly does not even suggest that the role of Queen of the UK is more notable than, say, the role of Queen of Jamaica.
WP:GOOGLE: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability... Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive." Hence, I've stuck to using actual reliable sources. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We're going around in circles. There is a difference between "suggests" and "proves". I accept and agree that "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability", but what I am saying and have been saying for a while now is that a raw hit count can be used to suggest notability, and hence it "is helpful in .... establishing notability," Again, I have something suggesting EII is primarily associated with the UK. What do you have suggesting that that's not true? NickCT (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Which country Elizabeth is primarily associated with is not in question; that's a red herring. What you claimed was "if most RSs note her as a British monarch then she is most notable as a British monarch." Your Google search, for aforementioned reasons, doesn't even suggest most reliable sources note Elizabeth as a British monarch. All it shows is that a certain number of mostly unreliable, biased, and/or inaccurate online sources refer to her as British monarch, which is no justification for overriding WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:WORLDVIEW to relegate Elizabeth's non-British queenships to a second class. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Saying those sources are un-reliable, biased and/or inaccurate, is merely your opinon. Just because ya don't like what a source says, doesn't mean you 'alone' get to disqualify it. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No, GoodDay, WP:RS tells us which sources are reliable and which aren't, and 90% of what comes up in a Google search fails the criteria. (Hell, often it's mostly mirrors of Wikipedia.) WP:GOOGLE bases much of itself around that fact. Have you read it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok fine. So 90% of the 1,000 hits associating EII with the UK are unreliable. Similarly, 90% of the 100 hits associating her with Australia are unreliable. That still means more RS associates her with the UK. NickCT (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If most reliable sources show Elizabeth II's status as UK monarch being more prominant, doesn't WP:V kick in? On sources alone, the 16 are equal crowd would be in the minority easily. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NOTABLE are all pertinent at that point. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I can't get anybody to agree to balance this article, by putting of the United Kingdom in either the article title (via page move), infobox or intro. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
OK let me start again. As you all know well, I have never interacted with any single one of you earlier. So we can be pretty sure that I am not working here on any preconceived opinion. Having said that, let me make it clear - if shown good reason I am ready to change my opinion. However, am afraid, that the debate has just turned into an argument here and for me it looks like the interest of Wikipedia is being completely lost in the squabble.
As for the question concerned here: You wouldn't find enough reliable sources on smaller countries. But that doesn't mean that those countries become unreliable. You will obviously find more RS materials talking about EIIR's role in the UK than in other countries, because the British media has more internet presence than the smaller nations of the Commonwealth realm. This is why you find Australia and Canada more common (next to the UK). But the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor is to find the balance between all perspective and not limit the article to what is found on the internet. (Learnt this from personal experience on working with a India - Pakistan related articles where most sources support India/Gandhi but I had to balance the article with Pakistan's point of view too). Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
re "because the British media has more internet presence" - Well that's obviously patently false. If your browse through results from the search engine testing above, it was rarely the "British media" that was contributing to hits. Additionally, even if you were right, and the reason you got more hits was b/c there was more British media, that essentially means that the UK is generally more notable, ergo EII's role as Queen of the UK is more notable than that of other countries.
Consider that Nicolas Sarkozy is head of both France and Andorra, and yet there is no mention of poor Andorra in Sarkozy's lead. Perhaps the Andorran media just doesn't have much internet presence? NickCT (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
O dear Lord! Nick, you have ceased to make sense anymore. Sarkozy's lead does state that he is the co-prince of Andorra. FYI, I am an Indian who currently lives outside the Commonwealth and no way a royalist. So how about facing the fact that you have failed to convince someone who is a third party yet with knowledge of the subject and barged in only after reading the discussions. Ciao. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
O dear indeed. You're right. Prince of Andorra is actually listed there. That does seem sorta equally silly, and at least [Talk:Nicolas_Sarkozy#Andorra_mentioned_twice_in_the_first_sentence one person] mentioned this on the talk page. Bad example, but off-poit cause I could point to a number of examples where a national head-of-state's role as a figure in some secondary nation isn't noted in the lead.
By-the-by, I'm not particularly concerned where you're from. Indians are as entitled to be as wrong as Canucks or Brits. If anything, I'd imagine being Indian would slightly bias against changing, as most Indians I've met harbor vestigial anti-British nationalistic sentiment, and hence would likely be against an anglo-centric lead.
Regardless, thanks for participating and sharing your opinion. Best, NickCT (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jacques Chirac mentions co-prince of Andorra in the lead, but not the first paragraph. François Mitterrand mentions it much later in the article, and in info and succession boxes. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Georges Pompidou, Charles De Gaulle, René Coty, Vincent Auriol, Albert Lebrun, Gaston Doumergue mention it only in info and succession boxes. Philippe Pétain and Paul Doumer mention it only in the succession box. Alexandre Millerand, Paul Deschanel, and Raymond Poincaré mention it only in the infobox. I don't feel like going back further, but it's certainly the case that the vast majority of articles on French presidents do not mention Andorra in the lead. john k (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
And ... do we also take into account that a vast majority of the articles on former French Presidents are either start or stub class and in a pretty bad state too? When did articles like these (except for that on M. CDG) become gold standards? If this is a case that needs to be sorted globally over wikipedia why don't a proper discussion on policies be made at WP:Lead. I guess that might be far better than going in circles here.

We can probably dilute the impact of royalist and anti-royalists on this debate. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Current Lead - Sorry to join this a bit late. I support naming the 16 realms for many of the reasons stated by others. A major one being: I don't agree that there should be a pecking order allowing the exclusion of certain sovereign nations. LunarLander // talk // 23:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change. Too long if a list for the lead. The complete list belongs somewhere lower in the article. The compromise suggestion would be acceptable as a 2nd choice. Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Closing time?

It's been nearly 9-days now. I've counted 15 for current lead, 8 for change & 2 for compromise. It ain't looking like a trend towards either options 2 or 3. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur. I think the royalists managed to circle the wagons around this one..... ah well. I guess we still got reality on our side.
This RfC should be closed as either "current lead" or "no consensus". NickCT (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
As "current lead" or as "no consensus for change" in that case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the listed commonwealth realms will have to stay, as the current lead is the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what "no consensus for change" means. "Non consensus" simply means, that in the eyes of the closing editor, there is no overwhelming majority for one position. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What's there now (listing of the commonwealth realms), will have to remain. The onus for getting a consensus always falls on the pro-changers. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Agree. "no consensus" results in the current lead remaining. It just means that discussion is open to further WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if we might discuss the compromise that Miesianiacal and I more or less agreed to in the discussion above. I think most everyone was focusing on status quo vs. proposed change, so a more explicit discussion of that compromise might be in order. Mies and I don't really agree about much of anything, so the fact that we were able to agree on that seems remarkable (although not necessarily good. The text would be along the lines of

Elizabeth II is queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms; she resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in her other realms by a governor general.

I don't love this, but at least it gets the catalogue of states out of the intro while specifically mentioning the UK. As per my discussion of the issue below, I prefer simply "Queen", with a pipe to queen regnant, over either "queen regnant" or "reigning queen", but that's a separate issue. Imagine that that part says whichever version you prefer. john k (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It should be "queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms", which reads much better & neater. But the pro-16 folks, have taken over this article (see Article title & Infobox) & have little intentions of letting go of that control. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's neither nice nor helpful. Do you have a preference between the present lead and the suggestion above? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Howabout, "queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia...", thus leaving out the '16 commonwealth realms' as 16 just dosen't look good. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Doubt this is going to gain much support, but just thought I'd give it a try; how bout "queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other commonwealth realms, including Canada and Australia". This wording explicitly calls out the most notable commonwealth realms (I think in population terms Canada and Australia dwarf all the remaining countries), while preserving some sense of concision. @john k - Regarding the compromise you proposed, I'd give it a v. weak support, as I think it's slightly better than what we have presently. NickCT (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
If you deleted "..including Canada and Australia", I'd agree with it. GoodDay (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to develop this idea along the lines of "of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth realms since 1952". Since these are the only 4 realms she has been queen of since 1952. All the others either gave up being realms or became realms after 1952. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to call out any particular realm or group of realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's totally reasonable to separate out Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where Elizabeth's father reigned before her and with a longstanding connection to the British monarchy, from the other 13 realms, where her tenure is of shorter standing. I prefer NickCT's formulation - Canada and Australia are by a considerable margin the largest and most important of the commonwealth realms outside of the UK, as well as the oldest dominions. If you want to throw in New Zealand as well for special mention, that'd be fine. GoodDay - your proposal is pretty much the current language, isn't it, except removing mention of the term "commonwealth realms"? I think this would probably be a slight improvement, but my first priority is to get the list of sixteen countries out of the first paragraph. john k (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Having the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & New Zealand highlighted is acceptable. Exspecially, if we rename the infobox to Queen of the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms, per article balance. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That just seems like almost the same arguments that were put forward for highlighting only the UK; random, unsubstantiated personal opinions about what's more important than what, only the criteria's been slightly widened. It is thus equally POV and just as counter to the established equality of the realms. Some reader will come along in no time and add their country's name and likely won't take too well to being told their country hasn't been deemed important enough, according to the viewpoint of the predominantly North American, British, and Australian contributors to this talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to this—the equality of sovereign states and the equality of Elizabeth's sixteen crowns are very well-established principles of international and Commonwealth law. In her constitutional role, she is no more Queen of the United Kingdom or Australia than of Barbados or the Solomon Islands; I fail to see how suggesting otherwise—whether in the page name, the lead or the infobox—contributes to "balance". In her personal capacity, it's perfectly true that she's much more often directly involved with the UK, and I do think it would be appropriate for that to be mentioned in the lead as well (as was formerly the case). ¶ If naming all her realms in the lead is a problem (though I fail to see why it should be), I suppose "Elizabeth II is the queen of the sixteen Commonwealth realms" would suffice, but it does force readers to follow a link just to find out what she's queen of, which strikes me as less than ideal. Alkari (?), 24 January 2011, 01:23 UTC
A gigantic, unreadable block of links mostly to tiny countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific is ideal? I don't understand why the equality of sovereign states should be a particularly important consideration in an article about an individual. The current article is unbalanced by the fact that it acts as though formal constitutional law with almost no practical effect (outside the UK, the Governors-General undertake virtually all of the practical responsibilities of head of state) is more important than the actual details of Elizabeth II's life. We have a 93 K article on Elizabeth II. The lead of the article is meant to summarize the article itself, and the article itself spends the vast majority of its length discussing either a) personal stuff that is not relevant to any of her constitutional roles, but that largely occurred in the United Kingdom; or b) her role in the UK. When you look at the articles on monarchs of countries of about the same size as the various commonwealth realms other than the UK, Canada, and Australia, you see that those articles are minuscule. See George Tupou V, for example, or Mswati III of Swaziland. And those people are much, much more important for their countries than Elizabeth II is for Tuvalu or Grenada. From another front, our articles on David Cameron and Stephen Harper are much longer than our articles on Tillman Thomas and Willy Telavi. What can we conclude from this but that the UK and Canada are countries of greater importance than Grenada and Tuvalu? (And, once again, Mssrs. Thomas and Telavi are actually comparable to Cameron and Harper in terms of their roles within their own country; Elizabeth II plays a far more important practical political role in the UK than she does in Grenada or Tuvalu). The lead of a wikipedia article is supposed to give a judicious summary of the article, not to recapitulate esoteric points of constitutional law so that people in Canada, etc., don't feel bad that their head of state is better known for being head of state of Britain. We make practical judgments like this all the time. Rutherford B. Hayes, in addition to being president of the U.S., was also a congressman and governor of Ohio. Each of those things, on its own, would be sufficient to make him notable for a wikipedia article. And yet we only mention that he was president of the US in the article intro. That is because we can make the jugment that being president of the US is more important than being Governor of Ohio. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote a completely notable work in the field of optics entitled Theory of Colours. If that was the only thing he had done, it would fully qualify him for a wikipedia article. And yet, that treatise is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of his article, while several literary works are so listed, on the grounds that any neutral observer would conclude that Faust and The Sorrows of Young Werther are more important works than the Theory of Colours. Why are we allowed to make editorial judgments on virtually every topic, but on this one, our editorial decisions can only take into account the formal legal equality of sovereign states? Why is this legal equality so important that we should allow it to trump any other consideration here? john k (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Likely the articles on Stephen Harper and David Cameron are longer than those for Tillman Thomas and Willy Telavi because of the well known fact that most Wikipedia contributors are (amongst other common traits) mostly from northern European and North American countries. This is exactly what WP:WORLDVIEW warns us to be aware of. Regardless, I don't see where any of these last few comments gave support for the present lead, in particular. The equality of the realms and Elizabeth's relationship to them can be equally summarised in the simple sentence: "Elizabeth II is queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms; she resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in her other realms by a governor general." You proposed that composition. Are you now opposed to it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I am still happy to support that language if we can get consensus behind it. (Maybe "sixteen" instead of "16" if it makes GoodDay happy?) As far as the rest of it goes, there's probably no use arguing further. I do suspect that there is not a general encyclopedia in the world which treats prime ministers of Grenada at the same length as prime ministers of the UK. An encyclopedia article on the history of Europe is going to talk more about Britain and France than about Finland and Croatia. Is that also the kind of thing that WP:WORLDVIEW warns us against? john k (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It took the 'pro-16 are equal' folks, quite some time to get what they wanted - concerning the intro, infobox & article title. Now that they're a majority (number of editors), they've succeeded in having their preference on all 3 areas in this article. Trust me John k, they're not gonna give up any of this control. For a possible few, the views of the Monarchist League of Canada has succeeded at this article. Only when the 'majority' pendulum swings back to the United Kingdom and the 15 other... folks, will there be changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Alkari on this Brian | (Talk) 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's atleast remove 16 from the intro, as it looks terrible. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've requested formal RfC closure from Ludwigs2, Sandstein, and SlimVirgin. NickCT (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_25&oldid=1148117167"